Jane Powell has another provocative essay coming out in AB No. 62, our Summer 2009 issue. Calling it “Smart Growth, Green Building and Other Oxymorons,” she takes aim at developers and local planning officials who’ve been propagating urban infill developments by “spouting the smart-growth party line” about how their developments are “smarter” than paving over farmland or will consist of buildings that are “greener” than the old bungalows or commercial buildings that are still standing in early-20th-century neighborhoods.
Because this issue has been on our minds, a post over at
The modernist RainShine House was built amidst older Craftsman and Foursquare homes to replace a similar older home the owners had owned and lived in for many years. Its construction—and its LEED certification—have prompted readers to chime in on how to judge whether a new building “fits in” to an older neighborhood, whether “green building” and “smart growth” are just marketing terms, and the economic and ethical issues surrounding demolition, salvage and renovation. The whole thing is worth reading.
One takeaway, from “E”:
“I’ve got no problems with that particular house, but wanted to point out another factor in the ‘green’ equation that rarely gets included - durability. And I don’t just mean structural durability, I mean cultural/aesthetic durability.
“The craftsman/foursquare homes that are prevalent throughout Decatur are approaching 100 years of age. They have arrived at, or are approaching, the threshold of ‘timeless.’ As such their expected useful life is hugely
‘green.’
“This particular house may or may not achieve a similarly long useful life. We don’t know. But Modernism doesn’t have a great track record for aesthetic durability so far.
“In other words, green isn’t just about materials or efficiency, it should also include longevity.”
The Editor.
Tags: building, discussion, green, Jane Powell
Recent Comments