Lloyd -

I'd say that the TreeHugger bias isn't so much that someting has to be architecturally interesting as well as green to be covered, but that TH and you specifically have a very particular, mid-century Modern take on what's "interesting".

In nearly every article on architecture, you extol either pre-fab (which should just be considered a potentially green technique, as opposed to an across-the-board good) or Modern, Mies Van Der Rohe-type design.

Count me as one of the uneducated masses that find most Modern (Mies-style) buildings to be boring, soul-draining blights on the landscape. If I see one more metal-and-glass box in the middle of a concrete plaza, I just might scream. Putting a lot of greenery in the plaza only helps marginally - the building itself and the design philosophy behind it is an affront to the senses.

Mies and the Bauhaus movement were geniuses in getting the elites to believe that the necessary evil of reconstructing Europe after WWII as cheaply as possible was the height of art. Modern - large boxes of cheap material (glass and steel) that can be put up quickly - throws away everything we came to understand as a culture about what types of places and spaces fill the human need for scale and beauty. Which is why people tend to feel so comfortable in older cities - the largely organic design feels "right", while big bustling modern cities seem soulless. There's a reason Prague is considered the prettiest city in Europe - it didn't get destroyed in WWII and it missed the whole Modern movement.

yes, but that doesn't make sense. the south lake union discovery center would have been submitted in 2005, 2006 and 2007, and wasn't good enough to win then? was this a weak field?

I do agree that there is a inclination to the more severe and generally austere examples of mid-century modernism in the pages of treehugger but wouldn't by any stretch say that it implies a bias. It could simply be a reflection of the personal tastes of those editors who's influence is most felt on its pages. In general I see the priorities of treehugger to be clear and obvious. A greener, more sustainable approach to living in a modern world. What this means is open to interpretation and debate, and surely mistakes have been and will continue to be made. We can all agree that bio-fuels are, as currently realized, a cataclysmic failure. And yet it's ambitions are sincere and worthy of honest pursuit. So long as Treehugger continues to reflect the evolving pursuit of a more sustainable lifestyle it will continue to be a valued resource. That said, I will say, less concrete will always be a welcome sight to my eyes.

While I find a lot of good ideas for houses here, I'd have to agree that the Modern-seeming bias does get old. I, too, would like to see more smart architecture that looks less like a photo spread and more like what an "average" family with 1+ kids and pets could CONCIEVABLY live in. The fact of the matter is that all the people I know (and possibly the majority of Americans) will not build in a Modern style because it is not as inviting to their senses as, like BrianE eluded to, Prague or a Medieval castle (dreary and cold as they REALLY were) seem to them.

One of the neatest (and longest-held-by-me links) that I saw here was the one on the Living Treehouse. And, for me and many people I know, ideas like this hold weight and substance and WARMTH- thick stone or adobe, lots of plants and growth, wood floors, windows for sunlight, AND privacy.

Perhaps it isn't meant as a bias, but more as personal taste, but those homes always seem more like you'll see Victoria Beckham (in all of her super-skinny "glory") stepping out rather than someone (like me and my family) with Irish and German bone structure. I would suggest, however, that as this site is dedicated to living in a more sustainable way, that perhaps there be more emphasis put on people who TRANSFORM current homes into something new rather than building something completely new instead, no matter how nice SOME of it looks.