This week... I WILL BEGIN WRITING

I am back at school and... okay! Let's get down to business! (to defeat... the Huns - hyaaah! No, not really.)

Guided loosely by the last outline (which my professor has encouraged me not to revise so hastily quite yet), I will begin writing this week. My goal is to write at least 20 pages by the first day of classes on Jan 16th. I plan to write parts of the Introduction and the bulk of Chapter 2, as that is what my professor has encouraged me to focus on: defining what LH is and what it does.

Some notes on where I'm headed from here:
- I will no longer focus so narrowly on relating LH's choice to go with Modernism with subconscious anthropocentric tendencies.. Maybe this is for one of the later critique/analysis chapters, but not for Ch. 2 where I introduce the company. The tour opened up other, most salient reasons for why Modernism, according to LH, was a suitable style to build, that it expressed virtues of cleanness and simplicity. LH's people are clearly passionate about the environment, but to them, it is also about pragmatism - and I think first describing that tension, between pragmatism/realism and passion, is more salient than just diving right into anthropocentrism. Anthropocentrism is just ONE way of looking at LH, and I don't want to limit the entire paper to that.
- I will definitely still write about the history of LH and ground it its background in Case Studies, Post-WWII experiments in prefab, the hope of the times, etc. as well as to explain the Modernist ideals. Now that I've read more, I feel these are very important for understanding the ideology of LH, and just why they are so hopeful and passionate in starting up their company.

My professor said not to worry about changing direction just yet, so I won't, and will see how far I get this week. Stay tuned...

Conversation with a friend

me: before i visited i got the sense that they just build a product and wait for ppl who are already eco-people to come

me: but after i realized its as important to the success to the company as anything that they actively convert

me: after all that's what marketing is, and any company that sells products is gong to use marketing

me: whether thats to convert a preference or convert a belief in whole lifestyles. LH just happens to deal in lifestyles

friend: i see

me: thats kind of the beauty of it

me: in more than one way, LH makes it so that financial sense meshes with eco sense

me: which feels sneaky

friend: or elegant

me: i'm in awe

me: are you?

friend: a little

LivingHomes tour

Today I actually had the chance to visit LivingHomes #1, founder Steve Glenn's house! It went really well. My tour guide Shiron was really helpful and offered me lots of insights to ponder. He was also kind enough to let me take tons of pictures of the tiniest details. (And of course thanks must also go to Steve Glenn for offering his personal living space as a model home.)

My first reaction to the house was, wow, it looks so much more *real* in real life. Admittedly that last sentence sounded a little tautological but I mean it. So much more "believable." Part of me had expected to look just like the pictures that have been so widely posted on the web: pristine, picturesque, so idealized it was untouchable. But this was not so. First of all, today was a rainy day, so there was no luscious golden Santa Monica sun streaming in through the glass walls, like in all the beauty shots. Second of all, it looked surprisingly lived-in. The rugs looked like they'd been stepped on lots by shoed feet, there were a lot of unopened envelopes in a pile near the couch. Mr. Glenn's desk was stacked with paperwork and knicknacks. Closets had shoes and clothes in them. Bathrooms had half-used soap containers. My initial fear that it would feel like a soulless, sterile model and Modernist home quickly evaporated. The comfort-level afforded by this sense of lived-in-ness allowed me to enjoy the space more and imagine how a person might actually call this place "home."

My second main reaction was to the tour guide himself. He was really passionate about LH's mission. After leaving the tour, I got the sense that LH was truly setting out to change the way people built and thought about homes...

Here are some points of interest from the notes I took during the tour:

- Though the tour guide confirmed LH's marriage to the Modernist style in all future designs/architect selections, he also said the designs would be adaptable to different clients. He referred to this system as "constained customizability" - nothing about the structure would be changed, though the client could select different counter top materials, different flooring material (all sustainable harvested or produced selections), and even replace the material of the walls, which are curtain walls (non-structural). In the Santa Monica version, there was of course lots of glass, but he said when adapting for cold climates, it's most likely that the glass will be replaced with something with more insulation capability. So in short, even though the design is the same, differences in local climates will definitely be accounted for as much as possible.

