Consumer waste as pop art!!

Great interview on the Colbert Report on Comedy Central last night. The guest was photographer, Chris Jordan. His exhibit, "Running the Numbers," focuses on social issues such as consumerism and social welfare programs. The video of the interview can be found below (Video 1). One note about the video; it is hosted on the Comedy Central website because they want people to sit through a commercial before viewing it. They had all their content removed from YouTube for that purpose, I imagine.

Video 1. Chris Jordan on the Colbert Report.
Link:http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/player.jhtml?ml_video=111474&ml_collection=&ml_gateway=&ml_gateway_id=&ml_comedian=&ml_runtime=&ml_context=show&ml_origin_url=/shows/the_colbert_report/videos/most_recent/index.jhtml&ml_playlist=&lnk=&is_large=true


The most striking example of consumer waste, in my opinion, was the George Seurat representation of Sunday in the Park in aluminum cans! Awesome! Pointillisme in the form of aluminum cans! Brilliant!! A little background In Figures 1-3, we zoom in on the piece.

Figures 1-3. Sunday in the Park in aluminum cans! Brilliant!
Source: http://www.chrisjordan.com/






As stated in his interview, Jordan tries to visualize the scale of American consumption and waste. In the aluminum can example, Jordan states that every 30 seconds, the US consumes over 100,000 aluminum cans (the exact figure is stated in the Colbert Report interview), only half of which is recycled. The visual representation of this appeared to stun the audience. But as Jordan explained, the waste stream of the US is divided into many smaller streams such that the total extent of consumption of a given product is virtually hidden or unknown.


The extent of US consumption is monitored by a myriad of government agencies. For example, the US Department of Energy (DOE) keeps statistics on energy consumption as well as forecasts (Figure 4). I imagine every industry monitors its own consumption or has a government regulatory agency that oversees it. But tracking the habits of individual consumers may be difficult to definitively ascertain. I was not able to determine the source of Jordan's statistics but I would regard them as credible.


Figure 4. Energy consumption statistics.
Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/consumption/index.html



In addition to the appearance on the Colbert Report, I found a piece done on the Bill Moyers program (Video 2). It is an even better piece than that found on the Colbert Report. It goes into how he started and the process by which he photographs his subjects.


Video 2. Bill Moyers appearance (no picture available)
Link: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09212007/watch3.html

Jordan also has a website to show his work and give information about exhibitions around the country. In addition to his "Running the Numbers" exhibit, Jordan also has previous exhibits along the same theme of consumer waste (Figures 5 and 6).


Figure 5. Intolerable Beauty.
Source: http://www.chrisjordan.com/



Figure 6. In Katrina's Wake.
Source: http://www.chrisjordan.com/



Lastly, I found more video about Jordan's work on YouTube (Video 3): "Depicts the staggering numbers involved in American consumption as Americans consume 25% of the world's resources and produce 25% of the environmental destruction/pollution. "


Video 3. YouTube video featuring the work of Chris Jordan.
Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apwvV1fMNso

Amphibious houses!!

Due to the incoming storm and dreary weather, I stayed home and watched an interesting program on the History Channel about the Katrina disaster and impending failure of the California levee system in the Sacramento area (Figure 1). Among the levee and dike innovations is the residential adaptation to potential structural failures. And, thus, we get the amphibious home.

Figure 1. Modern Marvels: Levees.
Source: http://www.history.com/shows.do?action=detail&episodeId=191834

"Amphibious house?" you incredulously say. Yes, an amphibious house. "Well, how's that different from a houseboat? (Figure 2)" Well, amphibious is the operative word here. It is essentially a house that sits on a foundation that can float. Imagine a house built on stilts. Now those stilts are really pilings driven deep into the ground. Next, the house can move vertically up or down, contained by those pilings. Lastly, the house usually sits on dry land until the flood comes.

Figure 2. Houseboat.
Source: http://www.kvh.com/mediasupport/marine/images/houseboat_300.jpg

"Oh...well, why don't you just build a house on stilts, like you see in Florida (Figure 3)?" To that, I have no response. Perhaps, it's too inconvenient for people to live in elevated houses. "Well, what about connections to utilities, like electricity, gas, sewage, etc?" I imagine there must be some arrangement similar to that of houseboats or houses on stilts. In any case, amphibious houses appear to be another alternative to people living in flood-prone areas.

