Talk:Sustainable architecture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Architecture (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Environment (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

List of headings to cover[edit]

User:Naught101 put these in as topics that should be covered in the article:

  • Environmental Sustainability in Architecture
    • Energy Efficiency in Sustainable Architecture
    • Waste Managment in Sustainable Architecture
  • Social Sustainability in Architecture
    • Mental Health in Sustainable Architecture
    • Sustainable Social Constructs
    • Art in Sustainable Architecture
  • Economic Sustainability in Architecture
    • Job Creation in Sustainable Architecture
    • Running and Maintinence costs in Sustainable Architecture

They make the article look really horrible when they're in there and completely empty. Naught101, if you want to work on this article in a way that involves intermediate stages like this, you can create a subpage like this: User:Naught101/Sustainable architecture and work on the article there instead. —HorsePunchKid 03:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

will do. thanks.--naught101 03:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Over-all this page is not bad, but a bit self serving, and the bit on "social sustainability" whatever that means is really weak. I think it would be better to gives some hard facts about materials cost and global expenditures etc. etc. of making a building. What Hundertwasser has to do with this topic is beyond me. Given the level of discourse about this topic (including criticism - did one see the last issue of LOG - I think this page could be really interesting.Wolfensberger 22:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)wolfensberger

Hijacked term[edit]

Sustainability existed long before the environmental movement, as did Architecture. Life-cycle engineering is what should be discussed, about systems, (not just environment). This article is way off track. --74.107.74.39 (talk) 01:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merger with Green building[edit]

I think the suggestion that this page be merged with green architecture is a poor Idea. Sustainable architecture is a subset of green architecture. Not all green archiecture is sustainable. A building may reduce embodied energy, use energy saving techniques, and even achieve LEED standards, and yet use too many non-renewable resources to adequetly be considered sustainable. 216.114.72.146 18:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Andrew Jensen


Sustainable architecture vs. green building... Sustainable architecture should focus on the design process of green buildings as this is architecture's role in the built environment. The green building article should be about the actual, physical buildings and how they were constructed (and deconstructed), and how they relate to the natural environment. T griffen 23:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger tag removed after 4 months with 3 views against, non in favor. Gralo 18:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup[edit]

The whole "Practitioners of sustainable architecture" section looks like in indiscrimate list of self-promoting external links. Is there any reason to keep it? JonHarder talk 22:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I am going to go ahead and remove the whole section. Please discuss links here individual to determine their merit. JonHarder talk 01:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The Noted Architects are a mix of well-known sustainable designers and some unverified firms and practitioners making only a cursory effort, likely self-added. This section could use some investigating/policing. Mahalie 02:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the "Noted architects" section needs investigation/policing. However, I don't think it is reasonable to expect editors to be able to do that on a continuing basis. My review of the list suggests that it might be nigh impossible policing it. How about we eliminate the section entirely? Sunray 22:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to move MOST of this article to Green Building[edit]

