What is Sustainability?
The last decade or so has seen the emergence of “green design” or sustainable design to the forefront of everyday architecture. The common usage of these terms is to describe a method of construction and usage of materials that tries to be “environmentally friendly”. This is a good thing. Regardless of your beliefs on global warming, I think we can all agree that it’s better to be friendly to the environment than destructive towards it.
Websters Dictionary defines sustain as
1: give support or relief to
4: to support the weight of
This means that if a building is sustainable it is simply able to support itself as an entity. It is able to negate its own negative effects.
That is not good enough.
Buildings should do more than simply “support their own weight”. They should give back to their surroundings and improve both our physical and social environments as users.
It’s often thought that for something to be “green” or sustainable, sacrifices have to be made either by cost or quality of life. Bjarke Ingels describes hedonistic sustainability as sustainability that increases the quality of life. It is possible to design our buildings to be sustainable and both increase the quality of life and decrease the cost of living.
Sustainable Design for Cheaters
You may have already read my criticism of LEED. If not take a moment to do so here. While LEED and other green rating systems have helped bring about the “green revolution”, they have also fallen short and lost sight of the true goals of “green building”. My biggest gripe is the focus on “green technologies” over passive systems (systems that are not mechanically driven, such as window overhangs that let in just the right amount of light at the right times of the year).
Wind and solar power are great. We should be using alternative sources of energy instead of coal, oil, and gas, but they are completely impractical for 95% of the work that architects do. The payback of installing these devices can be 20 years or more. Most property owners don’t plan on sticking around that long before they start to make a profit, but if we REDUCE the amount of consumption our buildings require, then their energy costs will be greatly reduced and building owners won’t have to wait for a payback. They will see it every month in their minuscule utility bills.
Other “green” technologies such as complex glazing systems and chilled beams have their place, but for a lot of buildings, we simply don’t need them. We can design buildings with simple overhangs, operable windows, stack ventilation and other passive systems that provide the same benefits of “green” technology without the need to actually generate so much electricity. As in every aspect of life, Occam’s Razor holds true to designing sustainable buildings. Simple is always better.
In case my word isn’t believable enough, I’ve extracted some real meaty bits from this article by energy expert Roderic Bunn.
“We have been seduced by the often false promises of new technologies. A building can be mounted with wind turbines and photovoltaics, but they don’t contribute nearly as much as designers think they do because they haven’t driven down the energy requirement to begin with. We tend to glue these things on to the outside of buildings before we actually have reduced the loads of the building as far as we can go. The mantra should be ‘half the loads, double the efficiencies. Halve the carbon in the fuel supply before we go anywhere near on-site renewables. They are often expensive, small, very complex, and maintenance hungry, and the maintainability of these things is rarely taken into account. We are piling in often unmanageable complexity into these buildings, so the consequence is unmanageable complexity. It’s the enemy of good performance. In new buildings, we are trying to drive down energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions, and concentrate on the wrong things. We are often trying to do it with innovative technology that requires far more attention in design and construction, and needs aftercare support that it does not get.”
Here’s my favorite part, “just because energy is renewable doesn’t mean you’re allowed to waste it”.
Architect in Person 
Reblogged this on Persiangateway's Blog and commented:
Green Sky lodt
Very interesting. I can’t help but think that the entire rhetoric of sustainability is confused. Are we trying to protect the environment for its own sake? For future generations? This confusion seems to come to the fore in architectural projects like this. It is, if you’ll pardon the nature pun, somewhat of a lightning rod for these tensions.
Confusion is a big part of the problem. I just think of it like this. Pollution is bad. We should do everything we can to not pollute and to fix the damage we’ve already done.
If people really wanted to hear the truth, they could spend some time actually researching it. The truth is out there. It’s called science.
It begs the question “Has technology not reached the heights we would aspire for it – just yet?” You are right in that designers are often too free with their thoughts of just throwing ‘renewables’ at a ‘Green’ building design as box tickers. I identify some similar and additional points in my blog “Renewable Energy is Great, but ……..” at http://www.buildingdesignexpert.com/blog/2012/02/renewable-energy-is-great-but/
The need is for designers to incorporate targeted thinking for inclusion of renewable energy.
