C. van Uffelen

I think it is convincing how he traces the concern for sustainability.  Really, there was no concern until we figured out that energy was costing us something.  People built sustainably out of necessity, regional constraints (transport of materials), and the lack of energy to power HVAC systems.  I thought his point about the marked shift in post WWII methodology was valid “heating and cooling systems were seen as merely providers of comfortable conditions, and not as symptoms of insufficient thermal protection.”

What is interesting to me is the Foster / Rogers approach of high tech “green”.  I’m not sure I get it.  We know that the more apertures we tack on our building, the more embodied energy it costs us.  I hope that the field of architecture embraces the low tech green of thermal massing, building reuse, & passive solar as it moves forward.  The high tech green seems counter-intuitive: if a solar panel takes more energy to produce than energy it will harvest to the grid, why would we attach it to our building?  (if evaluating the decision on carbon footprint, not on tax incentives).  I understand the argument that we have just not crossed that efficiency threshold yet…but I wonder if that threshold exists to cross! (where producing a solar panel extracts more energy in the long run, than the production itself took).

I was curious when it became the norm for Americans (I say this because in Europe they wear coats in their buildings in winter, no AC in summer) to occupy climate controlled buildings.  I guess this perception happened sometime after WWII, as Uffelen states.  Why is it necessary for our perception of civility? IE: In high school, our school had no AC.  We thought it was completely inhumane and lacking of decency.  That is the typical American mindset.

Can this perception be changed in the mindset of the public?  It seems that we are still not building sustainably if we are concerned about the deviation from 71 degrees in our interior spaces.  However, in the US we are very constrained by codes.  The Energy Code mandates certain SEER for __ cubic footage for certain occupancy.  Until the codes change, in many case we have to break code to make buildings that consume less energy than the status quo.

To get certain LEED credits, you actually have to break the zoning ordinance (I’m thinking of a parking related Sustainable Sites credit here).  Earning the credit is contingent on getting a zoning variance. So our codes are not giving us a lot of flexibility to think outside the box.

The US has embraced sustainable building more in certain locations than others.  Certainly in the Northwest & sun-baked areas (Colorado, Arizona, California).  Certainly in urban areas where the heat island effect is very noticeable – I believe there have been green building mandates (LEED or other green initiative-defined) in NYC, Boston, & DC since around 2007.

-D. Hoet