Though the era of McMansions and its resulting explosion of constructed square footage may have been abated in the aftermath of the recession, suburban American homes still suffer from bloated, inefficient floor plans. Even without architectural training, most of us can look at the high volume/low quality constructs of overnight, palatial residences as the hallmark of excess in our culture, but even many of our average homes suffer from a prolonged reversion to an antiquated formula of planning that no longer reflects how we live. High on the list of such traits are formal living rooms and dining rooms: amenities that people seldom use but routine tells us that we need. We need to begin the process of working these components out of the American archetype to save energy, materials and money. In the process we could open up home ownership to more people while taking an important stride to a more sustainable lifestyle. Continue Reading…
Archives For Cultural
At the beginning of the recession there were many forecasters that foretold a dark future for sustainability after years of increased spending on numerous fronts. The result was quite the opposite, largely due to the amount of stimulus spending that guided money back into sustainable endeavors like renewable energy, home efficiency upgrades and high speed rail. However, now that the spigot has been closed on the unsustainable flow of stimulus dollars and sights are being set on spending cuts, the day of reckoning, though delayed, may finally be approaching for a number of industries. While some sustainable goals may still find success in a marketplace with shallower pockets (notably those that center around saving money) it is likely the most well known items that may suffer the most, challenging the level of frontage and recognition by the average American that greener goals have enjoyed. Continue Reading…
[tweetmeme source=”intercongreen”]Suburban America often gets the cold shoulder from designers and planners that harp on its inherently inefficient development. The archetype of cul-de-sacs lined with single family homes can often trump and surmount any legitimate goals of its residents to live more efficient lives. As we know, efficiency, and its contribution to a greater idea of sustainability, is a idea comprised of all lifestyle choices–not just CFLs and Energy Saver labels. In their current form, suburbs make inefficiency necessary for living and it is not difficult to spot. Continue Reading…
Printed text is no longer the absolute that it was ten to twenty years ago with a growing percentage of what we read everyday coming to us in a digital format. Though numbers remain to be confirmed, Amazon has hinted at selling millions of Kindles so far. While the Nook (Barnes and Noble’s weapon of choice for eReaders) and the iPad have entered the market late, they are swiftly gaining ground with a new series of features to differentiate themselves. My friend and fellow architect Brandon Specketer has said, “some things are worth the paper they are printed on,” but that leaves us with a whole range of products that could, and should, transition into the realm of digital media. Textbooks may be one of the best examples in this category, especially when one looks at the full range of “costs” associated with printing educational texts. Continue Reading…
There is a crucial pivot point when something changes from a passing fad to a cultural trend. Be it a product, a practice or a belief, its time in a small select group ends and matures into the minds of enough people to elevate it to “the mainstream.” For Americans, sustainability has yet to make this leap, remaining in the forefront of a small group of hardcore proponents that champion its cause. In order for it to gain hold on the national level, sustainability must achieve a key percentage jump of support known as “The Chasm.” Instead of trying to appeal to the entirety of the nation, sustainability advocates may be better off trying to gather the most likely candidates to achieve the force needed for broader endeavors. Continue Reading…
Use of the term is growing. As focusing on our effects on the environment becomes more publicly accepted/pertinent/politically correct, sustainability continues to be a label that is slapped on the side of another box and fit into another soundbyte with less and less of a care as to how it is defined and ultimately received by the public. While having more people become part of a larger discourse about sustainability is a good thing, if we do not take the time to step back and realize what values and concepts we are trying to instill in the word then we run the risk of confusing and ultimately deterring potential allies and supporters. I thought I would take a stab at a definition for what sustainability has come to mean to me as an architect and a writer thus far.
I have always been puzzled by the allure of reality television. In trying to decipher a method to the madness of Survivor, the Bachelor or Joe Millionaire, I can imagine that viewers are partially intrigued by challenges that are presented and overcome. When seemingly “normal” folk accomplish this variety of tests, the viewers can better relate being there themselves. It’s why we watch game shows like Wheel of Fortune, Who Wants to Be A Millionaire or Double Dare. So if the challenge is what we like to see, why exactly can we not focus on the real challenges we have for ourselves, like the myriad of sustainable opportunities laid before us, and participate in something on the right side of the screen? Is it possible to blur the lines of tangible action and entertainment to promote involvement and produce better results for a movement like sustainability?
As Americans, one of our biggest challenges in steps towards sustainability is surmounting routine and questioning social norms. Acts of repetition, some that have lasted for generations, provide a knee-jerk adversity to progressive change in daily activities even if the resulting changes would be minor. I spent my holiday season in London for ten days and my foreign surroundings seemed to be a testament to how little most would notice a number of positive changes.
When it comes to setting a benchmark for sustainability in daily routine, what I saw in England was what I would hope the American landscape will come to emulate (even if one could argue we should already be there.) Admittedly, my time in Europe is embarrassingly limited and that could explain the intensity with which I noticed some of the encouraging differences from the American culture that I am used to.
