Writing, theory, and discourse about architecture.
Van Uffelen
Chris Van Uffelen argues that design methods of the past are great examples for sustainable design today. This is both a smart and potentially dangerous way to look at historical precedence for sustainable design. The positives from architectural predecessors are that buildings were incredibly difficult to seal or separated from their environments. Designers had to choose local materials and stable, proven designs. Buildings were located with openings to take advantage of solar orientation and natural wind ventilation. The problem, or danger, that lies in looking at these buildings as key examples for green architecture is the social factor. People in the past were not part of a consumer driven economy, whether materials were plentiful and design choices unlimited. People had to build to survive, not to enjoy the modern conveniences with have become so thoroughly engrained in our Western culture. Modern architects must use transitional designs to help societies return to low consumption lifestyles without shocking them with new radical design. Chris makes good arguments, but I am not fully convinced.
Van Uffelen states “practically every architect implements ecological technologies”. It is important not to overlook the simplicity of this statement as a key component to the slow change to ecologically sensitive architecture. Simply assuming that architects use ecological systems is part of the problem of the ideas of mainstream designers today. A toilet that saves 20% water compared to the standard is an ecological technology. A building that recycles its waste material, and uses the methane generated to power an on-site turbine is also an ecological technology. Which chose is going to be more sustainable? Which choice is going to be easier? Unfortunately, too many designers, especially here in the USA, are making to easy choices over the difficult ones, and claiming to be eco-architects. While many US firms are making admirable steps in the right direction, the unfortunate truth is that suburban and small scale architecture firms have not made enough changes.