4 ms·

Ok, maybe my memory is wrong... I had a long bus drive through New Jersey a few months ago - saw a lot of different suburb landscapes there. I think I know how

by maigret 17y ago

Ok, maybe my memory is wrong... I had a long bus drive through New Jersey a few months ago - saw a lot of different suburb landscapes there. I think I know how it looks like. Small houses with very small ground pieces, bigger houses, some with forest around, but few with some kind of stone or tree hedge around it. But a vegetable hedge can get pretty high in a few years. If you live in a place where plants cannot grow you may not want a house with huge panorama windows. BTW vegetable walls are very good for cooling the garden, making shadow and possibly saving AC usage. But let's stop argue on that... I don't understand your point - are you telling me it's not technically possible in most places or that it's culturally not welcome where you live? There are many such houses concepts in my area, though a minority of all houses, and most aren't as nice as the one here. The glass area don't have to be at all sides of the houses, there are lots of solutions for making such a house very private, even if many other houses are built near it. I don't have two hours to search for the best links, but with a fast Google search I find that for example http://www.exit-solutions.net/archkom/wp-content/photos/haus_XCd_03_1.jpg http://www.exit-solutions.net/archkom/wp-content/photos/haus... So you may not like that kind of design, but that's another story. Of course that house may not fit most of the world's area needs, but that's the beauty of architecture: it adapts itself to the area's climatic needs, and cultural preferences. I'm not saying this house is the solution to everything, I'm just supporting the idea that more aesthetics and efficiency in architecture could improve our lives further without damaging the environment.

anamax 17y ago
> But a vegetable hedge can get pretty high in a few years. A "vegetable hedge" isn't natural in most places - it's the result of significant human activity. Note also that the house itself, while pretty, is unliveable by most folks, especially those with kids. > are you telling me it's not technically possible in most places or that it's culturally not welcome where you live? Of course it's "technically possible" to grow the relevant plants in most places, but your claim was far stronger. I've no objection to you wanting to live in a forest. My point is that many people don't and that forests are unnatural in most places. > I'm just supporting the idea that more aesthetics and efficiency in architecture could improve our lives further without damaging the environment. Actually, you're just asserting that idea. You've done nothing to support it. I've already asked twice for some support for the claim that such aesthetics are relevant to survival.
- maigret 17y ago
  > A "vegetable hedge" isn't natural in most places - it's the result of significant human activity. And what is the issue with planted vegetables? Out here in Europe, vegetable hedges are considered a very important for the ecosystem. >New Jersey isn't particularly representative of the world, >let alone of the world in a "natural" state. Huh? You were asserting I don't know suburbian America, which is wrong. Stop moving the discussion. >I've no objection to you wanting to live in a forest. My point is that many people don't and that forests are unnatural in most places. My point is you don't need a forest for such a house. >Actually, you're just asserting that idea. You've done nothing to support it. Asserting if you want, I just had the wrong word. I'd like to continue that argument in French ;) Also I live in a very modern and well-isolated house (that's law requirement in Germany) where I don't need any AC. That's my modest contribution. I just miss some vegetables around here... >I've already asked twice for some support for the claim that such aesthetics are relevant to survival. Where? Architecture is not only aesthetics, it's efficiency too. If you don't believe energy prices will soon go high again, then don't - not my problem :)
  - anamax 17y ago
    > And what is the issue with planted vegetables? You were claiming that the surroundings required to make that house usable were "natural". > You were asserting I don't know suburbian America No. I was pointing out that the required vegetation, vegetation that you claim is "natural", is not natural in much of the world and gave examples. > My point is you don't need a forest for such a house. You need dense growth at a low level. That's not natural in much of the world. > Architecture is not only aesthetics, it's efficiency too. The original aesthetics is essential to survival claim in this thread was about beauty. Actually, construction is efficiency. However, architecture can make certain types of efficient living difficult. This house is an example. Ignoring the privacy problems, it simply doesn't allow for efficient handling of stuff. It's a great place to visit but as a long term working residence, it's a failure. (And no,it's more than being kid hostile; kids are just an easy way to see the problem.)
anamax 17y ago
> I had a long bus drive through New Jersey a few months ago - saw a lot of different suburb landscapes there. I think I know how it looks like. New Jersey isn't particularly representative of the world, let alone of the world in a "natural" state.

by maigret 17y ago

anamax 17y ago

> But a vegetable hedge can get pretty high in a few years. A "vegetable hedge" isn't natural in most places - it's the result of significant human activity. Note also that the house itself, while pretty, is unliveable by most folks, especially those with kids. > are you telling me it's not technically possible in most places or that it's culturally not welcome where you live? Of course it's "technically possible" to grow the relevant plants in most places, but your claim was far stronger. I've no objection to you wanting to live in a forest. My point is that many people don't and that forests are unnatural in most places. > I'm just supporting the idea that more aesthetics and efficiency in architecture could improve our lives further without damaging the environment. Actually, you're just asserting that idea. You've done nothing to support it. I've already asked twice for some support for the claim that such aesthetics are relevant to survival.

maigret 17y ago
> A "vegetable hedge" isn't natural in most places - it's the result of significant human activity. And what is the issue with planted vegetables? Out here in Europe, vegetable hedges are considered a very important for the ecosystem. >New Jersey isn't particularly representative of the world, >let alone of the world in a "natural" state. Huh? You were asserting I don't know suburbian America, which is wrong. Stop moving the discussion. >I've no objection to you wanting to live in a forest. My point is that many people don't and that forests are unnatural in most places. My point is you don't need a forest for such a house. >Actually, you're just asserting that idea. You've done nothing to support it. Asserting if you want, I just had the wrong word. I'd like to continue that argument in French ;) Also I live in a very modern and well-isolated house (that's law requirement in Germany) where I don't need any AC. That's my modest contribution. I just miss some vegetables around here... >I've already asked twice for some support for the claim that such aesthetics are relevant to survival. Where? Architecture is not only aesthetics, it's efficiency too. If you don't believe energy prices will soon go high again, then don't - not my problem :)
- anamax 17y ago
  > And what is the issue with planted vegetables? You were claiming that the surroundings required to make that house usable were "natural". > You were asserting I don't know suburbian America No. I was pointing out that the required vegetation, vegetation that you claim is "natural", is not natural in much of the world and gave examples. > My point is you don't need a forest for such a house. You need dense growth at a low level. That's not natural in much of the world. > Architecture is not only aesthetics, it's efficiency too. The original aesthetics is essential to survival claim in this thread was about beauty. Actually, construction is efficiency. However, architecture can make certain types of efficient living difficult. This house is an example. Ignoring the privacy problems, it simply doesn't allow for efficient handling of stuff. It's a great place to visit but as a long term working residence, it's a failure. (And no,it's more than being kid hostile; kids are just an easy way to see the problem.)

anamax 17y ago

> I had a long bus drive through New Jersey a few months ago - saw a lot of different suburb landscapes there. I think I know how it looks like. New Jersey isn't particularly representative of the world, let alone of the world in a "natural" state.