the evil banana

some of you may have heard of my ongoing war against the humble banana. if a harangue from me has not convinced you, maybe this will. (full credit to treehugger.com for this excellent munitions package!)

1. Bananas

We eat them every day, and their carbon footprint is huge. This fruit originated in Asia but is now raised in the tropics across the Eastern and Western hemispheres. Brazil is the leading banana producer, followed by Uganda, India, and the Philippines. Latin American countries supply more than 90 percent of the bananas eaten in North America.

Take into account that getting a single banana to your table uses about 8 pounds of carbon for a four ounce serving or .13 % of your year's allowance, according to Eat Low Carbon Diet. If you eat a banana every day for a year that would equal nearly 49% of your goal average. In the event that you can't fight off your banana craving, try buying an organic variety. Then you can at least ensure that your bananas weren't treated with tons of chemicals and pesticides, which can destroy the stunning tropical eco-systems from which they come. If you eat one every other day, a day or two or week, or sparingly you an see how much you can drop your carbon footprint, just by changing your banana habits!

finally --- and importantly; you CAN eat bananas in canada if you grow them yourself. case in point --- alison and my efforts below. and always remember high carbon = low community; more bananas = less farmer's markets = communal sin



a cursory search of the thoughtsphere turns up ihatebananas.com; curiously little to do with the cursed fruit, but i rather enjoy the white button

= )

Building community centres without...community

Our big studio project this term has been to design a community centre based off one of several long-span (read really big room) precedents. My studio prof has literally won a Governer's General Gold Medal in Architecture for her community centres. Our community centres consist of a large gymnasium area, lounge, social kitchen, meeting rooms, and washrooms/changerooms. They are designed on a north/south axis with the appropriate light control devices to create beautiful, indirect natural lighting. Thermal comfort is an issue of concern with detailed studies into the insulative qualities of the latest in architectural materials. Counters and stairs are based on the dimensions of the human body to enable ergonomic access to the various facilities. Dynamic spatial sequencing is of key importance. Sounds good so far eh?

But ---- WHERE IS THE COMMUNITY?

Should not community centre should be centred around a community and involve the active participation of community members in the design process? What does the nieghbourhood need? Who will use the facility? What are the cultural and social values of the community?

As it is, a whole year of architecture students have learned a few great things about design, and one important lesson. The community is secondary to your design genius. Astute commentators may say that this is a school project and they can only do so much, and that we are learning many different and relevent 'first principles of good design'. Definitely true, given that as David Clark says "the architect is both an agent and mentor/teacher of a client". However, note in which order we are learning these roles: firstly mentor, then agent. By ignoring the stakeholder consultation aspect of the design process the school has effectively prioritized our egos over the well being of our 'client'.

In some cases this may be an appropriate response, but surely the last project on which we impose high ego-based design is a community centre. And surely not under the leadership of one of Canada's top community centre designers, at least according to the design fraternity.

Or does this expose a certain weakness among that self-same fraternity?

There are numerous other 'long span' structures from which we could learn these principles. Save the community centre for a time when we have the time and space to carry out some consultation, at least in theory.

Who's to blame for this Olympic "scandal"?

Warning: You may not like the answer.

Right now there's raging fury in the city's political community. Residents of the city call into radio stations complaining about the irresponsibility of their elected representatives. City hall has received a blizzard (pun intended) of emails complaining about everything from the snow fall to the more wide reaching (and potentially damaging) Millennium loan debacle.

How could city politicians agree to hundreds of millions of dollars of financing to the Olympic Village? Who's to blame? Is it Vision Vancouver and Gregor Robertson? How about Sam Sullivan, Suzanne Anton, and the NPA - the folks who way back in 2007 guaranteed the development's financing? The economy - it has got to be the economy, right?

The reality is that the decision to bring the Olympics to Vancouver was voted on in a referendum and approved of by the citizens of Vancouver. The costs, prohibitive or reasonable, were an unknown crap shoot as critics of the deal made painfully clear many years ago (back when our economy was booming). Vancouverites listened to the debate and then they voted for the Olympics despite the uncertainty. Fair enough. The people had spoken and when it's all said and done, perhaps it will turn out to be a good decision after all.

However, now that everything is turning sour, many people have begun to change their minds - blasting their politicians on mismangement all the while expecting the Games be carried out with promptly, professionally and perfectly. They say, "Build the Olympic Village that I voted for and host the games in my city, but I don't want any responsibility for it."

Any workable community requires its members to take responsibility for their decisions. It's important to keep in mind that, when you get right down to it, if Vancouver were not having the games here in 2010, the Millennium development would not need to be finished (if in fact it would actually exist) on such a tight of a timeline. Indeed the entire project would remain privately developed never risking your tax dollars.

So the next time you're looking for who are responsible for this situation - if you "backed the bid", take a look in the mirror.