I'm sorry to say, but 85% of so-called 'green' firms make some of the ugliest buildings that were ever made. So for God's sake, I don't want to be categorized with them.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
What is now called 'green architecture' is an opportunistic caricature of a much deeper consideration of the issues related to sustainability that architecture has been engaged with for many years. It was one of the first professions that was deeply concerned with these issues and that had an intellectual response to them.
I am all for greening tall buildings, but I'm also very keen to note that greening a building doesn't cope with the problem of the tall building in the texture of the city.
The government is a very large constructor. They have schools, colleges, hospitals and courts, offices. We are trying to influence the public works department to adopt green buildings.
Innovative companies have started to realize there are not enough 'green consumers' willing to pay more for something just because it's green.
You can't have the finest buildings if they're not in focus. They become like nice cars parked on the street.
I always think of buildings in their settings, but so do other architects.
As people flock to urban centers where ground space is limited, cities with green walls and roofs and skyscraper farms offer improved health and well-being, renewable resources, reliable food supply, and relief to the environment.
If it can be profitable to be green, that's just smart business.
Green issues have been used as a marketing tool. Sometimes these green claims are completely meaningless.
Color is a very critical thing. I've found that architects don't like colors. Engineers too. And so somebody has to stand in. Because this is the finish of it. It is the emotional part of a structure.
No opposing quotes found.