Green Roofs - Living Architecture Monitor - Summer 2010 - (Page 5)

Q: In your presentations, you sometimes show a picture of your 11-year-old grandson Joe and ask a question on his behalf, “Where in our current [building] regulatory systems or decision-making processes is there explicit and continuous representation for the rights and welfare of our children’s children?” Why? What has become increasingly clear to me over the years is that regulatory systems that have evolved to safeguard the public from hazards associated with various activities that might cause harm are, by their nature, narrowly focused in scope, place and time. When I look at building regulations, for example, I see tremendous attention paid to the near-term physical impacts buildings might have on their occupants, expressed through the categories of risk that building codes address. What I don’t see is acknowledgment of the cumulative impacts of building millions of buildings or the reality that those impacts happen in many places, not only at the building site. Further, many of those impacts extend over long periods of time. These risks, including those inherent in the depletion of critical non-renewable resources and the impacts of buildings on human health and the environment, again not just at the site but cumulatively throughout their lifecycle, including things like climate change, have until very recently been systematically excluded from consideration in the codes and regulatory processes. My grandson is 50 years younger than I am. He may be protected in buildings in the short term, but his longer-term welfare and that of his future children are in real and serious jeopardy as both direct and indirect consequences of how we construct the built environment. The lack of acknowledgment that the cumulative risks associated with buildings are among the largest of any human activity demands serious attention. I talk about Joe because I believe that responsibility for the future is both personal and professional and that’s the most effective way I’ve found to communicate that reality. Q: In the last decade, we've seen tremendous progress with the advent of ratings systems such as LEED and now, the Living Building Challenge. If this is working, why do we need a regulatory overhaul? Are regulators and policymakers now out of synch with green builders? tion is scope and time. It’s true that great strides have been made in developing rating systems, green building programs, some standards and recently, even some green building codes. In spite of this progress, two deep concerns drive my belief that significant change is still required in the building regulatory arena. First are the issues associated with how to include the larger set of real negative impacts of the built environment into building codes and standards in a way that moves us toward truly sustainable and, ultimately, regenerative built projects. Even the greenest buildings being built today are doing more harm than good overall. We’re just at the beginning of the process of acknowledging these impacts, much less understanding how to craft regulations that both minimize harm and serious consequences than ever before. This means, in my view, that we need a fundamentally different approach to regulation, founded on an integrated understanding of the full set of risks—including acknowledgment of what we do and don’t know. This must be based on principles concerned with the well-being of present and future generations, which means enabling change that supports near and long-term human and ecological health and phasing out those activities that don’t as rapidly as possible. Change takes time and we don’t have any time to waste, so we need a regulatory regime that is highly responsive rather than what we have now, which is so effective at preserving the status quo. “What I like about the term ‘regenerative’ is that it refers to a process, rather than a state, the ability of a system to regenerate its own wholeness, coherence, and evolution, which is in constant ﬂux.” maximize positive outcomes. And in response to the second part of the question, even in the best of circumstances codes and standards lag behind the state of the art in building science, technology and practice. Let me expand on this a bit more. Today, after more than 15 years working in this area, what seems clear to me is that most people in the regulatory, design and building sectors are still operating on a set of obsolete assumptions. Those assumptions are that we will continue to have adequate and affordable supplies of energy, water and other critical resources, that we will have a relative stable and predictable climate, that the natural systems on the planet are robust enough to continue to support the spectrum of human activities at current and increasing levels, and that our understanding of how to manage ourselves and our own systems—our current regulatory thinking is adequate to safeguard the public. I find less and less evidence that any of those assumptions are still valid, meaning that the lag between current reality and regulatory (or market) response has more Q: You prefer the term “regenerative” rather than “restorative” Why? The short answer to the first part of this ques- There are so many limitations and so much baggage that comes attached to the terms we use. What I see as the main shortcoming of the word “restorative” is that it implies we are restoring something, in essence going back to a prior state. When you look at how natural systems work, you see that ecosystems and other living and natural systems are not static but rather reach stages of dynamic equilibrium, where the changes that are constantly occurring lead to new levels of stability. What I like about the term “regenerative” is that it refers to a process, rather than a state, the ability of a system to regenerate its own wholeness, coherence, and evolution, which is in constant flux. This seems to me to be a much more appropriate way to think about what we’re seeking to do in connecting how we create our own systems and projects to mimic the way natural systems work and evolve over time. You have to know what it is you are restoring something to, whereas what interests me is how we can work in alignment LIVING ARCHITECTURE MONITOR SUMMER 2010 5

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Green Roofs - Living Architecture Monitor - Summer 2010

Green Roofs - Living Architecture Monitor - Summer 2010
Contents
From the Founder
Strata
On the Roof With...
What is Integrated Design?
How Do We Move the Practice of Integrated Design Forward?
West Coast Integrated Design
Integrated Design for Solar & Green Roofs
Do Green Roofs Improve the Efficiency of PV Panels?
An Invitation to CitiesAlive! in Vancouver this Fall
GHRC Professional Development Calendar
Roof to Plate
Research Showing Early Promises
Advanced Green to Roof Maintenance Course to Launch
New GRPS
New Online Tools
New Corporate Members
Making Government Programs Work Harder

Green Roofs - Living Architecture Monitor - Summer 2010