Oddly, I did almost the same thing for a recent talk, starting with googling ‘sustainable building’, and got a virtually identical set of images (no way to insert it here): all exteriors with massive amounts of greenery on them. Nothing showing other aspects of sustainable design. In other words, superficial.
And I’ve been working up a post on the language of environmentalism generally, looking at some of our fundamental terms, many of which are problematic. Regenerative design is a decent candidate to replace sustainable design for all the reasons you mentioned, and I currently use it to describe the next level of thinking after sustainable design and systems thinking (in the evolution of environmentalism from 3Rs to Cradle to Grave to Cradle to Cradle (life cycle) to Sustainability to Systems Thinking to Regenerative). But I think it still doesn’t hit the spot, partially because regeneration is an unfamiliar and unrelatable word for most people.
And it needs to be something positive and enticing as well as easily grasped. Something that addresses McDonough’s point and incorporates flourishing or thriving. I’m workshopping some ideas but am not there yet.
I enjoyed reading this as I have thought about trees on buildings often. Thank you Lloyd.
I have nothing against trees on top of, inside or on balconies of any building, but calling a building Regenerative for only that reason is a bit superficial and lazy. That said, I think we stand to see commodification of "Regenerative Design" very soon as well. We have seen it with Sustainability and Carbon or Energy Neutral Design before. I mean most of these phrases are now used as green washing old building methods with a bit of trees on the top or sometimes photovoltaic cells. We need to address the linguistic consumption for profit as well. As soon as a phrase is defined and embraced by great intentions, the commodification begins. Now, Shell, Exxon, and BP are in Carbon reduction business!
Reading this, I kept thinking, huh, I'd like to see how easy it would be to convince those in charge to change...and look, even a name change is difficult.
Thanks Lloyd. I'm curious - have you come across the work of Bill Reed and Regenesis in this space? There's a layer of personal regeneration that Bill and team teach that is missing from many of the professional distillation of regenerative design.
Thanks taking on the "Just use the Tree pattern in the Photoshop paint bucket to the exterior of the building & we can call it Green" silliness.
As for systems; I read today a $5-$7 Billion highway around the greater Toronto area, will actually increase gridlock. This from a government report from the same government that's pushing the highway.
It's not enough to have 15 minute regenerative cities, a more efficient way to move goods needs to be found. Perhaps moving beyond JIT processes to longer term warehousing may be part of a regenerative systems.
As a longtime systems thinker, I’m still not clear in my own mind why everyone doesn’t think this way. Is it a matter of nature versus nurture? Can we teach it or is it beyond the world view of some people?
Oddly, I did almost the same thing for a recent talk, starting with googling ‘sustainable building’, and got a virtually identical set of images (no way to insert it here): all exteriors with massive amounts of greenery on them. Nothing showing other aspects of sustainable design. In other words, superficial.
And I’ve been working up a post on the language of environmentalism generally, looking at some of our fundamental terms, many of which are problematic. Regenerative design is a decent candidate to replace sustainable design for all the reasons you mentioned, and I currently use it to describe the next level of thinking after sustainable design and systems thinking (in the evolution of environmentalism from 3Rs to Cradle to Grave to Cradle to Cradle (life cycle) to Sustainability to Systems Thinking to Regenerative). But I think it still doesn’t hit the spot, partially because regeneration is an unfamiliar and unrelatable word for most people.
And it needs to be something positive and enticing as well as easily grasped. Something that addresses McDonough’s point and incorporates flourishing or thriving. I’m workshopping some ideas but am not there yet.
I enjoyed reading this as I have thought about trees on buildings often. Thank you Lloyd.
I have nothing against trees on top of, inside or on balconies of any building, but calling a building Regenerative for only that reason is a bit superficial and lazy. That said, I think we stand to see commodification of "Regenerative Design" very soon as well. We have seen it with Sustainability and Carbon or Energy Neutral Design before. I mean most of these phrases are now used as green washing old building methods with a bit of trees on the top or sometimes photovoltaic cells. We need to address the linguistic consumption for profit as well. As soon as a phrase is defined and embraced by great intentions, the commodification begins. Now, Shell, Exxon, and BP are in Carbon reduction business!
My home is a sustainably regenerative environment.
Reading this, I kept thinking, huh, I'd like to see how easy it would be to convince those in charge to change...and look, even a name change is difficult.
"We are doomed" made me laugh. Dark humour.
Three years to change a course name?! Zoning, codes, bike infrastructure, and everything else worth doing takes longer.
Indeed, we are doomed. SMH.
Thanks Lloyd. I'm curious - have you come across the work of Bill Reed and Regenesis in this space? There's a layer of personal regeneration that Bill and team teach that is missing from many of the professional distillation of regenerative design.
Thanks taking on the "Just use the Tree pattern in the Photoshop paint bucket to the exterior of the building & we can call it Green" silliness.
As for systems; I read today a $5-$7 Billion highway around the greater Toronto area, will actually increase gridlock. This from a government report from the same government that's pushing the highway.
It's not enough to have 15 minute regenerative cities, a more efficient way to move goods needs to be found. Perhaps moving beyond JIT processes to longer term warehousing may be part of a regenerative systems.
As a longtime systems thinker, I’m still not clear in my own mind why everyone doesn’t think this way. Is it a matter of nature versus nurture? Can we teach it or is it beyond the world view of some people?
i will be in NZ in mid september for the Passive House conference, really excited about seeing it.