Readings:
Kenneth Frampton, "Towards a Critical Regionalism: Six Points for an Architecture of Resistance" The Anti-Aesthetic: Essays on Postmodern Culture (ed.) Hal Foster (Seattle, Washington: Bay Press, 1983) 16-30
Wendell Berry, "The Whole Horse" The Art of the Commonplace (
Rem Koolhaas, "Bigness: or the Problem of Large" Theories and Manifestoes of Contemporary Architecture, Charles Jencks and Karl Kropf, editors (West Sussex: Academy Editions, 1997) 307-311
Rem Koolhaas, "Junkspace" (exerpted and reformatted from the website "Bridge The Gap"), transcript from a conference talk in which Koolhaas participated in July 2001,
Question:
With experts on both sides of the fence of sustainablity one must question the validity of the argument. There is support for and against global warming, which is the reason that we are become more and more aware of the effect that we are having on our environment. Also, as more and more people are being born, the population increases, and with that increase comes the demand for more stuff. And obtaining stuff requires the use of materials, which, in todays industural socity means packaging, which takes up more space that the suff we aquire.
Is there a way for citizens to contiue to have all the stuff that we desire and the stuff that makes us confortabe in our environment, and still preserve or leave behind enough for our childs child to have the same quality of life that we have now?
2 comments:
It seems as if we aquire more stuff and produce more stuff, things become more expensive until it gets to the point that we can't afford it. For example, gas prices hit all time highs. Partly because of inflation due to the growing economy and parlty due to oil companies setting the price. But it also gave us a taste of the end of cheap oil. Because of all the stuff we have accumulated and energy it takes to make it, the energy used, or oil, is becoming to expensive to use. So I think its possible to keep our old habits, its just that are we willign to pay the price for it?
You are talking about a financial side, and yes that does influence how we live. The example of the gas prices shows that we are willing to pay an arm, leg and first born child to keep what we have, and keep it at a level that is equal to if not better that what we have now.
In relation to the preservation of the environment, is there a way for us to have all the stuff and be environmentally friendly to our animal neighbors?
By your example the answer is yes. People will pay for what they want, to encourage people to buy and use environmentally friendly and sustainable items we (meaning the government) would have to offer some form of tax break to encourage us (the consumer) to use the more sustainable option and to ween us off of gas.
At such a time we would simply get use to using it and the big business can up the prices and we will pay for what we want, not because it's the only thing we know but because it will be the only thing available.
Post a Comment