Design For Planetary Health

Follow ArchaNatura On Facebook and Twitter

By Mark Lundegren

DSC_0661-Edit~2

Architects, engineers, builders, developers, and planners have many ideas about optimal design. These include preferences and goals for the aesthetics, layout, materials, densities, spatial plan, and economics of buildings and our larger built environment.

All are important considerations, and can be essential to successful building and community design. But I would like to propose a simple, fundamental, and quite sweeping design principle that at once underlies and supersedes all other design issues and demands. This principle is consideration of whether the design or development aids or inhibits planetary health, which is my topic for today.

As I said, the idea is sweeping and fundamental. If you will give me a few minutes, I will first explain why this concern should be considered the first principle of natural design, and then outline how the principle readily can inform and guide other design and development ideas, across the modern world and for our common benefit.

The Design For Planetary Health infographic above describes two basic approaches to modern development – one primarily as it occurs today, the other how it might, if we are committed to planetary health and human sustainability. Please note that many of the ideas in the infographic are drawn from the work of the ecologist Walter Jehne, who you can learn about here and here. Let me also emphasize that my design for planetary health proposals do not involve either creating or living less vitally or robustly, only differently, or more intelligently and naturally.

Understanding why the promotion of planetary health is the first principle of natural design is fairly straightforward. Simply put, all design, building, technology, and indeed human action will have either a positive, negative, or neutral impact on the natural health or survivability of life and the ecosystems upon which we depend. While negative health impacts may be inconsequential when small or limited, as these cases increase they naturally undermine our capacity for further action, and even future life, and thus are irrational, paradoxical, inextensible, or unprincipled.

Further, since some human actions typically will be either unintentionally or clandestinely health negative, effort at positive health impacts are essential, if we are to achieve positive or at least neutral environmental health effects overall. And the only way to further this outcome fairly, and not overburden particular people and groups, is to make demands for comparable degrees of positive health impact the rule for all designs, developments, and endeavors. This may sound onerous, but in practice is normally a reasonable or fairly easily adopted standard. After all, living nature has been using this basic approach for millions of years, without obvious hardship, and indeed seemingly to its benefit.

There are many potential methods for achieving positive planetary health outcomes in the aggregate, and my infographic is not intended as a final word on the topic. But its framework may reflect our best current understanding of how we are most contributing to reduced planetary health, and the most direct, efficient, and reliable alternative to reverse and undo these trends. As you can see in the graphic, this alternative approach to modern infrastructure design addresses many of our most important human and environmental health issues today. These include global warming, climate change, ocean acidification, land aridification and desertification, agricultural soil loss, poor food quality, habitat loss, increased atmospheric carbon, and other forms of human pollution.

As I said, the infographic describes two basic approaches to human design and development, one broadly running contrary to natural ecological forces and another intended to work in concert with them. In the two approaches, the central design difference is their relative emphasis and use of hardscape and softscape conditions. By this, I mean land surfaces or coverings that either inhibit or promote: 1) natural water retention and cycling, 2) soil building and microbiological vitality, and 3) green land outcomes – or ones that are sunlight absorbing, photosynthetic, and shading.

Here are brief descriptions of each design model or archetype, to help you consider and use the infographic:

> Model 1: Agricultural and Urban Hardscape – as indicated, this model describes our dominant present-day approach to design and development in both rural and urban areas. Whether through the use of monocrop annual food systems or the laying of urban pavements, today we typically create periodic or permanent hard landscape surfaces that tend to shed, rather than retain, water. When this occurs, and especially at scale, a natural result is that soils are dried and eroded, instead of hydrated and strengthened. This directly leads to diminished and decarbonized soils, less vibrant soil microbiology and surface vegetation, more sunlight reflected into the air, the formation of heat domes, and perhaps most importantly, diminished natural water cycling. Reduced water cycling, in turn, promotes compounding land aridification and reduced natural cooling on a regional scale, often further reducing soil and plant health. In addition, our common use of fossil fuels takes ancient, deeply buried carbons and releases them into the modern atmosphere, which adds to this unnatural system of planetary drying and warming.

