Lloyd it sounds like a productive tour. I have enjoyed your speaking/ presentations in the past and will look for this one to watch when it come up. Your comments remind me very much of a conservation I had a year or two ago. In the course of a conversation it was stated that buildings should be designed with the efficiency of a bicycle.…
Lloyd it sounds like a productive tour. I have enjoyed your speaking/ presentations in the past and will look for this one to watch when it come up. Your comments remind me very much of a conservation I had a year or two ago. In the course of a conversation it was stated that buildings should be designed with the efficiency of a bicycle. I think we do need to be become more efficient, but the pro-demolition nature of 'laying waste and declaring peace' of Passive House or equivalent has been a sticking point for me since the first project I worked on in 2014. The law of diminishing returns for the last 10% was brutal. So much material for so little return. They then expanded on the pros of super efficient buildings we all know. I though about what they said, and took pause to listen. I then realized and made the comment for all of the this talk, the truth revealed to me was that you can peddle as hard as you can, be as efficient as you like about it, but it really does not matter if you don't know where you are going, or why you are doing it. Peddling over a cliff is not what I could call productive no matter how quickly you do it. It is the demarcation point where rational thought must extend past the immediate problems, and look at the process and methods we are using to get there in the broadest of terms. Look to the horizon so to speak. Using less does matter and is historically one of the highest form of efficiency dating back the to the Bauhaus and beyond. Historically stuff took a lot of work to make. Well done for being willing to talk about sensible although uncomfortable topics.
Lloyd it sounds like a productive tour. I have enjoyed your speaking/ presentations in the past and will look for this one to watch when it come up. Your comments remind me very much of a conservation I had a year or two ago. In the course of a conversation it was stated that buildings should be designed with the efficiency of a bicycle. I think we do need to be become more efficient, but the pro-demolition nature of 'laying waste and declaring peace' of Passive House or equivalent has been a sticking point for me since the first project I worked on in 2014. The law of diminishing returns for the last 10% was brutal. So much material for so little return. They then expanded on the pros of super efficient buildings we all know. I though about what they said, and took pause to listen. I then realized and made the comment for all of the this talk, the truth revealed to me was that you can peddle as hard as you can, be as efficient as you like about it, but it really does not matter if you don't know where you are going, or why you are doing it. Peddling over a cliff is not what I could call productive no matter how quickly you do it. It is the demarcation point where rational thought must extend past the immediate problems, and look at the process and methods we are using to get there in the broadest of terms. Look to the horizon so to speak. Using less does matter and is historically one of the highest form of efficiency dating back the to the Bauhaus and beyond. Historically stuff took a lot of work to make. Well done for being willing to talk about sensible although uncomfortable topics.