In London, efficiency seemed to be a given. Staying in two different flats (read: apartments) while I was abroad and visiting numerous establishments, nearly everywhere I went utilized technology proven to reduce consumption. Incandescent bulbs were rare, traded for either fluorescent varieties or dimmable halogens. In both residences, every toilet had dual-flush capabilities. Every sink was low-flow. Water-heaters were smaller with less capacity and had timers to shut off at night while nearly all appliances were more compact. I was not taking any meter readings, but I have to imagine these flats (not markedly smaller than New York equivalents in terms of square footage) used much less energy and water than their American counterparts.
Using over 1,300 gallons per day per capita, many Americans have been lulled into the misconception that we do not have to worry about our water supply. We are paying a great deal of attention to our resources for energy: coal, oil, natural gas. Debates in the Climate Bill and the upcoming Environmental Summit in Copenhagen have sharpened our focus on the sun and wind as natural resources. Of all of the resources that America focuses on, water is near the bottom and as a result we are unsurprisingly the least careful with its use and upkeep. The truth is known in other parts of the world much more poignantly than here: a clean supply of fresh water is essential and serves as the lynch pin for the interaction and function of countless other systems in the country.
America uses an average of 410 billion gallons of water everyday. I have not done the study, but I doubt many other nations (if any) can make such a boast. Whether we realize it or not, the water bill at the end of the month is only a fraction of how much we really spend on our water infrastructure. On average, U.S. cities spend $70 billion annually on water and wastewater needs according to the U.S. Census—second only to dollars allocated towards education. Part of the reason is due to our water system being a very energy-intensive process both conveying and distributing fresh water as well as removing and filtering wastewater. Together it takes our country 8 quadrillion BTUs of energy every year.
The Problems
Like our energy grid, much of our water system has gone too long without upgrades and repairs. In many parts of the country water and sewer pipes are well beyond their rated lifespans, raising the likelihood of breakages and leaks that interrupt service, waste precious water and allow for the infiltration of disease. Midrange, post-industrial cities of the country are the most prone to budgets that cannot accommodate necessary changes to their infrastructure. According to the Baltimore City Paper, there are parts of town in the coastal city that have sewers over 100 years old. Similarly, my time in Syracuse, New York revealed that as of 2005 most of the city’s water pipes are 60 to 70 years old that leave the water with a lead content 33% over the EPA limit. Their sewers are no better, with only 14% of the pipes less than 50 years old—the rated lifespan of the system.
Despite the improvement in water quality that the Clean Water Act has brought, pollution still remains a harrowing issue for much of the country. The New York Times released a disturbing report claiming that the Clean Water Act has been violated over 506,000 times since 2004 by over 23,000 companies and facilities. According to the report everything from gas stations and dry cleaners to chemical plants and power stations have dumped hazardous waste into the ground or directly into bodies of water. The report claims that one in 10 Americans has drinking water with dangerous chemicals or does not meet federal health benchmarks. I encourage the reading of the entire article as well as their great interactive map. I found the figures to be staggering, but what made it worse was that “the Time research found that less than 3 percent of violations resulted in fines or other significant punishments by state officials.”
For years now, a lack of strong federal oversight has allowed these transgressions to become business as usual. Never known as the shining star of George W. Bush’s presidency (if it had one at all) his E.P.A. was notoriously lax in its oversight of its duties for the two terms of the administration. Without federal power to invoke consequences from the highest level, local regulators often fall prey to pressure from politicians or large corporations.
“The E.P.A. and our states of have completely dropped the ball. Without oversight and enforcement, companies will use our lakes and rivers as dumping grounds—and that’s exactly what is apparently going on.” – Rep James L. Oberstar, D-Maryland
The Obama administration’s new E.P.A. head, Lisa Jackson, has noted that national drinking water quality is below acceptable levels and has vowed to renew the E.P.A.’s stance of enforcement.
Where Does the Water Go?
Finding a solution to some of our problems can likely begin with understanding how we use 410 billion gallons a day. A recent report released by the United States Geological Survey focuses on how Americans use their water. I found this publication equally as surprising. To begin, between 1980 and 2005, our water use has decreased by 5 percent! Upon reading this I was immediately skeptical and had to find out how it was possible, but before long the reason became clear.
As an architect I am often the champion of water efficiency in buildings. After all, nearly 40% of our nation’s energy is used by buildings so believing that they consume large quantities of water seemed to be intuitive. As it turns out, all domestic water use (residential applications in homes) accounts for only 1% of all of the water that we use. If you add all public water use and thereby include nearly all buildings in existence, you only get another 11%. Perhaps the culprits are all that heavy manufacturing or the mining we do across the country? Even with aquaculture, livestock, industrial and mining operations the cumulative total is only 20%. So where does the other 328 billion gal/day get used?