> Model 2: Porous Natural Softscape – in keeping with the infographic, a more natural and reversing alternative to this traditional approach is to redesign and re-create our contemporary communities and infrastructure with none or few of these features. In this alternative approach, our modern infrastructure is broadly re-patterned based on natural methods and conditions, notably ones favoring water-retaining and soil-shading porous softscapes, and where carbon-free and sunlight-based economics are the mainstays of life. Key design steps in this approach include the move to perennial and polycultural agriculture, re-greening and perhaps re-agriculturalizing desertified lands, similar re-greening and softscaping of urban areas, and movement to solar-autonomous buildings and transportation. As a re-naturalizing opposite of current design and land-use practices, we can expect these steps steadily to increase landmass water retention, improve soils, increase plant cover and photosynthesis, aid many marginalized species, reduce atmospheric carbon and ocean acidification, and restore natural weather patterns and hydrological cooling.

In one sense, our modern ecological and planetary health problems are complex, vast, and overwhelming. But in another and more important one, we can understand that many of the challenges we face are rooted in a small number of specific features of modern life. These features, or design decisions, are inherently antithetical to natural systems and planetary health, demonstrable as such, and readily actionable and changeable too.

Whatever your role in the design, creation, and use of our modern infrastructure and industrial systems, I would encourage you to explore these ideas and consider how your own actions and efforts might be made far more natural, aiding, healthy, and sustainable – for our planet and all people.

Mark Lundegren is the founder of ArchaNatura. 

Tell others about ArchaNatura…encourage modern natural design & sustainability!

Carbon Sources Not Equal

Follow ArchaNatura On Facebook and Twitter

By Mark Lundegren

DSC_0661-Edit~2

If you follow public and scientific debate about human-induced climate change, you likely have noticed there is a good deal of conflicting information about both the problem and its principal causes.

This is unfortunate, not only as a matter of accuracy, but because the ambiguity can make needed action and essential focus areas much less clear. At its worst, false or incomplete carbon pollution information risks overburdening minor contributors to climate change, while giving major producers of new atmospheric carbon relatively easy treatment, or even an unwarranted pass.

As a study in this, and prompting the infographic below, I recently read an editorial piece, aimed primarily at the perils of meat production, suggesting that more than a quarter of human greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were from agriculture. If you search this topic, you will quickly find that agricultural GHGs vary considerably by country, but are estimated to average about half of this level worldwide.

Beyond the precise amount of GHG from agricultural activities, a more important but subtle and often overlooked point is that many agricultural emissions are significantly natural or historical GHG sources. And while reducible to a degree, such broadly natural emissions are also significantly unavoidable overall, as I will explain.

As with living nature overall, the principal direct sources of GHG from human agriculture are animal metabolism and decaying plants, which we can think of helpfully as continually released and in turn naturally recycled forms of surface carbon. Though I should add that this is not the full truth. In particular, natural plant and animal ecosystems are typically perennial or evergreen systems, both producing and using carbon dioxide throughout all or much of the year, and also steadily sequestering or encapsulating atmospheric carbon, via the natural buildup of soils that normally occurs in perennial ecological systems.

But crucially, only some of human agriculture involves perennial ecology, notably pastoral ranching and wild fisheries. Much of the rest of our agriculture instead produces annual crops raised in monoculture, often with the use of GHG-releasing fertilizers and pesticides, and where soil lies exposed, eroding, unproductive, and leaching carbon into the atmosphere for significant periods of time each year. In these cases, and leaving aside fertilizers for a moment, annual crop GHG emissions extend beyond surface animal metabolism and decaying plants to include the release of sequestered, buried, sub-surface, or ground carbon, as soil is exposed to the sun and erodes in the wind and rain.

One important consequence of these ideas is that if we return perennial agricultural grasslands and savannas, or ocean fisheries, to natural or wild conditions, we can expect little or no change in carbon emissions. Think about it. Left alone, these areas would soon re-populate with wild animals and plants, which would naturally and perennially grow, release and consume carbon dioxide in balance, and build carbon-sequestering soil in time, as they have for millions of years. To stop this re-population, we would have to prevent wild animals and plants from re-occupying these areas, through one means or another, but with the natural result of destroying these wild, soil and atmospherically beneficial, ecosystems.

My infographic above first seeks to capture the idea that perennial organic human agriculture, while subject to productivity or efficiency opportunities, is largely a natural process and not a principal source of new GHG in the atmosphere today. Second, it emphasizes that soil and sequestered carbon disrupting human activities – from logging and annual agriculture to human-increased air and water temperatures – are significantly unnatural, an important and compounding source of new GHG, and destined to steadily reduce the earth’s capacity to re-absorb atmospheric carbon, new and old.

Lastly, the graphic highlights the primary human source of new GHG in the modern atmosphere. This is the mining and use of carbon fuels, or ancient soil carbons, long buried deep below the Earth’s surface. Such underground carbon includes coal, oil, and gas-based transportation, electricity generation, industry, building, business and consumer goods, heating and cooling, plant fertilizers, and agricultural machinery.

In addition to unnatural soil-degrading and vegetation-inhibiting agricultural practices, this is where our modern climate change problem squarely and principally lies.

Mark Lundegren is the founder of ArchaNatura. 

Tell others about ArchaNatura…encourage modern natural design & sustainability!

Ultra-Low Water Use Buildings

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter

By Mark Lundegren

DSC_0661-Edit~2

There are many reasons we might be interested in ultra-low water use.

To begin a list, we might live in an area which has low rainfall and limited water abundance. We may want to reduce expenses from high water use, wherever we live. We might seek to stop unsustainable draws on local groundwater, and thus perhaps ensure adequate spring and surface water for natural wildlife and the carbon-sequestering ecosystems around us. Or either practically or philosophically, we may wish to build off-grid in as many ways as possible, be free of centralized utilities and their bills, and live with a higher degree of natural autonomy, freedom, and resilience than is typical today.

Whatever our motivations for examining and pursuing this goal, let me say upfront that genuinely radical reductions in water use are normally possible in much of the industrially developed world, without significant reductions in our material quality of life. As we will discuss, thanks to modern technology, and in most areas – and almost always in ones with above 30 cm (12 inches) of annual rainfall – it is possible to live a fully modern life with on-site captured rain and other precipitation as our sole source of water.

End_Uses_Pie_1

Wikipedia: Residential Water Use in the U.S. and Canada (link/credit)

Importantly, while our discussion will focus on residential or domestic water use, all of its its lessons are directly applicable to commercial and institutional buildings. On the other hand, water use in industrial manufacturing is clearly a separate and more ranging topic, with different issues and differing opportunities across various industrial sectors.

However, while we will only briefly touch on this area here, the case of both industrial and domestic food production is worth highlighting as part of our core discussion. Simply put, with careful water consumption, the use of modern permaculture techniques, and movement to more natural and naturally water-conserving perennial food systems (a topic I have summarized here), the above rule of deriving all needed water from on-site precipitation also broadly applies to agriculture as well.

Lastly for this introduction, our discussion notably will assume the presence of abundant low-cost electricity, a proposal that seems reasonable, across the developed world at least, in our era of increasingly low-cost solar collectors and batteries (a trend I have explored here).

Continue reading “Ultra-Low Water Use Buildings”

Building Design For Printability

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter

By Mark Lundegren

DSC_0661-Edit~2

Architects, builders, planners, and developers are doubtless aware that 3D printed buildings and larger communities are on the horizon, with early prototypes now in the popular and professional press. In this approach, large three-axis printers, or alternatives such as ones pivoting from a central point, are used to place materials in a specific order via design and printing software.

While this potential is well-recognized, at least three important aspects of this likely change in construction methods may be overlooked. First is that it will both require and strongly incentivize new Design for Printibality (DFP) standards and practices. On one hand, this will be necessary to enable reliable use of the technology, and also encouraged by the fact that machine-printed buildings with high DFP quotients – from backyard sheds to urban skyscrapers – may become substantially less expensive to construct and maintain than traditionally-built ones.

To Sense Potential Changes, Consider Which Form Is Easier to 3D Print

Second, as my intentionally provocative photo suggests, perhaps few of us have considered how radically DFP may alter building design and engineering, and the typical building shapes and fine-scale design features that we typically employ and take as given today. But to quickly understand this prospect, consider that much of human architecture, historically and in our time, has a low DFP quotient and is likely to be strongly disfavored or disincentivized by 3D technology.

Third, perhaps just as few of us are aware that DFP standards exist already, owing to the rise of desktop and industrial 3D printing, that these standards appear broadly applicable to building design at all scales, and also that they likely offer a significant window onto future building design and construction.

