Amazing video, and inspiring architecture thought food: Video: Watch Flying Robots Build a 6-Meter Tower - IEEE Spectrum:
'via Blog this'
Monday, December 05, 2011
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
QR code
<img src="http://qrcode.kaywa.com/img.php?s=8&d=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eligreendesign.com" alt="qrcode" />
Wednesday, October 05, 2011
Green energy in America: already gone or still growing?
In an alarming statement, Cliff Stearns (House Energy and Commerce Sub-committee) declared defeat to China, echoing the failure of Solyndra. But Steven Chu disagrees, and so do I. We cannot, we must not, and we shall not give up. It would be un-American to do so. Check out this article at Inhabitat and follow the news. Then consider installing some American Made solar cells on your house!
Monday, October 03, 2011
Solar Decathalon
Congrats to the University of Maryland for winning the 2011 Solar Decathlon. Very sweet entry, and some cool new technology including a heat powered dehumidifier. Very interesting tech that I can see finding it's way into many new and old buildings.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Happy New Year!
I will be eating Green apples and honey this year! To bad the apples we've found here in The Big Apple haven't been as good as what we get in Oregon. I'm sure I'll find something good though! Here's to a great, green, new year.
Sustainable City - The Big Apple
Reducing demand in a city of lights. How are we asking our selves to change? It is greener to turn off the lights if you live in a single family home, no question, but in a city that runs around the clock, around the calendar, and around the world (international markets trading on the same floor as our markets) it makes more sense to leave the lights on and just make them as efficient as possible.
This is the question that has been bugging me. Is it more efficient to live like this, dense, constant use, intense utilization of space and resource, or to thin out our impact over a larger area, and over a larger time.
The reason it's been bugging me is not something that can be explained with math, or perhaps even by analysis or any ~jectivity. The real question is what is best as human occupants of the earth. I will not debate the impact of humanity, or the base question of our existence and subsequent effect we have on the environment that made us; we are here, and I'd like that to continue. So the question becomes how will our impact create the best possible biosphere for our experience, and continuation.
This is a terraforming question, and all of the answers point to biodiversity, strong natural systems, and finding balance within those parameters. This framework has been casting my imaging of New York into certain relief. The contrasting aspects of low area usage per person (incredible density) that creates intense demand for those fewer square feet results in logisitical compacting. Opportunities for efficiency jump out, like mass transit (a clear win energy and carbon wise, but a possible disaster from a public health perspective), localized demand for power generation and distribution (but does having demand and supply nearby make sense or put more people at risk), and the concentration of information and thought multiplication.
If you have never arrived in New York City by air on a clear day, by road or by above ground rail, you haven't seen the grotesque machinery that pumps the life support systems into the machine for living that this city is. For the significant size of Manhattan herself there are 6 equal areas surrounding her dedicated solely to sustaining this fair city. Giant industrial fortresses and wastelands of shipping containers, rail lines and sadly, trucks choking the air with their groans of effort to bring food and material goods to the masses. It is scary to see it in such concentrated levels, and this is the nexus point: visibility.
New York shoves it in your face and herin lies her truth. There is no hiding the piles of garbage hauled out of the same way they came in, they grow every day, and are gone every night on the sidewalk in front of every building - there isn't any other place to put it! The trucks travel the same roads as the taxis, and unload there goods at the off peak hours. It is a hustle and play, coordinated out of necesity, and it is all right there for you to see.
Contrast this with my hometown Portland, Oregon. Portland is a small city, designed with space and systems to function in the background of life. There is no need to see all the push and pull because there is room enough to do it in a more seemly manor. But if you do the math (like I said I wouldn't) the truth of density and efficiency bubbles to the surface. New Yorkers use less, but feel every drop. And that is the truth of this question.
How are we asking ourselves to change? We are opening our eyes to what we do, to how we impact our biosphere, and to what we should do better.
If the world were to transform into a sustainable vision of humanity would the metropolis disapear? Would the towns be squashed together instead? No, because it takes both.
This is the question that has been bugging me. Is it more efficient to live like this, dense, constant use, intense utilization of space and resource, or to thin out our impact over a larger area, and over a larger time.
The reason it's been bugging me is not something that can be explained with math, or perhaps even by analysis or any ~jectivity. The real question is what is best as human occupants of the earth. I will not debate the impact of humanity, or the base question of our existence and subsequent effect we have on the environment that made us; we are here, and I'd like that to continue. So the question becomes how will our impact create the best possible biosphere for our experience, and continuation.
