traditional-building.com

Can Being Green Be a Solo Act?

July 29th, 2010

mouzon “To loosely quote Steve Mouzon (author of The Original Green), the most efficient HVAC system is the one that never has to run. Traditional design is also an acknowledgement that no building is green by itself. Its relationship to neighboring structures and the public realm cannot be overlooked.”

—Samantha L. Salden, professor,
School of Architecture, Notre Dame University,
writing about sustainability in the June issue
of Clem Labine’s Traditional Building

Yes? No? Maybe? Comment!

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Has the Term ‘Value Engineering’ Lost Some Value?

July 15th, 2010

mouzon “[Value engineering] does not mean removing desirable features just to reduce the budget. I suggest we all start using the term ‘cost cutting’ or ‘budget trimming’ to describe this less elegant process and leave ‘value engineering’ on the high road.”

—Richard Heinemeyer, AIA, LEED AP,
CDFM Architectural, in response to a report on the AIA show
by Restore Media’s president, Peter Miller

Yes? No? Maybe? Comment!

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

One Response to “Has the Term ‘Value Engineering’ Lost Some Value?”

More Info says:

July 27, 2010 at 5:56 pm

I recently discovered your blog/website and have really loved reading through this and some of your other posts. I believed I would dive out from the shadows and leave my very first comment. I’m not certain what to say other than I have enjoyed reading through and can carry on to go to as frequently as I can.

House About It: Should Function Trump Form?

June 29th, 2010

mouzon “Let’s see. A not-for-profit trust is doing a noble deed by creating housing for the homeless, and this author arrogantly assumes the egos of the designers precluded any thought of functionality. Of course the author did not tour the inside of the structure or interview the beneficiaries. Why let truth muddy a good story. . ? Perhaps we should just consider ourselves lucky to read the ramblings of someone so intellectually enlightened. NOT!”

—Randy Doerksen, in reply to Clem Labine’s recent blog “Architects Experimenting on the Poor (Again),” which criticizes the design of
the New Carver Apartments, a facility in Los Angeles that provides
housing for the homeless

Yes? No? Maybe? Comment!

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

One Response to “House About It: Should Function Trump Form?”

Jill says:

July 5, 2010 at 3:55 pm

I know. I know. Sometimes, these traditionalists take things a little too far. Don’t you think? People who otherwise wouldn’t have a roof over their heads now do. Save the rant about architecture that gets them into a warm and cuddly mood for another time.

Do Great Ideas Deserve to Be Endlessly Copied?

June 17th, 2010

mouzon “Today, working with someone else’s idea is derisively referred to as ‘copying’ or ‘plagiarism.’ News flash: If you can’t copy, tradition is impossible. . .Great ideas deserve to take on a life of their own and become part of a living tradition, living again and again in design after design, helping to create a great place. And that’s what we want. Isn’t it?”

—Stephen A. Mouzon, AIA, principal Mouzon Design and the New Urban Guild

Yes? No? Maybe? Comment!

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

2 Responses to “Do Great Ideas Deserve to Be Endlessly Copied?”

Pearson says:

June 19, 2010 at 3:00 pm

Yes indeed. That’s what we want. In copying, there’s validation, adaptation, and forward movement. It’s called progress.
zerodeth says:

June 22, 2010 at 3:33 pm

YES they do, because if they weren’t great ideas then they wouldn’t be endlessly copied.

Are Phone Books Really Aspirational?

June 2nd, 2010

“When a building of yours ends up on the front page of a phone book, it means the community has embraced it and sees it as a symbol of themselves. Most architects care whether they win architectural awards, but we care about what people see on the front page of phone books.”

—David M. Schwartz, AIA, LEED AP, president, David M. Schwartz Architects, quoted in “Restless Architects”

Yes? No? Maybe? Comment!

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

2 Responses to “Are Phone Books Really Aspirational?”

Janice says:

June 8, 2010 at 3:44 pm

What a refreshing perspective!
Ben says:

June 14, 2010 at 12:12 pm

Sorry. If I were a client with something of a budget, I’d prefer an architectural firm with a bit more ambition.

