Kirsten's Essay

JUA ESSAY 500 WORDS
Kirsten Nilsson
January 7, 2007

QUESTION: Architects have been trying to create the ultimate human habitat for many years, and will continue to do so for many years to come. To create, maintain, and run a huge city large amounts of energy are required. How much time to architects spend on calculating the most energy efficient way to lay out a city? In what ways can architects reduce the amount of wasted energy to preserve our resources? How effective and beneficial can alternative energy sources be even on the large scale of a city such as Boston?

On the JUA trip I was disappointed with the response towards my essential question. Or anything having to do with it, in which I asked to those whom I had an appointment with. To me it seems like a lot of architects and builders are not as concerned as I think that they should be about conserving energy. The most concern put into saving energy is most likely during the building process. Such as when they are working in the cold, in a building that is unfinished. During the building they wrap the building in plastic to avoid wasting heat. When architects plan out a city layout they cater more towards having an astatically pleasing layout, instead of a way that will save energy. In my opinion a lot of buildings have unnecessary features. For example when I went and met with Prataap I viewed a model of a building with what I at first thought were solar panels. I soon found out that the panels we not for capturing solar energy but for reflecting light down into the city. I'm sure this is needed, but what I want to know is why they didn’t just put solar panels in as well. Unfortunately a lot of my questions stumped the people I interviewed.
I got the impression that using alternative energy is very strenuous for a city such as Boston. I asked a question as to what they will do in the future to fuel the city, and there seemed to be no concern, as if they have never been asked this question. Obviously it takes an extreme amount of energy to build a city, as well as run it in the present. But what about running the city in the future. When the city gets larger and larger, and our recourses become less and less available? I got no answer. In fact it seemed to be that Prataap was embarrassed when he had no answer. The real answer is that if there is not enough energy the city will suffer. Imagine the city of Boston just sitting because it was overbuilt and there was not enough energy left to fuel the monster that was already created. What will happen?
In the mean time the builders of the city will continue to build the city larger and larger. There are defiantly building control laws. Once again these laws are more for the people. Such as having buildings that do not block other homeowner or business owners views. To me, I do not understand why this is a bigger current concern than saving energy. The response to this was that right now they need to please the people, to get money. I feel a sense of greed from the architects. I also asked what kind of laws there were about energy waste. Fortunately for the sake of the earth there are lots of regulations. A larger question I asked to all the people I met with was weather or not they followed these regulations because they had to, or because they felt it was right. The answers varied. But it seems that the majority of their focus went to passing the bar and only being happy about it when the regulations result in them saving money.
In result of this Trip firstly I realized that I have no interest in architecture. I also realized that they lacked in planning for the future. Luckily there are regulations otherwise the city would most likely waste 100% more energy. If there were more people out there that were less focused on money and more focused on the greater good there would be less energy wasted, and a healthier city. Perhaps somewhere else there are more people with concerns. But none of which I met. This was a good learning experience, and I look forward to seeing where Boston goes in the future.