anchor
THE ARCHITECTURE OF GLOBAL WARMING
Calling all architects and design students!
Buildings consume 40% of the world's energy every year and generate almost half of the carbon dioxide emissions that cause global warming. Immediate action in the building industry is essential if we are to avoid hazardous change to our climate.
This coming Tuesday, Feb 20th, 2007
(TOMORROW), a critical event is taking place in downtown Manhattan to discuss architecture's impact on climate change:
The 2010 Imperative Global Emergency Teach-In is a
free interactive web-cast broadcast live from New York, reaching more than 500,000 students, faculty, deans and practicing professionals in the architecture, planning and design communities in both North and South America. All design schools, professional design firms and governmental entities (planning departments, city officials, etc.) are being asked to substitute the Teach-in for classes/work on February 20th, 2007, from Noon to 3:30pm EST. Many schools and offices are even planning day-long activities around the event...
Anyone who is in New York can try to get tickets to see the event
live in downtown Manhattan.
And for Columbia students, I have personally organized an event up at Columbia's GSAPP to tune into the webcast and hold a student/faculty panel to discuss the issue of global warming and the built environment.
Susan Szenasy, the Editor-in-Chief of
Metropolis magazine, has graciously agreed to rush up from the Webcast dowtown to participate in our panel discussion with
Reinhold Martin,
Laura Kurgan, GSAPP
Kate Orff , GSAPP
Davidson Norris, GSAPP
Chris Small,
Columbia's Earth Institute.
+ 2010 ImperativeAre you being trained for the world you will inherit?
18 Comments
It means that it is clearly considered a given that global warming is caused by human activity? I think this shortcut is too easy to take as there are still many studies produced, saying that even if global warming is happening, its extent and cause are still unclear yet. The so-called scientific consensus promoted by the UN doesn't nearly exist.
I personally think it's good to try reducing energy consumption in buildings and I'm all for it. But, the rationale for which this conference is put together seems to me just to be an offshoot of the overbiased, politicized and not very scientific IPCC.
I think that the point of the conference could be that taking the "wait-and-see" approach may not be in the best interest of humankind.
Global warming is a bogus political strategy. It is not worth the effort of any respectable architect to exert any energy to prolonge this fable.
And that's my opinion.
RonJon you are completely and utterly wrong. Scientists around the world all agree on global warming - there is no debate anymore. Perhaps you believe the dinosaurs are a made-up "political strategy" as well? Shame on you, your comment is a disgrace to architects everywhere who actually care about the future of our world that our children will inherit.
Clearly you were faxed the "Global Warming" talking points and selected point B. and G. to explain the doctrine.
Part of what I experienced in architecture school was not to accept what I am told but to exert the effort beyond mere perfunctory research. Maybe you did not have that experience.
even if we elect Al Gore for pres, will we do enough to change???
the 2010 was fun- my office had 16 people and pizza watching. so what gives with the bow tie on Chris from Arup???
ronjon
Personally, I don't really care whether or not Global warming is a 100% proven face, or is still a theory to be later debased - it doesn't change the imperative of architects to be responsible designers for future generations. Granted, i'm not the type to celebrate an architecture of pure sustainability - to me thats like celebrating a car that comes with wheels. But to dismiss a whole group of people's efforts to curtail the amount of energy our buildings and cities waste merely based on some speculation of reading some political strategy in all of this is petty.
I maintain that meaningful skepticism/criticality is essential to everything, but should be framed by the larger question of time and place. I mean, would you rather there be no conference and no discussion of the topic at all? How would that be constructive in least?
You learned not to accept scientific consensus while in architecture school? That's interesting! What sources are you using for your own climatological research?
I minored in Meteorology/Climatology and then spent three years post-graduate assisting in research as part of a NOAA climatology and built environment studies.
Where did you do yours? The internet or a movie theatre.
Thank you for your time but I am not interested in any further conversations, there is no need to respond.
global warming hype is out of control and 100% man-made.
energy-concious design should be out of a desire for efficiency and ending the u.s. dependency on foreign oil, not out of 'it's gettin' hot in herre' scare tactics ..
that 'GLOBAL EMERGENCY' poster is high-larious !!
you are right it is 100% MAN-MADE
great poster jill!
Hope that Columbia enjoyed it, we had a lot of your classmates in the audience hope the conversation at Ivery was good.
q
hahaha america is so insulated(no pun intended). global warming is real big deal. but the true reason why we don't want to use up all the fossil fuel, and nonrenewable resources is because we want to keep living on earth.
what RonJon forgets to mention is that he was working on those top secret bush-y research projects...:
Project a] "pump the fucking CO2 under some rock or deep in the belly of the ocean so i can keep pumping oil"
or
Project b]"cant we just send up some mirrors on a rocket like to the outer regions of the earth and redirect the sun a differernt way"
or
Project c]"we need more energy efficient cars so we can keep the oil pumping"
the one thing you did say that is correct was about bogus political stragedy. if you worked for any US agency under the bush regime you saw bogus/vodoo first hand. i bet you still believe there were WMD in iraq -- or better yet -- sadaam shipped them off to his friends in iran when he knew the pressure was up -- oh thats the next chapter--stay tuned!.
hahahaha
i think the more important queston, is why don't we see enough firms here in the US doing well-designed projects that are sustainable? there are a whole slew of firms overseas that specialize in this. i'm not talking LEED, which is pretty bogus in comparison to a lot of other programs.
We don't see many, I suspect, because of the cost- sustainability is something that is going to ease itself into our systems, maybe too slowly.
We all need to take responsibility, as citizens, not just blame builders & architects - we need to create market demand (which means paying our own $$ for it) where ever we can for sustainable products & practices. Also we should encourage large organizations like charities, churches, and governments to help accelerate (aka fund) the transition.
lunatic political rant/aside:
the idea that President Al Gore,as wonderful as he might be, or any of the far-left forces agitiating for strong cental government control, can fix global warming is ignorant, to be blunt, and completly undemocratic. YOU have to do it, we can't outsource our responsibilities to other people, and no one can force individuals to behave in any way (would we want a world like that?) If global warming doesn't prove that we all are responsible for this world, I don't know what will.
and it's kind of made up, too. !
ps "ted" sounds like a 14 year old. sorry dude, ("regime?" come on...)
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.