Sustainable Living Requires a Revolution in Both Building Design and Cultural Practice by Katy Janda
		1 | 2 <cont. ...> However, even changing common practice in the construction industry is not enough to ensure a sustainable future. Better use of resources is not in itself a sustainable path, as it is possible to use ever-greater absolute levels of resources in relatively more efficient and green ways. For example, a large, new house may use energy efficiently and may be constructed with sustainable or recycled materials, but it will often consume more energy and resources than a smaller home. In a world where society shapes and is shaped by technological possibilities, it is important to explore how new things become "normal." The general trend in American building has been to consume more and more energy and resources in the name of making life better. In 1970, two-thirds of new homeowners kept their homes cool without central air-conditioning; today, central A/C is a standard feature in 83 percent of new homes, even in temperate climates. In the last three decades, the size of the average American home has climbed by 46 percent, to say nothing of the proliferation of two- and three-car garages. These examples point to the need for "sufficiency"–the ability to break the spiral of material saturation that currently signifies affluence and well-being in our society. Creating sufficiency is not a technical problem to be handled by the construction industry. It is a social issue that requires interdisciplinary attention. Resolving problems in the built environment goes beyond cutting utility bills, reducing carbon emissions, and preserving natural resources. It is also about creating social and cultural change. Building design and urban planning decisions have implications for all people and every socioeconomic class. Shelter is a necessity, yet many people in this country are homeless. The quality and quantity of housing influences the socioeconomic mix of residents in an area and can therefore affect the very root of political power. Decisions about the built environment, therefore, cannot rely on simple cost-benefit calculations. Instead, these decisions must incorporate concerns about who benefits from and who pays for the built environment. Questions about the form, nature, and distribution of buildings are of critical importance to a sustainable world. No one branch of the sciences, social sciences, or humanities can claim more than a piece of the overall puzzle. A wide range of disciplines contributes to the resolution of the current problems with the built environment. These changes will affect the firms that design and construct buildings; the people, organizations, and societies who buy, use, and require them; and the environment in which we all must live.
		Please send comments, questions, and suggestions about Oberlin Online news and feature articles to online.news@oberlin.edu.