3 ms·

This is a very good example of "eco-friendly", and the word "green" was never used. It is eco-friendly for various reasons. Two major ones are: - The lighting

by kovar 16y ago

This is a very good example of "eco-friendly", and the word "green" was never used. It is eco-friendly for various reasons. Two major ones are: - The lighting is mostly natural, so there is less energy use - The space required per person, and thus the associated materials, is significantly less than a typical US living space. Further, less space means less heating/cooling requirements.

olalonde 16y ago
> the word "green" was never used. - The title of the video is "The World's Greenest Homes" - [...] is what shaped architect Gary Chang's green philosophy [...] People in Hong Kong don't live in tight spaces because they are green but because space is very expensive.
- kovar 16y ago
  Upvote to you. I'd downvote myself if I could. My bad. I was going off of the video only.... Yes, this isn't by choice, but lack of choice doesn't mean that it is not eco friendly.
  - olalonde 16y ago
    Right. The result is in fact probably eco-friendly :) What annoys me a bit is I feel we are trying to force the "eco-friendly" virtue a bit too much on people who are doing nothing more than pursue their own self-interest (which I believe is perfectly fine and desirable).
    - guptaneil 16y ago
      Isn't eco-friendly also in our own self-interest? ;)
      - olalonde 16y ago
        Yes it is. That's all the beauty of capitalism :)
thwarted 16y ago
This is a very good example of "eco-friendly", and the word "green" was never used. Not only is it used on the title card, "World's Greenest Homes", but the narrator uses the term "green" twice as a synonym for "ecology friendly". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg9qnWg9kak#t=35s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg9qnWg9kak#t=35s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg9qnWg9kak#t=3m53s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg9qnWg9kak#t=3m53s
jerf 16y ago
I'd have to "citation needed" many of those claims. There's a lot of material in these layouts. You may not be really losing much in the general case if you simply spread it out a bit more and directly enclose more space. He's got a lot of visible metal and to get the motion that smooth and reliable there's some serious metal in the mechanics as well. I wouldn't be surprised the sum environmental impact of all that metal exceeds quite significantly some wood and drywall. Also, this 344 square feet is much harder to share. There are many people with houses, even in the US, that have less than 344 square feet per person. The natural lighting is nice, but that's nickles and dimes next to the metal usage. Heating and cooling can be a wash, too, there are techniques to heat and cool much larger spaces with minimal energy usage if you're willing to put in the work, but his hands are tied there living in a building he doesn't own. (How's energy-per-person look for a high rise like that? It ought to be pretty good with its superior volume-to-area ratio, as long as it isn't actually leaking air in or out.) (And compare all this vs. what his neighbor lives in, if we're going to play the environmental card. You know what's better for the environment than all those rooms? Not having all those rooms....) Just because it's ascetic doesn't automatically translate to it be particularly environmentally low-impact. Or it may be fantastic. But if we're going to praise this I'd want a more careful accounting. I've noticed people get very careless with their accounting when presented with this sort of thing.

by kovar 16y ago

olalonde 16y ago

> the word "green" was never used. - The title of the video is "The World's Greenest Homes" - [...] is what shaped architect Gary Chang's green philosophy [...] People in Hong Kong don't live in tight spaces because they are green but because space is very expensive.

kovar 16y ago
Upvote to you. I'd downvote myself if I could. My bad. I was going off of the video only.... Yes, this isn't by choice, but lack of choice doesn't mean that it is not eco friendly.
- olalonde 16y ago
  Right. The result is in fact probably eco-friendly :) What annoys me a bit is I feel we are trying to force the "eco-friendly" virtue a bit too much on people who are doing nothing more than pursue their own self-interest (which I believe is perfectly fine and desirable).
  - guptaneil 16y ago
    Isn't eco-friendly also in our own self-interest? ;)
    - olalonde 16y ago
      Yes it is. That's all the beauty of capitalism :)

thwarted 16y ago

This is a very good example of "eco-friendly", and the word "green" was never used. Not only is it used on the title card, "World's Greenest Homes", but the narrator uses the term "green" twice as a synonym for "ecology friendly". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg9qnWg9kak#t=35s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg9qnWg9kak#t=35s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg9qnWg9kak#t=3m53s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg9qnWg9kak#t=3m53s

jerf 16y ago

I'd have to "citation needed" many of those claims. There's a lot of material in these layouts. You may not be really losing much in the general case if you simply spread it out a bit more and directly enclose more space. He's got a lot of visible metal and to get the motion that smooth and reliable there's some serious metal in the mechanics as well. I wouldn't be surprised the sum environmental impact of all that metal exceeds quite significantly some wood and drywall. Also, this 344 square feet is much harder to share. There are many people with houses, even in the US, that have less than 344 square feet per person. The natural lighting is nice, but that's nickles and dimes next to the metal usage. Heating and cooling can be a wash, too, there are techniques to heat and cool much larger spaces with minimal energy usage if you're willing to put in the work, but his hands are tied there living in a building he doesn't own. (How's energy-per-person look for a high rise like that? It ought to be pretty good with its superior volume-to-area ratio, as long as it isn't actually leaking air in or out.) (And compare all this vs. what his neighbor lives in, if we're going to play the environmental card. You know what's better for the environment than all those rooms? Not having all those rooms....) Just because it's ascetic doesn't automatically translate to it be particularly environmentally low-impact. Or it may be fantastic. But if we're going to praise this I'd want a more careful accounting. I've noticed people get very careless with their accounting when presented with this sort of thing.