Uffelen

1 | Do you find [Uffelen’s] historical examples and attention to materials and use convincing?

Chris van Uffelen does a mediocre at best job in bringing up historical examples in his text.  Allow me to elaborate.  There are a lot of people who think sustainability is something new – a lot of folks back home (in non-environmentally friendly Northeast Wisconsin) downplay sustainable design as being a “fad.”  In my response to the next question, I’ll explain this mentality in greater detail, as it is more applicable to that question, but for now, I’ll leave it at this:  Far too many people think that “going green” is something new.  In my opinion, everything was sustainable until the Industrial Revolution began around 1750.  Before that point, as a general rule, things were built locally, they were built respectfully, and they were transported in short distances (except for the Pyramids of Giza, I suppose, which had materials transported in unimaginable distances, which has still yet to be explained.)  After 1750, the Industrial Revolution began, and when I think of that, I always think back to the montage in the movie, “The Lorax” when the Thneed industry takes off, and all of the sudden you see these little buggies bobbing through the forest with a dozen axes clear-cutting swaths of trees.  The trees then get collected and deposited into the big hopper atop the Thneed factory, which is humming and buzzing, and all these Thneeds are shooting out of the side of the factory ready to ship.  A little extreme, a little childish, I suppose, but nonetheless, that’s how I view our world after the Industrial Revolution.  Things began to be mass-produced, vernacular architecture went out the window, and as time went on, it only got worse.  With the advent of the automobile, mass-produced items could be shipped greater and greater distances.  The airplane compounded this issue.  The Interstate didn’t help.  Suburbs took off, and before we knew it, everything was about economy, and about mass production, leading to these suburbs where house after house looks exactly alike.  (A point Charley highlighted very well in class a few weeks ago when he mentioned inadvertently driving past his parent’s house because he couldn’t tell it apart from the homes around it.)  I’ve gotten off-topic.  The point is, since 1750, things have gotten more and more economical, more efficient, more mainstream, and as a result, we’ve taken them to be the ‘norm’ when, in reality, they’re the exception to everything we’ve done as a human race for thousands of years!  Now that we’ve recently realized this, and have made efforts to go back to building local, buying local, and respecting the environment, it seems like this is a wildly new concept that people are, well, afraid of.  Because it’s different – it’s change – from what they’re used to.  And a lot of people don’t like that.  But what people need to know is that it isn’t new – perhaps our methods of carrying out sustainable practices have changed because our technology is wildly different than it was in the 1700’s and prior, but the concepts are the same.  If you want it cold, keep it away from the sun.  If you want it hot, put it towards the sun.  If you want air through it, put a hole in it.  It doesn’t have to be difficult because it’s been done before, and I’d argue that it’s been done to perfection before.  Now then, author Chris van Uffelen touches on these points, but I’d argue that he doesn’t touch on them with a strong enough language, or with enough detail.  His brush through history is a fine introduction, but I’d love to see something with a little more meat. I’d actually prefer that his piece be written in a persuasive voice, to drive home the point that not only are there historical examples out there, but that they worked, and that they can be repeated to great success today!  If people write these little pieces that skirt around the topic, they miss out on a great opportunity to convince the reader to take action and do something to help the cause!  In Uffelen’s defense, this argument may very well be coming in the rest of the text, but as a whole, I felt that the preface was a bit on the weak side in getting the reader interested in the topic, the text, and in taking action.

 

2 | Do you think [a “change in paradigm” in architecture] took place in the United States [since global warming has been recognized and accepted]?

I think my analysis of Uffelen’s preface is the perfect metaphor to answer this question.  Yeah, the US knows about global climate change, we know about sustainable building, but we don’t really push it like we should.  Not like the European countries (Scandinavia, especially) do.  I mentioned earlier that my friends back home view sustainability as being a fad.  It actually goes much deeper than that – I would dare to say that sustainability is frowned upon in my hometown (a small town of around 2,000, just south of Green Bay.)  I actually took some flack for moving to Portland to study sustainable architecture and urban design.  My brother owns a hardware store back home, and when he had to explain to customers why he was leaving for a week (to help me move here this past Labor Day) he said the reaction was almost universal – people would wrinkle their nose and ask if I was a hippie, then condemn me for making such a foolish move.  I don’t want to make generalizations, but I’m going to – I think a lot of rural America shares this mentality, and for whatever reason, I think it’s been turned into a political issue that people feel they need to take an extreme stand on, one way or another.  In a nutshell, I think that’s what’s holding us back.  In a country that has become so gridlocked, sustainability has become just another issue to bicker about, and the division holds us back from taking the strides we need to to move this issue forward.  Other countries are far, far ahead of us, there’s no denying it, and it’s because they’ve been able to identify the issues, and pass the legislation necessary to act on it promptly and properly.  It hasn’t been easy – I’m not implying that.  I went to a lecture last year from a guy in Zurich who mentioned that the city’s proposal to raise taxes to pay for environmental upgrades was heavily contested – it narrowly won in referendum.  But guess what?  Now they’re on the cutting edge of sustainability.  They have crazy laws like every new public building is net-zero or something wild like that (don’t quote me, I’m going off memory) but the point is they’re doing great work there.  And I honestly believe that if we could get the word out, get people more educated about the issue of global climate change and sustainability, it would make a huge difference!  I also believe that, like countless other issues, if we could set politics aside and focus on the real issue, we could surprise ourselves with what we could accomplish!  Call me glass half full, but I believe we’re getting there.  Prior to the election last week, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who had previously refused to endorse a presidential candidate, and who did not endorse a candidate in 2008, announced his endorsement of President Obama – not because he is a Democrat – but because Mayor Bloomberg believed in the President’s environmental agenda.  It looks like the article has been cut off since time has passed, but the original article can be found here.  It took the devastation of Superstorm Sandy to bring the issue to light, but the storm forced Bloomberg to face the realization that global climate change is real, and it forced him to take action, in this case urging folks to vote for the candidate he felt would do the best job in combating the issue.  Additionally, I’ve seen several articles pop up in the wake of Sandy, discussing the need and urgency for an overhaul of the power grid, pushing for the development and implementation of a smart grid.  A short article regarding that can be viewed here.  There is also a long conversation to be had regarding LEED and its effectiveness, but I see that’s been mentioned in previous posts, and my view isn’t too far off from those, so I’ll digress.  The point is that I think we as a nation have been talking about sustainability more, the conversation has been started, and some change has taken place, but I don’t feel that this action has been serious – it’s been skirting around the issue, pretending to address it, but not really taking significant action.  I am optimistic, however, that with a growing conversation and, unfortunately, with the growing frequency of superstorms, our nation will quickly see the need to address these issues of sustainability, and real change will soon begin to take place.

-J. Maternoski