- A corollary to the limited customization is the idea that the house could be easily expanded over time. The tour guide explained that the current building paradigm encourages buyers to buy too big of a house "in case," without knowing that they'll really need that extra space. (Or because they are concerned about property values.) The modular system makes it easy to add on (through LH-supported construction -- all this happens through the company) another room, another floor even.

- The space is very flexible: entire walls can be opened up or closed via sliding wood panels, to section off a private bedroom at night or let in more light during the day. It makes the entire second floor feel very generous, open and friendly; there's no dark cave-like hallway with clearly demarcated private spaces behind closed doors. The entire space also makes full use of natural lighting -- it was a cloudy day but the interior felt flooded with light. Sometimes there was a little TOO much openness, as the bottom floor bathroom was separated from the stairwell by only a translucent textured plexiglass sheet.

- The "constrained custom" essentially means that LH seeks to sell "out of the box" houses, where the architect's role is to delimit the options but not provide a full custom design for every locale. (Quite like the Sears kit homes?)

- The earlier concern I voiced in my blog about prefab requiring more materials than stick built applies only to traditional wood-frame houses, said the tour guide. The LivingHomes models would never have walls in the modules back-to-back either, as the modules don't even back walls (they are just frames). The only additional materials used for the extra needed strength are "more nails and glue."

- Tour guide's answer to why prefab kept failing before, and why it won't fail now: The economy was never quite ready back then. People's perceptions of Modernism and steel as cold and strange aside, "it was simply cheaper not to." The prefabs were still experimental projects and could not take advantage of economies of scale. (But what about the idea that all the airplane factories used during the war could be converted to building houses?) But now "people are more aware" and there are more and more government tax incentives for using solar, etc. However the tour guide felt that we aren't completely there yet; need more help from people, more awareness - so there has to be an educational component. Which moves us to...

- LH hopes its houses will educate people to live better lives. The tour guide believes that a house CAN fulfill this active didactic role, instead of just being a passive receptive for its occupant's ideals. He cites the cleanliness and purity of the Modernist aesthetic in encouraging a more minimalist lifestyle based on necessities rather than the accumulation of clutter and material goods. (I couldn't help noticing though that the house did have 5 sofas, which seems like a lot for a single occupant?) He also believes that the traditional Cape Cod or Tudor style houses are more ornate and heavy in feel, and therefore almost encourage the house becoming a repository of junk in hidden nooks and crannies, accumulating based on whim rather than real function or need. He believes the functionalist attitude of Modernism will encourage "cleaner" living in this respect.

- The tour guide seemed to believe, all in all, that if everybody were to consider living spaces logically, everybody would clearly arrive at a preference for Modernist homes like LH (keyword logically, not emotionally or sentimentally or otherwise...). He believes that there aren't actually that may differences between a traditional Cape Cod style house and this one - all it takes is a "few days of living here" to find out just how similarly amenable and comfortable this space can be. (He is making good sales moves - after all, product experience itself can be seductive, even if you don't intend to buy.) Seems to think lifestyle here is objectively better.

- Why all the luxury in the implementation of LH1? 1) LH believes that the most innovative products tend to rely on the rich first to gain the funding to develop into its full realization (as in space travel industry). There are no economies of scale for any of these ventures at first, but gathering interest alone will cause the price to be more in-reach for the average home buyer. 2) Luxury products make a lot of press and LH wants to get word out first. (To date it's been featured in more than 50 magazines and news publications.. wow) It's easier and more attractive to build a reputation for having great products and then lower the price, than to work your way up if you start out with a reputation for being average. So yes, in a sense, LH wants to effect world change and environmental good through seduction. LH does hope to eventually differentiate the product more to appeal to even the affordable housing sector, to truly reach out to everyone and make an impact on the status quo of how we live. (Big dreams! It's quite exciting.)

- Glass and steel - high embodied energy now, but in the future, energy will be all renewable (one hopes) so using high embodied energy materials is ok.

