This is not a sustainable house given its size, complexity and likely low occupant numbers, a house for the few as opposed to the many. Good intentions, but in some ways greenwashing and a way to allow the use of natural areas for the wealthy. If one looks to Indigenous / historic housing such as a wig wam, round house, sod house, etc, these were truly in tune with their environment, using local materials in a carbon cycle. Smaller structures for more people. Not to say we have to go back to these types, but much of what is professed by Tate's Serpentine House was done for a millennia at less impact, benefiting more people and the environment.
After reading this the first time, my first thought was this is like modern art - a lot of self-justification of an ideology.
I say this is that I didn't see one line, not one line at all, about customer service. Lots about serving an ideology but not one line about serving a customer.
Isn't that THE main purpose of a company? To serve customers?
Same thing with Government - too often, nowadays, I watch and listen to bureaucrats serving their own self-interests instead of being public servants serving their customers.
You may not have seen anything regarding the purpose of serving a customer, but I saw the nugget about them claiming to "genuinely believe that by using the principles of regenerative design this project, when completed, will demonstrate how we can live in harmony with nature, creating a positive relationship between people and planet.”
Except that it doesn't scale. It doesn't even scale on the local level, much less regional or global. This is an architect's testimony to his or her own vanity and nothing more.
"...creating a positive relationship between people and planet.”
And that's the entire nub of it - they have made the planet their customer and focus instead of actual customers who pay for their services. They are forgetting that capitalism is simply a single person making an offer to sell their product/service to another at a price that the customer believes is a better value for them than the money in their pocket that is of more value to the architect than their proffered service.
Lloyd, with a H/T to his honesty, made it clear that he'd stop the transaction if a client made demands that ran counter to his planetary beliefs. When he did answer my question on that topic, it was then made clear who he thought his primary customer was.
So many companies have failed in the past because they became besotted with themselves and "stuff" that was non-primary to their customers that their customers left them. Then instead of being bestotted, they became be-bankrupt (in more than one way).
If you're looking to hire an architect, you're essentially looking for someone who will represent your vision, your values. And that's fine—that's actually got a lot to do with capitalism, to be quite honest.
So for example ... if Lloyd refused to do a job for a potential client because it runs counter to HIS beliefs, then that client is free to go with someone else whose values better align with their vision.
Or at least, that's the PRESUMPTION of how capitalism works. We saw in recent years a couple of very high profile lawsuits brought against bakers who refused to make wedding cakes for gay couples and were sued for discrimination. The reason why they won is because compelled "speech" that violates one's personal values is antithetical to American justice and freedom. These gay couples had PLENTY of other bakeries to choose from, but they arrogantly believed THEIR demands overruled the values of the opposing party, i.e. the baker(s). The outcome was that these bakers had a ton of support, both in new orders and financial donations from GoFundMe campaigns, that reinforces THEIR values and beliefs.
... as it ought to be.
The thing is, you can live or die by too narrowly defining which hills you're willing to die on. In the bakers' cases, it was a small hill—a specialty wedding cake order—when they offer lots of other baked goods (other hills.) In an architect's case, if he or she will ONLY do work that doesn't jibe with "planetary beliefs" then it's likely they won't be able to put much bread on the table because not that many people give that many fucks to sustain them and their values.
I can attest that the word "sustainability" when applied to design is also being used to equate to "efficiency " and not necessarily regenerative design or carbon reduction. True, there may be carbon reduction as a consequence of more efficient design, but it's not necessarily the goal of this design and is, in effect, a form of greenwashing, in my view.
I'm wondering about the transportation costs of the location. Having enough land to grow food requires lots of road miles and all the embedded carbon those entail, along with the carbon used for the individual transport. Is this home served by transit? Can they bike to a nearby town with shops for basic necessities?
This is not a sustainable house given its size, complexity and likely low occupant numbers, a house for the few as opposed to the many. Good intentions, but in some ways greenwashing and a way to allow the use of natural areas for the wealthy. If one looks to Indigenous / historic housing such as a wig wam, round house, sod house, etc, these were truly in tune with their environment, using local materials in a carbon cycle. Smaller structures for more people. Not to say we have to go back to these types, but much of what is professed by Tate's Serpentine House was done for a millennia at less impact, benefiting more people and the environment.
After reading this the first time, my first thought was this is like modern art - a lot of self-justification of an ideology.
I say this is that I didn't see one line, not one line at all, about customer service. Lots about serving an ideology but not one line about serving a customer.
Isn't that THE main purpose of a company? To serve customers?
Same thing with Government - too often, nowadays, I watch and listen to bureaucrats serving their own self-interests instead of being public servants serving their customers.
It's a PANDEMIC, I tell ya'!
You may not have seen anything regarding the purpose of serving a customer, but I saw the nugget about them claiming to "genuinely believe that by using the principles of regenerative design this project, when completed, will demonstrate how we can live in harmony with nature, creating a positive relationship between people and planet.”
Except that it doesn't scale. It doesn't even scale on the local level, much less regional or global. This is an architect's testimony to his or her own vanity and nothing more.
"...creating a positive relationship between people and planet.”
And that's the entire nub of it - they have made the planet their customer and focus instead of actual customers who pay for their services. They are forgetting that capitalism is simply a single person making an offer to sell their product/service to another at a price that the customer believes is a better value for them than the money in their pocket that is of more value to the architect than their proffered service.
Lloyd, with a H/T to his honesty, made it clear that he'd stop the transaction if a client made demands that ran counter to his planetary beliefs. When he did answer my question on that topic, it was then made clear who he thought his primary customer was.
So many companies have failed in the past because they became besotted with themselves and "stuff" that was non-primary to their customers that their customers left them. Then instead of being bestotted, they became be-bankrupt (in more than one way).
If you're looking to hire an architect, you're essentially looking for someone who will represent your vision, your values. And that's fine—that's actually got a lot to do with capitalism, to be quite honest.
So for example ... if Lloyd refused to do a job for a potential client because it runs counter to HIS beliefs, then that client is free to go with someone else whose values better align with their vision.
Or at least, that's the PRESUMPTION of how capitalism works. We saw in recent years a couple of very high profile lawsuits brought against bakers who refused to make wedding cakes for gay couples and were sued for discrimination. The reason why they won is because compelled "speech" that violates one's personal values is antithetical to American justice and freedom. These gay couples had PLENTY of other bakeries to choose from, but they arrogantly believed THEIR demands overruled the values of the opposing party, i.e. the baker(s). The outcome was that these bakers had a ton of support, both in new orders and financial donations from GoFundMe campaigns, that reinforces THEIR values and beliefs.
... as it ought to be.
The thing is, you can live or die by too narrowly defining which hills you're willing to die on. In the bakers' cases, it was a small hill—a specialty wedding cake order—when they offer lots of other baked goods (other hills.) In an architect's case, if he or she will ONLY do work that doesn't jibe with "planetary beliefs" then it's likely they won't be able to put much bread on the table because not that many people give that many fucks to sustain them and their values.
... as it ought to be.
I can attest that the word "sustainability" when applied to design is also being used to equate to "efficiency " and not necessarily regenerative design or carbon reduction. True, there may be carbon reduction as a consequence of more efficient design, but it's not necessarily the goal of this design and is, in effect, a form of greenwashing, in my view.
I'm wondering about the transportation costs of the location. Having enough land to grow food requires lots of road miles and all the embedded carbon those entail, along with the carbon used for the individual transport. Is this home served by transit? Can they bike to a nearby town with shops for basic necessities?