Forward to the Future

Have you ever driven an automobile forward while looking in the rear-view mirror? Don't tell anybody, but I've tried it a few times. Doesn't work very well.

Sure, if the road is perfectly straight with no oncoming traffic, you could feasibly travel short distances, albeit very, very slowly. But I think we could all agree (including our friendly Highway Patrolmen) that driving any distance in a car with your eyes glued to the rear-view mirror is unfeasible and, in fact, dangerous.

Prudence tells us we need to steer our vehicle based on what we see in front of us. What's coming up over the horizon is the determining factor in how we choose to direct our course of action.

So why would we plan for the future by imitating the past? Why should we base decisions about how we build buildings and infrastructure, about how we design our cars and factories, by mimicking old paradigms?

We know what's coming up on the horizon, at least to some degree, and we certainly have a clear focus on our immediate future. The distant future may be a little murky, but that's no reason to discount it, no reason to throw up our hands and say 'I don't know what the road looks like around the curve so I'll just close my eyes and lock the steering wheel in place'.

Here's one thing we know. Some energy sources are finite - oil and coal for example. Some energy sources are infinite - solar and wind and geothermal fall into this category. What does this tell us? In the future, renewable sources of energy will come down in price, and thus be more feasible to employ, and non-renewable sources of energy will become ever more scarce, and the price of utilizing non-renewables will go up and up and up. Already, the trajectory is apparent and playing out right in front of us.

And with the earth's growing population (estimates are in the next half decade, world population will increase from the current 6.7 billion people to over 10 billion), we know we must design for accomplishing more with less.

Transportation planning must recognize that the automobile is one option of many, not the only option. Public transportation infrastructure takes years, if not decades to implement; that makes it all the more important to design for what's on the horizon.

Cars must be dramatically re-designed to meet the obvious challenges of the future. For years, American automobile manufacturers have been resistant to change because they've been focused on what sold last year. Now big gas-guzzling SUV's sit on the lot while dealers place hybrid buyers on long waiting lists.

Buildings must be designed to be more energy efficient, some even for energy independence. Ease and economy of construction is a must. The McMansions that popped up like mushrooms as recently as a year and a half ago, are already dinosaurs.

Doesn't it make sense to design for where we want to go rather than parody where we've already been?

Man with Nature, not Man over Nature

If Mother Nature gives you a tree, enjoy the shade.

How many times have we seen a beautiful piece of land clear cut and flattened to make way for a new building project? One day - a beautiful forest. Next day, it looks like a World War 1 battlefield. Ouch!

And how many new developments are named after the unique natural landform that was destroyed in the process? In Hattiesburg Mississippi, once-natural Turtle Creek flows through a big concrete pipe buried under – you guessed it - Turtle Creek Mall.

Now I'm not at all against new development. In fact, I am very much in favor of new building projects, especially when I’m designing them. (An Architect against development is like a priest who doesn't believe in God). New projects on a beautiful piece of land are exciting and full of ultimate potential – for good or for bad.

Many developers I’ve met think this way: Step 1 – clear the site, Step 2 – decide what to build, Step 3 – build it. I call this process “Fire, Ready, Aim!” Exactly backwards.

But in the green ethic, the land tells us what to do, not the other way around. It’s not an either/or proposition when it comes to development versus sustainability. Both can coexist when holistically planned.

Preserve unique landforms and look for ways to create a relationship between those natural amenities and the built environment. The goal is to create a dynamic balance between manmade and natural. Integrate the new with the natural and new opportunities to passive environmental control; a healthy patch of deciduous trees can drastically reduce the energy cost of cooling during a hot summer if the new building is oriented properly. And what a view!

So it’s, Man with Nature, not Man over Nature.

Location, Location, Location

The one thing you can always count on in green is that local is good - mostly.

Environmentally, local materials work best. If the product you're looking for comes from local raw materials, you can be pretty certain that it is compatible with the local environment. For example, stone quarried on site makes for a nice aesthetic for a designed landscape feature -colors and textures are inherently compatible with natural surroundings.

Local requires less energy, and here most likely we're talking about oil, moving items from there to here. Less expended energy in transportation is a fundamental principle of sustainability.

