| Saturday, Apr 09 3 54 PM :
Northeast Conference | Speakers

I'm going to rant for a moment.
John Hamilton from Steelcase just finished talking about the Think chair. The same Think chair that was presented at last year's Design:Green workshop in New York, the same Think chair featured in Metropolis Magazine recently, the same Think Chair that has its own mini website extolling its sustainable virtues and multiple awards.
I think the chair is great. As John and all of the above sources will inform you, it's designed for disassembly in 5 minutes, is almost completely recyclable and had enormous though put into its environmental impact in production and disposal.
It is, however, a showpiece. While Steelcase does have an excellent track record in taking environmental impact into account across the board, it's interesting that the Think chair is the only one they seem to talk about in terms of sustainability. The website gives you a whole section relating environmental details on the Think, and a few of their other chairs, but there's clearly been some picking and choosing as to which are their "green" chairs and which ones aren't.
Now, every chair -- every manufactured object -- has an environmental impact. If Steelcase is serious about transparency, and trying to use sustainability as a selling point, why is this information not available across the board? At best, it's an oversight. At worst, it is hurting the cause of sustainable design by reinforcing the idea of "green" as yet another boutique with an exclusive clientele. "What sort of customer are you? A Green customer? Well have I got the chair for you!"
I for one would applaud Steelcase, and any other manufacturer who attempts, for making life cycle and environmental impact information as readily obtainable as dimensions and color choices. After all, what's more important, that it produces fewer PCBs, or that it's available in Berry and Teal?
Posted by: Carl Alviani | Permalink | Comments (0)
|