Eco-architecture

[chelidon]

Nifty stuff, but the real sticking point to new architecture that is "low-footprint," "green," "carbon-neutral," etc, is making it affordable. The problem is that new building in general is hardly affordable these days, and asking people to change their expectations, to do what appears to be paying *more* for *less*, will not appeal to anyone but the small percentage of us who see conservation as a moral/ethical thing. For the belly of the bell-curve to do it, it has to be cheaper, or at least no more expensive, and offer "practical" benefits, not just ethical or moral ones. And that's getting easier, but still, true "low-footprint" requires both changes in economics, and changes in lifestyle.

That said, in a relatively few years, the "practical" considerations will likely be significantly different than they are now, as energy costs, possibly along with climate change-related impacts, skew the calculations. By that time, unfortunately, it will be even more expensive than it is now to build anything, due to increased cost of materials, energy, dollar devaluation, and cost of transport for manufactured goods from overseas, like...well, all those Chinese-made solar panels. There will have to be much more local solutions, home-grown, close at hand. Small, locally-produced, and efficient (using the least amount of resources possible, both short and long-term) will be more than trendy, it will be essential.

Full article here: Interview With Eco-Architect Mike Reynolds

For the past 35 years, Mike Reynolds has developed a unique and innovative approach to the field of architectural design. Firmly rejecting what he views as the waste and inefficiency of conventional power-grid-dependent homes, Reynolds has revolutionized many people's conception of sustainable housing by fusing an elegant aesthetic with a practical, environmentally-conscious base.

Not only has Reynolds defined an alternative to the modern architectural paradigm, he has also vigorously sought to bring his innovations to third world countries and disaster-ravaged regions in a career centered around humanitarian aid.

After graduating from the University of Cincinnati in 1969, Mike Reynolds pursued a radically sustainable method of building homes. He continually evolved his ideas and crafted a movement he calls biotecture - the embracing of a carbon neutral foundation, while providing fundamental human needs of shelter, food, water and energy under one roof with no external support other than the environment.

On Monday morning, I had the opportunity to speak with Mike Reynolds about his work.

Comments

[anthologie.livejournal.com]

There is some argument that as sustainable building reaches a kind of critical mass, eventually those strategies will be less expensive than they are now (as kind of a "boutique" enterprise). Granted, the cost of building will STILL go up.

Builders/architects out here are learning that a selling point for these properties is that they have a higher upfront cost, but in the long run they save tenants a lot of money on utility expenses. That's made them a natural choice for building any kind of inclusionary/low-income housing, because nobody needs a break more on living costs than those who make less money than average. So a lot of construction teams are cutting their teeth on "sustainable" construction by building publicly funded projects, and then they can go on and market their newfound skills to other folks who need builders.

[morrigandaughtr.livejournal.com]

I've been fascinated by Earthships for years. I want one.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

Reynolds points out that traditional architecture does little to take advantage of, and preserve, natural resources.

I'd have to ask -- before I could dispute -- what exactly he means by "traditional"? Are we talking about the modern, mass-produced, stick-built, suburban-styled, kind of residence? Or the urban/exurban, mass-produced, multiple-family, apartment/condo type residences? Or the actual 'traditional' architecture that predates both?

Because I'd argue that 'traditional' architecture (doubly so in the 'regional' sense) is very much attuned to local resources as well as paying attention to environmental factors that would determine intelligent use of those resources. How you build a stone house in New Hampshire, my dear, is radically different from the stone house in western Texas, and after spending time in each kind (as well as dog trots, shotguns, cade-cove cabins, coastal cabins, and so on) I'd say that traditional architecture does a damn fine job given the low technology it had at its disposal.

That said, though, I just cannot see that large-bermed, earthship-like, tire-stomped, houses will reach a status of being colloquial -- they've been rare ever since people started making them in the sixties. There's just not enough in them that speaks to our cultural comprehension of home. Maybe in a hundred years, maybe more, maybe less, but I think there are comforts we recognize on some unconscious level, and a free-form, loosely-defined spaces, kind of architecture doesn't satisfy in the same way.

Which often brings me back to the Asian concept of space, and it's always struck me that for a culture in which the exterior and the interior could merge so seamlessly as to be almost the same unit -- the actual architecture of the interior (or frame to the exterior, perhaps) is so rigidly geometric. It stands in direct contrast to the exterior's free-form/uncontrol, and yet it's this very rigidity that creates the security to accept the intrusion of that uncontrol. It's not that the interior superimposes a control, or that the exterior's uncontrol is scary or whatever -- it's the dynamic between them.

A house with all loose, curvy lines and inconsistent (or just culturally unexpected without lessening) is one that has no dialogue with the exterior, because it's mimicking the exterior, instead. There's bringing the outdoors inside, and supplanting the outdoors altogether. Our modern suburbia tries to ignore the outdoors, and control it as much as the indoors -- while the earthship movement and its ilk seem to me to try to refute the traditional 'indoors' geometry with nothing but variations on the 'outdoors' lack of formal, identifiable, even angular, structure.

I'm not sure I see either as much good, for anyone. Not that I'm saying I want to live in a house where the windows and walls are all made of paper...

[redwill.livejournal.com]

An excellent and interesting analysis. Thanks.
I think I will have to go check out your journal.

Lance