I read your blog and you made some good points, particularly about the process that happens between architect, engineer and code official. One of the problems with all these green technologies is that they’re so new and code officials don’t have a lot of case studies to fall back on, hence they are VERY cautious. The technology will always be advancing but eventually we will get the point where there are proven, conventional “green” systems that are accepted by everyone along in the process.
My biggest gripe with architects and engineers is that they tend to completely ignore passive systems and reducing the loads. It just takes some additional planning upfront and with them, there wouldn’t need to be as much of a reliance on “renewables”.
Great read. Understand the sentiment. Well written. Will be reading more.
Thanks. I appreciate it.
Hey Benjamin, my last architectural experiment ( I am not an architect and I am not trying either ) was a minimalist BOX in which we lived for 4 years. Our approach was simple but the question itself wasn’t. Think Greeny but HOW ? We don’t believe in LEED, we don’t really understand the word Green as they use it. This TREND is way to SOCIAL now, people bought IT. We built the BOX in a remote area where CITY codes were ” more ” ” flexible ”. We though that if we could design a Habitat ( for humans ) in which we could ” control ” ourselves it would be at least a good start. The BOX is 14-0 x 54-0. Integrating a human habitat in a forest is not an easy task. Flora, wildlife etc… You have to consider the place you take in your context to preserve it after. Almost off the grid with only Hydro-electricity hook up. It is clear for us now that building smaller INDIVIDUAL homes is the way to go. Smaller is Smarter. Preventing people to spread out like crazies is a greater task. Our BOX is for sale and what we didn’t consider is this: people don’t like to be controlled, they need space ( they think they need ), they want to exploit the most of the least and they need to show others what they own… Individualism is very dangerous. Discouraged, we recycled an old 1972 airstream trailer and left the BOX behind. Vacant. The experiment was for us first but turned to be a second one when we put the THING for sale. What a waste of time. The best thing we can do for our future generations is to promote and encourage URBAN LIFE. We think that humans belong to cities, we must protect what is left of our habitat by promoting Urban Habitats for humans. Smaller is Smarter.
( check http://le145minimalist.wordpress.com for more info on Minimalism. )
Very fascinating stuff. I like the idea of minimalism, but I think it’s too extreme for our culture. Your BOX is beautiful, but I think you may have a hard time finding another minimalist who wants to live outside of the city. It becomes much easier to be a minimalist when you can step outside your front door into a bustling and vibrant city. It’s something entirely different when you leave your stark BOX to the vast emptiness that is nature.
We live in cities because we crave interaction. We want to be a part of something we can relate to. Nature helps to calm our soul, but it can’t fulfill most people’s everyday needs. It’s a temporary respite from the complexities of urban life.
You’re right about smaller is smarter. I think we do need to move away from our suburban, single-family home ideology. Many reasons for doing so, most importantly the sheer inefficiency of every aspect of life involved in suburban living. I would argue that the most important mind shift that needs to happen is from our culture of constant consuming to becoming a thoughtful permanent consumer. By this I mean instead of buying a couch every 3 years and putting the old one in a landfill, we should find timeless products that we love and keep them for life. Quality products that can age and be repaired, not needing to be replaced in a couple years. If every object in our homes had meaning and permanence, would wouldn’t need such huge houses and we wouldn’t waste nearly as much.
Benjamin, the BOX came out from a short experience in Vancouver, BC. Back, then, we were living on a very too big lot in a very too big house ( another ” great idea ” ). We moved to Vancouver to experience the Urban life that Montreal didn’t ( and still don’t ) suggest. WE LOVED Vancouver and we still LOVE The Lady but The Lady is a Trap… We were ” cast away ” people living in on the 26th floor of a concrete residential tower. We enjoyed it very much but we had to drive back home to set ” things ” straight on a not so serious deal we had on our house back then Le149. We sold Le149 and decided to build Le145 based on some lesson learned in Vancouver. Two of them were contention and control. Zzzzzzzzz, are you still with me. Lol. We needed MORE money to get back to Vancouver but we didn’t know how to approach our ” NEED ”.
