This week's reading is:
Calkins, Meg. "Evaluating the Environmental and Human Health Impacts of Materials." Materials for Sustainable Sites: a Complete Guide to the Evaluation, Selection, and Use of Sustainable Construction Materials. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2009. 53-76. Print.
Definitely a good reading as an overview of the many different rating, ranking, and evaluation systems for construction projects and material selection. They all strive for the same goals of "greener" construction and sustainability but have differ in which component of the project they concentrate on and how it is analyzed.
ReplyDeleteAs the dark cloud that is global climate change looms over us I think that now more than ever it is extremely important to design and build sustainably, striving to improve the places that we inhabit, not just for our use but ecologically as well.
Unfortunately, slowing global climate change will require huge efforts across the world, and leaving LEED and SSI type programs as optional will probably not be enough. New rules and laws for construction projects on all scales may need to be implemented in the future to mandate sustainable and ecologically sensative building processes.
This reading reminded me about this idea of design ethics I was thinking about earlier when Ray Mims came in to give his talk about the Sustainable Sites Initiatives. Such initiatives such as the SSI and LEED propose and dictate measures for designing sustainably and encourage designers to think more critically about what they do and how it’s done. They still only serve as guidelines that are promoted and are more of a de facto than anything else. I know that there are specific laws pertaining to construction methods and technique and I admit my knowledge about more environmental laws concerning design are limited, but will there be a day when these initiatives take a more legal approach. Since we still are in this de facto stage then should a designer consider it unethical to not be thinking about a material’s embodied energy or embodied carbon? Should others consider such designs that don’t respond or consider the environment unethical? Are they unethical? I believe our society today does hold the environment and environmental decisions on a higher plateau but I have never heard the term ethics included in such conversations or readings, not yet at least. This concept extends not just too material selection, but also to plantings and to ecosystem requirements. This poses more questions about economics and private vs public work, but where is the level of responsibility and how should it be further enforced? Should it even be enforced or would that cause more problems. If a life cycle analysis is a “complex and time consuming activity, and may be outside the time and skill constraints of many designers” then what is the motivation or incentive other than a personal fulfillment? Yes LEED gives you a plaque and I don’t even know what the SSI gives you, and yes there are energy savings and down the road costs savings associated, but post construction of a design is usually ignored. LEED has had problems in the past with buildings that have been awarded for their sustainable efforts in using solar panels and such but then these buildings keep their lights on all the time, where is the sustainability in that? Also if it may require firms or designers to hire and work with professional life-cycle analysts, then should this be paid by the designer or the client? I admit all these questions and ideas have multiple answers and that incentive and motivation should not be included when thinking about ethics, since ethics involves either right or wrong. The big question is can a design be right or wrong and I believe the answer is yes. Aesthetically, qualitatively, and sustainably a design can be wrong. If a design is wrong sustainably is it then unethical? That answer is up to the public. Lots of words, maybe I’ll write a book, or read one on design ethics.
ReplyDeleteAnyway I appreciate how the sustainability Assessment has a column for comments and considerations with different sources after each question. People tend to be lazy and don’t want to do more work to look stuff up and that just makes it a little easier for everyone.
I enjoyed this reading much more than previous ones, as it was an informative yet interesting read. Calkins talks about the different rating systems that are applied to materials and how to use these ratings. The systems she talks about are intended to give the results of how sustainable the product is whether it is by the energy used in consumption or the amount of carbon is stores up. She also tells the reader about how to uses these systems and what precautions should be taken when reading the results from the assements. What I understand from the reading is that these assements are not alway factual or true. The results sound like they can be altered to get a desired readout. The assement and rating system has to be constantly changing with the introduction of new materials as well as revisions to the way that the old materials are produced. I think that over the course of time the assements will need to become better in their definitions as well as a standard for how each material will be rated.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSimilar to Calkin’s introduction of this chapter, I couldn’t help but think of the quasi-moral dilemma designers currently face when designing. We are required to do many things…an obligation of sorts. We also have the full ability to do these said things, but it seems as though we cannot do all of them. This is where the dilemma lies. How do we decide what to factor in and what to sacrifice in a systematic way that will produce the best possible result? On what scale can we prioritize? Like Calkins wrote, there is an on-going argument over what is most important to focus on. Do we engage in the efficient use and reuse of materials; reduce the chances of global warming by reducing our carbon footprint; reduce habitat impacts or reduce human health impacts?
ReplyDeleteThere is a lot to consider. Although these issues seem to overlap enough that their needs can be collectively addressed, they do not necessarily always work symbiotically. So, Calkins offers us a neat package of resources that can aid in this process. Almost all of the organizations she mentions promote the use of the life cycle assessment. LCA uses a system of inputs and outputs and produces different weights and prioritizes them accordingly. This tool as well as SA, EE, BEES and other attempt to compute it’s operational performance as well as predict it’s inevitable decay. A lot of analysis programs are free to use which I think is really fantastic for designers to introduce as another step in the design process. However, I am afraid that these weighted, sometimes subjective assessments can create a falsified evaluation. I cannot seem to clear the cloud in my head—perhaps the strain of the “moral dilemma”, and I want to know if a “super material” exists. I know we talked about Neri Oxman and her explorations for materials that have a harmonious relationship between their physical properties, their function and the environment they are placed in. Maybe some of the talked about assessment tools can leed to (pun intended) this kind of advancement.
A nicer advantage these checklist formats provide is a more concise presentation. And as some have already alluded, it definately adds to the sustainability zeitgeist.
ReplyDeleteAs for the life cycle assessment...Perhaps as production methods of different materials are thrown into the spotlight, it will force the manufacturers to become more self conscious of how it is made.
Wishful thinking for the day.