Architecture and Climate Change

Wow, 48% of greenhouse gases are caused by poorly designed buildings, and architectural schools are just barely beginning to talk about it:

http://bldgblog.blogspot.com/2007/01/architecture-and-climate-change.html

HA!  Poorly designed.  Design.  Important? Or opposite direction?

well at least they are beginning to talk about it. one case I have always found  ridiculous is that new nomes continue to continue to be built with asphalt shingles. seriously, we have way better, longer lasting, less toxic  altenatives now! and I dont' think much effort has even been put into developing alternatives, we already have lots of better options due to serendipity. think what we could come up with if we tried.

I think I see what your getting at steve. design can mean aesthetics but design in an architectural sense means much more. its about efficency, structural integrity etc....so I beleive it is important  except when people are using it only to alter the way something looks.

I don't know how fast much of it will change, when people can't even get past NOT facing a house toward the street!

I see new houses built all the time (well, except lately...), and ALL of them face the street.  Expensive, custom, and they face the street like a compass needle points north.  Face the sun, dummies, and collect some solar gain!

Sue

such simple things could make a difference! around here a bigger problem is reducing solar gain! why do people put black shingle roofs on their houses and then run the ac all summer. I want a switchable roof. white in the summer and black in the winter. what drives me crazy is that alot of the new houses around here have this style of lots of peaks and valleys built into the roof and the exterior walls are positioned like all the rooms are seperate with just a portion of their walls connected to the rest of the house. effecively increasing the surface area of the exterior and adding to labor ,materials,and presumably loss of energy, substantially. duh. just build a nice rectangle or square.

Here's an article that that has a positive idea: "It's Flue Season," http://daily.sightline.org/daily_score/archive/2009/01/06/its-flue-season. Economic stimulus and less energy waste? I like it! The technology sounds like rocket stoves on an industrial scale.

Modern architecture should definitely address HVAC and energy systems design, not just the aesthetic shell or people spaces within them. There are leapfrog efforts in this space, but it still seems spotty and in its infancy. Two years ago, I worked in a brand-new, LEED certified building that was supposedly engineered to cool without air conditioning (among other things such as recycled materials used in the counters, etc.). Windows in the "dormer" part of the ceiling were supposed to open for ventilation when it began to get above a certain temperature. They never did work properly, so in the summer, there were times workers had to go home due to offices at 90 degrees or more (in the Seattle area, no less!).

thats exactly what it sounds like. I hope they can make it work in a real world situation. even if it takes some time to work out the details it would be worth it. I have thi sinllking we are at a turning point with these sorts of technologies. it is finally becoming economically prudent as well as enviromentally and that means people are going to start taking action.

A well designed earth integrated house needs no air conditioning and cuts heating needs by at least 50%. In a place where solar heating is possible you can cut it by 90% or more. When we gonna learn........