Having studied Minimalism for 2 years we knew that this ” INFLUENCE ” in Architecture would be a nice base for our real need. Ours… knowing that we were swimming against the current, we did it. We felt good about it because we were ” controlling ” ourself. Ben, I have been designing custom built homes for 15 years in this region, homes in which people ( most of them foreigners ) are using 2-4 weeks per year… Ben, I have designed 9000 sq.ft. homes for rich couples or self-driven solo souls… Le145 was a real relief for us, believe me. I am writing you that for a reason, the reason is between the line. And it is not pretention. ( for sake man, I sitting in my trailer couch as I am writting you and Sure-Lay is one of the oldest trailer on the Campground… ) We are not ”responsive” nor ” reactive” persons. We are ” those silly Creative ” ones. We don’t judge, we verify, ascertain, note or diagnose I don’t know how to say it but in French it is CONSTATER. We do it ourselves to establish ” our ” fact. Different experience = different point of perspective as you know.
When we built Le145 it was for ourselves FIRST but, but we had in mind to sell it and move back West. What happen ? CONSCIENCE happens in 2009. ( theres an interesting RECENT article on Future Cities done by David Suzuki’s team. ) We realize that Individualism is the real issue because WE WERE !!! Individualism is the reason why people move out from the city ” limits ”. We think that ” control ” is also an issue. Minimalism has great values but they are obsolete. Modernism has happen.
Me and Nathalie think that it is IMPERATIVE to promote URBAN settings. Urban setting is way greener than a ” single family ” 9000 sq,ft, LEED home. We think that L.E.E.D is great for cities, we need rules right ?! But WE need to keep our distance from what is left of our habitat.( I use OUR but you know that it s not ours. ) Good intentions are great but they are not enough. We need to act. We need to rewrite some ” old ” great thoughts and ” Quotes ”. We need to promote The Ideas to the Majority. We need to explain what those pesky nice words mean for instance. We need to learn how to use the existing system to promote those new nice Quotes and Ideas. Use existing marketing tools more efficiently. See that billboard over there with the nice leather couch on it priced at 35$ per month ? Ear that radio advertisement about this new car that you don’t EVEN see ? The system is already there but we prefer to put fuel in a boat to ” fight ” against immorality. GreenPeacing is great but is there another way to do this ? Blogs are great, Facebook is nice too, Twitter is widely used too… Maybe we don’t need those big billboards anymore.
I don’t want to hijack your post here, it s a very interesting blog you have so I’ll stop right here. I’ll keep an eye on you though ! I have to get to the sani-station to ” drop ” some stuff… Lol. ( sorry for my english )
le145,
You have a very interesting story. I always enjoy hearing about how different people have experimented in their own lives with architecture. I hope to keep you interested with my posts and I always welcome some healthy discussion.
Finally someone who has a guts to say what they mean.
TRUE with capitals.
(By the way, I love the title!!)
This article reminds me of a project done recently by architects I know ,they keep bragging that its LEED silver . Its a 5000 sq ft house for two people living in it, built on a 10 acres of an originally agricultural land in a rural area. An artificial pond was made on the land and they put fish in it (damaging the food chain ). Doesnt sound like a green approach, but it was LEED certified!
At this point I am really questioning how does LEED work? scoring points on LEED’s checklists goes in a very linear process where they should look the project in a holistic way. Green and sustainability loose its meaning with practices like that.
You’re spot on. LEED did a lot of great things in terms of making people more aware of the importance of “green building” but it has completely failed to positively evolve and continues to allow things that go completely against it’s core principals to achieve high ratings. There are a few other rating systems out there that I think are dealing with these issues better and it will be interesting to see how each of them grow.