Re: list of "waypoints" DESIGN comes first.
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 

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.