Quote of the Day: Prince Charles on Modern "Green" Architecture

He is right. How many "green" buildings have we seen here on the TH site that are just so very inefficient? Too many.

I agree with him on every point and I could see how architects could upset over this, but I think for too long many architects have been putting a "green" band-aid over their poorly designed buildings.

Hopefully this will force some architects to design really efficient and low impact buildings, and admit they cannot fool the common person into thinking what really is "green". Who knows, maybe the skyscraper is a thing of past..... let's hope!

Wow, he's on a row!

His statements are almost always very relevant and accurate but I think he would be more persuasive and credible if he renounced the not so green habits and infrastructure aimed at maintaining his royal status.

His money and influence could have an enormous impact spent in the initiatives he proposes.

He is right. How many "green" buildings have we seen here on the TH site that are just so very inefficient? Too many.

I agree with him on every point and I could see how architects could upset over this, but I think for too long many architects have been putting a "green" band-aid over their poorly designed buildings.

Hopefully this will force some architects to design really efficient and low impact buildings, and admit they cannot fool the common person into thinking what really is "green". Who knows, maybe the skyscraper is a thing of past..... let's hope!

*applause*

NIcely said! I think adding solarpanels or wind turbines on ALREADY efficient buildings is the way to go--not compensating for crudy efficiency by putting those things on top to "compensate."

"Why, I must ask, does being 'green' mean building with glass and steel and concrete and then adding wind turbines, solar panels, water heaters, glass atria - all the paraphernalia of a new "green building industry" - to offset buildings that are inefficient in the first place?"

Isn't it obvious Your Highness? If we simply revert to more efficient time-tested standards... how are we going to sell stuff to people?

There's no new unexplored markets to be had out of old fashioned technology.

New Urbanism struggles with "elitist" planning that borders on blatant racism and segregation. If you don't believe it, visit some of these places and ask yourself, "Where are all the rest of us?" Until I see more black and brown people in Seaside, FLA (google it please!) then they don't know jack.

It is the same old song.. architecture for the people is not necessarily architecture for everyone. Clearly the most affordable architecture for many of us IS ugly, inefficient Home Depot styled housing. The fact that we can actually fix this problem with tacked on wind turbines, tankless WH and solar PV should be applauded NOT ridiculed by HRH.

Gimme a break!

What people must get first understand is that a building is deemed inefficient when it sucks up power from a public access grid. It is not inefficient if it can generate it's own power and blow it all up. Then it is as a loss for the owner as keeping that building operational is going to be very expensive for him.

It is not a question about reverting back to more natural materials. Give me a break even hi highness wouldn't step into a mud hut or a limestone house. neither will ANY of the readers, including me. Only the hard core environmentalists will do that. I admire them. They believe in something and stick to it. I am not that into the green revolution yet. The question is how to modify our current technology, to replicate the effect of using older tech. or develop new techmology that can mimick older technology.

There are many institutions in place that do green building design. such institutions even take seasonal changes in the suns path tho make sure that an optimum level of light enters a building at any point of time, they align the buildings according to the sun path, they use reflective paints to bouce light around inside air wells in the building and reflect them onto windows that do not face the sun. I am in the field of green architecture. I'm in India. The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) we have designed a building that only uses 96 kWh. whereas a facility of that size would need 207 kWh if it were not green.

Yes add-ons are an ineffective solution to a problem that should have been fixed a long time ago. But let me ask you, those of you who have your own houses... You all talk about how important it is to go green, how to give up certain practices. tell me, other than the very much in fashion cycling, are you doing anything about it?? Have you taken measures to actually drop consumption in your own home? Have you installed occupancy sensors in your rooms to turn of the lights and fans when no one is in the room to use it? Are you using low consumption aircons? Are you trying to use as much natural ventilation possible? Are you using the sunlight incidence on your homes to the maximum benefit? Are you using incandescent bulbs or CFLs?

If you are then good for you. If not then you are a hypocrite and the ultimate loser.

for the record and to answer the big question on the mouths of those who love a good fight... I directed the above questions to house owners. I who have just finished college, am living in an appartment, but nevertheless, I have installed CFLs and am using an aircon that is highly efficient, and I also have a timer that automatically turns off the power to each room after I go to work. I just turn off the timer when I need to stay home.

I do agree with HRH about inefficient buildings been greenwashed and with pablo about good design being unreachable for the common people. Maybe it's time to do a national (or international) concours about housing solutions that can be efficient, affordable, and comfortable; and encouraging neighborhoods to adopt them instead of saying "There can be only traditional houses here"

As an architect, a green architect, and an envrionmentalist I can only say

RIGHT ON!

However, It is not just architects, though my profession is certainly at fault, too. But I would hazard to say EVERY profession and every industrialized nation's society has become so technology obsessed that we refuse to see that there are SIMPLE solutions that have worked for thousands of years and can do the trick without more production, more technology, more gadgets and gizmos...

The question ultimately is, can we find it in ourselves to divorce ourselves from the adrenline rush of having the "more" or "latest" or "slickest" or "new" in favor of making do with what works with less, causes less damage, and is more in harmony with nature?

I'd like to be positive, but there needs to be more outcries like this one around the world before it starts filtering down to the common person.