Thursday, August 27, 2009
What if?
What if buildings could float? What if space had no limits? What if buildings didn’t lie? What if?...
“What if” is fundamental question for a good design. “What if” challenges the obvious. Without the “what if” the result is a generic building. A generic house, generic strip mall, generic hotel. When a client calls us they usually have a solution in mind. It’s easy to just provide drafting services for the first solution that comes to mind but “what if?”. “What if” is exploring other options. What if there is a better way to do it?. What if the most obvious solution is the best one? What if it is not?
If you share our obsession of “what if” join the discussion on our FB page at
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Denver-CO/KUNG-architecture/77524147846
See you there!
Thursday, August 20, 2009
The argument as old as time
I was trying hard to stay out of the discussion about new developments in historic neighborhoods but the recent comment on my blog forced me to step in. So, here is my take on this, old as time, dispute.
Whenever a group of progressive, innovative entrepreneurs introduces something new they meet with the conservative opposition. When in early 1900 developers started building first Denver Squares they were criticized by the owners of older Victorian homes. They introduced a form that was new and unfamiliar and got some heat for that.
Many entrepreneurial architects, builders and developers live in the area they work in. It allows them to see opportunity that others may miss. They often invest their lifetime savings to introduce creative, sustainable housing options to their beloved neighborhoods. Those not-afraid-of-risk individuals got hit particularly hard by the current recession. I do hope however that they will hold on to their properties and when the time is right new progressive developments will sprout everywhere. After all, down-zoning or not, it’s their spirit that moves us forward. And if in the process they make a buck or two more power to them!
P.S. I would like to dedicate this post to the first guy who looked at the pile of sticks and mud and thought of building a shack. He must have been widely criticized by his fellow citizens living in the trees. After all they’d been living in the trees for thousands of years, the trees protected them from wild animals, surely that must have been perceived as the best way of living. Sometimes they fell down and broke a limb or two but they didn’t want to see those odd cone shaped structures between the trees that were so familiar to them. Thank you, my fellow architect/builder for seeing an opportunity and keeping at it!
Whenever a group of progressive, innovative entrepreneurs introduces something new they meet with the conservative opposition. When in early 1900 developers started building first Denver Squares they were criticized by the owners of older Victorian homes. They introduced a form that was new and unfamiliar and got some heat for that.
Many entrepreneurial architects, builders and developers live in the area they work in. It allows them to see opportunity that others may miss. They often invest their lifetime savings to introduce creative, sustainable housing options to their beloved neighborhoods. Those not-afraid-of-risk individuals got hit particularly hard by the current recession. I do hope however that they will hold on to their properties and when the time is right new progressive developments will sprout everywhere. After all, down-zoning or not, it’s their spirit that moves us forward. And if in the process they make a buck or two more power to them!
P.S. I would like to dedicate this post to the first guy who looked at the pile of sticks and mud and thought of building a shack. He must have been widely criticized by his fellow citizens living in the trees. After all they’d been living in the trees for thousands of years, the trees protected them from wild animals, surely that must have been perceived as the best way of living. Sometimes they fell down and broke a limb or two but they didn’t want to see those odd cone shaped structures between the trees that were so familiar to them. Thank you, my fellow architect/builder for seeing an opportunity and keeping at it!
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Downzoning Berkeley is contrary to sustainable development goals
Great article
http://www.thedenverdailynews.com/article.php?aID=5303
Friday, August 14, 2009
Sustainable aspect of new developments
I’ve been following the discussion in North Denver Tribune about new developments in historic neighborhoods for quite some time. A contemporary duplex next to a quaint Victorian can stir quite a discussion with strong opinions on both sides. There is one argument however that I have not heard yet and it is sustainability. With building codes being updated every three years and new energy codes adopted by the City the new construction is far superior in terms of energy efficiency. Proper insulation, new doors and windows, low flow plumbing fixtures, energy-star appliances… As an example: two layers of brick (standard wall construction for most older homes) has an R value of about 1, in contrast new code requires at least R-19 insulation for walls. No need to convince anybody that new materials outperform the old ones in terms of energy conservation but let the numbers speak for themselves: Last year my family moved from a 1913 Denver Square to a brand new town home. My Xcel bill for 1,800 SF old home could easily reach and exceed $300 in winter; in my new 2,800 SF house we never went above $130. That’s more than three times less energy used!
I’m not proposing to replace all the old homes with the new ones. “Out with the old, in with the new” is not a very sustainable approach. There is embodied energy in existing structures that needs to be considered. Well maintained historic homes, restored with love, equipped with modern fixtures hold tremendous “green” value (pun intended: both financially and environmentally). But what about those mold infested, structurally unsound, leaky shacks? Cash for (construction) clunkers?
I’m not proposing to replace all the old homes with the new ones. “Out with the old, in with the new” is not a very sustainable approach. There is embodied energy in existing structures that needs to be considered. Well maintained historic homes, restored with love, equipped with modern fixtures hold tremendous “green” value (pun intended: both financially and environmentally). But what about those mold infested, structurally unsound, leaky shacks? Cash for (construction) clunkers?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
