[lit-ideas] Re: regeneration (pssst...Irene)
- From: Andy <mimi.erva@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 17:21:39 -0700 (PDT)
This kind of stuff is good but it sends the wrong message that all we need to
do is get clever with landfills and the like. What we really need to do is
stop generating the stuff in the first place, then clean up what's there.
Unfortunately, not generating this stuff means massively rethinking the way the
world functions, which is absolutely not going to happen. Quite the contrary,
not generating this stuff is what economic recessions and depressions are
about.
I don't have the link but something like 78 million tons of plastic garbage is
generated a year (I believe it's year, I hope it's a year and not a day), of
which 1 million is recycled. We need to stop generating, reuse what there is,
and finally recycle it, recycle being last on the list. ("Reduce, reuse,
recycle") None of that is happening and probably won't happen until it's
forced by nature.
--- On Sat, 10/25/08, Julie Krueger <juliereneb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Julie Krueger <juliereneb@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: regeneration (pssst...Irene)
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Saturday, October 25, 2008, 7:23 PM
I didn't examine the photos as closely as you did -- having a complete dearth
of experience of or understanding of architecture in general, I did not read
"the instructions". What I did read was the article and the captions to the
photos relating what had been accomplished...how, exactly, it was done was both
less important and less understandable to me.
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 1:20 PM, David Ritchie <ritchierd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 25, 2008, at 10:46 AM, Julie Krueger wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/10/24/waf2008.energy.waste.recycling/index.html
The photos are must-sees....this is beautiful!
And the instructions remind me of my architect friend's attitude to "growies."
Photo five explains that there's going to be a "green ditch." Whether this is
environmentally green or plant green, I'm not sure.
Then comes a "type 2" bush and "scrub forming slope" and a "grassed ditch."
The architect's attitude to plants is most evident in the camera's point of
view--from far enough away, all plants become color and form. Why bother to
say this? Because from a plant growing perspective, they've only solved the
hardscape problem. To me the real issue, before it can be beautiful, is what
might be the planting connection between the surrounding arid landscape and
vaguely green things? Why should grass be here? How will the plants they
choose be sustained in their microclimates? And to what end? The architect
figures out the angle of repose, sites and designs the buildings, and adds
green. This is, in my view, getting all the glory for solving a part of the
problem, exactly the sort of thing that "garden designers" do in my
neighborhood--wipe the slate clean, add form, run away before too many of the
identically-sized nursery plants, put in like
lollipops, die.
David Ritchie,
feeling neither himself nor any other self currently in
Portland, Oregon
--
Julie Krueger
Visit www.VoteForChange.com. Register to vote and help spread the word.
Other related posts:
