Well said Paul.
My thanks go to Ujjval and Paul. I’m tired of going on tirades about KoolAid drinkers.
Conservation of resources is a huge deal. Energy conservation is a huge deal. Healthy buildings is a huge deal. Getting rich on forcing BS down the throats of the masses to push a political agenda is heresy in my green bible.
Design well. Build well. Think about what you’re doing. Question everything.
Regarding the comments of Dr. Vyas (Unregistered Guest above), I dismissed them entirely at first, given his vitriolic tone. But, perhaps because of that tone, I couldn’t get him entirely out of my mind.
After a few searches, I came across an essay he co-wrote with Dr. Susan Ethridge Cannon titled “Shifting the Sustainability Paradigm: From Advocacy to Good Business,” published in Volume 3, Number 3 of “Real Estate Issues.” You will find it via this link: www.cre.org/publications/33_3.pdf
Although this is a significant digression from the title of this thread, I encourage you to read it.
If you are always comfortable, you might not be progressing.
Unfortunately, Ujjval’s ad hominem attack on architects makes his core points weaker, not stronger, and thus fails its polemic intent. There are many architects who have the same unease in delving into and being responsible for health issues (look how long the MSDS discussion has lasted)- even if they generally share an unease with the number of chemicals industrialized societies release into the environment. Like many on this forum, I too have a significant skepticism concerning some tenets of “green” design, while I share the more general goal of more sustainable and healthier design.
Specifically, however, I must say that most architects are not demanding, are not cowards, they do not demean women nor connive to use them as sexual conquest, their firms are not autocratic nor arbitrary, and they can certainly can talk about and understand aesthetics. Accusing the majority of architects of being “fundamentalists,” given the current meaning of this word politically, is really quite over the top. This post surprises me, quite frankly.
To give you some perspective on Ujjval, while he’s not still listed as being on the Board of GBI (the parent of Green Globes), in an article from 5 years ago Ujjval noted “I am also on the Board of Directors of the Green Building Initiative, the Green Globes licensee in the US, and serve on its Audit Committee”
In this article, he extols the virtues of Green Globes over LEED: http://www.thegbi.org/webinars/20080624/Green_Sustainable_HighPerformance_AlbertiFinal.pdf
If you’ve been following this issue out in the world, beyond this discussion thread, GBI is currently part of the consortium that is trying mightily to destroy LEED. Ujjval appears to me to be just another flack out there, sowing seeds of negativity regarding sustainable design and those who promote it.
Actually I find the Green Building Initiative interesting and I love the idea of competition in the ‘green’ industry. USGBC, to me, is seeking monopoly status which, to me, is never a good idea. USGBC has proven that even with its so-called consensus system it ignores a large amount of input from people who are also genuinely dedicated to sustainability. If a requirement is never included in LEED, the consensus process can’t introduce it even when hundreds of people continually request it. A real test of sustainability, such as longevity of products or buildings, is a good example. USGBC claims that they are going to address this but so far nothing of value has even been hinted at. The LEED program has achieved some very good accomplishments but they shouldn’t be the only option. Green Globes needs improvement just as LEED does. I’ve interacted with Green Building Initiative. If anyone is looking to destroy others, it’s USGBC, not GBI. LEED is doing a great job at discrediting itself.
As to Ujjval going off against the architectural community, he’s not alone. Many owners and builders simply don’t go back to the designers they’ve used, hoping to find someone who meets their needs. They don’t pay and they don’t say why they’ve walked away. While some are just thieves, I don’t believe that’s true of all. Too many designers have no clue as to what they’re doing and maybe should look at something other than architecture as a profession.
We have all had interaction with designers who have exasperated us.
John, I consider you a friend and I know you are a very fair-mined person. Still, for a man to say that architecture as a profession has not been anti-woman is, at least, short-sighted. Equal pay for equal work is NOT the norm in architecture. It wasn’t so long ago that I was at firms that expected some of the women architects to fill in for the receptionist in a pinch. How often are women architects still asked to get coffee for clients? What about advancement opportunities? Some firms are great, others still have a long way to go. I’d love to hear from CSI Sisters on this one.
