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
Recently the US Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Wind Powering America, and National Association of Counties (NACO) released a report specific to wind energy. The report, entitled Wind Energy Guide for County Commissioners provides a relatively comprehensive guide to defining wind power, myths surrounding it, funding available, permitting, zoning and siting and the all important community outreach programs.
