Steve Mouzon and the Original Green

I don't usually write a blog that is simply a link to someone else's blog. But today I'm making an exception. Steve Mouzon established an organization called Original Green. His four characteristics of sustainable places (Nourishing, Accessible, Serviceable and Secure) and four characteristics of sustainable buildings (Loveable, Durable, Flexible, and Frugal) are a great way to start thinking about what sustainable development really is.

Steve's regular blogs are always worth a read. But today's entitled The Unburdening of America is particularly good. You don't have to agree with all of Steve's assumptions to find this a good way of thinking about how we are building today and how we should be building. Take a look.

Green buildings and historic preservation

Well, today I got all excited. From one of my news searching systems I got this: "The Green Building Council chair made a presentation on the Green Building Program that focuses on the areas of sustainable site development, improving of indoor air quality, water management, energy management, solid waste management, green materials and to promote heritage conservation."

"Hooray", I thought, "Those green building people finally get it."

Alas, once again I was wrong. Well, not wrong, the green building people DO get it...but those are the green building people in the Philippines. That quotation came from a press release from the Philippine Department of Energy.

So the third world gets the connection. It would be nice if the EPA and the US Green Building Council would catch up with the developing world one of these days.

Beyond waterless toilets and LEED Gold

Don't get me wrong. I'm happy that LEED exists. It is an excellent first shot at trying to make buildings and neighborhoods more environmentally responsible.

But to say that LEED is necessary but not sufficient for sustainable development is no different than saying dentistry is necessary but not sufficient for health care. But my other two dissents from LEED-mania are: 1) LEED only deals with the environmental component of sustainable development, not at all with the other two components -- economic responsibility and social/cultural responsibility; and 2) even within the environmental responsibility component of sustainable development the contributions of existing buildings is irresponsibly inadequate on multiple levels.

So that's it. That's my beef with LEED.

Having said that, recently I've been a bit surprised, but more than that extraordinarily pleased to find that there are some within what might be considered the hard core environmental movement who understand that as well.

One is Lloyd Alter a Canadian architect and developer, and now active web journalist for Tree Hugger.com. Here is someone deeply committed to sustainable development, but also sees the irreplaceable role that heritage buildings play in sustainable development. He frequent writes an entry on Tree Hugger entitled "Another One Bites the Dust" that is well worth reading.

Another "green" blog that understands the historic preservation/sustainable development link is GreenRedux.com.

When the discussion of sustainable development moves beyond the techno talk from "green architects" and gizmo salesmen and broadens so that all of the components of sustainable development are part of the discussion, we'll be making progress. Those who remain stuck on the inane "can I get two extra points toward Leed Gold if we put in a bike rack?" are only demonstrating their absolute ignorance about what sustainable development is.

For those with time to kill you might want to look at the podcast interview I did with Lloyd Atler in Collingwood, Ontario recently.