I have mixed feelings about Dr. Vyas’ remarks.
I know there is a legion of hard-working, knowledgeable, reasonable, fair-minded men and women out there who have “AIA” or “NCARB” after their name. At the same time, I know that many of those same fundamentally decent people labor in the vinyard of some other less-than-decent person’s madness, trying to make the “genius” designer’s ideas structurally-sound, weather tight, and functional.
Some of it has to do with the way architecture is taught: in my day, if you weren’t arrogant when you arrived at school, you would be by the time you left - in self-defense, if for no other reason. Your ideas are constantly under attack and you have to learn to defend them, or get out. And when one doesn’t have the knowledge or experience to stand on one’s merits, then bluster, pretense, logical fallacy and bullsh*t will have to do.
Some of it also must have to do with the increasing lack of technical knowledge I’ve seen in successive generations of interns. People who aren’t equipped to evaluate things for themselves turn to authority for guidance. The ‘greens’ occupy an position of increasing influence in that regard.
Some of it must have to do with the ‘hollowing out’ of the experienced, mid-level people the profession has experienced over the last couple of recessions. To use a military analogy, the architecture profession is suffering a crippling lack of staff officers and senior NCOs.
I will stay out of the more deep seeded parts of this discussion but in terms of women in architecture it is still an “old boys club” (IMO). The demographics in architecture schools is approaching 50/50% while the percentage of licensed females is under 20% (if I am not mistaken).
The reasons for this disparity are varied and I am sure that the women themselves are no doubt partially responsible. Still the road to licensure is much more difficult for a female and the profession would be well served to attempt to correct this.
Jeanne Gang is good for the profession but we really need to get more women licensed not because they are part of the elite (that is a debately title I admit) but rather because they are good architects with a solid understanding of the profession.
I also have found that the lack technical knowledge is a big problem. But I have also seen no difference in this regard between the sexes. If anything the females work extra hard to acquire the knowledge that will earn them the respect that a male counterpart might be granted more easily. I don’t have a solution but I do think the lack of licensed females is the 800 pound gorilla in the room and AIA needs to attempt to address it.
A CSister weighing in:
Following up on the comments directly above, I also see no difference between men and women in the area of technical knowledge, in general. (However, it may be that more women than men are likely to ADMIT TO a lack of knowledge about a particular topic, and therefore more likely to go research it and learn about it.)
Lack of women in architecture is not just a tangent to this conversation that started about technical knowledge about green building. I think they’re directly related issues. I think the lack of women is just a SYMPTOM OF a main problem with the profession. I think that men get into their careers pretty deeply without ever having to stop and think. Women have more obstacles to the forward progression of their careers than men do. Some come from the workplace (challenges getting all the CA hours they need in order to fulfill IDP requirements in order to take their exams, or the realization that they are not being paid equally). Some come from personal choices, such as deciding to have children. Women stop and think about their careers in architecture more than men do. And sometimes what they realize is that a career in architecture is not all that great - it’s the same for men, but fewer men stop and think about it.
This main problem - architects are responsible for a whole lot, yet don’t always have the technical knowledge to properly do it all, and have an increasingly harder time getting the necessary technical knowledge, BUT are professionally responsible for it. If we stop and think about it, some realize that we are not properly equipped or supported. Some don’t stop to think, and go ahead and stamp and sign those drawings that they may or may not have completely understood.
“It could be assumed that there should now be more be women in the profession, as there is equal access to training and job opportunities. Yet Greer asks us to consider the supposition that ‘it might be construed that women are to help carry the can full of the mess that men have made, it need not be surprising that women have not leapt at the chance.’” ~ from this recent blog post “Women and Architecture”: http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2013/05/sarah_beth_3
Related reading on women in architecture: http://www.archiparlour.org/against-work-life-balance/
“Do we only mean that we want more personal and family time as we pursue our careers? Or do we really mean that we arent getting paid enough to justify the time we put into work?”
