> So I am trying to start a discussion about the risks of high-tech - wouldn't
> it make more sense to construct a simpler (but not primitve) architecture
> without making a building so intelligent that it can only be run by a
> computer? Maybe MEDIUM-TECH is the greener way to construct??
I think that this is a discussion worth having. Given all of the best
technology and idiot-proof gadgetry that can digitize, economize, and
organize our lives, there are those of us (you know, the ones that still
have the 12:00 flashing on the VCR) that can find ways to foul the
systems up, or at least ignore them to the point of making them next to
useless. Conversely, there are others that live very comfortably,
economically and efficiently with the simplest of technologies.
A lot has to do with our lifestyles. Elizabeth White describes houses
based on their 'tinker factor'. There are virtually autonomous houses
all over the place operated by tinkerers that are very in tune with how
their house reacts and relates to its environment. If its too hot, do you
want to open a window (oriented to catch the cooling summer breeze, of
course) or rely on your digital thermostat to kick on the ground-coupled
heat exchanger at 76.4 degrees? Both approaches are very valid and could
be considered 'appropriate' depending on the user.
My own opinion is that a high tinker factor is a good thing. Why use
technology that we really don't NEED, and so what if the house heats up
to 85 degrees. (It may already be obvious that I seldom have to deal
with the high temperatures and RH's that some of you do.)
Keith Robertson M. Arch.
Halifax, Nova Scotia.
__________________________________________________________________
This greenbuilding dialogue is sponsored by Oikos (www.oikos.com)
and Environmental Building News (www.ebuild.com). For instructions
send e-mail to greenbuilding-request@crest.org.
__________________________________________________________________