Archinect
anchor

Resiliency vs sustainability

I wanted to see what others thought about this essay in NYT. Titled Learning to Bounce Back
 in it Andrew Zolli argues sustainability is being challenged by a new idea of resiliency . It seems to me that the frame of one vs other is perhaps not helpful.

Where sustainability aims to put the world back into balance, resilience looks for ways to manage in an imbalanced world.

Though, perhaps the urgent needs of reality are exactly why a real sense of engaging the "status quo" is needed.

Personally, I thing resiliency is an important concept but i would ask why we have to focus on one to the detriment of the other. Should/couldn't we incorporate both?

 
Nov 4, 12 2:50 pm

I'd vote for resourcefulness.

Yo!

Nov 4, 12 3:29 pm  · 
 · 
Rusty!

It's a dumb article. I specifically mentions LEED as example of sustainability, and then blabs on about scanning twitter feeds as example of resiliency. 

Resiliency has always existed in architecture. It's called a Building Code (in most recent century, and vernacular before that). Anything beyond code is certainly possible, but very, very expensive. 

Measuring stick here can be insurance companies. They didn't offer flood insurance to most properties that got swept away. Predictably so. Risk management is as fun as watching paint dry, but very foretelling. Anyone who's ever worked on a project insured by FM Global can quickly tell you just how many common building practices are just unacceptable when resiliency comes in play. 

Nov 4, 12 3:49 pm  · 
 · 

resiliency doesn't require sustainability

ie, to be resilient in heatwave install more airconditioning. 

that said resilience is part of the shift from mitigation to adaptation in current thinking on the subject.  Global warming is a done deal so while it is important to keep trying (yeah right, good luck with that), we are just going to have to do things different from now on.

resilience is not the building code.   sorry rusty ;-)

resilience means building the lower 9th ward to be ready for the next flood.  buildings on stilts are more resilient than buildings with basements, in new orleans - at least for the near future.  that is pretty easy to understand.  has nothing to do with sustainability though.  It can be if you want, but not necessary - in the case of brad pitt and make it right, all his houses are leed platinum, and when i visited they were talking about trying for living building standards.  in some ways it adds to resilience since solar power means can be energy independent to an extent.  there are also some experiments with rain water collection, but the building code (or whatever code it is) doesn't allow it, so its not being used.

In that case building code is NOT about resiliency, just about being behind the times.

this is not just a coastal thing either.  increased drought in the usa or Zud in places like mongolia mean lifestyles have to change.  it is easier in the usa since americans have money and a reasonable infrastructure (including govt that works). but in mongolia it means people just stop raising livestock and move to the city.  not sustainable, but resilient, for now.

the challenge will be to work out how to make sustainability the center of choices formed in effort to adapt to current climate reality. 

Nov 4, 12 7:17 pm  · 
 · 
Rusty!

"resilience is not the building code.   sorry rusty ;-)" 

zoom out a bit. It's been a long time since either New York, Chicago, or Tokyo have burned to the ground. There is also probably a technical reason/limitation for your example of code not allowing for water collection systems. I bet it gets worked out.

now zoom back in. I know we fancy ourselves as experts in all fields, but I was only talking about architecture here, not urban planing or greater political interests in play. If the goal here is wide implementation of resilient practices in construction, then we are talking about policy making. And building codes can play that role. Newest Ontario Building Code makes LEED all but redundant, since it goes well beyond energy benchmarks LEED sets out to meet. 

Due to Sandy, NYC building code is under review process, and first amendment will try to prohibit placement of electrical and mechanical rooms in cellars and basements in flood zones. Makes sense in hindsight. 

Back to topic, sustainability and resiliency are separate topics only because they are both optional approaches. A revised building code (along other policies from related fields) will ensure these ideas are crammed down everyone's throat indiscriminately :) 

Nov 4, 12 9:49 pm  · 
 · 

A better take on the resiliency vs sustainability subject was discussed by Slate several weeks ago..

It provides some decent examples (specifically references NYC and flooding) about the difference between the two approaches. In general, the theory behind the two do not necessarily align, but they can also work together.

For example, for resiliency, electricity grids are designed to meet the peak load which means a huge amount of the electricity generated by our power plants is wasted because for the majority of the year we never come to close to this peak load. BUT by reducing the peak load in buildings through sustainable strategies (daylighting, natural ventilation, radiant cooling etc..) we can reduce the stress on the grid and thus be more resilient. 