Continue reading “Building Design For Printability”

The Most Efficient Building Form

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter

By Mark Lundegren

DSC_0661-Edit~2

Do you wonder if common building forms or approaches are the most efficient possible?

Since much of architecture and design today, as in the past, is concerned with aesthetics, norms, status, expression, and therefore communication, you may suspect the answer is no, and even strongly no.

But before you answer, let me point out that when we think of form or design efficiency, we can mean more than the direct costs or immediate resources and energy involved in constructing and using buildings, along with the larger settings they create in combination, as important as this is to determining efficiency.

In a complementary and informing way, we also can consider the indirect costs of buildings and developed areas. This crucial but less obvious category of costs or efficiency factors is often substantially overlooked, taken as separate from or beyond the scope of building and development, or expediently treated as “free” to some degree – thereby becoming externalities, or public or unborn costs, in the terminology of economists.

Importantly, indirect building and development costs can be as significant as direct ones. They include the often unexamined costs of pollution, dislocation, future inflexibility, sprawl, resource degradation, eventual obsolescence, and the potential for blight. As a practical matter, such indirect and commonly overlooked costs are essential to understanding the true cost, and thus the true efficiency, of any design, building, or developed area.

Fortunately, we can simplify this complex topic for a general discussion by recognizing that two basic design principles or features often substantially predict both types of costs, and thus the general efficiency of building and development. The first of these principles is that development, buildings, and spaces that are more compact or reduced in scope will tend to be less resource-intensive, less costly overall, and therefore more efficient, as long as they meet essential needs or are effective solutions overall.

The second principle is that buildings, infrastructure, and material inputs using renewable resources – and failing this, readily recyclable or reusable ones – will tend to be less costly and more efficient overall as well, by often producing fewer externalities or indirect costs for others to contend with in time. There are of course exceptions to these two rules. But overall, it is a much more difficult general case to advocate for expansive and non-renewable building and development on efficiency grounds, even as this is still our most common approach to building today.

Continue reading “The Most Efficient Building Form”

Automobiles – So Pedestrian

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter

By Mark Lundegren

DSC_0661-Edit~2

Despite my title, I am not going to rail against the automobile, though I will summarize its obvious flaws, whether piston-powered or electric, and especially in urban areas.

Instead, I mostly want to talk about what we – you and I – can do to quickly offset or improve upon these limitations, while enjoying and even increasing the benefits, opportunity, and natural wonder of motorized commerce and travel for all.

A Typical Day In A Typical City, Nearly Everywhere These Days

As you well know, automobiles suffer from a number of natural drawbacks. This is true in all times, but is a fact increasingly understood and plain in the twenty-first century. These disadvantages of automobiles include their being: 1) expensive to own and operate, 2) resource-intensive and polluting, 3) generally unsustainable as a technology at scale, 4) relatively dangerous to occupants and bystanders alike, 5) physically and ecologically intrusive in the environment, and 6) an enabler of urban sprawl and thereby a promoter of further environmental intrusion and harm.

In addition, automobiles are also naturally and ironically road-congesting when they become the norm – and far more so than other modes of transportation. Automobiles are therefore regularly infuriating, time-wasting, stressful or even soul-destroying (at least to ambitious billionaires), and thus pedestrian. At the same time, however, automobiles and other large motor vehicles have important benefits or advantages. Notably, this includes their ability to carry us and other heavy things great distances and in ways that otherwise might be impractical, difficult, or more costly.

So what to do about all this? While some among us say the problem with automobiles is inadequate roads (or tunnels), the unstoppable ineptitude of their human drivers, or inadequate technological advancement in other regards, all this merely overlooks, extends, or buries the natural shortcomings inherent in widespread and frequent motorized travel.

As an alternative to this, I would like to suggest five steps we all can realistically take to immediately reduce the prevalence and natural harm of automobiles, while simultaneously decongesting our roadways and making high-value automotive transportation more efficient, and even more enjoyable:

#1: Move – if you cannot live, work, and play without an automobile where you reside, you and your family of course have the opportunity to move to a place where you can, and this process can be aided by the reduced costs of not depending on and paying for one or more automobiles to fulfill normal activities of daily life

#2: De-Car – while or after you move, you can sell, donate, or recycle your automobile or automobiles, again reducing costs, but also encouraging car-free, and perhaps more carefree, living on your part

