Uffelen + Wines
Are you able to design an ecologically inspired art of building in the Age of Ecology in your present studio?
Absolutely, but not necessarily in the way that “sustainability” has recently been touted. Rather than integrating what I consider “tack-on” systems such as solar / wind generation or water capturing gutters, the purely theoretical nature of our design studios offers us a chance to consider a much more basic, formal approach to ecology and sustainability. This could include site & building scale factors like orientation (for solar gain) and thermal mass (for passive heating / cooling), as well as small scale details like glazing patterns for natural daylighting and ventilation and material choices based on locally available sources, whether new or recycled.
That’s not to say those active systems aren’t important. They are. However, given the incredibly short timeline and scope of our design studios we are largely limited to broader schematic designs. Rather than look at this as a hindrance (lack of time necessitates lack of development that could begin to blend active + passive systems in a much more realistic way), I think of it as an opportunity to begin every design from a viewpoint of environmental sensitivity (Instead of some nebulous aesthetic theory or sculptural ideal). Once we learn to start from there, the rest follows fairly easily.
With that in mind, let’s criticize Uffelen:
Do you find [Uffelen’s] historical examples and attention to materials and use convincing?
Yes and no. I think his pre-industrial examples highlight a certain “sustainability by necessity” that he fails to recognize the lack of in later examples. Building materials were re-used in Roman and Medieval times mostly because that was what was available. Buildings were aware of their lighting, heating, and cooling properties because other means for creating them (electric light, fossil fuel heating) did not yet exist. Creative, low-tech solutions to comfort problems were born out of need, and the architecture of the time formally reflects these needs. Form follows function, etc. etc.
I think Uffelen is way too easy on the Modernist architects of the early to mid 20th century (Wines is much harsher, and rightfully so). There are a few notable exceptions, but I find most architecture of this time is still almost entirely rooted in the formal and visual mindset of the industrial age, and a few nods to natural daylight or local material could hardly be considered acceptably ecological. Even his contemporary examples fall short in my opinion. Most of the cases presented are high-tech solutions to self-created problems. Uffelen points to falling costs of insulative material, efficient HVAC systems, and renewable power generation, but never considers the idea that humans lived fairly comfortable for hundreds of thousands of years with none of these things. John’s earlier post about The Lorax echoes a lot of my thoughts here.
To paraphrase my case study on Mike Reynolds: the last 200+ years of building has been focused almost entirely on ‘protecting’ us from nature. Instead of shutting nature out and consuming resources to create our own comfort, I think a true ecological approach can ‘interface’ with nature to find comfort where it exists already.
Symbiosis, not parasitism.