Comments on: Bird Island: Zero Energy Home in Kuala Lumpur

By: kai lin

kai lin — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:30:18 +0000

so cool!

By: jack0703

jack0703 — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 12:49:00 +0000

These comments just go to show that we still appreciate the natural world we live in and what it gives us for free. And although we love new designs and the future of design we are only happy to see it practised in city areas sacrifices have already been made. We are protective of our natural enviroment so why do Architects and designers keep trying to change what can only be described as “Breathtaking”. No one likes a sore thumb and this building sticks out like one. However the concept and design are both inspiring and unique and surely thats the point. Maybe it would be better left on paper though!

By: zak

zak — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 00:58:56 +0000

i do not think that people, good design, and nature are incompatible. in fact, i think that places where people can live amongst fairly intact ecosystems go a long way to facilitate bioidentification. it’s more an issue of scale than of development. can architecture mediate the flow of habitat and shelter and create a living continuum of landscape and territorial occupation? i’d like to think so.
zak

By: Helman700

Helman700 — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 20:31:42 +0000

I sure hope the interior walls that appear to be made of marble are exactly that, huge slabs of heavy stone – a faux finish would be so out of place in a green home.

By: posedown

posedown — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 00:54:41 +0000

Lovely drawings. Artificial isn’t necessarily a bad thing and the counterpoint is compelling. Building is over-caffeinated though. Probably better for selling jewelry than relaxing in the forest.

By: Sabb

Sabb — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 10:39:25 +0000

Great Idea but it still looks so artificial. For me it stands out of the crowd – yes, no doubt – but I don´t really like it. It looks so clean and bright that it catches too much of the attention and nature get´s lost somehow

By: jomegared

jomegared — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 19:33:47 +0000

This is a great project. Aesthetically. But it contradicts the true nature of environmental design which is not to build on undeveloped land. Just because an architect builds some green features into a design does not mean the design is green. All of the resources that go into a building project are damaging to the environment. A zero energy house is good for the environment. But keeping the, “demanding and cosmopolitan clientele,” out of the forest is probably the best design. When do these aspects outweigh the nature of the building itself? The greenest building possible is the one not built. Thoughts?