UFFELEN + WINES
UFFELEN
1. Are Uffelen’s historical examples and attention to materials regarding environmentally friendly technology convincing?
As a well-trained architecture student who has been taught (both consciously and subconsciously) to always look and strive for something better, I have to say that Uffelen’s preface to his book is not entirely convincing to me. First of all, I find his statement that “aesthetic-minded architecture with a concentration on ecology first appeared at the end of the 1960s” to be completely ridiculous. Architecture and design have been happening for thousands of years before the twentieth-century (which seems to be his focus in writing, with the exception of a brief nod to Roman and Greek construction and some mention of Middle Age recycling), and that blanket-statement is not at ALL true. Like John mentioned, the change forced upon our society and the rest of the world after the Industrial Revolution is actually a complete paradigm shift to the way that people lived and built for centuries before the Crystal Palace. What I really don’t understand is why so much of Uffelen’s writing is dedicated to listing a handful of 1970s and 1980s “consciously ecological low-tech architects” when he has the opportunity to really create an argument about how the ideas of designers can incorporate both the “historic construction techniques” and the possibilities of current and future technology (since, let’s face it – human beings have messed up this earth and we need to do something more than reuse some clay bricks or put up photovoltaic panels). This isn’t to say that I think the author doesn’t have great points – because I definitely do, but he’s too submissive in his writing style. Instead of listing some great architects and giving me a basic run-down of sustainable building rating systems throughout the world, I want to be convinced that there are designers (past and present) who can make these ideas a reality.
2. Is sustainability put as a priority above style or structural function in the United States?
From what I can tell, none of the above-mentioned ideas are put as a priority in building design in the United States. Economics are at the top of the heap, and money is what is currently driving our society. This is an unfortunate reality, and I believe there are certainly people out there who don’t fit into this societal mold (hopefully some architects!), but I think we as designers can continue to push and fight this barrier with innovative and convincing ideas and proposals. That is our job after all.
While money and economic feasibility may be a large priority, I do believe sustainable-thinking is making strides in this country, and to a businessperson, it has even become marketable and profitable. Yet, I agree with Eric in his argument that designers aren’t asking quite the right questions yet. (I especially loved: “Is it really ok to allow your building to contribute to global warming? Maybe if it only pollutes…..just a little bit?”) We cannot simply use technological advances to “make a bad thing less bad.” That’s not to say we have to “reinvent the wheel” (as architects love to do), but rather we can look to historic precedents (not only “professional” but also vernacular) and the environment around us to show us where to start and how we can implement technology within that site-specific system.
WINES
1. Are you able to design an ecologically-inspired art of building in the Age of Ecology in your present studio?
“Too often the problem with so-called green architecture is the conflict between having a strong sense of mission [design concept] and an admirable commitment to ecological design principles.”
I think this quote by Wines really drives into the heart of a contemporary problem in architecture. So many designers set out with only half of the big picture in mind: either a brilliant form-based, conceptual idea or an overwhelming numbers-driven (how many kilowatts of energy does this building save?) dedication to sustainable design features. The struggle for our generation of designers is to figure out how to these ideals can meld into one.
In terms of what I’m working on in studio, I feel as though (as has been previously mentioned) our instructors are much more interested in the form and its relationship to the site and other buildings than how it functions sustainably. Yet it can be argued that an important part of creating a sustainable building is to design one that people who use and see it every day will (to put it quite simply) love. Is the building interesting? Are there great places to be in and around it? Is it attractive? These questions are all of utmost importance in creating a successful building that will last. It doesn’t matter how many thermal walls or triple-glazed windows you have, if the people who live and work there don’t like it, it won’t last. I believe it’s important to incorporate basic sustainability principles (daylighting, ventilation, passive heating, etc.) in every design I do (as all architects should), but having that strong design concept certainly cannot be set aside.
-R. Peterson