We go to Dwell to find the answer.
Over at Dwell, the user, "Junkyard", asks the question, "I'm just curious what everyone's definition of "sustainable" is."
A sampling of replies:"Junkyard, I'm beginning to get the impression, also, that the term "sustainable" is fast going the way of terms like "state-of-the-art" and "professional." -GaryR50
"Junkyard, using up nearly the entire resource, until it gets too expensive to be practical, is definitely not sustainable. Sustainability deals with the ability to replace the resource as it is being used so that it never runs out." -cast
"The first approach, raised in this thread by Christy, looks at sustainability in terms of the function for which buildings are designed. This approach is most commonly employed in criticisms of Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart seems to be a fairly easy target, but I suppose that the rationale could just as easily apply to Target or IKEA or any other large retailer. The real problem seems to be that these retailers just need expansive spaces and they need to not pay too much for those spaces so that they can continue to provide us with cheap goods for low prices." -RBC
"It seems to me most things in life end up being sustainable if economics are a consideration. Things get used until it's too expensive to use them then something else gets used. That doesn't mean that the first thing neccessarily got used to extinction, just that it's not economically viable to use so it gets passed on or passed up. I'm starting to think that people are using the word sustainable as a purely asthetic reference, i.e. "I wish those old WalMart buildings were more sustainable, then they wouldn't be so ugly."Link: Dwell
A sampling of replies: