In my conversations with Bryan, we discussed the ethics of all these categories, however the one that stuck out the most in our exchange was the ethics of design. In a place such as Aspen where the money often outweighs the sense, the design freedom has become unparalleled in this country and possibly worldwide. However, with that design freedom comes the responsibility of the architect to design buildings that are, economically, practically, and environmentally sensical. While all three aforementioned areas of ethical design are important, the one I’d like to focus on in particular is designing for the environment. As somebody who graduated with degrees in Biology and Ecology, the environment has been at the precipice of concern in my design work. When your client wants an acre of pool to be heated throughout the duration of an Aspen winter though, even if you can do it “sustainably” (whatever that means these days) how do you justify actually building something of that size? Other than having to pay your own bills obviously. Does it matter if the half mile driveway and all the sidewalks are heated exclusively through the use of renewable and clean energy? At some point, it doesn’t. Of course, there is always the counter-argument where if you don’t design it, the client will likely find somebody else who will. You might as well take the opportunity to design it with the utmost intention of preserving the environment and get paid to do so. Save a little green while you make a little green if you will. In the praxis of architecture, ethics is pivotal. With that being said, I’d like to pose a few ethical questions in regard to designing for the environment.

• At what point is the building “too much” even if it is net zero?
• Is the justification of somebody else taking the job a valid one?
• Is a “net-zero” house truly attainable given the impacts of current building practices?