I have to say that I was very dissapointed in Steve Glenn's presentation. Sure, it great that he is looking to build green homes that will serve well for the environment, but there are two things that he talked about, in terms of his motivaiton that I think that he has cast aside.
1. There are three things principals that are the core of sustainnability: Economy, Ecology, and Equity. Steves model address the Economy and Ecology aspects of sustainability, but where does Equity fit in? In order for Steves model to totaly sustainable people of different means need to be able to green homes. The imapact that these green is going to be trivial if only people who can pay $160 - $200 + can afford these home (not including the land).
2. Where does the design of these homes fit into their swurroundings. I mean how do you put up a mordern design box where the character of the homes is estabilished by cottages and smaller single family homes. It would be great if these homes could be green but could also fit into the character of their neighboorhoods.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I couldn't agree more with your first point. Several students and I were remarking after class on Thursday that his efforts, while noble, only will apply to perhaps 1% of the population (when his houses+land will cost $1M+). While this is better than nothing, if Glenn is truly interested in making a difference thorough his "social responsibility" imperative, he'd be better served in finding ways to make silver credited homes affordable for the general population. Then, the CO2 and environmental savings that would be realized would be much greater as it would be applied to a much larger cross section of the population.
Another thought - it really seems like his home design would only work in a small portion of the US. Can anyone argue that homes with huge windows would be effective in places like Texas where AC makes up a huge amount of our electricity bills (or in the east coast during winter)?
Post a Comment