In a recent article published in Architectural Record, Peter Schubert argues that government sponsorship of great architecture has a long-standing tradition starting with Thomas Jefferson, and we should protect that tradition by spending stimulus money on “creative sustainable buildings that will stand the test of time and will still be used by our children and our grandchildren.”

MHM joins the call of Mr. Schubert, and encourages government at all levels to consider smart design, energy efficiency, and a process of awarding contracts that is inclusive, fair, and completely transparent as they go about spending the billions of dollars now authorized as stimulus.

In addition MHM calls on government leaders and lending institutions to fund builders, architects and designers who know current sustainable practices, construction methods, and building materials known to make housing safer and more livable.

This means in many instances younger architects, engineers, and designers who have already built prototypes of smart buildings. Their knowledge and real world practice can be a new jumping off point to fully embrace modern technology and “green” energy efficient building practices.

There is simply no excuse anymore not to employ sustainable modern technology in our built environment, and because we are essentially spending government funds today for the next generation, they should at minimum be heard before we spend billions of dollars on old wasteful practices that have greatly contributed to the need to re-build the country.

If we use this quickly conceived stimulus money as yet another government handout to those who would as quickly spend it on building practices and banal designs that encourage short-term use and quick profits we will have wasted the next generation’s future before they get there.

As Peter Schubert points out, in as much as it makes little sense for General Motors to keep building autos the same way, we need to also “re-tool” how we think about housing and how we go about building the living environment for the next age.

The good news for consumers is that you control what will be acceptable housing simply by showing no interest for builders who go from this point on building the same “ticky-tacky” houses built over the past two decades. The ball is fully in the court of economic demand, and consumers like never before have the opportunity to shape how they want to live – the supply side has no choice but to eagerly listen.

Don’t waste your opportunity.

The Above is an editorial by Jay Barker, Editor-in-Chief of Modern House Magazine. MHM is not an affiliate or partner of Architectural Record or Peter Schubert. The thoughts, expressions, and opinion here belong solely to the author and Modern House Magazine.