Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well the architecture, construction, development, and property management professions are wrong then, because that's the term we use.
Because it is mislabeling for marketing purposes.
Pretty much everything you describe is directed at consumption to build and providing space to house people and things that consume or demand. The practitioners in the fields you described are interested in sustaining the flow of cash into their pockets but that isn't really an objective of the people the "sustainability" pitch is being made to. Nowhere have you addressed production/supply of what you imply is being "sustained".
I don't know your angle, but let me simplify things.
These industries realize that building and managing buildings uses a huge amount of resources, which comprise a large percentage of the US power usage, petroleum usage, air pollution, and so on. There's a very large move among these industries to address that.
Much of that is driven by tenants, clients, and local codes. Some are driven by ethics. Some are driven by reduced power bills. Some are following a trend.
You'd be surprised by how much idealism there is in these industries. Architecture is probably foremost in that. People enter architecture with the same dreamy eyes that we heard about teachers and doctors. There's a lot of "improve the world" thinking. Even some developers are like that (maybe not in your area, but it's common in mine).
A while back, I posted a definition of sustainability.
I gave the short definition. Here's the long one:
"1. For renewable resources, the rate of harvest should not exceed the rate of regeneration (sustainable yield);
2. [For pollution] The rates of waste generation from projects should not exceed the assimilative capacity of the environment (sustainable waste disposal); and
3. For nonrenewable resources the depletion of the nonrenewable resources should require comparable development of renewable substitutes for that resource." Definition of Environmental Sustainability
I don't know your angle, but let me simplify things.
These industries realize that building and managing buildings uses a huge amount of resources, which comprise a large percentage of the US power usage, petroleum usage, air pollution, and so on. There's a very large move among these industries to address that.
Much of that is driven by tenants, clients, and local codes. Some are driven by ethics. Some are driven by reduced power bills. Some are following a trend.
You'd be surprised by how much idealism there is in these industries. Architecture is probably foremost in that. People enter architecture with the same dreamy eyes that we heard about teachers and doctors. There's a lot of "improve the world" thinking. Even some developers are like that (maybe not in your area, but it's common in mine).
Nothing you have said supports anything more than a marketing program.
Much of the "improve the world thinking" is no different than "new and improved" on the packaging that food products are placed in.
See Katarina's post above. All you are doing is promoting more consumption under the false pretext of "sustainability". It's just a pitch word. Professionals should start being called out when they use the word and can't show anything other than cash flow into their bank accounts being sustained.
"Sustainability" is thrown around as if proponents are morally superior to everyone else. It's more of a religion and certainly not a reality. It seems to mostly be used to push an agenda of higher density housing, less private space, and more restrictions on people - for no good reason. You claim "sustainability" as a reason and yet no evidence of accomplishing the pretextual objective with impositions made.
nothing you have said supports anything more than a marketing program.
Much of the "improve the world thinking" is no different than "new and improved" on the packaging that food products are placed in.
See katarina's post above. All you are doing is promoting more consumption under the false pretext of "sustainability". It's just a pitch word. Professionals should start being called out when they use the word and can't show anything other than cash flow into their bank accounts being sustained.
"sustainability" is thrown around as if proponents are morally superior to everyone else. It's more of a religion and certainly not a reality. It seems to mostly be used to push an agenda of higher density housing, less private space, and more restrictions on people - for no good reason. You claim "sustainability" as a reason and yet no evidence of accomplishing the pretextual objective with impositions made.
A while back, I posted a definition of sustainability.
I gave the short definition. Here's the long one:
"1. For renewable resources, the rate of harvest should not exceed the rate of regeneration (sustainable yield);
2. [For pollution] The rates of waste generation from projects should not exceed the assimilative capacity of the environment (sustainable waste disposal); and
3. For nonrenewable resources the depletion of the nonrenewable resources should require comparable development of renewable substitutes for that resource." Definition of Environmental Sustainability
None of this is going on in most construction.
I can't really say how sustainability (or "being green," if you prefer) relates to urban planning. But, I can assure you that #1--at least--is happening, even in construction that is not making the claim to be sustainable. (or "green," if you prefer) For example, wood is a renewable resource, and is used in just about any kind of construction. The development of plywood, oriented strand board, engineered lumber, etc. allow for more efficient use of the wood that's harvested.
I can understand your point that you think sustainability is the wrong word, because "sustainable" projects still use more resources than if the project hadn't happened at all. But, to say that sustainability (or "being green," if you prefer) has no substance, and is just a marketing ploy, is just nonsense! Again, maybe it's more correct to use "green" instead of "sustainable." But, the design, construction, and operation of new "green" buildings are approached in a way to reduce the resources that building uses, and pollution that building generates.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
