The opportunity is twofold. One is to find a better way to communicate across disciplines. I know I'm beating that horse, but never to death, in case there are ASPCA folks here. But we need to make sure that we're working much more closely together. We also need to recognize that the world is changing, not only in terms of the limitations we face with regard to resources but also in terms of where investment capital is going to go in the foreseeable future.

The banks we work with, the developers we work with, the cities we work with suggest that, starting now, more than half of all investment capital in the United States and in Europe will be going to retrofit rather than new construction. So how do we, as design professionals recognizing the difficulty of achieving sustainability in a retrofit model, actually come up with solutions that work, solutions that capture not only the embodied energy of the buildings but also integrate the mechanical systems, the aesthetics, the idea of happiness so these buildings work as well as new construction?

The architect's moral dilemma is the same moral dilemma held by anybody in the design community. We shouldn't be actually engaging in projects that don't seek to optimize human conditions, i.e., optimize conditions for human development over time. It's not as if we've sworn to an oath; we know as well as anybody that we have to feed ourselves. But, pushing back against client expectations, pushing back against contractors, pushing back against all the people involved in development to focus on this issue that our purpose as human beings is to advance the human condition is ultimately where we need to be with regard to integrated design, with our research, and with sustainable development.

01  02  03  04  05  06  07  08