Nov 5, 12 3:36 pm  · 
 · 

interesting article.

hm, good points rusty, but i still disagree.  i am an architect and an urban planner by training and education so yeah all that stuff is part of my job.

policy is unexpectedly also part of my job since i started working on reconstruction efforts for the govt via my university.  they are looking for policy recommendations based on the kind of planning and architecture we feel is necessary in order to build resiliency and other things like zero carbon futures etc and other blather.  resiliency is a new field that architects are well placed to join in the discussion.

that said, i really don't know if it is enough to aim for better building code. resiliency is about community as much as simply refraining from getting smashed to bits (see this research for example).  and when it comes to other things like drought and Zud, resiliency has nothing to do with building code, but could have a lot to do with architecture.  new typologies can make survival possible.

at least that is what i feel.  i am in working environment where climate scientists are on all sides and i'm the only architect in the room, and i get asked surprisingly often to deal with their issues quite a lot, and the solutions i see are not based on better building codes at all.  not that it isn't important, but it definitely is not sufficient, even in hindsight.  this isn't a regulatory problem.

Nov 5, 12 10:46 pm  · 
 · 

will that is second time you posted Zud, at first i thought a typo?

also not sure it differs from what has already been said but what about the point made in this piece at Atlantic Cities "But all in all, there are numerous green techniques and sustainable processes that can assist cities and urban areas both reduce their own heat signatures and adapt to the significant climate change that is happening even as this post is being written"

Also re: your difference with Rusty doesn't building code shape/define architecture? new typologies may require new code but point seems to hold...

all that being said i wonder how architecture fits into your point about communities. I suppose built environment shapes/defines communities. but seems community resilience while dependent on designed/material factors also has much to do with infrastructures (both physical and societal)..

Nov 5, 12 11:05 pm  · 
 · 

zud is massive storm that causes national upheaval in mongolia.  i am involved tangentially with some work related to it so i know about it.  it isn't a typo.  check it out on google or look here for economic impact.  it is all climate change related and can be responded to with architecture (that is how i am involved anyway), but has zero to do with building code.  how can it?  mandated building regulations for nomads? 

I think the issues are only about building code if you think resiliency and sustainability stops with energy efficiency and storm windows (and maybe even then only in first world countries).  It seems likely to me that we will all be forced by circumstances to think much further in the near future.  Not that rusty's point isn't a good one.

Community is huge part of the discussion on resiliency.  Architecture also has an effect on that, but its about quality of design and not numbers.  It isn't the sort of thing that gets much airplay even in architecture schools so i don't expect much to happen on that front.

anyway, it's a big topic.  i expect it will come up more in the future.

Nov 7, 12 2:30 am  · 
 · 
SDR

"Resilience" reminds me of the term "tolerate," a desideratum in the psychologist's textbook. The idea is that, the more kinds of things one can tolerate in his or her life, the happier (less stressed, etc) one will be.

Nov 7, 12 10:56 pm  · 
 · 
TED

I personally believe, those who use 'resilience' or 'adaptation' as they use here[in the UK] as a political strategy to climate change, fall within the group of those in denial of the science. We need for a more forward, critical point of view towards pollution and carbon to be taken on - yes, that meant Kyoto protocol should have been agreed to by all including the US - but it might have imposed higher cost on private interest.  We all pay in the end.

  

Nov 8, 12 2:01 am  · 
 · 
BE

Sustainability generally implies business-as-usual for as long as we can, preferably to the nth future generations, while resiliency refers to the ability to bounce back to the original state after shocks have been administered to the system, which is just another way of saying: we really don't have a solution to the new world (read: social and environmental) order; lets live by accepting the necessity of the status quo and find ways--albeit resilient ways--to cope with these shocks. 

In my own opinion, both sustainability and resiliency are concepts mindlessly spawned by the those in control. Of course sustainability is good business; so is resiliency--bouncing back, C'mon! But bouncing back to what? And is business-as-usual: unchecked growth, growing GDP and forever urbanization always good and desirable, and desirable for whom? The world today is like a runaway train on these two concepts, and architects, planners and academics are mindlessly wording these concepts as if they are godsend. They are not, and it is plain to see what these concepts are, and where these concepts are leading us. 

To start, to think about resilience is already to accept that resilience is inevitable. Is that so? John Habraken once suggested that everything that we do and possess in the built environment--our architecture, cities and policies--are not irreversible. Yes, it would be costly. But to pretend that these are immutable artifacts may be more costly down the road for our civilization. Those that champion resiliency all have their own interests to protect. But the common problems bearing down on planet Earth are likely to be more pressing than individuated interests now. 

