Re: list of "waypoints" DESIGN comes first. | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Lion Kuntz (lionkuntzyahoo.com) | |
Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 16:33:17 -0700 (PDT) |
--- Robert Moskowitz wrote: > Many thanks for your lengthy discussion of this matter. But I'm still > > confused. Are you saying the design must be finalized before anyone > opts > in? Or are you saying basic design principles need to be agreed upon > before people opt in? Or what? If these decisions are made before the > > opt in phase, who makes them? Doesn't that imply some kind of > "leader" > who offers others a pre-conceived notion of at least the design? What > if > others have better ideas that are precluded by the design work that > has > been done before they opt in? > > Thanks. > > Robert Certain "Design Principles" come before any other consideration. Would you like to save money in construction costs by utilizing willing available future home-owner sweat equity doing some of the actual building construction? The fifth largest builder in the United States (and also builds on five continents) always designs buildings which are capable of being built by home-owner participation. The homes they ultimately build are satisfactory to the needs of the occupants, and they historically have very low turnover rates. The homes cost as much as 65% less than homes built exclusively by paid professional builders. Obviously if this was one of you non-negotiable design points you are setting in motion many decision trees in the future which screen out certain types of construction, certain materials, some general contractors construction firms would be exclused, certain architects could not hope to obtain your business. The financial screening threshhold is reduced, opting in a pool of otherwise excellent neighbors. Less money spent for necessities means more money available for better property site or luxuries unaffordable when the building construction is a black hole sucking every last dollar you can scrape up. Just one single initial design point like this cascades down through every subsequent decision. For the vast majority of people, their home is the single largest expendature they will make in a lifetime, and represents the majority of their total net worth. There isn't a class in the public schooling system, nor in the higher education system, on how to think through this most critical decision you will ever make. People come into the process as unprepared, often quite gullible, potential victims of shrewd operators with plenty of experience fleecing the sheeple. Some sort of design process has to occur to formulate the basic non-negotiable design principles beyond which one will not budge. That self-education process is lacking before move-in, as is evident from the ongoing threads of discussions. I am saying it is too late for those who already moved in but not those hopeful people looking to buy-in to something better than the typical market offers. I an NOT saying who makes decisions and how decisions get made. I am pointing out that decision making before self-education is wrong prioritizing. You need to first understand the long-term consequences of decisions before any decision gets made. Adequate preparation for understanding design consequences is not an automatic assumption. It is not a given. By default people come from the womb ignorant, and they stay ignorant until they undergo some learning process. There is no established learning process for 21st century lifestyles and 21st century housing. The 20th century housing and lifestyles failed decisively, conspicuously, publically, undeniably. When I was born there was no "deadzones" (anoxic, oxygen- depleted) in the oceans. That is a 20th century invention that first occurred in 1970 with the first destruction of the formerly extremely rich fishing grounds off the Mississippi River delta. By 1990 there were 75 deadzones worldwide, and by 2002 the UN counted 150 of them. This is only one of the many foreseeable consequences of bad design principles being mass produced with reckless abandon. I shouldn't have to go into the many many proofs of the catastrophic failures of 20th Century lifestyles and housing decisions, but I will post two links that scratch the surface. Match up the dates from these pages to deadzones. http://ecosyn.us/1/Tornadoes.html http://ecosyn.us/1/1/stormy.html First design principle of Bucky Fuller was live inside your solar energy budget. In 1970 Fuller was teaching how to not have Global Warming, how to not have oil-grab wars in the middle east, how to not have deadzones in the oceans, by making a non-negotiable design principle of living within your solar energy budget. Let's heap some of the blame on Bucky Fuller. He's dead and don't care. He made the decision. Blame him. That get you off the hook for making the decision that there are no opt-ins who want to continue the failed 20th century deathtraps. So you gather up these decisions already made by people who don't mind if you blame them for making the decisions, and you say these decisions have been made. They are proven, time-tested design principles, and architects who don't like it can take a walk. Contractors who don't like it can take a walk. Potential troublemaker neighbors who don't like it can take a walk. Learn to say "I am not joining a lemming society mass murder-suicide pact just because others like to profit off my needs." There. Blame me, I don't mind. You will find that there are architects who can design you a beautiful, satisfying, comfortable home which appreciates in value faster than the neighbor's does. They may be hard to find, but that's why the design principles self-education process is absolutely first priority, so you know how to evaluate architects in the first place. Here's an architect doing it right, worth hiring. Look at his projects and see if you wouldn't be proud to have something as good to call home. The â??2030 °Challengeâ?? -- Architects Meet Global Warming Links to http://architecture2030.org./home.html http://architecture2030.org./open_letter/index.html "... The â??2030 °Challengeâ?? Slowing the growth rate of greenhouse gas emissions and then reversing it over the next ten years will require immediate action and a concerted global effort. As Architecture 2030 has shown, buildings are the major source of of demand for energy and materials that produce by-product greenhouse gases. Stabilizing emissions in this sector and then reversing them to acceptable levels is key to keeping global warming to approximately a degree centigrade (°C) above todayâ??s level. To accomplish this we are issuing the â??2030 °Challengeâ?? asking the global architecture and building community to adopt the following targets: That all new buildings and developments be designed to use 1/2 the fossil fuel energy they would typically consume (1/2 the country average for that building type). ..." - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sincerely, Lion Kuntz Santa Rosa, California, USA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - http://www.ecosyn.us/Welcome/ http://www.ecosyn.us/Interesting/ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
-
Re: list of "waypoints" DESIGN comes first. Lion Kuntz, May 19 2006
- Re: list of "waypoints" DESIGN comes first. Lion Kuntz, May 19 2006
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.