GREEN PRACTICES :

Any building of any kind, except properly done subsistence level work produced on a minimum scale, built today on Planet Earth will produce profound negative consequences on planetary, animal and human health. This will remain so for an number of years. We are in a transition period. If we survive this period, in the near future a new mix of new and old technologies, understanding of economic and ecological practices, truly human ways of living and integration with other life, will provide the means for an architecture which will not only support life it will enhance the biological and evolutionary opportunities for life.

Given this circumstance no building - new or reuse - should be undertaken lightly. The first architectural question has to be should it be done? The second, what exists that can be used? When these questions, and many others of like kind, are satisfactorily answered then the resulting work can be executed based on a valid life-cycle equation with the result being the highest work of art possible. To do less is travesty.

A vision of this new architecture is resolving out of the fog of thousands of careless centuries . We can now “get HERE from THERE, one step at a time with every work we build. Today’s green practices are important and critical improvements yet not sufficient on to themselves. We should employ green practices as they are now understood and possible to do yet avoid the trap of believing we have escaped the consequences of our building. Today’s green practices alone will only delay the inevitable.

In saying this I also what to make clear that I also reject the prevalent thesis of “less is more” and “small is beautiful.” Less is sometimes more and small is often beautiful and better. Yet these factors are not always the best option. Quantity and magnitude have to evaluated in context of requirements, impacts and results - not dogma. Build less often yet build well when building is a good strategy. In addition, I am not interested in “sustainability” as an ultimate goal. Substantiality is a necessity - assuming you want to survive. Yet, there has to be a reason to sustain. Personally, I think that Humanity is loosing it’s reason to sustain other than most of us feel compelled to avoid failure and death. The elimination of all negatives is zero - not a positive. A life of careful conformity, devoid of adventure and meaning, based on sum of all fears is not living. What makes life worth living, what we do that adds to LIFE has to be what informs our actions not avoidance, not mindless consumption not a “life” of endless distractions and not a life of negating negatives.

The Circle of Blue workplace can and must go beyond green, as we now understand and practice it, to become a whole expression of life. Life lived. Life that is bold, not careless and destructive. Life that is simple, focused and creative not cowardly. This is the integrity of Circle of Blue. The practice of the ideals it holds. The demonstration that these ideals are practical. One example of the nexus of free, unconstrained science, journalism and convening. Embodied proof in a real world.

posted: July 14, 2010 • revised August 27, 2010 • 6:34 AM @ Elsewhere