Interview with editors of Architecture of Change
PingMag interviewed Kristin Feireiss and Lukas Feireiss, editors of Architecture of Change: Sustainability and Humanity in the Built Environment. The houses and buildings featured in this book are stunning.
Designed with the utmost sustainability in mind, the New Monte Rosa-Hut by Studio Monte Rosa/ETH Zuerich is located in the middle of a nature reservation next to a glacier in the Swiss Alps. Energy-wise it's 90% self-contained and self-sufficient, featuring a metallic surface consisting of photovoltaic panels and a spiral-shaped glass band that follows the sun, conducting passive energy inside. From the Architecture of Change book by Gestalten publishers.PingMag interviews Kristin Feireiss and Lukas Feireiss
the latest
latest episodes
I can see getting fried like an ant under a magnifying glass walking from the front door of that building in the picture.
It also looks like a supervillain's mountain lair which, let's face it, is the clincher.
I'm not getting "sustainability" from building giant houses for rich people in the middle of formerly pristine wilderness areas. Sustainability, on a scale applicable to more than one rich guy, pretty much means the same thing as dense urban living -- New Yorkers use a tiny fraction of the energy (and everything else) of sprawling suburbanites.
I'm not getting "sustainability" from building giant houses for rich people in the middle of formerly pristine wilderness areas
Agreed.
The "self-sufficient" label also hides the outsourcing of the solar chip fabs, the metal smelting, etc.
Sustainability, on a scale applicable to more than one rich guy, pretty much means the same thing as dense urban living -- New Yorkers use a tiny fraction of the energy (and everything else) of sprawling suburbanites.
Disagree.
Urban energy usage is lower than suburban, if at all, because of the reduced standard of living (less floor space per person, less outdoor space per person, etc.). If you want to talk about a comparable standard of living, the suburbs are no worse than the cities.
If you want to talk about a comparable standard of living,
but Fnarf didn't want to talk about a comparable "standard of living", and neither does anyone serious about environmental change.
Urban energy usage is lower than suburban, if at all, because of the reduced standard of living (less floor space per person, less outdoor space per person, etc.). If you want to talk about a comparable standard of living, the suburbs are no worse than the cities.
Reduced standard of living is subjective. True, everyone gets a yard, but you have to drive everywhere. Many people live in cities because for them, the pros outweigh the cons. Bottom line is that the environmental impact an average urban resident is less than that of an average suburban resident.
New Yorkers use a tiny fraction of the energy (and everything else) of sprawling suburbanites.
Yes, they use less energy than suburbanites.
They use public transportation, which is more efficient, collectively, than everyone owning his own vehicle and driving into the city. This is also more environmentally friendly.
It looks like Superman's Fortress of Solitude!
Curse you, Chrisov! I was going to say that!
Anyway, I don't get why some people are so down on technological solutions to things. Maybe this one is indulgent, maybe not. How much technology trickled down from attempts to go to the moon? Isn't this an example of the brain power and creativity and cool stuff Boing Boing favours so much? Or is there an undercurrent of condemning the rich?
Would it be more acceptable if it were Steampunk solution ? Maybe he hustles to and from the place by dog team?
I'm not rich. Sometimes they waste money on frivolous things. I'm no Libertarian either, but I don't foresee any governments pursuing this kind of expenditure in search of solutions.
Honey! I know its forty below and winds blowing a hundred, but I need you to wash the roof!
Anyone who thinks living in a city means less square footage or a lower standard of living is confused about what that means. Is your standard of living really lower because you live in a 2,000 square foot apartment instead of a 2,000 square foot house? If you have to drive somewhere to get a quart of milk, instead of having a hundred shops within easy walking distance? If you have a huge yard you have to mow instead of a gorgeous public park across the street? Safe, convenient public transit instead of being stuck in a traffic jam on the freeway for two hours every day? To have ready access to all aspects of your culture, besides what's on your satellite dish?
