Its a fair challenge to Heatherwick but it also seems to purposely misunderstand him as well as Bjarke. The key to understanding these architects is to understand the meaning of ‚yes is more‘ or ‚hedonistic sustainability‘. Hedonistic means selfish. Only for our benefit now. And sustainablity means the opposite. So how do we achieve both…
Its a fair challenge to Heatherwick but it also seems to purposely misunderstand him as well as Bjarke. The key to understanding these architects is to understand the meaning of ‚yes is more‘ or ‚hedonistic sustainability‘. Hedonistic means selfish. Only for our benefit now. And sustainablity means the opposite. So how do we achieve both? The built environment should be fun but it should function well. Sometimes the two architects go overboard on the fun but the idea of sustainability is always considered. What proponents of passive houses get wrong is that the climate crisis is already here. As much as I would like to believe it we cannot modify the global temperature. That would be a truly incredible feat. Why should we live in drab stinking houses then?
Whoever said houses with simple geometries were drab? Compare the average McMansion with origami roofs, a bajillion bumpouts, and pastel colored paint (because vinyl siding apparently still can't take real colors without deforming) with an 18th century box-with-gable house or 19th century row house--which one is more fun? By all means go wild with ornamentation, but keep it outside the thermal envelope and keep the basic geometry simple.
Its a fair challenge to Heatherwick but it also seems to purposely misunderstand him as well as Bjarke. The key to understanding these architects is to understand the meaning of ‚yes is more‘ or ‚hedonistic sustainability‘. Hedonistic means selfish. Only for our benefit now. And sustainablity means the opposite. So how do we achieve both? The built environment should be fun but it should function well. Sometimes the two architects go overboard on the fun but the idea of sustainability is always considered. What proponents of passive houses get wrong is that the climate crisis is already here. As much as I would like to believe it we cannot modify the global temperature. That would be a truly incredible feat. Why should we live in drab stinking houses then?
Whoever said houses with simple geometries were drab? Compare the average McMansion with origami roofs, a bajillion bumpouts, and pastel colored paint (because vinyl siding apparently still can't take real colors without deforming) with an 18th century box-with-gable house or 19th century row house--which one is more fun? By all means go wild with ornamentation, but keep it outside the thermal envelope and keep the basic geometry simple.