That's it for now... in short it was a very fruitful tour! Speaking to Shiron allowed me to gain a very different perspective on the company, one that was hopeful and passionate instead of just purely critical. it's refreshing. But at the same time it allowed me to reinforce some ideas about sustainability and modernism, i.e. why its attempt to be the one and only umbrella approach to sustainability might be counterproductive to solving the big problem. Modernistic attitudes can't be the only solution but rather part of a mosaic of solutions working in concert. My tour guide's hope was infectious and after being there, I enthusiastically want LH to succeed and really make a difference in lots of people's lives, educating them about better ways of living, and approaching sustainability from the angle of clearheaded rationality. At the same time, the definition of "better" needs to be contested. Is pure objectivity possible? I don't think it is, and that is one of the central flaws of Modernism.

WHY!?

Why is the story of prefabricated homes always one of high hopes, promising experiments, yet spectacular failures? Stylistic issues aside, why are there no takers?? Is "radical" Modernism really the only reason?

On a related note, why are there no serious answers to this question in any of the 5 books I've read so far??

Relationship between consumerism and technology?

I clearly still need to talk about the role of technology/technocentrism in LH's approach to sustainability, but where to fit that in? The introduction, where I give an all-over introduction and critique to the key characteristics of LH? Is there a better way to integrate it into consumerism so some of my prior research can still be used?

In thinking along these lines, I recalled the close relationship between mass production and consumerism, that one has historically stimulated the other by offering to the public products that are cheap, high-quality, and widely available.

Neil Jackson's "Metal-framed houses of LA" article, part II, talks a lot about Case Study architect Raphael Soriano's interest in prefabrication. Soriano, among others, was interested in bringing houses into the mass-production sphere by using standardized parts and steel frame construction. LH's focus on prefabrication and metal frames clearly pays tribute to this legacy, although they no longer seem to have that revolution-minded industrial zeal of those 50s architects. For LH it is more of a matter of pragmatism - it saves money. There is little talk of reforming how people live, entering upon a new era, etc. (in Arts and Architecture there was plenty of that.) And for LH, there is little talk of mass production, merely streamlining the process for the few who do decide to build. (or is there?)

Could it be that Soriano et. al.'s legacy for LivingHomes has been diluted after decades of lukewarm interest in prefab houses? Or is LH's interest in prefabrication indicative of a small desire to make the sustainable home into a mass-produced commodity? If the latter, then a strong relationship can be built up between technology (via fabrication and construction methods) and consumerism in the analysis of LH... that would be a good question for the tour.

Which, incidentally, is tomorrow!! Yikes!

Modernist homes and Southern CA

Author Neil Jackson writes that the steel-frame architecture of the Modern movement inherently suits the Southern CA landscape:

"Indeed, it could be argued that the Lovell House employed a framing material more suited to the nature of southern California than the omnipresent timber frame, since constructional quality timber is hardly a southern Californian product. The natural terrain of the coastal plain which stretches inland from Santa Monica or Long Beach, is that of the desert: in the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains to the north and throughout the Anaheim Hills to the south, it is high chaparral. In neither case is it forested like northern California, so single-storey, thick-walled adobe construction had once been the way of building. Thus Neutra's metal-frame house would seem to provide both a seismically acceptable and readily available contemporary response to construction. The metal frame would be designed to withstand the lateral forces so destructive in earthquakes and the use of steel would take advantage of a minimalist, industrial, building technique inherently suited to the
openness of the hot, barren southland." (154)

Whether intentionally or not, LH's choice to build in the Modernist style in the Southern California landscape reflects a subtle sensitivity to place. It is true that high Modernist residential architecture has become solidly embedded in the local culture of Southern CA - from the Lovell house to John Entenza's Case Study houses. Even along the coasts of San Diego where I used to live, one sees everywhere less famous but clearly Modernist residences, geometric in form and clad in glass. It is no longer being just built by the high theorists. You could say that it has become a local vernacular.

