|
| |
|
|  WhyCody | Sep 25, 2006 10:57am | So many designs for alternative/green building are aesthetically pleasing to me. Often inspiring. For instance, the photo icon for this group is what originally caught my attention. It's amazing! What do you think causes the merging of alternative/green design and aesthetics? Or do you think that is even a valid conclusion to draw? Why, when it is possible to do otherwise, do people continue to build ugly houses?
Also, can someone tell me where i can see a larger picture of the home that is the icon for this group? Where is that house? What is it made of?
OK... sorry, :::sheepish grin::: that's enough questions from me in my first post to this group.
Thanks all! |
|
| 
| | sparkster | Sep 25, 2006 5:14pm | The "aesthetic" of green design arises I think from its (necessary) response to the local characteristics of its site and from restricting the palette of materials to those locally available. They generally have an incremental quality, being easily and spontaneously adapted to newly perceived needs, or even whimsy, during construction. Usually abstaining from standardized building systems, there is a greater emphasis upon the craft of building and the greater freedom of expression which that entails.
Why we continue to build ugly houses? Simple, because (almost) everyone wants them! For the majority of people, Americans anyway, a house isn't something in and of itself, but rather a short-term investment to be sold a few years later for profit. What matters is a "prestigious" look, the list of "amenities," and the bottom line - all judged with an eye upon what it will be worth in a few years time. The economies of scale and industrialized methods predestine such houses to be cooker-cutter clones, totally unresponsive to the individual characteristics of place and climate.
Though this is gradually changing, the higher cost of aesthetically pleasing, green homes just isn't "worth" it in the short-term perspective of most homebuyers.
I'm not sure of the source of the group pic, but it reminds me of the work of Hungarian master architect Imre Makovecz. Just a guess, though. |
|
|
| | WhyCody | Sep 28, 2006 6:00am | Thanks Sparkster. I agree with you that for most people (at least here in middle America where i am) it seems the prestigious look and the list of amenities is what counts. i'm not sure many of them look past that.
Also, i had never heard of Makovecz before and i looked him up and was impressed with what i saw. Are there other architects that you esp like within the green design movement? |
|
|
| | sparkster | Sep 28, 2006 8:27am | Makovecz was definitely a great master.
A trouble though, which I failed to get into above, is that we need to differentiate somewhat between ecological "green" architecture and organic architecture. There is a substantial overlap between the two, but not necessarily all ecologically designed buildings can be classified as organic, and not all organic buildings are necessarily ecological. It's probably best to understand ecological architecture as a performance standard and organic architecture as a building style. (That said, I'd put the group pic and Makovecz's buildings under "organic"; how well they perform ecologically I don't really know.) The gist of what I was saying above though is pretty much valid for both categories: they both are designed for particulars of place and climate.
Here are some of my favorite architects which in varying degrees can be termed "green," "organic," and/or focus very much on the social aspects of design:
Santiago Calatrava
Rolf Disch
Herzog + Partner
Ralph Erskine
Herman Hertzberger
Lake - Flato
Sim Van der Ryn
Renzo Piano
Wiki about organic architecture
|
|
|
| | WhyCody | Sep 29, 2006 4:05pm | i think i understand what you're saying about the difference between organic vs green. Organic buildings being more like the organic style that some art nouveau or arts and crafts styles have. Green... meaning environmentally sensitive, yes?
And thank you for the links. i've been having fun exploring. :) |
|
| 
|  Hourhouse | Nov 25, 2006 7:52am | | One thing which characterises the green building revolution is the vast amount of experimentation going on. This is producing revolutionary buildings at both ends of the spectrum - techno green, with controlling gadgets and modern materials, and natural green, returning to the earth. By thinking outside the box, quite literally, architects and self-builders are creating buildings which are less linear in outline and designed to work in new ways. There may be a link between the open, often artistic, mindset of those who embrace green building and the organic, natural feel of many of the buildings which result. |
| |
|
You need to Sign-up for StumbleUpon to post to this forum
| |
|
Green Building → Discussion