Do we need LEED - A Reflecrive reaponse

During the round table discussion of our first "Season 4" session, we had a nice debate on why we need LEED. Then I see, and read, this months AIA Ohio letter from our president (the elegant outspoken) Michael Schuster on the very same topic.

Now as you all know, I have spent the past week in Philly at Greenbuild, the pinnical of the LEED / sustainable movement, where this conversation is raging on because of the recent release of v4. In reflection of those conversations in our roundtable, Schuster's letter, and what I have seen and eard here I have come the realization that we have to have both (LEED and doing the right thing of sustainability).

As I stated before, I am in more favor of "doing the right thing" over having to justify to a client to pay for LEED bit sitting through all of these sessions and talking to the presenters - I have realized that LEED is the path to do that. Before LEED we had a few upstarts (BREEM, energy star, etc.) But they fell short of the goal of trying create the data of improvent and using that data to foster a movement. LEED has created a "Huge" database of actual scientific data that says we are doing the right thing but it also shows where we can do more, we also need that data to push everyone (not just the AEC Community but also developers, manufacturers, owners) to evolve to do more.

In closing I think we are all correct in our arguments, but I would ask you to look at LEED differently and more as a tool to justify that you are doing the right thing and not just as money for a plaque scenario because it is so much more.

I invite all of you (from all arguments and opinions) to talk. "Join Us" as the USGBC President Rick Fedrizzi has said. Together, and through these types of conversations, we can only come to a better solution and leave this place better for the future generations.

Chris

let's be creative; after all we are architects

First of all, I want to be the first to publicly thank Douglas Richards and Marcene Kinney who had the vision to begin this wonderful program and who spent many countless hours of enduring dedication to the program. I know that I speak for all the other participants in saying that we so greatly appreciate the time and effort you have invested in our future careers.

At some point in the middle of the course of the past year (season III), I had planned to write a post with this movie clip attached. It seems like we, the VISION participants, were always jabbering and brainstorming about how we can survive the impending changes that our profession faces. Not to mention the difficulties of our recent economic downturn and the uncertainty of our economic future.

Many know that I had the longest drive back home after each session. This gave me plenty of uninterrupted time to reflect upon a day chock-full of experiences and knowledge. This image of two fighters kept coming to my mind. Do we approach the problems our profession faces with conventional knowledge or just brute, raw innovation and intelligence? I might guess the later.

We are architects after all and we should be leading the way towards new innovative ideas every day. Indeed the VISION participants with whom I spent many hours this past year are all these types of innovative, amazing architects. I so much appreciated getting to know them, to hear their stories, and to gain a more refined vision myself for my future because of them and the interactions we entertained each month.

In April, a few of us presented on the subject of "social responsibility" or "social integrity" perhaps. The subject was difficult to handle because somehow I was searching for a way to show or to prove that excellent architecture itself stands as a great testament to social responsibility. Santiago Calatrava, Frank Gehry, and Rem Koolhaus have all been awarded for both excellent design as well as their extensive efforts to improve humanity in one way or another.

It was interesting to me that during my research I came across Les Wexner mixed up in the same award presentation headlines as these famous architects. A fellow resident of Columbus, Wexner is well-known for his philanthropic efforts. From the very beginning of his retail ventures, he has been exceedingly generous. In fact, a new macro economic theory was written based on Wexner's business practices and his efforts to make meaningful contributions both to his own employees as well as to society at large.

Indeed Calatrava, Gehry, and Koolhaus each have designed buildings and infrastructure projects that have made an improvement on society. They should be highly commended for their architectural design at the very least. These architects, however, go beyond their own realm of high design to extend a hand to those in need. Also part of my research, I found several economists writing about one of the keys to an enduring business; that of being genuine about how your business and your personal life make contributions voluntarily to society.

In conclusion, I very much enjoyed presenting the High Line Park project in New York City as a great example of architecture that is both excellent by its very design as well as how it impacts society. Still a new addition to the City, the High Line is well-beloved already. To escape the blase of the City on the High Line Park is a great relief to many. Lastly, I want to mention that I took this photo in London several years ago and have always kept it by my desk wherever I work. I take this notion to heart; I would hope that I can always invest in the very substance that will keep me going throughout the rest of my career and my life.

Thankfully most architecture does not happen in a vacuum. For centuries, architects have engaged in research to enhance their own understanding of buildings and the materials used to create them. But this "research" can take many forms. Often this architectural research is limited to gaining very project-focused knowledge. This could range from checking out a new building technique to analyzing architectural precedents to the often dreaded "code research". While this type of research is extremely necessary in day to day practice, it misses the intent of larger, further reaching research that can be conducted and applied not just to one project, but to the manner in which entire firms practice architecture or universities prepare future architects. So, why don't architects regularly engage in more scientific or theoretical research? Is that the role of the university? Is the time and money required by this type of research too great? This is a tentative time for architects and the future of our industry and practices. How can we afford not to make this investment in advancing our field?

Social Responsibility

Topic: “The role of authentic corporate value systems in attracting talent, raising the value of the Architect in building viable communities and the link between long term profitability and leadership.”

Public perception is that corporations are logos not people:

Research, Practice, & Beyond

For the most recent presentation for the Vision class we were asked to consider the connection between research and architectural practice.  In researching for this presentation I came across the AIA Upjohn Research Initiative.  This program is currently calling for submissions for 2013, basically your research has to qualify under one of the (6) offered categories that include Social, Environmental, Cultural, Organizational, Educational, & Technological topics.  The AIA awards up to four grants between $15,000 - $30,000, and the grants much be hard-dollar matched.  More info on the program can be found here:  http://www.aia.org/practicing/research/

 

In my presentation I tried to take an 'aspirational' approach to invigorate some thinking into the potential future of Architectural design that examined some case study projects including MVRDV's VRPO building, Sou Fujimoto's NA House, and Reiser + Umemoto's Vector Wall.  The presentation also looked at some scientific advancements currently happening that when applied to architecture holds some amazing opportunities.  These topics included Smart Thermobimetal self ventilating skin, Piezoelectrics, and Adaptive Systems such as Thigmo Morphogenesis. 

 

Automotive technology always seems to be one step ahead of Architectural technology.  One project I did not present yet holds some promise of future technology for Architecture is the BMW 'GINA' concept.  GINA being an acronym for "Geometry and functions in 'N' Adaptations".  The concept involves a fabric skinned car that allows it to shapeshift and adapt to driving conditions.   Check out this very awesome short video that shows the concept in action: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTYiEkQYhWY

 

~Chris

Advancement

I stumbled upon this interesting article about advancement in Architecture. The article is written by Brinn Miracle, Associate AIA who has several blogs and other sites of self publication which are worth checking out.

What struck me about this article is the challenge to think about advancement not as a ladder to climb,  but as a net to expand. She suggests that successful advancement is not really about completing tasks in a logical or incremental way, but rather to find something more intrinsic in your own values and skills that can be leveraged within the social environment of work in which you live. You can become a trusted adviser only if you are willing to engage others, to ask for help, and to give help in return. This type of practice becomes deeper, more connected, and quite honestly less intimidating. All of your future work (and perhaps even social relationships) are not things to be conquered or achieved, they simply need to be nurtured and allowed room to grow.