I thought this was quite thought provoking...A little background: William Mcdonough is an architect/activist...but instead of promoting "sustainability" he advocates for a change in the way we think about industrialism or as he puts it a change towards "Natural Capitalism"....
"We see a world of abundance, not limits. In the midst of a great deal of talk about reducing the human ecological footprint, we offer a different vision. What if humans designed products and systems that celebrate an abundance of human creativity, culture, and productivity? That are so intelligent and safe, our species leaves an ecological footprint to delight in, not lament?
Consider this; all the ants on the planet taken together have a biomass greater than that of humans. Ants have been incredibly industrious for millions of years. Yet their productiveness nourishes plants, animals, and soil. Human industry has been in full swing for a little over a century, yet it has brought about a decline in almost every ecosystem on the planet. Nature doesnt have a design problem. People do."
-William Mcdonough
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
This is a nice concecpt to imagine. The Earth has a great way of ridding itself of the "bad" things that the Human Race has done to it. On the other hand there are many things that are bad for the Earth that comes with industrialism.
The sad thing about this issue is people will always do what is the most cost effective when producing a good. For instense people love to express how much they hate that oil prices are going up. I have found that most of these people are the same people that do not want the United States to drill in the Gulf of Mexico or in Alaska because they do not want to endanger these places with industrialism. It becomes hard have your cake and eat it to.
I do hope that one day we will be able to produce our goods in a more safe way for the ecosystem. At the same time I only think this will happen when it becomes economically friendly.
The problem is that humans are parasites. Natural Capitalism is a very difficult concept, due to as Mr. Jones says, it is not cost effective. I think humans are being very creative with new design and have great ideas, but when faced with the cheapness of other options, cheap products almost always prevail.
Here is my problem, an ant I'm guessing lives in the same ant hole for years. Why have we pushed toward architecture and design that doesn't last? Football stadiums are destroyed after 30 years, yet the Roman Coliseum still stand. Are perfectly square building that last 100's of years worse for the enviroment than those that need to be destroyed after 10 because they leak?
Everything has become parasitic in our lives, buildings, the environment, and even things as marriage, where have the lasting foundations gone?
Humans are "parasites" only because we choose to be that way, and while it may not seem cost effective to consider not only the immediate outcomes of the design of an everyday object or a building for that matter, in the long term it is actually something that can be profitted from...
Mcdonough isnt just a man with ideas that happened to write a book, he actually practices what he preaches...His firm designed a factory building for the Herman Miller office furniture manufacturer....As crazy as it may seem it was a building designed around the concept of making the workers feel like they were outside. There is an interior courtyard that runs the length of the building that provides natural air flow and sunlight to the building. It is engineered to maximize the amount of indirect natural daylight and windows are placed to optomize the amount of convective cooling that happens during the nightime hours...This strategy cools the building enough to cut down on the amount of airconditioning needed by 65% of the original design that was proposed by a different firm. Additionally, the building has green roofs that manage the storm water runoff(a huge problem in most large buildings) and provide evaporative cooling during the summer and thermal protection during the winter....
For you business folks....The building was built for 10 percent more than the orignal design, the company has seen a 42% decrease in annual operating costs and the additional work that went into the building payed for itself multiple times over in less than 10 years... Additionally the building attracts high quality workers that are more productive because they like to go to work...There has been several times when workers left for higher paying wages and then returned because they didnt like "working in the dark"
This isnt a perfect model...but it is definately a step in the right direction...Imagine a building that was entirely off the grid (there are some popping up in the western united states that actually export energy back into the grid)...Practically eliminating operating costs, improving productivity of workers, and increasing the retention rate....im not sure what there is about that that isnt cost effective?
I agree, it is a step in the right direction. the only problem I can see with cost-effectivness, is that Herman Miller is a 2 billion in revenue company. Companies like Herman Miller and Google can afford to take risks on these kinds of buildings, which they should.
The buliding is also only 10 years old, so operating costs are not an issue yet, lets wait a bit to see cost-effectiveness.
If the Michigan winter hits it for another 20 years and its still producing 42 percent less oper. costs, I'd be suprised (I want to see the heat bill by the way).
Also, I would be interested in the depreciation of the building, to see how long the accountant expects it to last (but thats kind ofbeside the point.)
Other than that, McDonough is a very smart man, and clearly ahead of his time.
Worker retention and satisfaction can also be acquired in other ways, but I think its the right incentive to have a cool place to work rather than give them a pay raise.
Post a Comment