Talk:Natural building

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Pise

I came across a reference to PISÉ (Pneumatically Impacted Stabilized Earth) (see for example, Rammed Earth Works-PISE. It may be of interest. --Singkong2005 05:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merger with Green building

It seems that there is a great deal of overlap between this article and Green building. I'm not certain which is the predominant term to merge them under, though.--Jrsnbarn 15:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I would venture an opinion that using the term Green carries emotional conotations, both negative and positive. Natural would be a more neutral term, if that is your goal.--James52 04:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a somewhat contentious issue among natural/green builders. While not the definitive statement about the topic, one could theoretically rephrase the distinction as industrial and nonindustrial ecological building approaches. Those who consider themselves "natural" builders often shun association with the larger green building movement, though a significant faction consider themselves charged with mainstreaming "natural building" techniques. There is much to say here, and not necessairly of an antagonistic nature. The entire topic could use some attention, and some feelers are being sent out now to look at clarifying and expanding these resources. A hearty start, and thanks to all who've contributed! Quiethand 03:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

An example to support Quiethand's paragraph: Cordwood construction would be considered a 'natural building' method by some, as it's intended to use less non-human energy for the construction. However, all that concrete in the mortar mixture would kill the idea of it being a 'green' method in many peoples' minds. Doing the same method with 'cob' (a mixture of clay and a fiber (like straw or grasses) would be acceptable in many more of those minds. So the line is very difficult to draw. --Kickstart70-T-C 05:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the distinction that you've drawn betwen natural and green builders. I don't see that clarity in the articles themselves, but perhaps if they were merged, a paragraph could be written to ditinguish the two. Building techniques could then be described in their sections as being considered less green or more natural, etc. Alternatively, perhaps the building techniques are moved to their own article and be natural/green agnositic. They could simply be referenced by the natural or green article. I'm less in favour of this approach because it would make for three short article where I believe one could do a nice job.--Jrsnbarn 14:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jrsnbarn that there is a lack of clarity in the articles as to the distinction between green and natural building. The problem lies primarily with the Green building article, IMO. Someone has included sections in it on straw bale and rammed earth, which are generally considered Natural building methods. Green building in North America is defined by the LEED Standards. Natural building is generally considered to go much farther in the direction of sustainability. There is a great deal of cruft in the Green building article and someone has rightly put a clean-up tag on it. On the other hand, the Natural building article seems fine. In any case we should maintain two separate articles as these are, in practice, (despite some inevitable overlap), two distinct approaches to building more sustainably. Sunray 07:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)