Which, of course, is Margie Zeidler II. (And with a green wall in the lobby for added good measure.)

Remember: if you think of green roofs as functional entities rather than simple "roof park" conceits, it all makes sense...
 
Ryuinfinity said:
It completely ruins the historic feel of the building.
Click to expand...

Ruins it for whom, exactly? The few people who work or live in floors high enough to see the rooftop? The vast majority of people will still experience this building at street level and never see the green roof.

And believe me, the people who can see the green roof won't be complaining when what basically amounts to a utilitarian concrete deadzone becomes a grassy oasis.
 
khristopher said:
I honestly do not care if you think it looks good. I don't, and really that's all there is to say. It's simply my taste is different than yours. That does not make my taste bad, or even wrong. Just different from your own.
So please do not tell me to get a grip over something like this. Go find someone else to troll.
Click to expand...

Well, it goes a little beyond simple matters of taste. As grey and I have articulated, green roofs help to lower heating and cooling costs, ease grey-water collection for use within the structure, and provide space for office workers to relax (among many other benefits). So, if you wish to introduce morals to the debate, it would seem that we have the high-ground.

Anything besides 'taste' to make this a bad idea? Various other members have stated that this will not interfere with the construction of the roof itself and will therefore not impact heritage status. It will not be visible from street-level and, as grey notes, few office workers looking down onto the park will probably complain.

And while I'm at it, challenging another member over a particular point does not consititute a 'troll.' Let's debate this like adults, since lowering the envrionmental costs of buildings is something of great importance in contemporary architecture.
 
I think it's better to just agree to disagree. Environmental friendliness is not at the top of everyone's priority list. There's an article I read (can't recall where) saying most people don't really care about green roofs. It's the builders who are forcing it on the buyers buy putting them up and adding the costs to the buyer. I was pretty mad when Bush turned down the kyoto protocol. I wasn't happy when Canada pushed it aside either. Some people just don't care. But I'm glad Canada is back on track trying to re-enforce it.
 
AKS said:
I think it's better to just agree to disagree. Environmental friendliness is not at the top of everyone's priority list. There's an article I read (can't recall where) saying most people don't really care about green roofs. It's the builders who are forcing it on the buyers buy putting them up and adding the costs to the buyer. I was pretty mad when Bush turned down the kyoto protocol. I wasn't happy when Canada pushed it aside either. Some people just don't care. But I'm glad Canada is back on track trying to re-enforce it.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I'm reading your post wrong. You support environmental legislation yet oppose specific measures which would directly benefit the environment.

Also, what does it matter whether the general public care or don't care about green roofs. If they did, would anyone own a Hummer? Apathy is not the answer here, education is. If enough people can be convinced of the problems facing the globe and, conversely, the benefits of systems such as green roofs, then they will support them and more will be implemented. And, as a surprisingly informed (just read Koolhaas' interview with her in Content) woman always says: "that's a good thing."
 
Well, the issue isn't really about education. I'm sure people know about it. But whether they care to do anything about it is another matter. It's like people who know smoking is bad and it's going to kill them and even kills others from second hand smoking. That doesn't mean they're going to quit smoking. They'll just keep smoking until they die. You can argue with them until you're blue in the face but it doesn't change their thoughts.
 
Beyond the idea that 'people are ignorant,' I fail to see the congruence between smoking and environmental knowledge. Often smokers understand the facts and do truly want to quit yet continue their habit because it is chemically addictive. In the end, smokers (so long as it's done outside) are only harming themselves. Climate change however, effects us all and is something that cannot be solved by a single broad stroak or valliant treaty.

We are addicted to energy and, like smokers, need a step-by-step program to help ease the habit. I'm not trying to preach a moralist stance here since I too use my fair share of energy. I can however, see the benefts of things like green roofs, grey water collection and other measures to help mitigate the long-term effects.

This is why I can't let an 'I don't want green roofs because they're ugly' argument stand in the way of a clever solution to some rather glaring problems. I'm not going to reiterate the points since they lie in the posts above this one, but for people to express such an opinion seems a tad decadent, don't you think?

I'm sure you know that other countries are mandating green technology in new structures to help reduce their energy usage (I refuse to use the term 'carbon footprint' since it is vague and only describes one aspect of the problem). Shouldn't we do the same?
 
Proving that the public knows what when it comes to matters of the environment?

I'm familiar with the project, the thread and the NIMBY response. Similar battles are being fought in rural farm communities north of Toronto.
 
Well, it just proves that people live for the "I" and not "us". "I don't think it's good. I don't like it. It's an eyesore to ME." Not "It's better off for us"," It will help us build a brighter future".

Or in some instances, "we have to focus on the now" and not on the future. Like how Alberta can create so much pollution but they can get away with it because they provide Canada with a lot of income. I agree we need oil. It's better we buy oil from our own country than leak money out. But doesn't mean I happy about the pollution.

Anyhow, my notions are an oxy-moron because I fall into the broken window theory. If others pollute. Even if we try to help. Others will make it worse anyhow and don't care. So I don't care either. I have done some not so good stuff like littering if I can't find a garbage can and see others litter.
 
Last edited:
^you kinda nailed it.

But "I" for one think if you take the microphone or stand on the soapbox... even a lame-ass internet forum soapbox, you should be prepared to offer a reasonable answer or argument (opinion + facts) when challenged... and not resort to hand signals miming stuff like "whatever", "troll" or "oh my god, get a life".

It's a waste of time and a waste of space... even if it is digital and supposedly non-polluting.

I hate erudite elitists (and redundancy, redundancy) as much as I hate "opinionated voters" how scream about their rights being infringed upon... "I am me.. and that is good enough".
 
rdaner said:
Is this a recent reiteration of this idea? Completely ignoring what is happening in the economy ...
Click to expand...

i suspect the distress in the economy will not be perpetual so ideas will continue until such time conditions are appropriate to act.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top