Are Sustainable Strategies Wholly Holistic?

May 19th, 2010

sprawl “Sustainable strategies in the urban or campus context, whether on a large or small scale, must be holistic responses. It’s so obvious, so logical. What took us so long?”

—Gregory L. Rutledge, AIA, design principal and preservation specialist, Hanbury Evans Wright Vlattas + Company, writing in Traditional Building’s roundtable on sustainability in an urban context

Yes? No? Maybe? Comment!

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

3 Responses to “Are Sustainable Strategies Wholly Holistic?”

Manuel says:

May 21, 2010 at 5:26 pm

What’s a “holistic” response? Write in English, please!
Jean says:

May 24, 2010 at 12:55 pm

Not many people thought in these terms when development was mostly about building as fast as you can. Now, with the conversation being framed differently, a perspective like this almost becomes obvious.
Supplement Forum says:

July 9, 2010 at 9:05 pm

This is an obvious perspective don’t you think. It is true indeed, that when development was purely about building as fast as you can, these terms were never considered.

Is Sprawl All Bad?

May 5th, 2010

sprawl “Sprawl is a dysfunctional form of urbanism. It is a broken pattern that needs to be fixed. While it has been the prevalent growth model in this country for the past half a century, it is in fact the least sustainable and the least affordable.”

—Galina Tachieva, LEED AP, partner, town planner, Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company, writing in Traditional Building’s roundtable on sustainability in an urban context

Yes? No? Maybe? Comment!

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

2 Responses to “Is Sprawl All Bad?”

Bertrand says:

May 10, 2010 at 2:42 pm

So what else is new?
Marcy says:

May 13, 2010 at 3:43 pm

Architects and planners got us into this mess. Why should we trust them to get us out of it?

Can Lady Gaga Teach Us Something About Architecture?

April 21st, 2010

blog-gaga “Once Lady Gaga has worn an outfit, it disappears. She knows it has the power to dazzle only that first time. Starchitects come up short in this area, because they litter the land with yesterday’s radical designs – which quickly become shopworn and tired-looking.”

—Clem Labine, founder and editor emeritus, Traditional Building, from his recent opinion piece, “Lady Gaga’s Lessons for ‘Starchitects’”

Yes? No? Maybe? Comment!

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments »

4 Responses to “Can Lady Gaga Teach Us Something About Architecture?”

Alyssa says:

April 25, 2010 at 12:36 pm

Talk about a perfect analogy, though one of my friends says it doesn’t quite fit because Lady Gaga actually has some talent.
Michael says:

April 30, 2010 at 12:33 pm

Brilliant! Thanks for bringing these stratospheric architectural pretentsions down to earth, where we can kick them around a little!
Colin says:

May 4, 2010 at 2:26 pm

That this opinion piece can pair the architectural profession and Lady Gaga and have people consider it a reasonable metaphor shows very clearly what’s happend to architecture over the last half century.
Deadra Ege says:

May 5, 2010 at 7:57 pm

guess you learn something new every day! thanks bud

Do Restored Old Buildings Outlast New?

April 8th, 2010

profile-9a “Too often, the general perception is that sustainability is achieved solely through the use of green materials and innovative technologies. New materials and innovative technologies definitely have a role to play in improving the energy efficiency and sustainability of our cities, in both new and old buildings; for example, geothermal wells can be discretely installed under paved areas to provide efficient heating and cooling; green roofs can reduce summer heat gain in and around buildings, while also reducing the rate of stormwater discharge during heavy rains; and daylight sensors can be combined with dimmable light fixtures and motorized shades to automatically control light and heat levels within a building. However, our historic buildings typically were built with durable, maintainable materials that can be repaired and renewed with less energy than new construction and, once restored, have the potential to outlast new buildings as well.”

—John H. Cluver, AIA, LEED AP, partner and
director of preservation, Voith & Mactavish Architects, LLP, writing in Traditional Building’s roundtable
on sustainability in an urban context

Yes? No? Maybe? Comment!

