Thursday, December 14, 2006

Material Selection Tool - Pharos

Lack of holistic design is one of the many concerns that I have when it comes to utilizing LEED as a framework for implementing "green design". This problem is mostly based in the building and construction industry's way of evaluating and quantifying success as well as a lack of allowing a broad scope design process to take place. As more and more materials become "green" (itself an entire different conversation) and more varied building systems come only for study the designer, contractor and client are all faced with the question "how green IS green?". Is accumulating enough LEED credits to be granted a plaque truly an example of sustainable design? Can someone rightfully say that they own/operate/design green buildings without third party verification? Who are trustworthy sources for newer materials and building products?

Currently there are a PLETHORA of fun and wonderful websites that deal with green design, active environmentalism, sustainable living, etc etc which can all contribute to becoming well educated citizens, clients and designers. The main problem is that it is not only difficult to organize and catalogue material and technique information but also objectively disseminate said information.

Enter the The Pharos Project. There has been word of this project going live bouncing about the web for some time and it seems that it is finally starting to bear fruit. The Pharos Project is an interactive open forum and "wiki" system that will "guide discussion", create a standard rating system (see included image) that rates products in three categories, Environment and Resources, Health and Pollution and Social and Community. Each category includes a series of sub-categories that are also rated in hopes to simplify the complexity of material selection and comparison. The Pharos Project also hopes to accomplish an industry acceptance of a standardized label.

One of the rather amazing parts of this project is that it calls for a consumer driven rating system and transparency of manufacturers in order for a material/technology to qualify. If this project actually works and maintains its transparency not only could this call for a major boom in the "green" industry as it becomes easier to quantify what is and isn't truly a sustainable product but should drive manufacturers to re-evaluate their system of product creation, development and manufacturing.

As for the usefulness of LEED in today's building environment I believe that is up to the included parties to not design to LEED standards but create buildings that work so well, utilize sustainable principles so successfully and are so well thought out that LEED can be applied as an afterthought.

That's what I think at least. We will see how that works out for me in the up coming months.

Monday, December 11, 2006

Green Cleveland Home House Seminar Dec. 6 - In review.

I suppose that I should be grateful.

First, that I live in a time where the enlightened masses have to potential via communication technology to remain well informed and to use said technology to disseminate ideas in a continuous and ever quickening fashion.

Secondly, that the human race is becoming more aware of itself, not only as a species but as a global force. We, as a species, are possibly realizing just how intertwined we are not only with each other but also with our surroundings and are beginning to act as stewards not only from an altruistic perspective but also because out of a burgeoning necessity (alright, that one might not altogether be a good thing).

Thirdly, that a large group of people will take the time out of their self created busy schedules in an attempt to discover ways to help their neighbors, their community and in effect to help out their planet.

I suppose one could argue that was the entire purpose of the Green Cleveland seminar held December 6th at the Cleveland Institute’s of Art Reinberger Gallery although I would have to say that it would be difficult to prove.

It isn’t that the exhibit itself isn’t interesting or that the panel discussion that I witnessed wasn’t informative it is just that when a lecture bills itself with a tag along the lines of “Smaller, Better, Greener, Cheaper” then at some point in the discussion the topics of building smaller housing, or better housing that could be greener housing should somehow be cheaper and more attainable. Not in the passing way that it was actually mentioned but in a manner that the general public, the ranting and huffing crowd of gatherers that happened to be listening to the panel talk about themselves, could actually use.

In his usual manner, Mr. Steven Litt gave a rather professional and insightful performance as moderator but…(…this is where I say something that will cause trouble)

I have a hard time understanding how a panel would decide to use as examples a 1300s.f. $180,000 (construction price?) home, a single bedroom with two car garage unit and an entire series of one-off building designs as any sort of positive example of what “green design” for residences should be.

I will skim over the self congratulatory backslapping that came from the usual expected participants (it is oh so hard to not stand up and yell sometimes for a single architect/designer that DOESN’T do “green building” in an attempt to make the point that EVERYONE says they do and actually TECHNICALLY probably DOES) and will take ample time to mention that Mr. Bob Brown (Cleveland City Planning Director) did a rather wonderful job of granting a logistics perspective to the problem of Cleveland’s residential development from an economic angle.

I will not, however, pass so quietly over the constant argument that technology will save us (Seriously, photovoltaic? Call me when commercially accessible PV products break 30% efficiency. Seriously, someone call me) or that giving 12 year tax breaks on a $300,000 new residence that “raises the property value of surrounding homes so that suddenly those home owners have equity to borrow against” (so they go deeper into debt on houses they can’t afford anyway) is a good thing. Green homes are NOT a new idea. It wasn’t some rare comet that passed close by that made all these “green technologies” suddenly exist. Solar orientation, insulation, renewable fuel sources, self sufficiency are all things that we as a species did way back when. WAY BACK WHEN. You know, when we HAD to.

