Energy and Architecture: How Green is Green?
A panel discussion including American and Danish architects will analyze the benefits, compromises, and challenges in creating and designing sustainable buildings and communities in the U.S. and Denmark.
The panel, which includes architects Stephen Kieran of the well-known Philadelphia firm Kieran Timberlake and Bjarke Ingels, head of the architectural practice Bjarke Ingels Group (BIG), will explore the differences and similarities in the energy-saving measures used by architects in each country.
Since the U.S. and Denmark vary greatly in size, climatic conditions, and commonly-used building materials and energy-saving features, the discussion will examine how each country can learn from the other. The moderator of the discussion is Suzanne Stephens, deputy editor of Architectural Record.
The discussion will take place next Monday, November 16 at 6:30 pm at the Scandinavia House, 58 Park Avenue at 38th street, New York.
Two of the most self publicist architects either side of the Atlantic, with very little understanding or implementation of energy saving and ‘green’ materials to debate on energy saving measures? wow… BIB & Timberlake! More greenwash…
BIG, not BIB. It’s all greenwash by the way.
Could you elaborate on how KTA is greenwash? The Sidwell Friends School is a very successful project in my opinion.
Yes. Please do elaborate.
help a lot,that what im looking for,thanks
I like BIG very much, and I know they did some Carbon neutral studies and are doing a carbon neutral island, but…This greenwash is really annoying. All this carbon neutrality etc. is about technology. this technology could be equipped to any building – so it really doesnt make an architecture better. it makes the building better, but not the best (the best enviromental solution is to NOT build at all).
It annoys me, all this “green wave” – OK, if we all believe taht it is good to have a passive house (which is), or neutral house (not necessarily) , then we should make it a technical norm. And not a PR – nice renders with a lot of greenery and nobody hesitates, because it is not Cool to blame a Passive house. It is like a new doctrine.
Passive building should be a standard, like toilettes and design for disabled – not a feature!
and btw – all that greenery needs so much water that it is not effective at all. just looks better in renders and makes it look “green”. Big makes so huge buildings that I really doubt about their efficiency. they are very effective in social and architectonic field, but energetic efficiency? – most effective shape is a box.
architecture can do something about sustainability. but everyone in the architecture scene relies on technical solutions. the passive-house is nothing but a complicated well isolated house with a lot of technology in it. with clever facades, cool and well tempered zoning, passive solar energy using, shadow and sun, we can do a lot which is genuine architectural stuff. What i don’t like about that debate is: We all plan before we think…
we should read bucki fuller and find new styles which are clever and cool… that’s what i think.
don’t depend on technology to make the building green…
extremely i think don’t build at all…