Dwell and Worldchanging, this is all your fault...

In finally finding a pathway into the literature on sustainable architecture, I am realizing just how doomed my original thesis idea was!

I had originally thought to argue, using LH as an example, that the modernist, "technocist supremancy," as Simon Guy put it, misses out on other, better ways of approaching green architecture. Fundamental to this endeavor was first proving that there WERE other aspects founded on alternative philosophies, then defining what they were, and then seeing if they were "better."

2 problems that I now realize are going to kill this endeavor:

1) Turns out these alternative perspectives are already thoroughly acknowledged in the academic literature (if not in Dwell magazine) and have already been sought out and well-defined using various models. (see Journal of Architectural Education Vol 54 issue 3, pp149-8.) so to continue to pursue this vein of inquiry would be futile, as well as intentionally ignorant

2) I cannot write about whether something is BETTER because it would take years of research to even define what "better" means, as there are multiple viewpoints competing. This is in addition to the obvious issue that making value judgments belies the fact that I am not being an objective researcher. And I've already been warned from the beginning of writing a "manifesto."

So now there's the slight possibility that I will write a redundant , pointless thesis owing to the sheer fact that I did not known enough about the topic to start out on the right foot. The point I had originally thought to prove shows that I really had no idea what sustainable architecture was about, besides what little shallow tidbits I had managed to glean from the popular media, which is usually how one first finds out about these things.

So what now?

Help!