This is a terraforming question, and all of the answers point to biodiversity, strong natural systems, and finding balance within those parameters. This framework has been casting my imaging of New York into certain relief. The contrasting aspects of low area usage per person (incredible density) that creates intense demand for those fewer square feet results in logisitical compacting. Opportunities for efficiency jump out, like mass transit (a clear win energy and carbon wise, but a possible disaster from a public health perspective), localized demand for power generation and distribution (but does having demand and supply nearby make sense or put more people at risk), and the concentration of information and thought multiplication.
If you have never arrived in New York City by air on a clear day, by road or by above ground rail, you haven't seen the grotesque machinery that pumps the life support systems into the machine for living that this city is. For the significant size of Manhattan herself there are 6 equal areas surrounding her dedicated solely to sustaining this fair city. Giant industrial fortresses and wastelands of shipping containers, rail lines and sadly, trucks choking the air with their groans of effort to bring food and material goods to the masses. It is scary to see it in such concentrated levels, and this is the nexus point: visibility.
New York shoves it in your face and herin lies her truth. There is no hiding the piles of garbage hauled out of the same way they came in, they grow every day, and are gone every night on the sidewalk in front of every building - there isn't any other place to put it! The trucks travel the same roads as the taxis, and unload there goods at the off peak hours. It is a hustle and play, coordinated out of necesity, and it is all right there for you to see.
Contrast this with my hometown Portland, Oregon. Portland is a small city, designed with space and systems to function in the background of life. There is no need to see all the push and pull because there is room enough to do it in a more seemly manor. But if you do the math (like I said I wouldn't) the truth of density and efficiency bubbles to the surface. New Yorkers use less, but feel every drop. And that is the truth of this question.
How are we asking ourselves to change? We are opening our eyes to what we do, to how we impact our biosphere, and to what we should do better.
If the world were to transform into a sustainable vision of humanity would the metropolis disapear? Would the towns be squashed together instead? No, because it takes both.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
New Chapter
Dear Reader,
I have started a new chapter, in my life, and in my blog. Yesterday I moved to New York City with my lovely and wonderful girlfriend, Rayna, and my stalwart companion, Tsuki the Dog. I'm moving here to try my hand at bringing the cutting edge green-ness of Portland to the Big Apple.
Brightworks, the sustainability consulting firm I worked with years ago (when I started this blog) and I have partnered again to expand the horizons of sustainability on the East Coast. I am very excited for this relationship because Brightworks has the resources, and thought leadership to get the big east coast markets moving. As much as Portland can lead the way, only markets like New York can generate the momentum to pull other markets along with them.
I'll be writing more, so keep reading! For now we're staying with our friend Justin Shear at his apartment on the upper west side and apartment hunting in Brooklyn.
Thanks for reading! Eli
I have started a new chapter, in my life, and in my blog. Yesterday I moved to New York City with my lovely and wonderful girlfriend, Rayna, and my stalwart companion, Tsuki the Dog. I'm moving here to try my hand at bringing the cutting edge green-ness of Portland to the Big Apple.
Brightworks, the sustainability consulting firm I worked with years ago (when I started this blog) and I have partnered again to expand the horizons of sustainability on the East Coast. I am very excited for this relationship because Brightworks has the resources, and thought leadership to get the big east coast markets moving. As much as Portland can lead the way, only markets like New York can generate the momentum to pull other markets along with them.
I'll be writing more, so keep reading! For now we're staying with our friend Justin Shear at his apartment on the upper west side and apartment hunting in Brooklyn.
Thanks for reading! Eli
Friday, July 30, 2010
Latest thoughts on green living and building Part 1
I've been busy, and not with the good greening I so gennishly gravitate towards, no with getting my architecture license. It's a beast of burden, and I'll be riding it till it's done. Riding it hard.
But that doesn't mean my thoughts haven't been busy. I have ideas for two houses (specifically at the moment, there are about a gillion more tucked away in the folds of my favorite feature (noggin size, get it?)) and one is about as obviously green as it gets. I'll tell you about that one later, cause it's so awesome. The other is more conventional. It's modern, it's modular, it's prefabricatable, it's glassy and steely, and earthy and delicious, and simple and small! All in all it's pretty green, but for one thing - structural materials. I have ideas to make all the verticals the supports for wind turbines (check!) and they can be timber, or bamboo, or something totally salvaged or renewable, or whatever (hopefully grown on site and harvested!) it's all the other stuff. The spanning members, the decking, the insulation, the finishes, the waterproofing, the flashing. Is it really possible to build a fairly normal house without violating the 4 system conditions of The Natural Step? I want it to be, but so far, it's pretty impossible.
Do you know what flashing is made of? Mostly petroleum, or aluminium. Two very energy intensive products that are from the earth's crust. So maybe that means no flashing, and only crazy sweet wood window systems that a self flashing somehow. I don't know yet, but i'd love to have some input. I'll get these designs up here soonish, as soon as I take this next architecture test!
Wish me luck and keep the green growing.
Eli
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)