Sustainability: central or peripheral in Architecture

[cdub]

.

[bluevinny]

You do need to believe your own opinion or others will not. However, should your argument logically take you through a change of opinion, this shows growth and understanding.

" Creating architecture is to express representational aspects of the real world, such as nature, history, tradition and society, in a spiritual structure, which is an abstract concept, composed by clear, transparent logic."
TADO ANDO.

So Ando belives that society is an important factor in determining archictectural creation; and sustainablility, whether we like it or not, is very much part of today and tomorrows 'society' and is therefore central. Even so it doesn't have to stifle creativity or stagnate design. Timber, especially engineered, affords may constructional possiblilities and is the ultimate sustainable construction material.

There is no simple answer here, but hey.............. thats what its all about!

CW

[treviesweets]

Remember that vernacular architecture was 'sustainable' for hundreds of years. Designers took advantage of the natural shelter and orientation and used local materials without ever trumpetting on about passive solar design or sustainability. They didn't have the luxury of fossil fuel powered heating and cooling to make up for bad design decisions it was commonsense.

I guess what I'm saying is that sustainability shouldn't even be an issue, why should an architect act like hero for designing a building that works properly, thats their job.

Maybe you could look at the book "Architecture Without Architects" by Bernard Rudofsky

[MICHEL]

Cdub, maybe you could try to see it the other way round and ask yourself 'what is a building if not sustainable?'. I think treviesweets got a point here when remembering that 'vernacular architecture was 'sustainable' for hundreds of years'. The graphic below simply shows that we just can't afford to live and consume like we did for decades... there just won't be enough for everybody to live properly. Thinking 'sustainable' doesn't mean it has to be 'central', but rather be part of our basic tools. It's just common sense, as 'ancients' did for centuries before being able to rely on fossile fuel at cheap price. Every step taken to promote a more environmentaly friendly architecture is a step taken in the right direction. Both for the planet and our wallet.

[pitrak]

Originally Posted by MICHEL

Thinking 'sustainable' doesn't mean it has to be 'central', but rather be part of our basic tools. It's just common sense, as 'ancients' did for centuries before being able to rely on fossile fuel at cheap price. Every step taken to promote a more environmentaly friendly architecture is a step taken in the right direction. Both for the planet and our wallet.

That's it. More and more it is considered a basic condition for good building practice. It might not be enough to make a building good architecture of course. A lot of architects and offices put sustainability at the center of their design theory. That does not always lead to interesting architecture because a lot of sustainable aspects are merely technical. But still, I would rather live in a boring sustainable house than in a fancy conceptual energy consuming design house with all the 'wrong' materials..

The latest issue of Volume Magazine deals exactly with the question you're asking. They put some free articles online.
Here's the intro from the editorial:

Originally a wacko, hippy-esque ideology, ‘sustainability’ - aka ‘eco-friendly’ or ‘green’ - has now become globally accepted. But as what - an environmental urgency, a political issue, a technical problem, a historic destiny, a new world order? And what are the consequences of this acceptance? The sustainability consensus is dangerous since the concept has no political content and can be used for any cause. Carbon neutrality and zero emissions are like magic formulas, cover-ups for complicated ethical questions about the inequalities in our societies.Yet striving for zeros or hiding in neutrality does not lead to a better life in a more desirable house in a superior city for everyone.After Zero is not about design inspired by the fear of tsunamis or Katrinas. Volume proposes an understanding of our society beyond zero. To kick off we discuss two perspectives: sustainability in a post-capitalist city and the potential of urban agriculture.

[MICHEL]

Let's avoid a common confusion: sustainable doesn't mean ecological and vice versa. Of course it's great if you can have both...

[arv]

Originally Posted by treviesweets

Remember that vernacular architecture was 'sustainable' for hundreds of years. Designers took advantage of the natural shelter and orientation and used local materials without ever trumpetting on about passive solar design or sustainability. They didn't have the luxury of fossil fuel powered heating and cooling to make up for bad design decisions it was commonsense.

I guess what I'm saying is that sustainability shouldn't even be an issue, why should an architect act like hero for designing a building that works properly, thats their job.

Good point , to my mind it should be as basic as the functional planning . Then we can get into the debate whether form follows function/sustainability or the opposite .

[cdub]

.

[treviesweets]

Originally Posted by pitrak

a lot of sustainable aspects are merely technical

Let's not forget that a lot of sustainable aspects are fundamental design decisions as well, having narrow floor plates to allow natural lighting and ventilation for example.

Originally Posted by cdub

even projects that don't particularly achieve a sustainable agenda are being labeled as sustainable so as to gain reputability and acceptance

Good Point - I think this is an inevitable result of mystery and intrigue that has been created surrounding sustainable design. Making it seem so complicated and ingenious to have designed a building that functions well, so much so that now anyone can call anything sustainable and noone has a clear enough understanding to see through the greenwash.

[pitrak]

Originally Posted by treviesweets

Let's not forget that a lot of sustainable aspects are fundamental design decisions as well, having narrow floor plates to allow natural lighting and ventilation for example.

I should have avoided the word 'merely' i guess. Of course technical issues are also fundamental to the outcome of the design process. We've had the good building 'vs' good architecture discussion before here - i would have to look up the thread.
What I was trying to say: sustainable building practice is good building practice but does not necessarily make for good architecture. Personally I think it makes good architecture harder to achieve.
I'm all for sustainability but i'm not too fond of all the extra constraints it puts on the design process. Compactness, window orientation, heavy window profiles, ... there's a lot of stuff you can't do anymore because of sustainable reasons. And a lot of those are technical. You can't have those sexy slim window frames because the R-values are not sufficient.

I truly hope some of some these constraints are temporary. That in 20 years from now compactness will be a less important criterium because insulation materials will be cheaper and more sustainable. I know it will always be important, just refering to its 'relative' importance.
That we will be able to build zero energy buildings with slimmer walls and window profiles. And north windows if that's what you want because the glass or aerogel glazing heat loss will be negligible anyway..