Austin Williams is ridiculous. It's like out-of-shape people saying they don't want to work out too much for fear of "bulking up."

I've seen plenty of things, even on this website, that promote ingenuity. Besides, if we can tone down all the crap to a more sustainable way, then people will actually feel more creative. Being bombarded with the "next greatest thing" is the loss of imagination because none of those things actually provide diversity and quality.

While I understand Williams' argument about "unquestioned orthodoxy", it's ridiculous to say that a challenge kills creativity. Creativity is a response to challenge, not stifled because of it. Sure, you could say that the majority of architecture is unimaginative or otherwise creatively flawed. Pick any period of time with any philosophy and you will find the same situation: mostly the same, with a few bright stars, and the people(like williams) cannot see the forest for the trees. Thanks Austin, way to bring everybody down because you are ignorant.

Killing creativity?

In what way does forcing you to do more with less kill creativity? In fact, I'm pretty sure that's exactly what PROMOTES creativity. Have you seen the houses of the pre-mega monolith era? They were CRAZY different, using whatever they could to get the job done.

If anything, the mantra "more with more" is what hampers creativity. Look at what happened after WWII with all the subdivision craze (and to date). Cookie cutter houses, maybe 3 or 4 different styles but FOUR HUNDRED HOUSES were made out of only those designs.

I wouldn't even know where to begin with an idea this irrational.

Stupid.... people tend to be more creative in limited situations. It might force your hand in one way or another but you have plenty of industries that excell at being creative with limited abilities.

The other more obvious issue is that tons of current solutions need to be revisited to see if there is a better way to solve solutions! So there is a tremendous amount of work there.

Austim Williams comment reminds me of someone wanting to get attention by doing or saying something outlandish. It has certainly had its effect on this blog.

Sustainability focuses the creative urge. It challenges the artist to find novel ideas close to his instincts.
When presented with a finite set of circumstances, people naturally find new ways to overcome the limits.

Look at the depression era, scan an antique shop for signs of ordinary minds climbing the reduced resources and displaying extraordinary ways and means to create beauty along with function. evident in park benches, house design, additions and kitchens retrofits of the period.

Painters, writers could focus on their art without the distraction of hyperbolic competition or overabundance of stimulus. Ingenuity is the child of necessity.

Ask any engineer who's had an assignment to build a robot from a box of spare parts, any programmer that's had to write for a Commodore 64, any journalist that had to write an article in 500 words or less.

Constraints generate creativity. And if they don't, it's because you weren't creative to begin with.

Austin Williams would like us to think that he's making a noble defense of "progress" and "the essence of imagination", but he doesn't really present a convincing argument that these values are truly under assault. What he seems to be uncomfortable with is a new set of serious constraints that affect all of us. While an individual designer may choose to explore ideas that are not sustainable, does such an attitude really square with the goal of advancing humanity? If his "enemies" include advocates of viable, equitable and bearable limits for what is created to provide for human needs - can he really claim to be advancing anything of deep meaning? Sounds like bland ego-tripping to me. If you can't work with the demands of making real solutions to real problems for a real world - well, I have a few questions for you . . .

Doesn't your attitude of reckless disregard for real world issues advance the "destructive" as well as the "creative"?

If you can't be bothered to align your creative intentions with the consequences of realizing them, can you really claim to be solving anything in all of its true dimensions?

Aren't you concerned that you might be leaving substantial damage in the name of the human spirit? What if the damage is the more enduring legacy? Does this seem like a reasonable design attitude?

If imagination can simply side-step meaningful hurdles, who benefits? Aren't you leaving out the possibilty of a deeper beauty?

Why then, does sustainability represent the most flourishing sector of design? Anyone, who has read treehugger will be aware of the myriad solutions that people are creating (some better than others). Surely there can be no greater drive to creativity than the necessity of tackling some of humanities greatest problems?