#3: Ride-Share – once you are car-free, you can make full use of your transportation options, including highly social buses and trains, more exclusive ride-sharing services, and still more exclusive automobile rental – in all cases, but proportionately so, reducing your transportation costs and ecological impact on the planet

#4: Walk & Cycle – for shorter trips, and ones without significant things to carry, walking or cycling is of course a waiting, renaturalizing, and health-increasing option, especially if the route has safe walkways or bike paths, which it will if we are careful in step one, or are willing to lobby city hall

#5: Move Again – if your first car-free location proves less than ideal and thus a learning experience, you always can move again, with the added benefit not only of improving your quality of life, but also signalling to planners and developers growing demand for high-quality, car-free housing and living arrangements overall

As I said before, my goal here is not to rage against the machine or advocate elimination of all automobiles. Rather, it is to reduce their ill-considered and needless use, their inherent ecological and financial costs, and their contribution to reduced human health, happiness, and social connection.

Indeed, by following the above steps, not only would we and our cities and towns become healthier and more sustainable, our road systems and roadsides would be significantly emptied and de-cluttered as well – increasing the efficiency of commercial traffic and also restoring the wonder and beauty of driving, when we periodically take a trip and rove the open road away from home.

Mark Lundegren is the founder of ArchaNatura. 

Tell others about ArchaNatura…encourage modern natural design!

The Future of Electricity

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter

By Mark Lundegren

DSC_0661-Edit~2

Essential to modern design, building, development, and economic investment, on many fronts, is an understanding of electricity. Not so much how electricity works, but how it will be created and provided in the future – whether to homes, businesses, whole communities, or industry.

In much of the world today, electricity is of course primarily generated in power plants and transmitted via electrical grids by utilities of various types and sizes (see Ta’u for an example of a new and growing exception). Power plants in our time generally use natural gas, diesel, coal, nuclear fission, or dammed water to turn large generators. However, as you likely know, a small but increasing part of this mix is electricity from solar power plants, rooftop solar panels, and wind turbines.

What may be less clear is that much of this is likely to change, and perhaps soon and quite rapidly or radically. In a decade or two, electricity may be increasingly generated by building-installed solar panels or sheathing, stored in batteries where it is generated, and no longer transmitted by power grids at all. Power poles in residential and commercial areas may be coming down, traditional electrical utilities may be facing bankruptcy, and large power plants and long distance transmission systems may have begun to become obsolete.

A Gridless, Solar-Powered Future May Be Driven By Simple Economics

If this idea or prospect seems uncertain or doubtful to you, let me make the case why it may be likely and even inevitable, and also give you an idea of what more decentralized – or more naturally distributed, autonomous, and democratic – off-grid power systems might look like in the future. Importantly, let me add that these new building-level power systems may, in turn, usher in or become part of a larger movement to modularize and automate building and development more generally, perhaps significantly reducing building construction (or installation) costs, as I will explain.

Continue reading “The Future of Electricity”

Self-Driving Mobile Homes

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter

By Mark Lundegren

DSC_0661-Edit~2

Self-driving or autonomous cars and trucks are coming, and soon. Not only are the number of firms developing the technology increasing, regulatory barriers and public skepticism are receding, and the initial rollout of the vehicles is proceeding successfully.

As I write this, Google brethren and early market-leader Waymo has driverless, level-4 autonomous vans roaming the streets of Phoenix, Arizona, with plans to expand and achieve fully autonomous, level-5 functioning in the near term.

Self-Driving Technology May Change The Way We Live Overall

But what about self-driving or autonomous motorhomes, or mobile homes, here meaning more than mere recreational vehicles? As autonomous vehicle technology proliferates, self-driving mobile homes cannot be far behind, and perhaps with far-reaching consequences. After all, if we could live and move in our homes, and not have to drive or steer them, many of us might choose to no longer have fixed homes, and to live far more mobile or location-flexible lives than we do today.

Consider some of the potential key features of mobile living, if we could live and work, and not have to drive, as we move:

Continue reading “Self-Driving Mobile Homes”

Green Building: More Than LEED

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter

By Mark Lundegren

DSC_0661-Edit~2

In many countries today, there is a rapid movement toward green building.

Often, however, this goal is cast somewhat narrowly – as creating buildings that require little or no external energy for their daily use, or fabricating structures with a fairly high degree of autonomy.