Yes, it's possible to live like crap in New York City, just as it's possible to live like crap in East Bumwad, Virginia -- MORE possible, if you can't drive a car because, say, you're too young or too old. Suburbs are prisons for a lot of people, and are the most shockingly wasteful lifestyle on earth to boot.
1. Of course ETH Zurich is pursuing exciting experimental design. A very important start, but until these design shop makes significant & inexpensive improvements for the billions poorer and poorest, the Monte Rosa-Hut will be swept by the next landslide.
ref.: http://www.cenat.ch/ressources/planat_product_de_877.pdf
ref.: http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/specials/climate_change/energy/Experts_warn_of_more_landslides_as_Alps_melt.html?siteSect=22064&sid=6916657&cKey=1153723073000&ty=st
2. As user FNARF #11 alluded to - commentors should be very clear about their definitions of terms. "Sustainability," "Suburban," "Urban," "Standard of Living" and "Quality of Life" can all mean different things to different people.
The reality of planetary resources and human ambition is such that we can all be quite confident that we won't ALL be living in any singular way, and there will be gaps in access to those resources. The challenge for us all is to maximize the benefits for the most, keeping the worst extremes at bay, and ensuring inter-generational justice over those resources.
"I'm not getting "sustainability" from building giant houses for rich people in the middle of formerly pristine wilderness areas."
As I understand, it is not a giant house for rich people, it is a mountain hut for alpinists.
Unless alpinists are rich people.
Read the following here...
www.myclimate.org/index.php?lang=en&m=project&um=swiss&uum=monterosa
"In comparison to the old Monte-Rosa Hut, the CO2 emissions resulting from operations have been reduced by more than two thirds per overnight stay."
"Hut" is an interesting word to describe a hotel and restaurant with a capacity of 125 people.
"Energy-wise it's self-contained and self-sufficient"
That sure is an interesting interpretation of those concepts...
A hotel is necessarily dependent on a constant fresh supply of people (most often from great distances, and by fast/energy -intensive means), and its energy needs and impacts are therefore neither self-contained nor self-sufficient.
A restaurant is necessarily dependent on large quantities of food, which does not grow in the middle of glacial ecosystems, and therefore needs to be imported--which again means that its energy needs and impacts are neither self-contained nor self-sufficient.
And given the impact that the carbon emissions produced by carting all of those people and foodstuffs around will have on those very glaciers and the wildlife reserve, I would say that this structure WILL have a pretty substantial impact on its immediate environment.
This is not the kind of change I can believe in...
i wish i had 52 bucks to blow on that book....it looks interesting....and if architectural techinques such as the conducting passive energy via intelegently placed windows were used more, it would definately help reduce energy consumption and strive a more attainable sustainability. taking the house at face value is closed minded...its the ideas that matter...
There's nothing all that new about the technology being used here, so the application of that technology IS relevant.
If the technology already exists to make the everyday structures already around us more environmentally sustainable, yet it's being used primarily in isolated cases of new construction, then the effect of this technology is that our net impact on the earth (resource consumption, pollution...and and associated effects) is continuing to go up.
At some point we need to stop experimenting with fabulous new technology and start implementing it on a massive scale.
When it comes to technology that's supposed to promote sustainability, treating it as a novelty while simply dreaming about its broader application is counterproductive.
At some point we need to stop experimenting with fabulous new technology and start implementing it on a massive scale.
But vast amounts of usable science came from the expensive and frivolous space program. We need both. Rich people experimenting and everybody else utilizing the information that they paid for.
@18: I agree. What I meant was "experimenting with fabulous OLD technology," like in the case of this hut/hotel/restaurant. The fact that it's being heralded as a technological novelty is a problem given that the only thing novel about the technology is the fact that its use isn't commonplace.
I'm not getting "sustainability" from building giant houses for rich people in the middle of formerly pristine wilderness areas.
And what is with the assumption that this is some rich guy's private house? And why are you only picking on one possible example and ignoring the basic premise? RTFA.