The low-tech, high-tech debate

There is a general agreement about the problem at hand: the climate is changing and the sea levels will rise; burning fossil fuels is bad and the projected business-as-usual scenarios are dismal; buildings are significant consumers of energy and there is a desperate need to rethink the way they work.

There is less accord and more debate, however, when it comes to deciding how, exactly, buildings should work.

Before I go on, two brief asides:

1. Yes, I am aware that there are those who still maintain that there is no problem - but I'm assuming that if you're reading JustMeans editorials, you probably don't fall into that group.

2. In this post, I'm trying to give the impression that there is an active debate in the Green Building / Sustainable Design movement [is it a movement?] over the best way to do things. In reality, this "debate" is mostly, as of yet, unspoken. There are lots of people doing "sustainable" design, many of whom are operating under very different assumptions and doing things that directly contradict one another. However, for some reason, there isn't a lot of discourse about why.

End of digression.

One significant source of disagreement in the green building industry has to do with what I'll call the low-tech high-tech debate.

Simply put, the low-tech folks [you might know them better as "natural builders" or, dare I say it, "hippies"] seem to subscribe to the following logic: Modernism, modernization, and unchecked capitalism got us into the mess we're in. Greener buildings, therefore, are those which are "closer to the earth," made from natural materials [which are assumed to be healthier], and that take advantage of vernacular knowledge and age-old traditions.

The high-tech people, on the other hand, [who tend to talk about things like "high performance buildings" "energy efficiency" and various assessments of one type or another] seem to share a belief in the power of new technology, digital design tools, and increased efficiency. Their approach is based on the premise that we can think, design, and optimize our way out of the problems we face.

For one group the answer is reverting back to simpler, greener, pre-industrial times; for the other, it's fighting Modernization with hyper-modernization.

Yes, of course I am aware that I am making sweeping generalizations. My intention isn't to oversimplify but rather, to use a bit of hyperbole try to tease out some of the underlying assumptions made by both the low- and high-tech advocates.

For example, the high-tech folks seem to define "sustainability" primarily in terms of operational energy efficiency. The closer you can get to net-zero energy use, the greener your building is. Often the proposed solution involves expensive and complex energy monitoring systems [that can malfunction] and state-of-the-art materials [that are quite energy intensive to produce]. For them, the problem [energy optimization] is difficult; thus the appropriate tools are sophisticated, and the resulting buildings are complex.

The proponents of a low-tech approach seem to focus more on where the building materials come from and how they are produced. Local is better and cobb, strawbale, adobe, and timber-frame - renewable, low embodied energy, small carbon footprint - are considered the greenest options. The emphasis is on smaller, simpler buildings, and there's often a moral assumption that part of building green is living a wholesome, healthy, organic lifestyle. The problem [we use too many resources] is obvious; the solution, also clear.

While both might be "green," these are clearly two very different strategies.