If we are keeping 'sustainable architecture' and 'green design' separate, i think the key is to separate this article into the different sections of 'sustainability' (ecological, economic, social, maybe a section for some other comments too), meaning that most of this info should be dumped into green building (which then becomes the 'base' article for environmentally friendly building), with this article linking profusely to it. Any comments? Miscreant 11:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, green design is a much bigger topic that sustainable architecture, and includes planning, industrial design, etc. and should remain a separate article. I also think that sustainable architecture is a broader concept that green building. I believe that the hierarchy looks something like this:
I'm curious as to your opinion on the relationship between green building and natural building. I think there is a case for salvaging what we can from the (poorly written) green building article and merging it into both sustainable architecture and natural building. Sustainable architecture could then discuss all the issues regarding design and construction of green buildings (which is after all what architecture is all about). Green building could then redirect to sustainable architecture. Can you accept green building as a subset of green architecture?--Jrsnbarn 12:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay perhaps this wasnt explained very well. I see
- Sustainable as a logical parent to green/environmental (the reason a merger of 'sustainable architecture' and 'green building' didn't happen was this). 'Sustainable' includes economic and social sustainability, that is commonly not the focus of pure 'green '/'environmental' buildings.
- architecture and Building as mutually interchangeable words in this kind of context
- design as the logical parent to building (encompassing other disciplines like industrial design, landscape,planning, etc.)
Hence the hierarchy i see (similar to yours) is
(Note: although green design and sustainable architecture aren't directly related themselves, they are both a child to 'sustainable design' and a parent to 'green building')
I think probably Green building (also Sustainable architecture to a lesser extent) will head towards being a "see main article at..." style portal page linking to several other pages rather than as an impossibly long and complex article unto itself.
As for 'natural building', I think it is a difficult term to use because really it has no consensus definition. The natural building network defines it very broadly as "any building system which places the highest value on social and environmental sustainability", while other sources see it as a sub part of Green building dealing only with the use of natural/local materials and construction techniques. The information in the article currently reinforces this side of things. To me it seems logical to rename it 'materials and construction techniques in green building' or something similar, and keep it as more or less a sub-page of Green building (then let the word 'natural building' just redirect to 'green building', but this is just my opinion.
Even if the information isn't all there yet, it is important to get the structure set up, i suppose... though if people disagree with what I am setting out here, I am happy to hear... the difficulty is there is no central page to discuss this at the moment.
(also, If you note above, 'green building' and 'green architecture' to me are the same, unless you only want to count 'building' as 'construction' as opposed to being the physical object, which is how i tend see it).
What do you think? Miscreant 14:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that in some respects green building and green architecture refer to the same thing. Green building is the more common term and also think that it is broader, encompassing, green design. While green building is a relatively new field, LEED Standards now regulate it in Canada and the U.S., and it is a rapidly growing field. I would agree to merging much of the content of the Sustainable architecture article into Green building. Sunray 21:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Miscreant, I appreciate the distinction between 'sustainable' and 'green', that the former is a partent to the latter, and the need to set forward a structure before content. However, I don't think that you can have two strong articles on sustainable design and green design. The distinction (economic and social sustainability) is more of a point of discussion than a driver of content.
Sunray's comments (and recent edits) suggest a different direction where Green building is a larger topic (or industry, if you will) that includes green architecture along with green engineering, green construction, and green procurement. Sustainable architecture would show up in the two hierarchies as follows:
In these contexts, Sustainable architecture would focus on the sustainable design of buildings, but would remain separate from Green building so that the latter article can grow with the industry. - unsigned comment by Jrsnbarn
Jrsnbarn, Sunray. Thanks, I appreciate being able to discuss this without being didactic. I can see the logic in keeping 'sustainable architecture' and 'green design' as one article (in which case we should just merge them completely now), although this idea was rejected before (I cant re-find the discussion, but I believe reasons were mixed). I suppose my thought was that we should use many separate topic headings and have sections with 'main article at' pointers to provide a bit more structure to the field where even editors/contributors seem confused. Perhaps it is better merged though... I just think its silly having two articles at the moment with information covering the same ground.
To me (an architect myself) the architecture/building differentiation is not so important to need a new page, as really its just a legal thing, but I can appreciate people saying this is the same for 'sustainability'/'green'.
A couple more points:
- Sunray, I don't think you can say green building encompasses green design. Green design can include any sort of design, be it landscape, industrial design, fashion design, etc. It also refers a bit more to the 'process' of design than the final product (if indeed it is a building).
- Jrsnbarn. Re: the 'social and economic sustainability' thing. You are probably right. I have thought a little about this, and realized it was more or less based around my conception that we need to differentiate the broad concept of 'sustainability' from its specific attempts at implementation (to explain how it is always applied in relative contexts). For example the green roof of the ford motor plant in Michigan might be considered 'green', but when you consider the building is being used to produce gas guzzling SUV's you might have a different idea. Or how the 'natural design' stuff might be considered 'sustainable', but equally Ken Yeang's steel and glass skyscrapers might also be considered as such, etc. etc.. Perhaps this is best covered by a good section in a main article instead.... I might have a stab at it some time soon.
Miscreant 00:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
In reviewing the articles again, I see that Green building has more of a history, geography and policy bent to it, whereas the Sustainable architecture article has more of a process and technology angle. Of course, being on the side of keeping these articles separate, I'm going to be looking for distinctions. However, this strikes me as a key difference. I realize that the practice of architecture involves knowing and following the rules, but the process of architecture is much more about research, reflection, discussion, representation and implementation. Perhaps here is the distinction between building and architecture; the architectural process can exist without the building. I believe the Green building article should continue to be weighted towards policy (and LEED), and the Sustainable architecture should discuss the objectives and methods (not the rules).
I particularly disagree with merging Sustainable architecture and Sustainable design, as I think the latter is the parent of the former (or perhaps that's not what you meant when you referred to 'green design'.
With regards to the discussion on green vs. sustainable, I believe it is here Talk: Sustainable design#Overlap with Green Design.
Thanks for the conversation. --Jrsnbarn 12:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that we have each given reasons against subsuming various of these concepts within one another. Considering the points raised, I can readily agree that Green Design should not be merged with Green building and also see the point about not merging Sustainable Architecture and Sustainable design. The merger that I would object to most strongly is moving Natural building under Green building. I think that the reasons are clear both from the section I've added to the Green building article and from the discussion on the Talk:Natural building page. The problem we are facing is that these are all new fields, each growing rapidly. While in one sense the term "Green building" is rather broad, in practice the field is, as Jrsnbarn alludes to, increasingly policy driven. It seems that we are moving towards consensus that each of these articles should stand alone. However, there may be specific sections that need to be moved around. Sunray 20:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed merge tag. --Jrsnbarn 14:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing here is right. Architecture is part of the design phase of life-cycle engineering. The point of the article is to show that whatever is designed is sustainable. Really, what should be discussed is proof of sustainability, not just theory, conjecture, or opinion. One can design easily something that is not sustainable.--74.107.74.39 (talk) 01:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Environmental technology template[edit]

