Publication Date:
Fri, 2007-09-14 04:29
|
|
Eric Corey Freed, LEED AP, is an architect and principal for organicARCHITECT, a San Francisco design firm and consultancy that promotes both an organic and ecological approach to design.
Freed teaches the sustainable design curriculum he developed at the Academy of Art University and University of California Berkeley. He served as founding chair of architecture for The San Francisco Design Museum. He is co-founder and an editor of ecoTECTURE: The Online Journal of Ecological Design, and author of the forthcoming book, "The Inevitable Architect: A Phase By Phase Guide to Green Building."
Senior Editor Felicia Oliver spoke to Freed about his perspective on the green building movement.
Q. How did you get interested in green building? Why is it important to you?
A. The more you learn about how we build our buildings, the more you realize how much it doesn’t make sense. We cover the walls with toxic material called paint, then we cover the floors with toxic carpets, and then we add all of our cabinetry and our ceiling tiles and all that other stuff. Then the whole building itself wastes energy. It doesn’t use the energy that it consumes well, and then of course it doesn’t even produce its own energy and it is dependent on fossil fuels. Then we flush toilets with clean drinking water when there are people going without water everywhere else in the world. You realize how illogical it all is. That was the appeal to me. It just makes sense. It’s stupid to continue building the way we have been. It wasn’t a hippie thing or a Birkenstock-wearing thing. It had to do with being logical.
Q. On your web site, you say it is inevitable that in the future all buildings will be green. Why do you believe this to be so?
A. Because look at the alternative. If we continue building the way we are building and consume all the resources – all the water, fossil fuel energy - we will be forced to switch. Or we can do it by choice. Otherwise, with the path we’re on, we’re headed off a cliff. That’s why it’s inevitable. … Just the same way that it’s inevitable that in the future cars won’t run on fossil fuel gasoline anymore. We can already see that this way doesn’t make sense. We can’t just keep sucking it out of the ground and expect that there will be an endless supply.
Q. What are the perceived challenges of green design, and what advice can you give to builders and architects who are unfamiliar with green building on how to overcome them?
A. Most architects and contractors I see kind of talk themselves out of it: “My clients won’t be interested in it. It’s already too expensive. We can’t find the materials.” They already have a list of excuses. Whenever I hear that I ask, "How many green homes have you built?” And they say none. Then I say, “Well, how can you say that with any accuracy?” Really, they need to try it.
What I often tell architects is pick one issue that you feel strongly about. For instance, if you feel strongly about how bad vinyl is, then just focus on that as a starting point, as something you can take ownership of and grow. Otherwise, stop being your worst enemy. There’s never a wrong time to do the right thing. That’s what Martin Luther King use to say. The same is true with green building. I’ve never before seen an industry that so widely accepts that this change to green building is inevitable yet stalls and drags their feet and kicks and complains and whines about it. They are really waiting until the last possibly minute. It’s bizarre.
Q. Do you have an opinion about what the national green building standard should be?
A. National standards are always a danger in any industry, right? The U.S., depending on how you look at it, has at least seven different climate regions. You look at the weather in Atlanta; it’s different from the weather in D.C., which is different from the weather here in San Francisco. So the idea of any one standard is kind of silly.
In the one sense, the debate is good, because at least people are talking about it. On the other hand, the debate tends to cloud the argument and frustrate people, and they say “Oh, I won’t even deal with it. It’s too much trouble.”
Right now, the standard that we respect, admire and use is LEED – the U.S. Green Building Council’s program green rating system. A third of my time now is spent on LEED or green building projects where we aren’t the architects. …We are coming on as consultants. There seems to be a real need for that. … The idea is that we teach them how to fish rather than the give-them-a-fish model, where they really only hire us once. It isn’t a great business model for me. But it makes sense in the long run. If they do it once, they can keep doing it on their own.
Right now we have nine LEED projects in all different categories.We don’t have any in LEED for Homes, actually. The LEED for Homes pilot has been closed now for a while, and we’re kind of waiting for [the official program] to open. I’m still watching to see what LEED for Homes [will do]. It’s expensive and complicated and there are other residential systems that are easier and better.
Q. Do you have any thoughts in that regard to proposed model green guidelines of NAHB?
A. We are one of 4000 people that have helped craft them. I think they are great, especially given that NAHB’s reach in the residential market is so profound and could really have a lasting impact. If all the people affiliated with NAHB started adopting these guidelines, think about the potential energy, water and materials saving that we could get. … It’s a start. That’s probably the best thing. There’s always going to be criticism about any system, whether it’s LEED or NAHB. … They are both designed to grow and evolve and change. Fifteen years from now we will probably laugh at the standards we have now: “I can’t believe they let people use VOC paints at all.”
Useful Links:
organicARCHITECT [1]
UC Berkley
[2]
Academy of Art University
[3]
ecoTECTURE: The Online Journal of Ecological Design [4]
LEED for Homes [5]
NAHB Green Home Building Guidelines [6]
