Talk:Sustainable design

message: The fact that people usually associate design with the production of physical objects is a problem. Eco-design (or green design) is simply the step improvement of the impact of those objects and is quite limited in its scope. The true strengths of design lie elsewhere – the physical outputs are just by-products really. Design is a people-based approach to problem solving, and any project that design is applied to can benefit by becoming more appropriate to its audience, more visual, more desirable and more appealing. Cooler.
--Clare.brass 12:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I started Sustainable technology, not realizing that this page (Sustainable design) already existed. I guess they are best merged, unless someone suggests why they should be separate...? --Singkong2005 04:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re proposal to merge from Sustainable technology 

message: This is based on Skybum's proposal above, reworded to avoid the confusion that seems to have occurred. Skybum, could you please edit the proposal below if I haven't reflected your intention.
Problem:
* The traditional meaning of the term Environmental design is "design of the built environment"[citation needed] (distinguishing it from graphic design, product design, and so forth), which does not necessarily have anything to do with the natural environment.  
*"Environmental Design" as synonymous with "sustainable design" is actually a neologism, albeit a widespread one. 
:*Environmental design is not a new term. it has been used by design practioners since the 1970s and textbooks have been written on it. it is certainly not a neologism Anlace 04:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the above proposal could marginally work, but it's tricky since environmental design needs to cover the urban planning issues, built environment, bioswales, lighting issues, energy efficient buildings etc. Anlace 02:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: upon further study of the environmental design article, there is very little material that pertains to sustainable design.  the real issue here is that environmental design is a very poorly written article pertaining to a huge and important topic.  someone really needs to spend some time on it. i ll put it on my list of articles to rewrite or create...but it's got dozens of items ahead of it on my personal list. Anlace 04:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to merge most material from [[Environmental design]] into this article 

message: Sustainable living could be another terminology. Just from bad experience wiki merging. I would say that if "Green design" has sufficient information to fork from sustainable design then do so. If the subjects are closelly related and small then it may be worthwhile merging. Personnally I prefer having a stub that indicates that it is purposelly beeing left as such because the main article is here. If merging, there will obviously be some lost potential. Who coined the term "Green design", talking specifically about the use of the word "green design" instead of the concept. This I believe would warant enough to keep it a seperate article. --CyclePat 06:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  sustainable 

message: The danger of merging
In some of our cultures we tend to take a fashion-like approach to ideas. We discredit ideas just because they are "old". We should expect sustainability, green design, environmental design to be attacked politically by those that oppose this philosophy just the way that the notion of global climate change is being attacked today. 
Merging all of these schools of thoght into one makes the task of political attacks easier. We need the existence of multiple points of view in order to encourage innovations through diversity of thought and variations in ideology or philosophy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Letranova (talk • contribs) 20:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link but don't merge. 

message: I believe that sustainable design is a general term that applies to a number of disciplines. These include planning and architecture (which I have added sections for) as well as industrial design, transportation design, etc. which need to be added. It didn't seem that a topic as broad (and important) as sustainable design should just have a few illustrative examples and a big link farm. Please let me know if there is any concern with this new approach to this article. --Jrsnbarn 05:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New sections 

message: Am i the only one who sees an Architecture bias/predominance in the article's content ?
I understand that architecture is a very significant area of sustainabiltiy, but i think other areas could also be enchanced for balance.79.76.238.120 (talk) 14:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias

message: I read this article I think an image from the tree shaping article may be suitable.?oygul (talk) 12:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image suggestion 

message: The article currently opens with "See also: Sustainable engineering and Ecological design" and says that sustainable design is "also called environmental design". It does nothing to tell the reader the differences between these four design areas. If there's been a consensus not to merge the articles because they represent meaningfully distinct topics, we should explain that distinction to the reader, rather than having the articles link to one another with unclarified "see also"s, leaving the reader to work out which article they should be reading. --McGeddon (talk) 14:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Link about has been archived; now at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment/Archive 3#Multiple articles on sustainable design Klbrain (talk) 14:06, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging/linking 

message: Relationship, freedom of conscience, and governance are not covered in this article. People are not cattle, shared resources and services create stresses so shared values are needed. This should also be considered.
Speaktruthonly (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There is work on this in the field of sustainable design.  I'll try to gather something from that, if others would like that discussed in this article. MaynardClark (talk) 04:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about community and security needs as part of anthropological, religious/moral, creative freedoms?  

message: As per the Triple Bottom Line, there are three basic sustainability concepts - we look at sustainable design from an economically sustainable, socially sustainable and environmentally sustainable design view (people, profit and planet). It is my suggestion that since we talk only of environmentally sustainable design in this article, that perhaps we should rename the article from the more broader 'sustainable design' to one the titles mentions in the first line of the article, 
"also called environmentally sustainable design, environmentally conscious design, etc."
I suggest for calling it "environmentally sustainable design" or even, "sustainable design for the environment." 
At least until someone makes a Wikipedia article for socially sustainable design and economically sustainable design, and merges it into this one. 
That being said, it is obviously important to make connections between the topics and explain how they're integrated. 
This published paper covers basic demarcations between the three, and has additional information on them too: 	
Economic, social, and environmental sustainability in development theory and urban planning practice A. D. BASIAGO, USA.
https://www.amherst.edu/system/files/media/0972/fulltext.pdf
Hetvi.vora (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing the title to environmentally sustainable design