Figure 3. House on stilts.
Source: http://www.valuevacationrentals.com/images/property/prop5543_22659.jpg

I always thought that houseboats were cool, more affordable than conventional housing anyway. In addition, I imagine it would suffer less damage in an earthquake. But I also thought there must be significant disadvantages. For example, it could be a long walk from one's car to the houseboat, especially in the rain. Also, the odor at low tide can be compelling.

But back to amphibious housing. It seems like the cutting-edge of amphibious home design is, not surprisingly, abroad, the Netherlands to be exact. I was never certain what the distinction was between the Netherlands and Holland. However, if the information on Wikipedia can be trusted, I learn that "Holland is a region in the central-western part of the Netherlands [1]." In any case, the area is famous for being below sea level (Figure 4), among other things. So to combat the likelihood of flooding, they are exploring the use of amphibious homes.

Figure 4. The Netherlands is largely below sea level.

Source: http://www.fragilecologies.com/img/netherlands.gif

I found an interview online, on inhabit.com, of an architect specializing in amphibious homes. I think he was the same person on the History channel program. He is Koen Olthuis of WaterStudio.nl. Reading over the interview, it looks like amphibious homes have yet to reach widespread adoption. Some of what has been design and built are pretty much still houseboats but with that European modern-design asthetic (I'm not sure what to call it, exactly). Anyway, the pictures are intriguing and the article is worth looking at. I've attached some of the designs below (Figures 4 and 5).

Figure 4 and 5. Amphibious homes.

Source: http://www.inhabitat.com/2006/08/29/interview-koen-olthius-of-waterstudionl/

The full interview with Koen Olthuis is found on the inhabit.com website (there are also other related articles and resources):

http://www.inhabitat.com/2006/08/29/interview-koen-olthius-of-waterstudionl/

I found another interesting article online:

Dutch Answer to Flooding: Build Houses that Swim
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,377050,00.html

[1] "Holland," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holland

I want a mobile home!

Thinking about housing made me think of mobile homes. Other forms of housing have significant drawbacks. For example, construction of dwelling units (single family homes, condos, apartments) are far more expensive and generate a great deal of waste. Manufactured housing is a way to decrease those adverse characteristics but that are, nonetheless, unavoidable. Attached housing, such as apartments and townhomes, have shared walls which conduct sound and increases the likelihood of spreading vermin or pests. As clean as an apartment may be, if the neighbor has roaches, you have roaches. Also, the poor health habits of one's neighbors can transmit across the walls through ductwork. For example, smoking or drug use. Or even worse, drug manufacture (Figure 1). The manufacture of methamphetamines is dangerous to one's health and extremely explosive. I recall a commercial where a young girl playing in her room in an apartment was above an apartment where methamphetamines were being manufactured. As the old saying goes, "you can't pick your neighbors."

Figure 1. Drug bust in residential home.
Source: http://starbulletin.com/2007/01/31/news/artcops.jpg


Though I can agree with high density housing as it decreases the building footprint per resident, for health and noise considerations, I would prefer to live in a mobile home. I think mobile homes are built with less waste as they are built in factories as opposed to conventional on-site construction. In addition, mobile homes have the possibility of being less invasive on the environment. Now the mobile home parks I have been through generally have paved the entire place with asphalt (Figure 2). But, it may be possible to employ permeable pavement (Video 1), bioswales, or something.


Figure 2. Mobile home park.
Source: http://www.affordablehousinginstitute.org/blogs/us/mobile_home_park_key_west_small.jpg



Video 1. Permeable pavement construction and demonstration.
Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CjHk5FhAdI


The building standards of mobile homes are historically inferior to that of conventional housing. However, strides have been made in mobile home construction that approach or nearly equal the quality of conventional housing. This has increased costs of mobile home construction but not nearly to the level of conventional housing. But then, of course, conventional housing is generally much larger, in terms of square footage, in addition to other costs such as those associated with building foundations. But who needs that much space? As an indicator of social position, wealthy people sometimes purchase large luxury homes. Ridiculously large homes that appear to serve nothing more than one's vanity. It reminds me of Coleridge's Kubla Khan, "In Xanadu did Kubla Khan A stately pleasure-dome decree..." (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Xanadu.
Source: http://www.alysion.org/poems2/xanadu.jpg

Remodeling waste

This is related to my earlier post about construction waste but instead of new construction, I'm interested in waste generated from remodeling. You see it on TV a lot, especially on home improvement television channels like, HGTV and TLC in the US (Figure 1). I've had some experience in remodeling. It's difficult and dirty stuff. I also have seen it while working in real estate, lots of flips and refinances that involve a great deal of remodeling.