One could potentially argue that this move on LH's part addresses a concern in the sustainable building lit for place-appropriateness when building. If a building is to address a regional vernacular without being condemned of frivolous, sentimental pastiche (as it would surely be if building in a historical Spanish colonial or adobe style), then Modernism is surely just as valid a style as any.

EDIT: At the very end of this same article, the author questions Arts and Architecture magazine's attempts to frame Modernist steel-frame houses as a uniquely Californian style. He reminds us that elsewhere and contemporary to the Case Studies, other noted architects such as Philip Johnson and Mies van der Rohe, were conducting their own radical experiments with prefabrication and steel frames. He does however conceded that CA's development of the steel framed house may have arisen organically from the climate, geographical features (steep slopes, crumbly ground), and historical conditions (WWII), as the Neutra and Eames bunch didn't seem to be heavily in touch with the East Coast crowd. He ends on a note that, while LA is now "known" for these radical, celebrity instances of steel frame houses, it is certainly nowhere near being the dominant vernacular: "It is indicative of the inherently conservative attitude of the Los Angeleno that even today, what is perhaps the world's most automobile-orientated society park their eight million metal-framed vehicles every night outside timberframed houses decorated in Spanish, Tudor or, increasingly, Post-Modern styles."

Production vs. consumption

I just had a silly epiphany. I realized suddenly why the architectural literature almost never talks about how architecture is experienced or sold or consumed.

Of course, it's because architects by definition are primarily concerned with the production of buildings, not the consumption of them. Note to self: duh!

The architectural journals and books talk a little sometimes about how a particular built project can have an impact on society via local community building, or city planning, or whatnot, but still it's fairly consistent with the developer/designer/builder perspective. There are few descriptions of what it's like to actually experience, for example, a sustainable building; a few that I've found so far are personal memoirs of very specific events - not very good reference material - or psychological studies about environmental factors and their effects on behavior.

Even if an architect builds a home for himself and lived in it, he would continually be aware of the its supports, massing, form, space, etc, all the elements that went into the designing and planning of the structure. That's because architects, after all, are the producers. And this is also why all the sustainable architecture books are preoccupied with material, energy use, siting, and form, almost to the exclusion of occupant experience.

(This also goes very far to explaining why a lot of the Greatest Hits built works from history all sounded great in theory, when explained by the architect, but the occupant never quite gets it... sigh.)

Was this obvious to anyone else but me?? I feel silly now.

Different ways of experiencing architecture?

A research point that I really need to look more into: how do people experience a building differently when they are in possession of it, as in a private home, vs. when it is a public facility like a workplace? Is there a difference between how people feel about a home if it is rented or owned?

Might lead to some juicy tidbits about the idea of "consuming" a building, as a big part of it is clearly about ownership.

EDIT: Found a huge, 50-page survey of studies on the effects of home ownership (vs. renting) on X. For one (this may seem obvious, but now I have tons of cited studies to back it up), homeowners are much less likely to move than renters. This alone could have an effect on community involvement and attachment to "place." A great deal of the sustainability literature on urban planning deals with the importance of place attachment, in that attachment to a particular place is highly correlated with stewardship and care of that environment.

Also, re: suburban sprawl: "One question is whether homeownership affects the areal size of urban areas, so-called sprawl. There is agreement that the primary determinant of the spatial expansion of cities is increased demand for more housing in the form of larger homes and lots (Brueckner [28]). This increase in demand is not necessarily linked with homeownership. Although owner-occupied dwellings are generally larger and have larger lots than rental units, a community of rented residential dwellings could contribute to urban sprawl. Critics of sprawl are primarily opposed to particular building types and the low density of dwellings, not to homeownership per se." So the relationship between ownership and sprawl is not tenable, but the built form raises interesting questions: A thing that might be worth critiquing LH on: by focusing the buyer's attention so much on energy and material savings, the buyer misses out on learning about other, just as important, facets of sustainability. This is a critique that could be applied to much of the high Modernist style, High Tech skyscrapers like the Commerzbank or Ken Yeang's bioclimactic skyscrapers. Built forms are as important as environmental footprint themselves, but LH certainly perpetuates the form of the individual suburban plot and the unattached single family home. Multiplied in thousands, It inevitably contributes to the unsustainable scenario of sprawl.

