var cx = ‘018427991955100615984:v7cw7vkcaqc’;
gcse.src = (document.location.protocol == ‘https:’ ? ‘https:’ : ‘http:’) +
‘//www.google.com/cse/cse.js?cx=’ + cx;
var s = document.getElementsByTagName(‘script’); s.parentNode.insertBefore(gcse, s);
A prominent architect whose work I love and respect told me recently that the term “lovable” has “a… problem with pragmatists” that can’t be resolved. He also said “you’re the only architect I know who can say ‘lovable architecture’ with a straight face.” And so it has been, ever since I started shooting for the Catalog of the Most-Loved Places in the 1990s… time and again, it’s been obvious that architects find it impossible to use the word “lovable.” This became more obvious in 2004, when lovability was proposed as an essential element of a living tradition, and intensified in 2007 with the proposal that lovability was the first essential characteristic of sustainable buildings.
Fortunately, that is increasingly not the case with people other than architects. Lloyd Alter alerted me recently to an article in Policy Innovations entitled “What Makes a City Great? It’s not the Liveability but the Loveability.” The very next day, Kaid Benfield’s How to Make Smart Growth More Lovable and Sustainable appeared on the Huffington Post. Kaid’s article specifically referenced the Original Green, and I really appreciate that. The Policy Innovations piece, which was an interview of Ethan Kent, did not, but in some ways that’s more important because it means the idea is entering the general lexicon unfettered by an association with any one book, site, or person.
Sick of Paying an Outrageous Electric & Gas Bills? http://reduceandsaveenergy.com/switch