 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
 Special Supplement to the October 2001 issue: A report on the proceedings of the Metropolis West Conference, February 7+8, 2001, Yerba Buena Center for the Arts, San Francisco, "Finding the Thread of Sustainability." October 2001
Having the ear and being in the face of a developer who is trying to produce new models that distinguish him in the marketplace, a designer can talk about new features in the home that deal with sustainability. The public doesn't have much choice. This is a rich area for activisim. Sim Van der Ryn: The timber industry is spending millions in an ad campaign that confuses us about sustainably harvested lumber. Tim Duane: We need to create symbols that show how many dead salmon, sea otters, and other species are associated with the acquisition of a house. We need to make transparent the quantifiable, reasonable, independent estimates of the relationship between purchasing choices and their larger consequences. The public hungers to understand the consequences of their choices and to be engaged in the collective choices that reflect their values. But they are largely disempowered in the marketplace and political arena. It's very difficult to sort through the green wash of competing claims. One thing that was striking when I studied development in the Sierra Nevadas was that in addition to the issue they're debating, people engage with one another as members of the volunteer fire department or the Little League. In such social contexts, a developer is also the father of kids in Little League, and people get past the labels to discuss issues in different ways. Sim Van der Ryn: The Rainforest Action Network was a leader in bringing Home Depot to sign a pledge that they would sell only certified wood products after 2001. I propose to Home Depot and Loews that they sponsor green showcase homes in every one of their regions, get their branding on these homes, then start working with local builders. It's a tough sell. Loews sells 40,000 items in its stores. But consumers don't know what green is-and a lot of architects don't understand either. Harrison Fraker: One of the reasons universities like UC Berkeley exist is to do the kind of work that doesn't allow for the obfuscation and muddying of the waters around difficult issues. Take the materials industry and how we produce building materials in the United States, where research and development are done secretly and the information is confidential. Companies make claims about their products being green. It's only the U.S. Green Buildings Council-a very small nonprofit lacking the horsepower to do the kind of detailed whole-cycle analysis on building materials as well as it might-that holds buildings accountable. There might be a major university or coalition of universities and building-science programs that could become a resource of solid information on materials to the public and the design community. We're trying to fund something like that, but it is exceedingly hard, is very expensive, and puts a large public institution at great risk in terms of funding. Any ideas? One of our greatest needs [as a society and as a profession] is to improve the quality of information that is developed about the environmental consequences of our materials production. |