Regarding the environment specifically: "Homeownership is found to increase significantly the occurrence of recycling. The authors speculate that homeowners are more sensitive to environmental concerns. They also argue that homeowners are more involved in their communities at a political and social level and are therefore more likely to be knowledgeable about local environmental issues." However no causational relationship between homeownership and recycling is implied in any of the cited studies so I should be careful what I extrapolate from this.

An explanation of why homeownership influences social behavior: "Cox [46] indicates that homeownership influences social behavior through two mechanisms. First, 'interest theory' holds that homeownership alters the financial stake of households. Homeowners have a financial stake in local affairs because these affairs, whether social or political, may influence the home’s price. Second, as discussed in Section 5, homeowners are less mobile than renters and thus they are more likely to remain in a neighborhood. Undesirable changes in the neighborhood will affect the consumption value of a home. Homeowners are thusmotivated to engage in political and social activities, including community activism, to reduce the likelihood of these changes." This might argue on behalf of consumption as a way to ironically bolster sustainability because self-interest (in property values relating to environmental quality) can produce sustainable results. The ends justify the means?

So in the end, you could extrapolate that consumption through ownership of a home leads to more responsible, stewardship-like feelings. Makes sense - for instance, I would not drive a car I owned like... well, like I would a rental.

Provisionary new outline

If I were to focus on the relationship between consumerism and sustainability in architecture, my chapter breakdown might look something like this:

1. Intro - this should remain pretty much the same as the current outline
2. Chapter2 - Argue that LH promotes consumer culture as much as it does sustainability. Show that LH is in ways more similar to a marketing firm than an architecture firm, thus it represents a direct way for people to experience sustainable architecture through ownership (rather than just occupancy as in a work building, touring, reading about it, passing by on the street, etc.) Arguing that LH is both a consumerist product (in the way it is "packaged" and marketed); contrast this to other ways that architecture has tried to address sustainability (academic, aesthetically focused, or community-based). Outline ways in which LH seduces with luxury products.
3. Chapter 3 - Theories about why sustainability and consumerism are at odds (good handful of these abound...); all-around critique of LH's business-oriented approach to architecture
4. Chapter 4 - Why sustainability requires political power and consumerism can actually help ("voting with the dollar") - assess LH's overall role in promoting sustainability through consumerism
5. Conclusion/wrap-up chapter

So yeah! Looks like something more interesting might happen here; if I have to write a shorter paper and make it a senior project, then so be it. At least I'm not wasting my time writing from an angle that even I don't find interesting anymore. =)

Prefab and sustainability - all in the name of marketing

There is a lot of interest brewing lately (e.g. Inhabitat, a green building blog, has their Prefab Fridays column) in the idea of prefabrication as a more sustainable way to build.

The usual arguments supporting its "green" stance are:

- Traditional site-built houses produce a lot of on-site construction waste (extra materials, etc.) that end up in landfills whereas, with prefab, there is significantly less because materials that aren't used up at the factory just go "back on the shelf." The LivingHomes website claims that up to 40% of a site-built homes' construction materials can end up in the landfill!

- Site-built homes consume a lot more fossil fuels in transporting materials from multiple warehouses to a single site. Site-built also requires construction workers to shuttle back and forth for a longer span of time to complete the house, thus adding to the carbon footprint. With prefab, all the materials are at the factory and only the finished product gets transported, all in one go.

This is in addition to other pros, mostly economical, which include:

- Prefab allows for more precision and quality control over the manufacturing process because the units are built at a factory where state-of-the-art equipment can cut more exact pieces.
- Prefab saves time because the foundation can be laid while the house itself is being built off-site.
- Prefab modules are made indoors, so rainy days don't impede construction as much. Also, the materials have less of a chance of contamination from mold, rain, etc. so the resulting product is more healthy and sanitary.
- Prefab has to deal with more demanding loads (due to crane lifting and truck transportation) and it has to comply with more stringent national quality codes, so by definition, it has to be better (more safe, better built) than the average site-built home.
- Prefab is cheaper due to economies of scale (logic behind mass-production applied here) and centralization.

