ASP (Association of Student Planners) is presenting the e2 film series by PBS in Cheney (as well as Riverpoint). This series will take place every Tuesday in Kingston Hall room 328 at Noon. Starts Oct. 13 in Cheney. The second one commences Oct. 13 at Riverpoint.
It will feature a 25-30 minute film followed by a discussion.The Riverpoint location is SAC room 147.
The film titles are:
Title ------------------------Subject
The Green Apple ------------------------Design
Aviation: The Limited Sky --------Transportation
The Green Machine -----------------------Design
Coal & Nuclear: Problem or Solution------Energy
Affordable Green Housing ---------------Design
Portland: A Sense of Place --------Transportation
Architecture 2030------------------------ Design
State of Resolve---------------------------- Energy
The Art & Science of Renzo Piano--------Design
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Ahh, the first video, The Green Apple, elicited some interesting conversations by faculty, students and I after the screening. Conceptually, the idea of urban spaces like NYC having smarter and more intelligent ways to build has incredible potential to save energy and to make workplaces more inventive and livable. The statistics are startling -- 40 percent or more of all energy consumption in this country is linked to buildings: where we work, recreate, live and shop. Up to 80 percent of all eletricity generated in the USA goes to buildings.
The message of density in a place like New York City strikes a nerve in the planners' history of cities when we think of all the great stuff Jane Jacobs said about dense metropolitan areas, both as a city made up of a community of buildings, transportation, public places, homes, and government buildings AND as a place of social community, people. Cities like NYC that were largely built before the 20th Century are tied to walking, and those mega-cities or large ones like Atlanta and Los Angeles are car- centric because of they came of age during the car generation. Two hours a day in a car to migrate from home to office to home to shopping and schools and recreation? Not a pretty formula for community building, consciousness raising, and developing easy ways to communicate and frame issues with fellow people.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
What the film showed were several large skyscraper projects and some public housing. Solair in Battery Park City is based on green building.
4 Times Square incorporates recycling of waste, materials redesign, and other forms of green building tweaks and twists to make it more efficient. The Bank of America building (and, yes, there were questions as to the BoA's current behavior in the gutting of the US and world economies) incorporates a footprint of two acres next to 4 Times Square, and with stormwater capturing and water evaporation capture from AC systems and low flush toilets using the captured and stored water, 50 percent less potable water will be used to run the building. The water department of New York City will be giving the building a 25 percent reduction for water pumped into the building because of the huge benefits of capturing the stormwater and other water waste.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
The idea of energy and building efficiency was brought up in the documentary, as well as making people more efficient and more willing to take ownership in work by living and working in an amiable and clean, environment. -
-
-
-
Green roof technology on Solaire, and landscape design that incorporates heliostats -- mirrors that reflect sunlight into the park because the park is sandwiched between high rises.
Green roof technology on Solaire, and landscape design that incorporates heliostats -- mirrors that reflect sunlight into the park because the park is sandwiched between high rises. -
-
-
What the audience discussed varied from critical analysis of technology alone not being enough to make the green building change effective. Concerns about scaling this sort of building to the neighborhood level were also broached, as well as questioning whether the technology shown in the documentary could be incorporated in retrofits.
Are these buildings showcased just abberations, huge projects with innovative architects and designers and engineers that are only benefiting a small rarified grouup? Bank of America can go green, but what about Flint, Michigan, or Joe and Jane Citizen?
What the innovators in the film did point out was that the USA has 4.6 percent of the world's population, but uses more than 25 percent of the world's resources. And 80 million gallons of oil a day to run our society is also telling. Add to that the fact that Japan and Europe look at buildings over a 50 year life period, whereas in the USA it's 12 months and adios.
- Is the axiom, redesign the design process, faulty, or jingoism?
- Is the new poetry of buildings in their DNA, the materials?
- Using blast furnace slag ash to redseign concrete that saves tons of CO2, in the case of the Bank of America building, 56,250 tons reduced, can this be the new operating material for future buildings everywhere?
We have the Cascadia Green Building Institute looking at biomimicry and the Bioneers ethos as innovative ways to tackle these building problems, but what about the suburbs, the single family homes, and apartments?
http://ilbi.org/stuff/living-site-pr.pdf
http://www.cascadiagbc.org/living-future/09
"In the course of history, there comes a time when humanity is called to shift to a new level of consciousness, to reach a higher moral ground. A time when we have to shed our fear and give hope to each other. That time is now."
- --Wangari Maathai, Green Belt Movement Founder and 2004 Nobel Peace Prize Winner
PLEASE BEGIN THE DISCUSSION AND COMMENT ON EACH FILM AND THE RESPECTIVE BLOG POST.
Thanks, Paul
I found the film to be very interesting. Particularly the aspects of New York City that are made possible by its urban form. Things like walkability, increased social interaction, transit use, and reduced resource consumption per capita.
ReplyDeleteSome of the post film discussion covered the costs of building new skyscrapers, however green they may be. Is that space really needed, and could the money be better spent making buildings that already exist more efficient? Our society is still operating in a growth paradigm. We as Americans are still consuming way more of the worlds resources than we should. I think the technological forward steps shown in this film are not a bad thing in and of themselves, in fact I think it is quite the opposite, but I also think that they will not replace what is needed, which is to change the way people view their interaction with the world.
I heard on Smart City radio that the Sears Tower in Chicago is currently undergoing an evaluation to make the building much more green by retrofitting new technologies. I think it is this kind of upgrading what we already have that will be very important in reducing our consumption.
Now if i can just quit commuting, convert my home to 0 net energy, and still afford clothes for my family, I will have it made!
How much energy does the building use per square foot, per person, per occupied hour? And, of course, what is the building's purpose in life? What benefit does the company provide to us, people, to the planet, us, and to the community, the city?
ReplyDeleteWhat's compelling about these huge high rises is that their ocupancy is contingent on many things, not to exclude the viability of the city and region wherein it lies due to climate change and peak oil.
Here's a great look at LEED and USGBC ratings by a mechanical engineer.
"A Better Way to Rate Green Buildings" By Henry Gifford
LEED sets the standard for green buildings, but do green buildings actually save any energy?
http://www.buildinggreen.com/live/index.cfm/2008/9/2/Lies-Damn-Lies-and-Are-LEED-Buildings-iLessi-Efficient-Than-Regular-Buildings