Figure 1. Television shows about "house-flipping."
Source: http://www.aetv.com/images/generic_promo_images/320x240/photo_320x240_fliphouse.jpg


When people move into a new house, they almost always make changes. To sell their house, the old owners may have painted the interior and exterior a neutral color to appeal to as many people as possible. The new owners are likely to paint it again to suit their tastes. The same principle applies to built-in features, like kitchen cabinets, fixtures, sinks, toilets, appliances, etc. Consumer preferences almost always favor new amenities. Even if these things are still in relatively good condition, the new owners are likely to change them. Some appliances and fixtures can find a new life at second hand stores but most of the aforementioned items (cabinetry, fixtures, etc) will find their way into landfills (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Remodeling waste in landfills.
Source: http://www.reconnstructioncenter.org/images/landfill.jpg



I have never been a big fan of fixed cabinetry and the like. My tastes differ greatly from most people, reflecting my background in science, environmental conservation, business, real estate, and urban planning. As a result, I have a very specific design aesthetic. I also dislike fixing things to walls, like cabinetry. I like reconfiguring rooms as things change, such as my work habits, tastes, needs, etc. For example, what if a new piece of furniture is purchased that results in the need to reconfigure a room. A built-in cabinet or built-in shelves can limit the design options. I also don't like fireplaces. I know, everyone in real estate looks at a fireplace as a selling point but, from a practical point, I find them grossly inefficient and hazardous. Fireplaces are grossly inefficient compared to more modern forms of heating, such as central heating (which, itself, can share the same ductwork as cooling). Fireplaces are a common source of draft. Creosote build-up is a common fire hazard because most people are terrible at maintaining their fireplaces and chimneys, often called deferred maintenance in the real estate trade (Figure 3). And for those that burn wood in their fireplaces, smoke marks often develop on the brickwork, above the mantle, which is very unattractive.

Figure 3. Creosote build-up in fireplaces and chimneys.
Source: http://hearth.com/econtent/images/uploads/creosote1.JPG


So the big question is, why have built-in features, such as cabinets, at all. Perhaps, the fact that plumbing and electrical layouts are relatively difficult to alter or that these areas are often exposed to water lead to the desire to permanently affix cabinetry to walls and seal them with caulk. But some high end trends are moving toward kitchen cabinetry as furniture (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Kitchen cabinetry as furniture.
Source: http://www.estia.com.cy/cyprus_kitchens/limassol_estia_kitchens/limassol_kitchen_furniture.jpg


The hope to this trend is that less remodeling waste will find its way to landfills and go to architectural salvage stores instead. I've come across a great many things in architectural salvage stores. For example, hardwood flooring, base and crown moulding, fireplace mantles, and doors (Figure 5). Hopefully more items can be refurbished and reused. Also, its potential mobility means that owners can take their kitchen cabinetry with them as they move.


Figure 5. Architectural salvage store.

Source: http://chicago.apartmenttherapy.com/images/uploads/2006-08-16.urbanremains.jpg


I trace this trend back to professional kitchens such as those found in restaurants (Figure 6). I like professional kitchens because of their standards for cleanliness. Professional kitchens are required to be periodically cleaned from top to bottom. I find this cleanliness comforting, perhaps derived from my experience working in laboratories. I regularly cleaned my lab space to avoid contamination of my experiments as well as to safeguard myself against harm. The best examples I can remember are having worked with carcinogenic materials and viruses.

Figure 6. Professional kitchen.
Source: http://www.eldoradomfg.com/nss-folder/pictures/Tampa%20Bay%20cooking%20acadamy%20007a.JPG



Prolonged exposure to hazardous and infectious agents, coupled with poor safety protocols, can seriously injure or kill a person. I remember working in a virology lab where one person was known to have died after being infected by one of the viruses. In any case, a clean kitchen decreases the likelihood of food-borne illnesses. A kitchen with movable furniture allows for cleaning behind and under hard to reach areas. It also helps prevent the occurrence of roaches and vermin. A new series called Kitchen Nightmares, hosted by chef Gordon Ramsay, began this season. The premise of the show is that Gordon turns around failing restaurants. One of the restaurants had such poor hygiene that it must have undoubtedly struck fear into New York's many restaurant goers (Video 1). Having friends who have worked in restaurants, I don't eat out very often.