A lot of these were taken from the LivingHomes website. (It is curious, however, that the point about factory built modules having less exposure to the elements during construction, was placed under the "sustainable building practices" header in their section about modular building. I'm not sure how this is related to sustainable building. Copy-editing oversight?)

Prefabrication does seem to have a lot of overall pros (and some cons, but I won't get into them here), but the debate rages on about whether it actually is a more sustainable way of building than traditional building. Only two points above were actually directly related to sustainable practices, and even the veracity of these two are contested. So when a company promotes itself as green and uses prefabrication to bolster this image, is it being bona-fide green or is it (gasp!) greenwashing?

I found an article on Inhabitat today dealing with this exact issue. The author, a seasoned builder, contends that the relationship between prefab and greenness is overstated, and overarching generalizations such as "prefab is always a better way to build in terms of environmental considerations" should be treated with suspicion. He argues that, while it is true that, in certain cases, prefab does result in a more efficient use of material and a smaller carbon footprint, even prefab builders can be unscrupulous about saving materials. It costs labor hours to sort scrap and isolate what is still usable, so sometimes it just makes more financial sense to toss everything, even at the factory. He also contends that the gas burned transporting modules to a site can be just as much as in traditional building. Modules require a crane, which gets 2-3 mpg, so that is clearly inefficient if your site is in a small remote town far from construction resources. The module-shipping trucks also require as an escort service of several smaller trucks on the way from the factory. And factories are fewer and farther between than building material supplier warehouses, so if the site is remote, the module likely has to travel a much longer way. Finally, because of the aforementioned greater loads in transportation, modules have to be intentionally overbuilt, wasting materials.

Just judging from the miles of comments underneath the article, you can tell that this is a hotly contested matter. Some were quick to defend prefab as being almost always better than stick built environmentally (at least in Cananda?). Others, like the author, are more reserved in giving prefab accolades, saying that it is very dependent on individual cases. But the general consensus among readers and the author is that one should never take "prefab" to denote sustainable without looking more closely at the wide range of variables. All this was shadowed by the fact that there ARE companies out there who promote prefab and claim that it has green benefits when in fact the companies are not taking the steps to ensure that those benefits actually take place.

Suffice to say, in LH's case, the company is certainly promoting themselves as being extra-sustainable because they use prefabrication, but is it greenwash? Greenwash is when a company makes false claims about being green. I don't know if it is greenwash; I'm not an undercover reporter, and in the end, I don't think that even matters. For now, I still have faith that LH is a good company, with honest aims (the paper is not out to bash them, but to critique their methodology in the wider context of sustainable debate).

What matters is the mere fact that LH recognizes that the public clearly perceives an exciting, promising relationship between prefab and sustainability (as made evident by Prefab Fridays and sites like fabprefab.com) even if the relationship itself is hotly debated (as made evident by the long comments). Thus it is openly doing its best to promote the fact that it builds prefab to bolster its green image despite that its actual sustainability benefits may be quite small. (Again, I'm not out to determine how small; not important.) LH may well be just using prefab for all the other aforementioned, non-green benefits, but it has created a special section on its website for pointing out that they also chose prefab because it is green. This is a clear marketing move, showing that LH is very intent on selling a product by pleasing a perceived market sector (reactionary), perhaps more intent than they are on promoting an ideology (proactive). (I believe that many sustainable architects put promoting ideologies before selling products.) This goes to further my argument that LH plays a big role in furthering the consumerist approach to sustainability.

EDIT: I found another blog that highlighted some of the better comments from the long discussion. In particular Philip Proefrock's blurb is a good way of summing up prefab's relationship to green building.

