History lessons

Finally, at the gentle prodding of various professors, I have started to read into the history of the environmental movement in the U.S. And it's proven very fruitful: in just a few chapters I have already gained many new ideas and perspectives that reading endless architectural theory books never seemed to provide (once again bolstering my concern that the world of architecture, like art, is sometimes a little too self-involved).

One new perspective is stems from thinking about the 60's idea of utopia, as revealed in the optimism not just of commune hippies but the prosperous post WWII nation in general. In that age, as author Hal K. Rothman put it, Americans wanted to have their cake and eat it too - to them, it seemed possible to have beautiful wilderness areas preserved for their amusement while at the same time continuing on with their tremendous prosperity and economic growth. However as the decade wore on and prosperity began to put strains on natural resources (energy, lumber, land, etc), it turns out the "utopia" was a false one that only appeared so to certain segments of the American population. (HEY!! There's a hummingbird flying around my window! SO COOL. Sorry, that was completely not related to anything I'm talking about.) To workers in the lumber industry, pressure from environmentalists who
demanded better, cleaner, healthier human and natural habitats meant that they have fewer logging areas, fewer jobs. Though you could criticize the logging industry plenty for caring only about feeding the market and not on more long-term goals such as sustainable harvesting of virgin forests, at the time it ultimately down to people were at risk of losing their jobs and livlihoods.

Anyway, so the idea of utopia is faulty in more ways than one, and basically it came down to economics: utopia fails, in this instance, to be realized because not everyone can be economically happy and sound in such a world where environmental concerns dominate. To an environmentalist that sounds like anathema to their goals (because nothing is worse for the environment than overt, myopic concern for the bottom line), but perhaps this is a different, useful way of framing a look at LivingHomes and today's booming "green goods" market.

The idea inherent in LivingHomes is utopic beyond compare, and it seems (so far) to be rather ingeniously flawless. Thanks to the strides we have made since the 60s in recycling, sustainability studies, technology, alt. energy research, etc. etc. etc. it is now possible to support economic wealth and prosperity while also being friendly to the environment. This seems, more clearly than ever, to be the message inherent in LivingHomes' mission: to provide luxury at no cost to one's sense of ethics - something which was impossible before due to limits in technology.

To explore this idea further might be a good move I think, as so far my critique of LH has been rather one-sided, focused on its faults rather than its hopeful idealism and redeeming qualities. Of course, looking at LH as an act of idealism and utopic aspirations doesn't come without its doubts and critiques, but it offers a more historically-based approach that isn't only dependent on contemporary eco-philosophies...