Video 1. Kitchen Nightmares with Gordon Ramsay.
Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnDRYdN5hCQ

Construction Waste

Epiphany at the dump!
I have visited residential construction sites and noticed a great deal of waste generation, for example, wood, drywall, etc. The majority of this goes to the landfill. Oh, the landfill. I have such memories of the city dump. Going to the dump, too, I'm often reminded by the sheer excess of American culture (myself included). In particular, there are two city dumps located along the bay. I went to one of them, to dump construction waste, and I saw an algal bloom eminating from the base of the mountain of garbage upon which I stood. It was reddish in color, as though blood was seeping up from the below and mixing with the shallow water in the bay. I later thought, this land is going to worth a million bucks someday. It's waterfront. It's the future Mission Bay.

Mission Bay was literally a bay/marshland in the past. The 1906 San Francisco earthquake created a great deal of waste. Construction debris was dumped in Mission Bay as San Francisco was reconstructed. A hundred years later, it's the current campus expansion of UCSF as well as numerous commercial and residential projects. (More info about the project can be found here: http://pub.ucsf.edu/missionbay/history/sitebody.php). I suppose, that in another hundred years, the whole bay will be looking for land to develop and strategically-located landfill would be gold.

Coming back to construction waste, the National Association of Homebuilders (NAHB) has looked into the nature and development of construction waste. I found a nice little pie chart in a report they produced. I found a color version, too (shown). Unfortunately, a lot of construction waste is easily recyclable wood. I know that whenever I have a little construction project, I inevitably produce a pile of scrap wood. For example, a fence was constructed with 4"x4"
pressure-treated wood for the posts. After the posts were set in concrete, a cut was made to make them all level. This left a pile of rather hefty-sized scrap wood. I have kept them for future use in other projects. i don't necessarily use them to construct a new project. For example, I used the 4"x4"s as a series of risers, similar in function as several saw horses or a large work table, when I was cutting drywall.

When I disasembled a wooden tool shed, I tried to salvage as much of the wood, in particular, solid wood without nails. I was able to salvage a series of solid 1"x8' planks that were used as shelves and without nails! There wasn't even any visible damage (from insects or water). To me, this was like finding gold. It would have probably cost over a hundred dollars for this material and I got it for free. Unfortunately, a contractor working on-site was more than willing to loot my findings. I was pissed for a long time because it took a long time to disassemble things without damaging the stuff I could reuse and I sorted them by grade & condition.

I haven't found a company or method to recycle used wood, removing the nails, and excising damaged portions, damaged from insects, water, etc. It would be great if asphalt shings could be recycled. The average roof is usually asphalt shingles. Having removed old shingles, it's a pain. Nails often come off with the various levels of shingles and ripping up old asphalt shingles releases dust into the air. I remember coughing up black stuff after removing old shingles. I also remember climbing over a pile of old shingles. I slipped, put a hand down to balance myself, and was pierced by a nail. Fortunately, it was a shallow puncture but painful, nonetheless.

I think builders are moving pretty well in reducing construction waste. Toolbase.org is a builder's web resource that has developed some Best Practices guidelines. Here is the exact link:
http://www.toolbase.org/ToolbaseResources/level3.aspx?BucketID=5&CategoryID=26

Bike issues

Biking has become a cost-saving mechanism for me, especially when traveling around a downtown urban area but...

Oh man, so many close calls...
Having experienced near misses with cars as well as seeing other bicyclists hit by vehicles (see photo), I don't like my chances of bicycling as a primary form of transportation.

Bicycling harkens back to my childhood, of ramp construction and subsequent injuries. My desire for speed and "air" has been largely superceded by the need for safety, in addition to a conscious effort to conserve the environment. I'm riding a cruiser now which is meant for a slow, comfortable ride. That's about my speed nowadays. A cruiser allows me to carry more crap with me to and from school or, potentially, to and from the market. The addition of front and rear baskets has allowed for greater carrying capacity. this has allowed me to ride without carrying anything on my person, such as a backpack.