Now we are all caught up in ourselves, reinventing the wheel over and over again, constantly attempted to create a “paradigm shift” that hasn’t shifted out of drive in the first place. I am all about green design and I love technology but we have to realize that common sense and good design (by good design I just don’t just mean “pretty” I mean good, makes sense, friggin’ holistic DE-SIGN) can be used with current technologies, current building practices to create a green home model that is downright affordable.

And that is where this seminar fell on its face. So much time was spent harping on “affordable” $200,000+ housing and new technologies that we lost the entire purpose of trying to think in “smaller, better, greener, cheaper” terms.

Look, the Home House exhibit was pretty, there were some interesting ideas and plenty of intent to read and ponder, but until someone steps up and starts building actual smaller, better, greener and cheaper housing stock, in a manner that actually thinks about more then just the property on which it sits (think community or if you are neo-urbanisto think village) then exhibits billed as such will just frustrate the public and those of us in the design community who actually care.

Let’s think “trickle up”, lets provide for those that NEED it, not just those that can afford it. Let’s be sneaky and not call it “green” until it is done being built, to avoid the perception that it costs more. Let’s treat it as if good design actually takes all this into consideration and stop treating it as an “add-on” service. I think Beth Blostein of Overly and Blostein as well as Jeffery Bowen and Tom Meyer of the Greater Cleveland Habitat for Humanity were trying to get to that very point.

I hope there is more (and better) discussion on this topic in the future, hopefully with more neighborhood people as direct participants (hint hint).

<3

Sunday, December 10, 2006

See, its not so hard

Senor Bradley over at Design Rag utilized some Tower Trust panels to create the "CT Center of Architecture and Design".

I don't know. Does it seem too logical?

Right at the East end of what Cleveland hopes to dub the "Design District" Mr. Bradley envisions (some of this is speculation) an entire structure, untouched by city and design politicos to showcase local design and architecture thoughts. Not as a forum for built structures (you can go and SEE those) but to showcase ideas and systems and the wonderful imaginations of the people that have a "vision to share".

Mayhaps this would allow a more appropiate place for functions such as a Green Cleveland (a self serving advertising dibacle I need the proper amount of time to assimulate into english) or any others that Kent State's Architecture and CUDC and the locals galleries of designers/architects would love to create and name their own as a central location to allow dialogue on design and creation to publicaly occur.

Am I too altruistic? Sure. Is that going to stop my "pie in the sky" rants and hopes? Not until they all come true.

Thanks Bradley. Way to rock it.

-image totally used without permission from designrag.

Cleveland Trust Tower Part 543 - Trainstation

I know I have made quite a bit of noise about how much I believe in public transportation, especially the pattern and predictability afforded to a public by rail transit.

Which this little gem floating in the back of my noggin, combined with my need to play with the Breuer Tower's panels, I decided to try to create a RTA station out of collection of Cleveland Tower Trust Panels.

I am a strong believer that for a city to make the proper impression, the way that the general population, and also the tourists and visitors percieve a city, is mostly through the way that one can experience the city on its "ground level" and by that I mean the main conduits that one would use to reach different portions of the city.

With that in mind I have a set of criteria that important public transit nodes should fit. These are not "rules" but flexible guidelines. Most astute readers will notice that very successful transit systems have stations that do not prescribe to these guidelines, but here they are anyway.

1. - Make a statement. If tax dollars are being pumped into a major renovation/rebuild, please utilize it to showcase the transit system. I don't want to point fingers but there are some very unsophisticated light rail stations that are going up in Cleveland. They don't react well with the surrounding area, they don't interact with the context, they do nothing to mark the location as a rail-centric area and they sure as heck don't act as an active gateway to the city. That leads into point #2.

2. - Promote the city- I want imagery, I want kiosks with information, I want clean and safe and I want well thought out, clever design and systems. I want to live in a city that pays attention to nuance and detail.

3. - Convey when things are going on- I have noticed an increase in text screens that mention when trains and buses may arrive, some, such as in Tower City and Triskett even have a news ticker. Great. How about some real time? Tell me where a train is, tell me city sponsored events are going on, give me news and weather and sports, let me enjoy the 7 to 15 minutes I spend waiting for a train. Inform me of what is going on and when things are getting to the station that I am freezing my but on. Every station. I would love to see a map of the transit system with little icons of what train and bus is where in "real time". Awesome, that would be awesome.

I could add more. About bikes and cleanliness and urine-resistant flooring, but I won't. This isn't meant to be a lecture about subtle ways to improve peoples perceptions of our wonderful city, this was just me making some "purty" things and putting them online.