Close-to-home manufacturing, harvesting, processing, designing, servicing, etc. stimulates the local economy. We are all connected in some way in this world, but we are very connected to our local environment. Buying local gives us the opportunity to support our neighbors who in turn support us. And, a wonderful by-product of local commerce is that it raises the level of cultural interaction by putting us in constant contact with those who live around us. A product from China may be cheaper to by in the short run, but the marginal savings at the cash register come at the cost of the many synergies created by buying local.

Growing evidence indicates that significant health benefits come from eating locally grown food. There's even a term for it - "locavore" - introduced by Jessica Prentice to describe the practice of eating a diet consisting of food grown within a 100 mile radius of where you live. You can visit her website dedicated to local cooking and eating at wisefoodways.com.

A common thread in the green ethic is that there are almost always exceptions to everything. There will always be an odd case here and there where on influence outweighs another. Its good to keep looking at the issue from all angles.

If local options demand a disproportionate amount of energy, uses up unique natural resources that society has a stake in preserving, or creates an imbalance in some way, it may indeed be more green to look farther away. For example, if a local processing plant is old and carbon heavy, it may be wise to look for an item assembled by a green facility 300 miles away. The cleaner manufacturing process may outweigh the cost of petroleum to get it from there to here.

It's best that we get used to these complexities. Green is not "one size fits all." There's no silver bullet. But there are infinite opportunities.

So remember, it's location, location, and sometimes - location.

The Green Ethic

Consider How far we've come.

Just a few short years ago, people who used words like 'green, organic, natural' to describe a better way of life were marginalized and dismissed by most of society, big business, the press, and politicians as if they were a hopeless cult of idealists who "just didn't get it." Conspicuous consumption was pitched as the highest moral paradigm, and Americans bought in - literally. While a few dedicated individuals in the green movement worked tirelessly in the trenches over the 70's, 80's, and 90's, people-turned-consumers were consumed by consumerism.

Now, green is the latest national craze.

"Time to jump on the bandwagon - don't be the last person on your block to go green!" "Look at me, I'm greeeeeeeeeen!!!"

What happened?

Well, to be truthful, gluttonous consumerism caught up with us.

Americans bought big gas-guzzling vehicles, trumped up the price of housing (using the home equity loan like an ATM), and maxed out credit cards to buy things we really could do without. We outsourced everything - even the kitchen sink - under the banner of "globalism." Sprawl was crowned king and McMansions became as ubiquitous as Big Macs.

Now as gas prices head towards $4 a gallon, driving that SUV 60 miles to and from work while your spouse chauffeurs kids through traffic jams from this centralized county school to that far-away soccer field just doesn't look like utopia any more.

For the majority of Americans, its now hitting home (especially the one way out in suburbia or even farther out in exurbia). The financial and cultural strain brought about by a consumption-driven ethic has reached a tipping point. Its not just theory any more; our collective blind eye to the idea of sustainability is affecting people's lives in profoundly negative ways. The cost has been exacted in time, money, and culture. In 2008, the consequences of hyper-consumption are painfully obvious to everybody except the ostriches among us.

(Here's where some of you reading this post can mutter a cathartic "I told you so").

With this realization that "green is good," the business community is taking note.

Automobile companies, who for decades fought against raising gas mileage standards, are now trumpeting hybrid vehicles, even though you can't buy them yet. Developers talk up New Urbanist communities as a green living alternative, although most people can't afford to live in one. Oil and chemical companies are even spinning the PR that the only reason they have ever been in the business is to save the planet. All the while their carbon footprints increase.

Has big business now all of a sudden seen the light? Or is this just a new form of consumerism? Is all the clamor a real sea change, or just "greenwashing" - a term defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as 'the dissemination of misleading information by an organization to conceal its abuse of the environment in order to present a positive public image'?

So what's a nascent green enthusiast to believe? How do we define "green"? How can we know which sustainable options enhance our personal well-being and improve the health of the planet, and which choices are just hype?

I submit to you, the "green ethic."

Over the next few days, we will be discussing the meaning of green. Let's dig deeper than "checklists" and PR campaigns - and hopefully we'll cut through the organic bull droppings. Please feel free to join in on the discussion.