“Do we only mean that we want more personal and family time as we pursue our careers? Or do we really mean that we arent getting paid enough to justify the time we put into work?”
Excellent point. Is architecture able to sustain itself? Creating a sustainable built environment is critical, but perhaps in addition to Scott’s military advice we should also take a page from medical practice. “Architecture, heal thyself.”
Ken, my comment was not meant to imply women are treated equally in the profession. Clearly they are not. Even the most progressive firms I worked for were heavily dominated by men in leadership and important roles. However, none “relegated [women] to pretty trinkets (who are also hopefully rich so they may help in getting clients).” That’s what I took issue with.
Ginger Rodgers did everything that Fred Astaire did, only backwards and in heels. Some things are more difficult for women simply because of societal expectations.
Liz said it well. (Another CSIster)
I’ll pitch in here now… on multiple topics.
I will say that I NEVER hear men in architecture discuss “work-life balance”. I’ve read on a forum from the UK that Zaha Hadid is not a good role model because she doesn’t have children – and therefore doesn’t embody a balanced life.
Well, folks, I don’t know anyone at the top of a firm who exhibits work-life balance. The men I’ve worked with put in regular 60-80 weeks and travel 2 weeks out of the month. If they weren’t married, they couldn’t even get their dry cleaning without help. (and I know one single male architect who has a full time personal assistant – I don’t know any women like that; I also know a male medical planner who got the firm to pay his dry cleaning bills because he traveled so much). Getting to the top of your profession almost means that you’re not going to have much balance in your life until you can pay for help, marry help, or reach the point where you can slow down.
I don’t think that as architectural professionals, we have any business at all talking about health – and I’ve certainly gotten more “carbon footprint” lectures from people with second homes (multiple cars, large houses in the country) than from people who live modestly.
I hear this discussion of “work-life balance”. What does the word life mean?
Mark - Don’t know; barely have one. My 10-year old started calling me “Uncle Daddy” awhile ago.
Well said Anne. When I used to guest-lecture at archi-torture schools I used to point out that architects have among the highest divorce rates. I’d usually point out that to succeed financially in architecture you either need to be wealthy, marry well, have a wealthy relative who is very ill and loves you very much, be a “Peter Keating” or a “Howard Roark”, or be willing to work two jobs in addition to your regular 60-hour a week job in architecture.
Ken:
When in high school, my son called me “ATM.”
Consider the male role models in our popular culture who are “unencumbered” by spouses, children, elderly parents and community involvements. Think of McGarrett of Hawai Five-O, John Wayne’s movie characters and a myriad of protaginists in television series.
What is more boring than a non-dysfunctional family? Yet highly successful tv series have had squeeky-clean families led by fathers who “have a life.” Remember Ozzie & Harriet, the Brady Bunch and the Cosby Show (Doctor Huxtuble)? Oh, where have you gone fictional role models whom we strive to measure ourselves against?
I checked Wikipedia. The male “head of household” character in the Brady Bunch series, “Mike Brady,” was not only an architect, but was elected to the City Council. And he was voted “Man of the Year” in the community. See, you can have a wonderful life and still be an architect.
By the way, Mr. Ed’s owner, Wilbur, was an architect (Mr. Ed was a talking horse). No one ever figured out what job Ozzie Nelson did since he was home all the time yet not identified as retired.
FYI, LEED v4 passed. USGBC approved it. Time to contact those chemists.
I found this discussion thread at Building Science very interesting, and refreshing:
Red Lists - The Opposite of Green?
Sorry I did not see this forum thread and comment sooner but Ive been very busy helping teams specify good buildings AND sustainably too, it is not impossible to do both.
Not that I’m claiming to be an expert, but I’ve attempted to summarize the main questions I’m hearing in this thread and elsewhere on the transparency issue, and answers that have been prevalent in discussions with some of the PROPONENTS of the HPD movement that this thread was looking to hear from. These are not all my ideas, just a summary including the ideas of many on this topic.
