Attacking their Religion

BOTC has received a few responses to our "A Needed Autonomy" post, a post questioning the championing (or marketing) of the cause of sustainability in our built environment, irrespective of the quality of the architecture that possesses this green-ness. The reponders were "offended" and quite shrill with their posts, of course, attacking BOTC peronsally with little logic, like good little true-believers in the cause of their secular religion of green design, astonished that there are people who would question the validity of green-ness.

Again, BOTC stresses that we are proponents of smart design that integrates green principles into the work of architecture. However, BOTC is always skeptical of buildngs, architects, and propogandists who consistently champion architecture that is rather bad, but offer the building a pass because it may be green.

BOTC is sick of entities either altering their logo for a week (NBC's peacock rendered in green), or creating commercials about sustainabilty (Toyota), although their products often betray the message, or placing some green verbage on a shopping bag (Arby's) that offers a pass on the green issue, assuaging the sustainabilty gods. This is green-ness as public relations, and it is very much false and mis-leading.

BOTC sees the same thing occurring in architecture and design, where entities place solar panels on their buildings, like badges of moral courage, even though the program and function of the building may be hurtful to the environment (see the new Cedar-Lee parking garage). Again, the solar panels are used to satisfy the offended or teach the unwashed, like secular didactic inconography. Utlimately these applications of sustainibility are weak and feckless, exploited for the wrong reasons, and lauded nearly automatically without proper relfection.

All BOTC is asking for is for enviro-moralists to be more critical in their appreciations for green architectural and urban design. Not all green is good.