EDIT: On another blog, there is a reference to a UK-based organization's report, which provides an empirical research-backed proof that prefabrication does, on average, reduce construction wastes by a lot (up to 90%...), and for this reason alone, the organization encourages builders to consider prefab. So the claims to greenness have footing in reality after all! I am glad, because any step towards saving waste, no matter how small, is an improvement. It seems that most of the griping against using prefab to enhance a company's "green cred" occurs when the company overexaggerates the importance of prefab, placing it above other concerns. So while the truth of certain prefab claims can no longer be contested, its relative importance in the network of strategies comprising sustainability still is.

Tidbit on building material

A quote I found ages (it seems) ago, that suddenly seems to bear a lot of relevance:

"The common building material with the least embodied energy is wood, with about 640 kilowatt-hours per ton (most of it consumed by the industrial drying process, and some in the manufacture of and impregnation with preservatives). Hence the greenest building material is wood from sustainability-managed forests. Brick is the material with the next lowest amount of embodied energy, 4 times (4X) that of wood, then concrete (5X), plastic (6X), glass (14X), steel (24X) and aluminum (126X). A building with a high proportion of aluminum components can hardly be green when considered from the perspective of total life cycle costing, no matter how energy efficient it might be." - Peter Buchanan, Ten Shades of Green

... which would suggest that, if you choose to build intentionally in a style that requires large amounts of high energy materials (glass, steel, aluminum - cough, "warm modernism," cough) , your most important objective here isn't really being green, is it? Mayhaps it is attracting customers with its image of a progressive, Southern Californian, Case-Study lifestyle?

According to Buchanan, aesthetics alone cannot justify the sacrifice of green principles. Though LH1 uses a great deal of sustainably harvested wood detailing, LH's marriage to the idea of prefabrication and to architects working in a contemporary Modernist style does feel rather suspect in the end.

Consumerism?

If I were to take a new direction, would it save my thesis? I am trying to think back to what initially attracted me to the idea of studying LivingHomes.. I think much of it was due to the fact that I am a steady reader of "green" (and rather trendy) weblogs and it has repeatedly come up in the popular press. Moreover, I am interested in gadgetry and the technophilic Wired magazine recently had a sensational, headline-making home built by LH for them. It may suffice to say that I was seduced by LH's ability to make headlines, but not satisfied by how much I knew about it, so I undertook this project to see if I could learn more.

In the process of learning more, I learned how LH may well have been overrepresented. in my mind. In the wider context of sustainability, it is but a tiny sliver, more concerned with business feasibility, it seems, than seriously tackling larger issues of sustainability through community intervention, education, or politics. Though it has saturated, for a while, the media, I'm still not finding mention of it in the academic literature, except in passing. Jennifer Siegal's Office of Mobile Design is even being taken more seriously (Siegal is, perchance, also a recent darling of the popular green and prefab architecture blogospheres.)

This is probably because, after all, LH is a business venture - a development firm - rather than an architectural design office. It outsources design work to consultants and big-name architects such as Ray Kappe, a move that feels more like branding than of putting forward a particular architectural stance. In the end, LH seems more about marketing a product - green upscale living - than working to solve the societal issue of sustainability through proposing creative alternatives.

Clearly consumerism then becomes a big part of the picture. At this point it may well be worth looking into the relationship between consumerism and sustainability, as embodied through LH's marketing programme. Chapters could be built on first arguing that LH is promoting a product rather than an ideology, and then later deconstructing the pitfalls of this approach to sustainability. There should also be a section or chapter on why consumerism might be a viable approach to the question of sustainability despite that its fundamental premise - the valuation of material goods - seems allergic to some basic approaches to sustainability - making do with less, respecting the biosphere, etc.

The only question now, though, is how to bridge the gap between architecture and all this. Conceivably I could write a similar paper, making similar points, using... I don't know... Whole Foods organic pine nuts (yum yum)... or any other "green" product... instead of a house. But I guess that's where the first or so chapter would come in - arguing that even a house can be packaged this way, into a consumer product. Hmmm.. yes.

Forget this trying to prove that LH and sustainability is Modernist or not Modernist stuff... who really cares if you can call it by one name or another? It doesn't change the way it influences society and the public. It doesn't aid in community building or urbanization or changing the American landscape. (And this is why writing a thesis is hard: finding things that might actually matter to write about...)