The second highest source is irrigation which is mostly comprised of farming. 31% of our water is used to irrigate 61.1 million acres in 2005. The number one source of water use is cooling for thermoelectric power plants. 49% of our water goes to creating power from such sources as coal, oil, nuclear and natural gas. All of a sudden, the nature of where to target efficiency for meaningful change has a very different appearance and that is why our water usage has dropped over the past 25 years. Due to more sprinkler-system irrigation and more efficient cooling systems in power plants, water consumption has ebbed despite a rise in population.
Response
Though a complicated problem, moreso than can be addressed in one article, the information does not leave us without places to go or reasons to get there.
- Our infrastructure needs to be raised to acceptable levels that allow for efficient systems that can bring water safely to end users. This could include a more distributed system of supply along with onsite water collection and filtration of waste water.
- Our governing bodies need to accept the responsibility of their offices to enforce laws that keep our water safe.
- Efforts targeting efficiency should focus on our largest sources of water use: farming and power generation. This could lead to more research devoted to vertical farming and hydroponics. It also provides a seldom mentioned strength to renewable energy sources like wind and solar given that, once installed, their use of water is negligible.
Failure to progress on these initiatives could lead to an increase in national water-related sicknesses, more natural waterways polluted beyond safety for human use or ecological function and a further increase in drought and drinking water shortages for communities.
Photo Credit: Flickr Wester
A colleague pointed me to a lecture on TED given by conservationist Willie Smits who organized an effort to regrow a site of clear cut rain forest and restore a population of orangutans that had been threatened by deforestation. I was left thoroughly impressed with not only the level of task that he had taken on, but his striking process in approaching, analyzing and then attacking a complex problem. There are many activists and organizations trying to stem the damaged caused by deforestation around the world, but far fewer are finding ways to repair the damage that has already been done. Dubbed Samboja Lestari, this testing ground has found staggering results in turning a swath of fire-ridden, Indonesian grasslands into a new budding forest landscape in under five years. His efforts have renewed levels of biodiversity, increased local rainfall and cloud cover, and provided a new industry base that has given jobs to hundreds of people.
“The real key to doing it, to give a simple answer, is integration.”
He says “integration,” I say “interconnection,” but the minor difference in semantics points to the same result of recognizing the vast number of reactions that comes from any one event and how integral, but sometimes difficult, it is to strike the important level of environmental balance. Smits’ words and anecdotes highlight many valuable perspectives concerning sustainability and the tackling of large, seemingly insurmountable issues, but Smits’ is not just throwing around theory for the proof of his success in Borneo bears a complexity and resilience that few have been able to achieve. Within, there are a number of lessons that can be extracted and used for addressing our own series of dilemmas on any scale.
“It is the diversity that makes it work.”
Willie walks through the complicated task of creating a base of permaculture by integrating hundreds of species of plants so that each will offer a reflexive benefit to the others planted around it. Some plants are fast-growing to offer shade. Some are fruit-bearing to yield food for animals. Some are small but integral for rejuvenating nutrients in the soil. This kind of integration cannot be achieved without thoroughly analyzing the problem and all the components of each option for a solution.
The current state of our economy and the desire for progress has made the risk of throwing money at problems with the goal of reaching solutions as fast as possible. Healthcare, transportation, education, the environment; all complex issues for which hasty action could lead to short-lived relief. Throwing wind turbines everywhere to combat global warming without developing viable means of power storage is what leads to rolling blackouts in Germany. The real energy answer is a combination of renewables (with storage), coal conversion to biomass, nuclear, natural gas, a smarter grid system and increased efficiency to lower our national consumption.
There are few simple problems and even fewer simple solutions. At all scales we should be taking the time to study the solution as much as the problem to increase the likelihood of meaningful, lasting results.
“At every step of the way the local people were going to be fully involved”
Willie Smits decided early on that any chance on true revitalization of this landscape could not simply be his grand vision imposed on an indigenous society. Even if his test was successful, he alone could not maintain the project indefinitely. The rebuilding of a rainforest had to be inextricably tied to the local people who would share both the costs and rewards of the effort. Those that helped plant and manage the forest found jobs, land for homes and eventually crops as the beginning of a new life seamlessly tied to re-growth. The success of the forest became the success of all participants.
A devastated rainforest is only separated by a few degrees from many of our post-industrial cities around America. These small cities that exploded in the first quarter of the twentieth century had their momentum crash with the evaporation of domestic industrial production. These urban ecosystems failed—leaving streets of vacant homes, deflated populations and depleted tax revenues that left them struggling for survival. New efforts to rehabilitate our ailing cities must include and utilize local citizens, yielding them a stake in both the risk and reward of a new cityscape.
“If I can do this on the worst possible place that I can think of, where there is really nothing left, no one will have an excuse to say, ‘yeah but….’”
It is important to note success stories like this one to recalibrate our own idea of challenges that need to be overcome. If Smits can find progress in a society with 50% unemployment where 22% of the average income is spent on fresh water then we are without room to give the “it cannot be done” rebuttal to any dilemma that we currently face in the U.S..