Dear Scott,
At 13:58 4/12/96 -0400, you wrote:
>!!DEADLINE TODAY APRIL 12TH!!
>
>In case you all threw the first post out due to its subject title...
>
> _Precis #12_
>
>A student journal of GSAPP here is attempting a topical issue this time
>'round. The topic: Sustainable/Environmental Design.
>
>What I want to do here in this venue is collect all of your thoughts on
>how this title is defined, prioritized, marginalized, and generally
>considered or not.
>
Sustainable is a label even the most obvious unbelievers use when their
going gets rough, as it mercifully has for many. "Sustainable" is the first
and much misused of the ecopolitically correct labels but it actually only
covers one relative aspect, the need for a long term viewpoint, of the many
requirements for an architecture that should start to satisfy our great
grandchildren.
A different label, such as "ecodesign" or even "ecoarchitecture", may be
more taxonomically accurate except for the inherent vagueness of the
association with ecology, a wonderfully productive biological approach but
altogether a different viewpoint from that of an environmental designer.
I would suggest the definitely heretic "appropriate architecture", or in its
case, "appropiate environmental design", because of the accepted precedent
"appropiate technology" and as a revulsive that may smoke out the drones
from the hive.
______________________________________________
Life, Love & Light
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
Tano Cabanyes
Architect
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
GAIATEC
Environmental Design: "as if our world could be perfect".
e-mail address: gaiatec@xxxxxxxx
world wide web address:
http://www.gate.net/~gaiatec
postal address: Box 7575
Warm Mineral Springs, FL
34287 USA