Is green building mainstream yet? Ask Vanity Fair
Being a reporter, I’m always struck by how magazines or newspapers choose to put words like “green” in quotations. The designation implies a term is not yet known to the general public and says a lot about a publication’s readership.
Here at the DJC we put quotations around phrases like ”netzero” (a goal of producing all the energy a building uses) or “regeneration” (making a site better than what was originally there), but not LEED or green. Then again, we have a focused readership.
So, while reading Vanity Fair’s third annual green issue last weekend, I was struck by the magazine’s presentation of green buildings, and by its use of quotations around words like LEED “gold,” “living roof,” and “cradle to cradle.”
The coverage raised a question in my mind: when one of the foremost investigative magazines in the country covers green buildings but still assumes its readership doesn’t know much about them, just how mainstream can green building be?
What do you think, is green building mainstream?
Three pieces between the magazine’s covers, all written by VF Special Correspondent Matt Tyrnauer, take on the subject. To read an interview with Tyrnauer about the projects, click here.
The first is a photo and long caption of New York-based Neil M. Denari Architects’ Manhattan condo project called HL23, pictured above left. Denari is designing a 14-floor cantilevered building on a 40-foot-wide lot that gets wider as it gets taller. Vanity Fair uses quotation marks to say it is reaching LEED “gold.”
The second is a huge profile on William McDonough, pictured at left. That article focuses on McDonough’s “cradle to cradle” theory (a system that eliminates the concept of waste by reusing products - to learn more press here) and puts it in quotations.
The third is a feature on Renzo Piano’s California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park. To go on a virtual tour of the building, press here. The living roof is pictured below right.
The story deems the project “the greenest museum ever built,” and puts “living roofs” in quotations. Towards the end of the article, it finally mentions green features other than the roof like an extensive computerized natural heating and cooling system, automatic ventilating skylights, and saltwater for the building’s aquarium that is piped in from the ocean. It also says the building is shooting for LEED platinum, which interestingly is not in quotation marks. It is 
an eight-year and almost half-a-billion-dollar project.
It also says, “Green buildings often look much like other buildings, though they feature low-flow toilets, off-putting fluorescent lighting and some recycled steel.” Interesting that these fairly simple (if more expensive) mechanisms are the features called out for a typical green building. Any thoughts on this one out there?
According to international judges in Seattle recently considering the AIA’s Committee on the Environment top 10 awards, that quote might exemplify the reason green building isn’t more mainstream: because it looks like everything else.
At that meeting, Jason McLennan, CEO of the Cascadia chapter of the U.S. Green Building Council, said green buildings tend to be either beautiful or energy efficient, but not both. “For a long time our movement has been held back because there hasn’t been enough beauty interjected into green building,” he said. To read the DJC’s article on the judging, click here.
What do you think? Is green building mainstream or does it still have a long way to go? And did Vanity Fair make a good selection of green projects? Are these three stories a good presentation of the movement for the general population? Or is it only scratching the surface? And if green building is not yet mainstream, what is holding it back?
As for me, I’m going to be especially interested to see if these projects are mentioned at all at this week’s Living Future Conference in Vancouver, or if not what green projects are going to be highlighted. I’ll keep you posted!
Tags: articles, Green projects, Living Future Conference, living roof, mainstreaming green, netzero, New York City, products, Regeneration, San Francisco, Vanity Fair
Loading ...
April 16th, 2008 at 10:24 am
I believe the green movement has reached mainstream but not necessarily “green building” (I just used the quotes to get people worked up!). It seems that the word green and the environmentaly friendly perception that goes along with it is being attached to any new product that hits the market. As mentioned in the VF article the recent rise in consumer awareness seems to be driving companies to create products that are green in an attemt to grab this market share. But with building and construction this is not yet the case. We haven’t yet reached the stage where the market for commercial, residential, or office buildings is demanding green. There is a want and a desire but not a need in the market. The public sector is getting closer where several municipalities are requiring LEED certification for public buildings but private development has not yet reached this stage.
April 18th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Although I write about architecture in the Pacific Northwest, I am actually based in the Midwest, and I can confirm that in some parts of the country, green (”green”?) is still viewed as being either peripheral (at best) or radical (at worst). I recently reviewed (for the weblog greenbuildingelements.com) the green issue of another mainstream publication - Metropolitan Home - and had the opportunity to interview one of their editors. I think publications like these, which reach a wide audience, have a lot of power to pull green design into the public eye. And, happily, I think that their editors have a good sense of how to present green ideas in a non-threatening way.
To read the articles about Metropolitan Home on Green Building Elements, see: http://greenbuildingelements.com/2008/04/10/an-interview-with-linda-okeeffe-the-director-of-design-and-architecture-at-metropolitan-home/
http://greenbuildingelements.com/2008/03/18/metropolitan-home-goes-green/
May 9th, 2008 at 11:51 am
GREEN is mainstream and growing.
The challenge, as described elsewhere in the DJC Green Building Blog, is the dis-information, mis-information, and over-use of the term for marketing purposes (advertising descriptor “by association” and web search key words).
GREEN carries a variety of connotations and perceptions influenced by personal and corporate values ~ political, social, cultural, disciplinary approach, etc.
My organization (a private sector commercial general contractor) has long practiced sustainability through practical collaboration and client relationships, along with value engineering ……. better products and design/engineering yield better performing, longer lasting construction products.
Key, though, is the owner’s goal: build and turn, or build and hold. That economic/values mind set, looking at ownership of 1-5 years, or 5+ years is the driving force.
Smart public policy and incentives to appropriately change behavior with sustainable momentum on alternative materials and energy is a reasonable and practical approach.
Mainstream, to me, is a 1000+ incremental initiatives, competing, and constantly improving quality and performance.
May 14th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
“Green” is definately fashionable enough to be mainstream! But what happens this winter then the green turns brown?
October 29th, 2008 at 9:28 am
hi this is mark
Link Building