While this goal is laudable and has led to a number of important innovations, there are at least two broader, more rigorous, and ultimately more socially beneficial ways to conceive of green building design.

A second, broader conception of green building also considers the amount and nature of resources that go into the initial construction of buildings. In this expanded definition, architects, builders, developers, and regulators seek to: 1) minimize resource use during building construction, 2) reduce reliance on non-sustainable or non-recyclable resources, and 3) build in ways that are either minimally impact or positively enhance land, water, and air quality around buildings and their communities. As you may know, this sense of green building design is increasingly more common – and can be explored at green building.

A third and still more expansive definition of green building further extends the concept to include consideration of the long-term ecological and social impacts of building and development overall. In particular, this view enlarges our analysis to assess the relative effectiveness of building and development patterns both at meeting human needs and promoting human health, including the essential foundation of all natural health that is ecological sustainability.

What Is The Correct Scope For Green Building & Development?

Importantly, and often somewhat unintuitively or inexpeditiously, the natural – or renaturalized – goals of meeting human needs and promoting human health generally lead to a basic rethinking of traditional building design and construction practices, along with community and societal development norms more broadly. This is a complex topic, but let me point out that the aim of serving human needs and promoting overall community and societal health invariably must consider how building and development impact people generally, and how these efforts can serve the greatest number of people.

Continue reading “Green Building: More Than LEED”

Wasting Space – And Time

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter

By Mark Lundegren

DSC_0661-Edit~2

Working with a prospective client recently, a recurring idea in building design came up – the notion of wasting space.

It’s a term designers and clients frequently use, but also one we don’t always consider carefully. Today, I want to provide a framework for thinking about wasted space in design efforts of all kinds, and to highlight two important and common ways of wasting space in building design. In their essence, these two ways are creating space that is either too full or too empty. And by avoiding each extreme, we can reliably avoid wasting both space and time.

In the client discussion I mentioned, we were considering two design ideas for a project. The designs each had the same enclosed floor area and basic plan, but differed somewhat in the amount of garden space and walkways around the living areas. Overall, the first design was slightly more compact in its total dimensions and the second had a somewhat larger total footprint, owing to the expanded garden and walkway areas. But all other things were equal, and the two designs had identical interior proportions. So, is it correct to say that the larger plan had more wasted space?

woman-927935_960_720

Enormous, Luxuriant Space – How Much Of It Is Wasted?

The first design clearly used less space and in this sense was more efficient or compact. Similarly, the second design can be seen as using space less efficiently, or as containing more unused or unfilled space. But the second design was also more compelling and livable, and felt much larger and more open than its modestly greater dimensions might have suggested. One might argue, then, that the second design was a better use of space – especially if both designs were affordable or within budget, which they were in this case.

These considerations point to two fundamental, sometimes competing, but not mutually exclusive goals in spatial design – the task of achieving adequate efficiency or compactness and then sufficient elegance or extension. Both goals are integral to excellence in natural design, and arise again and again in a variety of creative and artistic domains (for example, even in the non-visual arts of music and writing). In total, ensuring both efficiency and elegance is a challenge we all must often repeatedly address and resolve, if we are to design and create successfully.

As my sunset photo above suggests, in an important sense space is never wholly wasted if it is elegant. And the 150 million kilometers of extension that lie between us and the sun are hardly wasted space, even in strict utilitarian terms, since the earth would warm and life would be curtailed if this distance were much less. More artistically, our solar system and larger universe likely would be far less elegant – or less mysterious and intriguing – if either were tightly compact and plainer to the eye.

Still, efficiency considerations are a natural concern in design, art, and fabrication, since all uses of space and other resources have costs and alternatives, and never only provide benefits. At the same time, there is a certain marvel with or satisfaction in the efficient or dense use of space, though this is rarely enough to be a substitute for true elegance in design (again, with useful analogies in music, writing, and other artistic domains).

But just as the single-minded pursuit of elegance can overlook or miss efficiency considerations, a preoccupation with design efficiency can unduly, and often needlessly, impinge on essential design elegance. In practice, both inadequate efficiency and insufficient elegance are reliable ways to reduce natural excellence in design and to waste space. And both shortcomings are likely to occur whenever designers, builders, or clients act inattentively, or without an essential understanding of these twin natural needs when creating.

Continue reading “Wasting Space – And Time”