Sustainability + Functionality with William McDonough
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 11.30.05
What a remarkable 15 minutes of oratory from William McDonough this morning at Construct Canada’s Round Table on Sustainability and Functionality. One cannot report on such a tour de force, but can only quote some of the zingers:
“Nicholas Pevsner said that a bicycle shed is a building; a cathedral is architecture. I am not interested in efficiency or sustainability for its own sake, it is not an end in itself.”
“LEED is a checklist for people who don’t want to think…you get points for using recycled carpet made from PVC. PVC leads to dioxin and should be banned, but you get points for it.”
“Just using natural materials is not the answer- if we all wear Birkenstocks and organic cotton the world will run out of cork and fresh water”
“Climate change and the carbon problem are the issue and everything else is noise. Soon we will be toast; as more carbon gets into the ocean it will start dissolving the coral reefs and we will destroy the bottom of the food chain, and then we are jelly in the toast”
(when we do offices) “we design a life support system for people who work, not a work support system for people who don’t have a life”
“to get through this we need thought and humility, two words that you don’t often find together in architects”
Fred Koetter of Boston’s Koetter Kim and Associates described projects in Seoul and Toronto, and Siamak Hariri of Toronto’s Hariri Pontarini phoned in a few slides but Bill stole the show.
The moderator, Toronto Globe and Mail architecture critic Lisa Rochon, asked for questions but the typical Toronto audience would rather make speeches than listen to answers, so she had to field them herself: “In the face of all this sprawl and disaster how do you find the energy to continue?
BM: “Designers are inherently optimistic. Ultimately we are just cosmic dust-all you can do is wake up every morning and try to make the world a better place”
My biggest question for the cradle to cradle crowd is if everything gets designed by that methodology, we don't rid ourselves of all the pollutants already out there, but rather only cap the amount of future pollutants emitted. So we still have problems. This is a hopeful example, because even if 90% of all new stuff is cradle to cradle oriented, 10% is still a big number with alot of pollutants.
I'm not sure I understand your comment... Can you describe a "methodology" to me that does rid ourselves of all of the pollutants already out there and/or what you mean by "methodology"?
I think cradle to cradle is the leading design paradigm, but thats all it is, a theoretical framework that should be considered when designing. I'm not sure proponents claim it to solve all of the world's problems because not all problems are design problems.
What do others think?
In so far as it is a environmental design framework (a methodology for design) that does not adequately address the wholistic nature of environmental problems. Cradle to cradle by design is bounded to present-future impacts. In my opinion, this is by its very nature the easiest bound to deal with -- as it does nothing to sequester and treat current environmental problems (i.e. carbon dioxide, acid rain, contamination) but only limits the creation of new pollutants and sources.
joe according to what u say: how could they then give c2c certification to the polar fleeces? They are made with PET plastics, so they start off as a toxic and they still get certification...
are you certain that the C2C criteria doesn't deal with these issues? even with PVC, i bet (and may be misled, but) if you had a way to recycle teh stuff without it becoming volatile it could get c2c as well... i mean didn't they certify that GM Corn plastic?
..but what really ricks is that a guy who's work may reduce emissions in the long run-- is way thinking about climate change as the major issue.. "everything else is noise?"
give the man another award!
I don't know the specifics of C2C certification, although I read about one company that got certified and McDonough is on thier BOD. That is a little fishy in my book -- a strange conflict of interest, but McDonough has been made into quite the marketing powerhouse because of C2C.
I'm not sure what you mean by saying PET starts out as a toxin? Does that mean that the PET waste is a toxin? Are you sure that PET waste in the Fleeces is not post industrial waste? Is it new waste or old waste? I'd need more info on that.
PET by its nature is not toxic like lead, arsnic, CO2, etc. One thing about most plastics is that it is here now and hear 100 years from now. So it is relatively stable and inert in alot of respects. I'm not sure too many ecosystems get devistated by PET -- unlike chemicals, heavy metals, etc.
I think we need a revolution of materials that aren't environmentally neutral -- that is at thier end life they are nutrients -- but rather we need materials that can sequester and collect pollutants (like hybrid membranes -- environmental pollution control mechanisms) and maintenance plans that values the environment as much as the materials used. Maintenance of the environment through the maintenance of materials and products is essential -- and currently missing in every environmental design framework.
I think what is interesting about this alternative future is that it is going to need all those lessons learned in the industrial revolution that McDonough devalues in his book and we can do it through understanding the science of naturally occuring polymeric materials and material reprocessing techniques.