Committee on Design

This message has been cross posted to the following Discussion Forums: Residential Knowledge Community and Committee on Design .
-------------------------------------------

In my residential practice here in California, I've been living with Title 24 energy requirements that require efficiency for more than 10 years.  These were expanded over recent years to include lighting efficiency.  The Title 24 limits created a demand for more efficient lighting fixtures and bulbs, and the manufacturers have responded with more elegant and efficient fixtures and better quality light sources.  I see this latest round of energy requirements as an expansion of this trend.  I anticipate that we will struggle to find efficient materials and methods for a few years and then the market place will respond with new products.  This appears to be the natural course of change, or evolution, for our profession. I do not see it as taking away my creativity as a designer.  This is how we move toward a less-demanding impact on our environment.

David:  Your third paragraph sums up the issues quite nicely.  Today's zoning regulation sources are centered in the past and unfortunately are highly prescriptive.  The environmental issues that we all face are going to require highly innovative solutions that will not fit existing regulation. Further, the folks in charge of these matters don't understand the underlying problems sufficiently to recognize that we are going to do things quite differently if we are going to make our cities denser, less transportation intensive, and energy efficient. They may feel it or believe it, but don't understand the physical ramifications. 

We get requirements to reduce energy with regulations that restrict the amount of glazing we can have on our buildings impacting daylighting and passive energy strategies.   Add to that, a design review process where the various participants bring their personal views and prejudices to the process, attempting to design buildings for which they have neither programmitic understanding nor the appropriate skills, and you get what we have here in Seattle. 

I look around our fair city and try not to be too judgemental, because of the processes we are forced to endure, but collectively, I believe the design professions can do a whole lot better - not that here are not high quality buildings out there.  Our concurrent responsibility to designing responsible projects is to become very active to change the systems and processes that are holding us back to mid-20th century thinking.
-------------------------------------------
Richard Robison AIA
Principal
Mithun, Inc.
Seattle WA
-------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------
Jon Crowdus AIA
Owner
jcc architects LLC
Tucson AZ
-------------------------------------------

Walter, Richard and David,

I agree with most everything each of you have stated. The bureaucratism in the USA today is not only complicating but delaying the onset of new means and methods of utilizing the potential for future development of sustainability design in our built environment.

It is highly probable that individual buildings and entire cities will be able to be sufficiently energized with newly developed technology that will become a major game changer. One example is the development of Hybrid Wind Energy for the built environment.

I foresee a future without the power grid, a future of significant architectural design developed in synergy with components of renewable energy resources. A building which within itself is an integral resource for renewable energy.

If the bureaucrats don't get on board and allow the architectural and engineering design professionals some latitude for our natural inherent creativity we will see the Asian world expand into the design leaders we should be and all the while we will still be struggling with archaic solutions. 

Jon Crowdus AIA
Owner
Tucson/Tulsa 

 

Original Message:
Sent: 01-06-2011 14:20
From: Richard Robison
Subject: green point rating and energy engineering


David:  Your third paragraph sums up the issues quite nicely.  Today's zoning regulation sources are centered in the past and unfortunately are highly prescriptive.  The environmental issues that we all face are going to require highly innovative solutions that will not fit existing regulation. Further, the folks in charge of these matters don't understand the underlying problems sufficiently to recognize that we are going to do things quite differently if we are going to make our cities denser, less transportation intensive, and energy efficient. They may feel it or believe it, but don't understand the physical ramifications. 

We get requirements to reduce energy with regulations that restrict the amount of glazing we can have on our buildings impacting daylighting and passive energy strategies.   Add to that, a design review process where the various participants bring their personal views and prejudices to the process, attempting to design buildings for which they have neither programmitic understanding nor the appropriate skills, and you get what we have here in Seattle. 

I look around our fair city and try not to be too judgemental, because of the processes we are forced to endure, but collectively, I believe the design professions can do a whole lot better - not that here are not high quality buildings out there.  Our concurrent responsibility to designing responsible projects is to become very active to change the systems and processes that are holding us back to mid-20th century thinking.
-------------------------------------------
Richard Robison AIA
Principal
Mithun, Inc.
Seattle WA
-------------------------------------------