Sustainability is a trendy term these days usually associated with a perceived notion of ‘green’ design. The Brundtland Commission (1987) defined sustainable development as : “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” I can confidently say that modern Architecture almost never addresses this issue directly.
Le Crobusier's urban 'Utopia'
Currently, some (non-compulsory) standards are in place in the US and in Britain that grade how much a design can score in terms of their sustainability. I can’t help but think that these ‘LEED accreditations’ and ‘BREEAM assessments’ are no more than the lowest common denominator of a society trying desperately to say that they care about the environment (the one they so consciously destroy). In my eyes they are simple bureaucratic ways of scoring a design and making the designer and the owner/client feel more at ease. A marketing tool in most cases. Don’t get me wrong, scoring buildings is a start, but both USGBC (US) and BRE (UK) are missing the point. In terms of global impact, they are totally detached from reality. Architects and their peers usually focus on individual buildings, their immediate effect on their surroundings and the impact it will have in its urban context (lets ignore for a minute the other obstacles – client needs and budgetary constraints). This is not nearly enough if we have to be thinking that future generations are going to be able to meet their needs. Architects like LeCorbusier and Mies van der Rohe infected society with the notion that massive cities and urban sprawl were the pinnacle of successful architecture. We must all live in a kind of urban utopia in the form of massive units of imposing human architecture. According to their legacy (which we see in every major city in the form of concrete multi-storey massive housing blocks), We must all design buildings based on their present and future ”Urban Context” and not their Landscape or Ecosystem.
Isn’t it time Architects start to consider things like mass consumerism, life expectancy and biodiversity?
†During the past 50 years, average life expectancy around the world has risen from 46 to 64 years and in the difference in longevity between people in the developed and developing world has shrunk from 26 to 12 years. As we live longer, we consume more, and in old age our dependency upon heat, light and transportation increases. Improvements in living conditions aided by the consumption of ever more energy per person globally (estimated at 0.6 kW in 1900 to 2.3 kW in 2000), has led to an increase in human numbers and life expectancy. Food production has more than doubled over the century from a diminishing area of productive agricultural land. Land has been lost to urban expansion, to desertification and to pollution but because of new technologies (particularly irrigation) and greater energy input, total agriculture productivity has increased. In this, biodiversity has suffered a major blow, and Rachel Carson’s prediction of a Silent Spring
The habitat that Architects create have their place in satisfying both human need and that of other species. Biodiversity, however is everybody’s responsibility – designers, engineers, farmers, politicians and so on. Architects can play their part in three ways:
1. Designing natural habitats as part of the development process. These could include ponds or wetlands, green roofs, tree planting, green walls, wildflower meadows, etc.
2. Architects can source green construction materials from an ecological point of view. This will help maintain local or regional biodiversity just by adjusting the choice of products or materials.
3. Architects have the great ability to bring nature closer into people’s lives. This can entail interior as well as exterior planting and the exploitation of views to enhance the perception of the surrounding landscape and the building orientation. The objective here is both perceptual and spiritual. Architects main function should be to ensure that the human species is not disconnected from the natural world. Just as television has done much to bring an appreciation of ecology, buildings can play their part in providing a window on biodiversity.
Green roof at the Nanyang Technological University in Singapore
Green roof at the Nanyang Technological University in Singapore
According to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), forests the size of Greece are lost each year, resulting in the extinction of 20,000 species a year (most before they are even discovered). In addition,
it is estimated that each of us carries several hundred synthetic chemicals in our bodies that were not present in our grandparents
The global construction industry is responsible for much of the forest clearing (mostly to create timber products for buildings and furniture) and for putting the new chemicals into people by the materials used. Architects need to quickly come to terms with the impending ecological and environmental catastrophe we face in the 21st century or face a future without bird song.
