“Eventually, with courage and political will, some [American] cities could return to something like sustainability, or places wherein sustainability would be possible. But without a fundamental, broad and sustained look at what is needed for sustainable cities, we’ll be left with futile, feel-good initiatives, like rainwater collecting on 35-story condominium buildings. Sustainable cities require, first and foremost, sustainable layouts and physical form, and, if they are beautiful, we will want to sustain them.”
—David T. Mayernik, FAAR, NCARB, RSA, president, David Mayernik Ltd., writing in Traditional Building’s roundtable on sustainability in an urban context
Yes? No? Maybe? Comment!
Ron 
Keri 
This is just about the best summary of building preservationists’ true link to the green movement and the whole concept of sustainability.
Sustainability now has more to do with what products and systems you use in a design than about the design itself. And who could possibly be surprised by that? Makers of green gadgets control the marketing messages and support the media that write and talk about the gadgets. It’s the usual vicious circle.
Right on, Stephen. Much of the process described as “green” or “sustainable” design and building has been hijacked by the LEED police, who are in turn beholden to the makers of new products and systems. It’s not quite a vicious circle, but it’s certainly a profitable one for all concerned, except for those people who believe in the value of what might be called “traditional sustainability.”