I don't like backpacks, anyway. Using a backpack, as most people have experienced, can generate a great deal of moisture upon one's back. I remember my grade school days of walking home during the afternoon and coming home with a sweatcoated back, showing through my t-shirt. Also, walking all over campus on a clear, sunny day as a university student with a backpack full of biology, chem, physics textbooks resulted in bruises from the straps and backaches. I swear, science majors have the heaviest books.


Combine a backpack full of science-major textbooks and a mountain bike speeding around campus and you will ultimately get a spectacular accident. Mine came in the form of a Braveheart-esque collision (see photo) with a traffic bollard. The backpack full of books increased my momemtum going downhill. The weight of the backpack and its placement on my back elevated my center of gravity. The collision with the traffic bollard and my higher center of gravity sent me head over heels past my handlebars. Luckily, I had just cleared the pavement and landed in a grassy area.

Bicyclists on the road on a busy urban face a similar accident, tempting fate by darting in and between traffic or just riding on the roads. Bicycle versus vehicle is not even close. Bicycles always lose. I have yet to be struck by a car while on my bike, only close calls. When I see a person on a mountain bike or road bike speeding on the road or bike lane, I get a visceral chill, reminiscent of my own abrupt collision against an object of greater mass and velocity. Here's some youtube video (warning: may be disturbing to some viewers):

COPS, Riverside County 9/09/06 Bicycle Accident (~35 sec)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gu3oQwllD98

COPS, Riverside County 9/09/06 Bicycle Accident (full version, ~7 min)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWDE0TKhWOs

In the current movement to increase bicycle awareness, notably, Critical Mass held in downtown San Francisco (see photo), safety is, perhaps, of the utmost concern. I don't think the streets of most cities, particularly charter cities like San Francisco, were ever designed or evolved with bicycle travel as a major form of transportation. They are largely afterthoughts, reconciliations after numerous or severe bicycle-vehicle collisions. I don't feel safe riding my bike in the bike lane next to fast moving traffic, especially in downtown areas. The only protection is a white painted line on the road, which sometimes feels like only a suggestion to some vehicle drivers.

I don't even feel safe riding with fast moving bikes. Pedestrians can be seriously injured by fast moving bicyclists. I've always made it a point to slow down around pedestrians or even dismount in heavy pedestrian traffic. When I don't feel safe in the bike lane, I ride my bike on the sidewalks.



Hey, where do I park my bike?
Eventually, I'll reach my destination and wonder where to lock up my bike. Going to a place like a school campus, there are bike racks throughout but other places, like City Hall or a market, one is hard pressed to find a bike rack. I think bike racks are regarded as unattractive to urban designers. I might have agree with this. Around the MLK library, the bike racks are kept away from the entrances. Bike racks, themselves, are somewhat unattractive. The most utilitarian form of bike racks, usually a serpentine length of metal tubing (see photo), can look like a scrap heap when filled with bikes of all makes and condition. Not only does it scratch off the paint from my bike but I have a hard time getting my bike to fit in the rack with my front and rear baskets. Having front and rear baskets makes it difficult use existing bike facilities.

Bikes and mass transportation
I have yet to try loading my bike on to public transportation, like the buses or BART. My bike's a cruiser, with a relatively heavy steel frame. I would have a hard time carrying it up and down stairs to get to the BART platform, as I have seen others do. There aren't bike escalators (see photo) at BART stations. I've seen escalators created to move shopping carts in department stores. I wish they had that for bikes but it would be difficult to retrofit BART stations. It's probably not cost-efficient, not enough riders bringing bikes to justify the cost. I was considering the purchase of a folding bike before but it would not have allowed for front and rear baskets.

I think dedicated bike paths/corridors, bike escalators, and stacked bike parking lots are something I won't see in the near future. The density, in terms of population and land use, is just not there. The US has the potential for greater expansion, outward past existing city centers and beyond the old suburbs. I believe that vehicular transportation, in particular personal vehicles, will remain the dominant form of transportation. Hopefully, future planning efforts will allow for safer, more convenient bicycle travel. The California Department of Transportation (DOT) has developed some guidelines for bicycle commuting and safety (see below). Some recommendations equally apply to driving vehicles, such as not drinking or wearing headphones, but most are meant to warn against vehicles, the greatest threat to bicyclists.

California Department of Transportation (DOT): Bicycle Commuting & Safety
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/bike/commuting.htm