I'd like to replace the Environmental technology template with one that matches the standard navbox style, i.e. horizontal instead of vertical, collapsing and typically placed at the bottom of article pages. I've done a mock up of what this would look like at {{User:Jwanders/ET}}. Figured this was a big enough change that I should post before going ahead with it. Please discuss here--jwandersTalk 22:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Forest as a habitat[edit]

The head paragraph, stated a forest as something that the ethic is trying to preserve. Conservation doesn't strive to preserve forests. Conservation strives to conserve the natural processes of life, INCLUDING if a forest were to change into a swamp (for example) as long as humans didn't have anything to do with it. --FUNKAMATIC ~talk 18:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

WARNING (to the editor): There are some problems with the added paragraphs in the introduction: >>> 0px|High energy advertising in Shinjuku, Japan.]] Text is incomplete at the end: "Energy conservation is often the most economical solution to energy shortages, and is a more e" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwnit (talkcontribs) 06:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Notable Designers[edit]

I don't think this section is necessary in the article. I went through about half of them--several have notability and other tags. See the discussion in Green Building. Please comment here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muffinon (talkcontribs) 19:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Moving green building practices details to sustainable architecture.[edit]

I moved some details on green building materials to sustainable architecture, because it it looks like the focus of the sustainable architecture article is green/sustainable building practices. This seems to be in agreement with the previous discussion found here that the articles be kept separate but could use a bit of reorganizing. The discussion also talked about Green building being more policy-focused and Sustainable architecture being more design/practice oriented. If you have any other ideas or concerns please discuss here. Muffinon (talk) 02:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Collaborative for High Performance Schools - Low-Emitting Materials Table[edit]

Under the section "Lower volatile organic compounds," there is limited discussion on what kinds of building products can be classified as 'low-emitting.' The Collaborative for High Performance Schools is a non-profit organization providing resources to schools on high performance building. One resource is the Low-Emitting Materials Table which contains a variety of products including flooring, adhesives, furniture, and paint that have passed CA Section 01350. These products have been certified by their manufacturer and an independent laboratory to meet the Section 01350 criteria for use in a typical classroom as described in a CA Department of Health Services (CDHS) Standard Practice. Could this LEM Table be a useful reference for this section? Thanks! --Zucchini22 (talk) 23:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Solar Panel, Solar Water Heating and Heat Pumps Sections[edit]

I have added a considerable amount of information and citations to these subsections.

The Solar Panel, Solar Water Heating and Heat Pumps subsections lacked citations and, most importantly, quality information. The previous revisions had several important pieces missing. Most apparent was the lack of information on cost, output, and applicable conditions in all of the sections.

I feel that the amount of content and detail added in Alternative Energy Production is appropriate for people without a technical background to fully understand and appreciate the applications of “Alternative Energy Production”. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dambre20 (talkcontribs) 04:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge Sustainable Building Consulting into this article[edit]

The article Sustainable Building Consulting seems primarily promotional, and I don't think it's an encyclopedic topic. I suggest we merge useful info from it into this article. Mindmatrix 19:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Topic per se could be NPOV. I have a problem with articles growing and growing but with potentially later splitting it off again into a separate article no worry. Brothercanyouspareadime (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Done. --Ita140188 (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

RACH Codes need to be written up on put in here[edit]

California state law allows 15% upgrade to green building rules as a municipal option. Hot topic. Would make great separate article too.Brothercanyouspareadime (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Lead[edit]

The lead image and lead paragraph both come from the same source, the otherwise non-notable firm Doerr Architecture. While this may reflect substantial contributions to the article it definitely looks like self promotion. Would it be useful to replace both, to reflect the wider views and to show an actual built example of some importance? ProfDEH (talk) 06:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)