As for sustainability, chuck the concept down the chute. Even in Germany, everyone knows that recycling is a social and psychological consolation, because the law only requires 30 odd % of the recyclables to be recycled; the rest is incinerated. If one would to check the rate that incinerators and landfills are being zoned today, one would quickly realize that both are extremely good businesses and the prospects of recycling pales in contrast to the self-devouring prospects of civilization today. In substitute for sustainability, it is better to think about how to 'limit consumption'! That I think, is a better concept to think about. 

Nov 8, 12 2:12 am  · 
 · 

i'm impressed at the negative reaction

this book (Adaptation to Climate Change: From Resilience to Transformation) by mark pelling is a very good primer on the subject if the topic doesn't make much sense).  I thought this one (Resilience and Transformation: Preparing Australia for Uncertain Futures)  also quite a good introduction.

 

The first year I started working with UNEP on adaptation issues i was shocked that the people were saying mitigation was not going to happen and we needed to get working on adaptation instead because the disasters were piling up.  Then we had the Tohoku disaster and resilience became the new word to think about.  I don't see either of these approaches as being bad at all.  It's about building back better not giving up. 

we need mitigation but the time for that to be enough is long past.  we fcuked up and need to deal with the consequences...man made or not, climate change is here.

Nov 8, 12 9:24 am  · 
 · 
x-jla

All of the above is the answer.  We can mitigate and adapt simultaniously by working toward decentralization.  I have argued that decentralization or localization are going to be the way of the future, NOT more globalization, mega-cities, and regional mega-infrastructure.  This goes for not only energy production, but food production, water, production of goods....


 

Nov 8, 12 11:00 am  · 
 · 

JLa-x I agree with localization of specific services, but globalization is a reality and is pretty much a guarantee given the speed with which information now travels. Because of this, I think the exportation of ideas will become an even bigger market than it is today. I also think the mega-city is a reality of the future, but that does not exclude localization/decentralization. After all urbanization is different from globalization. There is an economy of scale which the mega-city provides, the main question is what is the cut-off for the size of a system to maintain its resilience and maximize its efficiency. 

Nov 8, 12 5:30 pm  · 
 · 
mfischer3387

Whether or not we're progressing towards a settling pattern of hyper-condensed mega-cities or a reactive, decentralized focus, it is the underlying infrastructure of how we manage and harness our resources that needs to be assessed.

Tying this back into earlier conversation, the role of building codes has regionally provided a good measure of how city building patterns have developed. It's certainly not the all-encompassing answer, as I would argue that a greater part of how cities (large or small) thrive is the adaptability of their infrastructure. For instance, how is their power grid going to cope with a major blackout when one of their substations sits right at the brink of a 100 year flood zone? How is clean, potable water going to continue to be accessible to areas where sewage overflow and salt water has polluted the surrounding area? How are emergency vehicles and disaster resources going to access the flooded areas to protect the dense living areas if the roads are flooded

Building codes certainly play a part in providing for the safety and well being of their inhabitants to exit in the case of emergency. If they can become more independent in their resources consumed, good for them. This certainly includes a combination of  passive resource recycling and power generating, and active participation by the inhabitants. But we're not yet at a point where our built infrastructure, and the building market in general, has reached a tipping point where this "off-the-grid" attitude makes viable financial sense.

I'd argue that to plan and re-assess this infrastructure in both the short term and long term, providing planning guidelines that address resiliency, but accept and embrace a need for adaptability to the built environment that depends upon it.

Nov 9, 12 11:11 am  · 
 · 

off the grid is hard anyway. i just met a few weeks ago with a govt official in San Francisco who told me if they did every roof surface over in solar panels they could meet 7 percent of the electrical demand of the city we were in.  or 14% if energy demand could be cut in half ( ! ).  this is from an advocate.  off the grid is coolio and yet somehow doesn't quite work.

a few days after that meeting i did a tour of a living building challenge project in vancouver and the architect said the only way they could get to net zero was by partnering with a neighbor, and trade electricity for heat.  I had heard the same thing a few times and by now am a believer in district heating, like in Copenhagen.   it seems to be the most flexible way to do things, giving local control as well as the benefit of sufficient scale to do all the things that scale allows.  seems to work, with downside of needing communal energy plans and negotiations and all that shit (another reason i think the building code is not enough - how do you mandate co-operation after all?)

it may be that resiliency is only possible as a community.  even if its just a community of two...

Nov 9, 12 6:32 pm  · 
 · 

Block this user


Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?

Archinect


This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.

  • ×Search in: