I understand many of the points presented here.
From Alan’s point of view – there are many designs being touted as ‘sustainable’ when in reality they man not be so. Instead, they appear to and may actually have certain ‘sustainable’ features, but as a whole may be very resource intensive. From my limited understanding of how High Line was constructed and how it is maintained, it seems to fit this description.
As Andrew points out – it is somewhat trendy to have something you can sell as ‘sustainable’ in a design. But it might not always be truly as such. There certainly is value in aesthetic design from the standpoint that it provides spiritual or emotional value to the humans that partake in a good design.
In response to Rob’s points, utilizing water in itself is a resource intensive act. Labor input is also resource intensive and expensive in the long run.
My opinon? I believe there is a happy medium between all of this. I am of the mindset that we are in a resource-limited world, and we should start acting accordingly. However, this does not mean that design aesthetics have to fly out the window, or that we need to tack the word ‘sustainable’ onto every design. Instead, an ecologically sound mindset should be at the core of what we do. From that point, we can use our aesthetic and artistic capabilites to create systems that are low resource intensive, attractive, and ecologically sound.
