Chris van Uffelen, Ecological Architecture

1. I do not find van Uffelen’s historical examples convincing in building his argument. Obviously, choosing materials of the appropriate type and from the appropriate (ideally local) source is important in considering the sustainability of a building, but the historical references are outdated and irrelevant. His citation of the 145 ancient columns and their movement was, indeed, wasteful, but there was not much of a focus on sustainability 200 years ago.

2. I think that the setting of sustainability as a priority over style or structural function has happened, partially, in the United States. Style has, at times, taken the back seat to sustainability, but this usually only happens in advanced architectural offices. For many builders and designers, the familiar is still king. People like to build in the way that they have in the past, because it is easier and faster, often yielding better economic results. I do not think that sustainability has taken precedence over structure at all. We usually see efforts at creating a sustainable building as adapting to the structure. The financial costs, right now, are usually too high to consider altering an entire structure for the sake of ecology.