…that, under certain conditions, it will not look ugly.”

Meet Carter Oosterhouse, hottie with the body, philanthropist, handy man, nice guy, and HGTV’s green guy. Oh and he’s single. Still, while I applaud his efforts to “Bring Green Mainstream” as he says on his commercials, I have the sinking feeling that he’s part of the Greenwashing craze. I’m all for people getting hooked on changing their lifestyles to be more sustainable, and if he’s getting the message across to a few single ladies who watch HGTV more than they should (ok – I’m guilty), then so be it. And yet, he could be a little more pushy about Green and less pushy about the marketing.

First, he’s got a fan club style website (cheesy). Second, he’s hawking the HGTV Green Home, which in my understanding, is not all that green. It’s “registered” with LEED, but they must not have received a very high rating or they would promote it a little more. Also, the fact that it’s all new construction “green” is not green at all – maybe they should have made an old house a little greener to minimize the footprint. Additionally, they are not changing the standard by making green stand out more. It essentially looks like any other house in any other subdivision, save a few “green” features. So Americans keep their same mindset about what to expect for new construction. It needs to be rethought completely. To top it off, they’re giving away a Yukon Hybrid. Want to know what kind of MPG a $51,000 gigantic SUV hybrid gets? It’s no surprise that it gets about 22 miles per gallon on the highway and 21 miles per gallon in the city. That’s repulsive. Are we really still stuck in the idea that American’s have big houses that look a certain way and big cars that look and drive a certain way? I guess so.

Alright, I’m getting sidetracked from my guy Carter.

But when you get down to it, strip away the silliness of the TV show, you’ve got a pretty boy with the right mindset. He majored in nutrition and got into both construction and media as a sidetrack. In an interview that’s on the HGTV website, he said these brilliant words:

“Growing up, my family was always into nutrition. My dad was always telling me, keep your body clean, eat healthy and that sort of carried over into his business and life in general. Being taught that at such a young age, that carried over into: Why can’t I try to build something without taking away from the environment? I’m doing something that’s so progressive, trying to erect something and take away from natural resources, that if I can, I do it while still being eco-friendly and smart. I feel a lot better when I can be green about my building than when I’m not.”

I may not agree with some of the things he presents for viewers, he’s still got the right ideas. If more people thought of health as a starting point, our cultural, physical, and natural environment would be a lot more sustainable. People ought to make that connection more often.

I’d like to hear a round of applause for postgreen and Interface Studio Architects, the developer and architectural firm that have introduced the 100k house in Philly, a sustainable house for the reasonable and affordable price of (approximately) $100,000. It’s still in the planning stages, but it seems to have a bright, and hopefully soon, future. Finally, green is becoming available to those of us who don’t want to pay for greenwashed goods and luxuries. postgreen isn’t the only firm tackling the concept of low-cost green projects, but they’re just about the lowest in price.

PS – for the design snobs who want name recognition, the 100k house will be LEED certified, thank you very much!

“Way down yonder in New Orleans

In the land of dreamy scenes

There’s a garden of Eden

You know what I mean”

-Louis Armstrong

This article about rebuilding historic New Orleans is intriguing. It seems like the perfect merger of historic preservation and sustainability. I especially like the high level of hands-on involvement by donors and volunteers with HistoricGreen, which is a grass-roots organization that is actually making substantial and noticeable progress for both fields of preservation and sustainability.

The campaign is currently underway until next Monday, and brings together a variety of people with similar motives. I am impressed also by the variety of projects that HistoricGreen is working on. I notice that there is no mention of LEED in particular, but there is a free consultation service provided for the locals in conjunction with the USGBC to learn about rebuilding Green. Additionally, where buildings are essentially too far gone, they are practicing reuse of their pieces and then “deconstruction” takes place – a word that rarely ever gets mentioned, but should get a little more attention. In fact, I’m not sure I’ve ever heard of anything but demolition when it comes to tearing down and building new.

I’m especially pleased that this project is featuring sustainability and preservation in the Lower 9th Ward, where the residents were low-income minorities. This is a rare case in either field, primarily because of the money involved. However, due to the volunteer-based nature of the HistoricGreen effort, this kind of change is possible. I’m so happy to see a group championing this and setting a great model for other cities and localities.

The bullets at the bottom of the article are essentially a checklist of all the components of sustainability: aesthetics, preservation, social, environmental, professional. The article even talks about the pull for green economy bringing jobs to the area. Plus, the way they’ve talked it up, I’m sure that tourism is going to be part of the aftermath, because it sounds like the the process and the finished product are going to produce fantastic results.

This is an interesting article about the Green building movement and how it is developing as a category of distinct-looking buildings, designed first for function and second for aesthetics.

The author talks about how LEED is behind the times in leading America to a green future. I’ve also got big problems with the LEED rating system being a checklist that isn’t necessarily holistic in its approach. This summer I worked at the most boring job in the world: the IRS. The branch I was working in was in the butt of West Virginia, but the building and property was an interesting bundle of American concepts.

This particular facility had a completely glass facade on one side facing a landscaped walking path, and the other side was a huge concrete pad and parking lot pretty much as far as the eye can see. There was a bike rack at the door, but it was empty every single time I checked (every single day I was there). And who would use it? The nearest houses for miles are farms! The walking path is a wonderful idea, but the fact that it leads from the main building to the secondary “annex” building, about a 5 minute walk away, is overshadowed by the fact that 7 of 10 employees would DRIVE between the buildings for daily meetings or lunches. Yes, the architect surely could have checked off some of LEED’s standards, but was it ultimately effective? NO!

My question is this: if the government is going to continue to keeps its arms folded and watch Americans make short-term decisions that aren’t in our long-term best interests, then can’t government facilities at the very least be decent a model for change?

I am easily transfixed by slideshows of wild sparkly buildings, and I am basically in love with Buckminster Fuller and his ideas, but I can think of some problems with rethinking the design wheel completely when it comes to green building. It’s true what Sarah said, Americans tend to get sour stomachs when “modern” buildings pop up in the neighborhood, so springing unusual style on us generally is not well received. It’s interesting though, because Americans also seemed to be so taken to trends, and what was so wonderful for home decor or fashion all of a sudden can become “tacky” overnight. This is partly my concern with the green movement – will Americans tire of it?

So I guess for now, we’re still treading lightly to avoid the too-much, too-soon reaction, but is it going to work? Maybe pushing the envelope of design a little more might be more than some will be able to find palatable, but it may be the only way to help Americans adjust to green construction. Still, I can’t help but wonder what will happen in 20 years when there is a whole stock of buildings that were from the “green phase”. Will the styles of all these European buildings become “tacky”? Because in that case, they’re going to have a serious problem justifying all those green materials on buildings that will expire aesthetically. Maybe it is for the best that Americans approach this in a more modest way, at least for now, so we don’t waste materials where they won’t be appreciated for as long as the buildings are meant to last. Or maybe we can just trick everyone by gluing biodegradable shutters and bricks to of any new building and convincing Americans it’s Green Colonial style.