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

2 Responses to “Do Restored Old Buildings Outlast New?”

Randy says:

April 11, 2010 at 2:38 pm

Engineers and the people who actually have to operate old buildings would disagree–and not so respectfully.
Jules says:

April 16, 2010 at 1:52 pm

“The potential to outlast new buildings”? What’s the point?

Why Can’t We Design for All Time?

March 24th, 2010

“State-of-the-art solutions regarding sustainable construction techniques, thoughtful selection of natural materials, use of local materials and sophisticated engineering solutions for energy consumption are necessary to reduce our impact on the environment. However, we should also remember that the more basic tenets of good design and quality construction are, in and of themselves, often imbued with sustainable characteristics and tend to have much longer lasting environmental impacts. . .The construction industry has thousands of years of experience trying to make buildings work well; we should carefully study, emulate and improve upon those successes.”

—Gregory M. Hoss, AIA, project manager and principal, David M. Schwarz Architects, Inc., writing in Traditional Building’s roundtable on sustainability in an urban context

Yes? No? Maybe? Comment!

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments »

5 Responses to “Why Can’t We Design for All Time?”

Dolores says:

March 26, 2010 at 1:19 pm

If you talk with engineers about old buildings, you get a vastly different perspective: the traditional ways of designing and building structures, though praiseworthy in some respects, are now largely out of keeping with the contemporary need to conserve energy and reduce buildings’ impact on global warming. They contend, with data to demonstrate their views, that old buildings are stunningly inefficient as “operating facilities” and need to be thoroughly “upgraded,” if not demolished completely.
Richard says:

March 30, 2010 at 12:54 pm

Let’s face it. Old buildings typically don’t work as well as we need them to here in the 21st century. We can study all we like, taking the best of the past and using it, but the fact is that modern design, modern construction techniques, and modern materials often do indeed add up to greater efficiency and a better, more earth-friendly footprint.
Gregory Hoss says:

April 2, 2010 at 12:56 pm

I can agree with your points if you look at one building in complete isolation. However, my point is intended to be address a broader issue relative to sustainability, i.e., that the imbedded energy and resources wasted in repeatedly building and tearing down buildings is often not considered in the equations people use when assessing how energy efficient new technologies make new buildings more earth friendly than older ones.
Richard says:

April 3, 2010 at 2:00 pm

You’re right, Greg. That’s true. Those metrics aren’t considered very often. On the other hand, it’s hard to escape the reality that older buildings, absent major, costly retrofits, are often very, very expensive to operate and maintain.
Julie says:

April 7, 2010 at 1:20 pm

Look. We’ve got to build more new structures than not. Commercial construction is a critical part of the economy, and that’s that. In the process, though, we might as well make these buildings as green as they can be–whether or not they take on traditional or modern designs.

Can Being Green Be a Solo Act?

Leave a Reply

Has the Term ‘Value Engineering’ Lost Some Value?

One Response to “Has the Term ‘Value Engineering’ Lost Some Value?”

Leave a Reply

House About It: Should Function Trump Form?

One Response to “House About It: Should Function Trump Form?”

Leave a Reply

Do Great Ideas Deserve to Be Endlessly Copied?

2 Responses to “Do Great Ideas Deserve to Be Endlessly Copied?”

Leave a Reply

Are Phone Books Really Aspirational?

2 Responses to “Are Phone Books Really Aspirational?”

Leave a Reply

Are Sustainable Strategies Wholly Holistic?

3 Responses to “Are Sustainable Strategies Wholly Holistic?”

Leave a Reply

Is Sprawl All Bad?

2 Responses to “Is Sprawl All Bad?”

Leave a Reply

Can Lady Gaga Teach Us Something About Architecture?

4 Responses to “Can Lady Gaga Teach Us Something About Architecture?”

Leave a Reply

Do Restored Old Buildings Outlast New?

2 Responses to “Do Restored Old Buildings Outlast New?”

Leave a Reply

Why Can’t We Design for All Time?

5 Responses to “Why Can’t We Design for All Time?”

Leave a Reply

Archives

Categories

More from Restore Media

Meta