Q: THIS SURE HAS TURNED INTO A CONTROVERSIAL TOPIC - MAYBE I BETTER STEER CLEAR FOR NOW, HADN’T I? OR PILE ON WITH THE AGRESSORS!
A: The dialogue is welcome and it is OK if it’s a hot topic. There are certainly many factors in understanding transparency and many rely on manufacturers providing appropriate information. Not only that, owner awareness of this issue is increasing. While some will stand on the sidelines or attack this movement, others will work to better understand and assist the owners’ and users’ desire to address chemical transparency.
Q: HOW DO YOU PLAN TO REMOVE NONCOMPLIANT PRODUCTS FROM SPECIFICATIONS?
A: First off, removal of noncompliant products from specifications is a goal, but not an absolute. HPD information is needed so designers and specifiers can make informed decisions. Once there is a pool of compliant products to choose from, it is our belief that the industry at large will be better prepared to design and specify to define that group of products to the exclusion of others. Some product categories will take longer than others.
Q: ARCHITECTURAL PROJECTS AS PERCENTAGE ARE NOT THE MAJORITY OF TOTAL CONSTRUCTION, SO WON’T THE MANUFACTURERS JUST SNEER AT US AND MAKE US LOOK BAD TO THE OWNER?
A: Transparency is a good thing. As such, the collection of HPD information is a goal to better inform everyone. Each manufacturer is free to decide how they intend to address such transparency.
Q: LEED ISN’T THE ONLY GAME IN TOWN…PEOPLE FROM ANOTHER RATING SYSTEM SOUND OPPOSED TO THIS.
A: Yes of course there can be multiple rating systems. In time, there may become more agreement about transparency being important. Regardless of any rating system, it is certainly possible to select and specify products with the intent of reducing chemical exposure.
Q: WON’T THE DISQUALIFIED MANUFACTURERS ALL COME AFTER US WITH PITCHFORKS AND FLAMING TORCHES?
A: As previously stated, transparency is a good thing. As such, the collection of HPD information is a goal to better inform everyone. Each manufacturer is free to decide how they intend to address such transparency.
Q: WON’T PRODUCT PERFORMANCE SUFFER? IT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAT BUILDINGS DO NOT LEAK THAN IT IS THAT THEY ARE FREE OF RED-LIST CHEMICALS.
A: Products being free of Red-list chemicals is just one over several factors for evaluating the suitability of materials for various reasons.
Q: WHO’S TO SAY WHAT A DANGEROUS CHEMICAL IS. MOST ARCHITECTS ARE NOT EXACTLY SCIENTISTS. THE REAL SCIENTISTS DON’T EVEN AGREE YET. CAN’T WE WAIT UNTIL THE GOVERNMENT REGULATES IT AND IF THEY DON’T WE SHOULD NOT BE TO BLAME, RIGHT?
A: As previously stated, transparency is a good thing. As such, the collection of HPD information is a goal to better inform everyone. Everyone is free to decide how they intend to address such transparency.
Q: IF WE ASK FOR THIS INFO, DON’T WE TAKE ON LIABILITY THAT WE’RE NOT QUALIFIED FOR? ARE THESE FIRM’S CORPORATE LEGAL COUNSELS AWARE THAT THEY ARE ASKING FOR THIS INFO?
A: Corporate legal counsels of top firms seeking HPD information have been involved with this topic from the beginning and you can hear from three of them by tuning into today’s BuildingGreen webcast at 1:30 PM EST. “Increased Transparency Increased Liability for Designers? – A Legal Roundtable for Architects Using HPDs and Other Transparency Tools”. http://www2.buildinggreen.com/increased-transparency-webcast.
The webcast is not free.
Definitely the response of a true believer
Chris,
Can you provide an example of how you have used an HPD to make an evaluation between one product and another that resulted in a greener building or greater occupant health?