I am doing some research for my Extended Project Qualification (EPQ) with the above title. I am from the UK and currently studying for my A levels and basically, an EPQ is an additional qualification that involves conducting independent research into a specific area of interest that is not covered by my compulsory studies syllabus and relates to the degree I will hopefully study at university. So I'm asking for your help!
If you have any comments on the topic please discuss! it could be really useful for my research. I also have the following questions which may prompt response or discussion:
How important would you say considering the environment and our environmental problems is in architecture today?
Do you think such a heavy focus on sustainability and the environment could hinder the potential overall appearance of a building?
Could zero-energy developments and eco-designs be a worldwide solution to our energy problems and environmental concerns?
In your opinion, are the aesthetics and appearance of a building or it's eco-friendliness more important and why?
Do you have any good examples of successful or unsuccessful eco/zero-energy/sustainable buildings? For example I have researched 'earth-ships' which I personally find quite unattractive but are incredibly eco-friendly. On the other hand 'One Angel Square' in Manchester, UK is one of the most visually appealing buildings I have known to have such a good 'BREEAM' rating and be so sustainable!
Does the importance of sustainability and the environment in architectural design compromise the aesthetics of architecture?
P.S any quotes or general ideas that you give and I end up using as part of my research, I will let you know and fully reference! So, if you specialise in a relevant area, are a professional or have any qualifications related to the topic of architecture and/or sustainability, please let me know! But I am equally as interested in the general public's opinions! THANK YOU!
SpatialSojourner
Aug 17, 14 1:36 pm
I think that the environment should be a major driver in the design process. The reality of it happening in professional practice is debatable. The firms I've worked in will tout "sustainable" features included in a building but they were merely a byproduct of the design. The aesthetic is the main driver and so if a wood wall looked good wrapped in the last Brazilian Rosewood tree, they would definitely spec it.
I think that a heavy focus on sustainability isn't a hindrance but in fact a major guide during the design process. It assists with design decisions. For example, if one wants a glassy wall on one side of their building, sustainable design rationalizes where it is located (Just a basic example)
Net zero and eco-designs can help but a global shift in how we as humans live on a day-to-day basis needs to happen.
Yes - why does it have to be either aesthetics OR environmentally conscious designs, can't it be both? I can list a plethora of fantastic buildings that utilize the aesthetic as an sustainable feature. In my opinion I really like multifaceted design decisions. ei: Foster + Partners' Mclaren HQ/30 St Mary Axe/..., Studio Gang's Aqua Tower/Solar Curve Tower/ ect, ect
See above
Carrera
Aug 17, 14 3:12 pm
Eleanor.rose, I think your subject EPQ is and will be a great contribution to the profession. Buildings consume (EPA):
36 percent of total energy use and 65 percent of electricity consumption
30 percent of greenhouse gas emissions
30 percent of raw materials used
30 percent of waste output (136 million tons annually)
12 percent of potable water consumption
Energy consumption and the inability to find/embrace new ways of producing it is a world wide crisis. Who else but architects are really in a position to master consumption?
As suggested many architects are simply playing with sustainability as a marketing tool, but for many more they have made it a part of their sole purpose. I designed/built and live (part-time) in a Super-Insulated cottage. It is at the 45th Parallel and while only about 2,000 SF my average electricity bill is only $65/Mo (The house is total electric, including heat). I am confounded by why the public won’t embrace this and it stands in the way of reaching a solution.
I offer Loblolly House by Stephen Kieran FAIA as an architect and house that “Talks The Talk” and “Walks The Walk”.
Aug 17, 14 3:42 pm
I'll say this much, sustainability and environmental concern does not necessiate or mean we have to compromise aesthetics. It can if you starting designing on aesthetics without an integrated consideration of sustainability/environment/solar orientation when laying out space. To make it work, you need to start off design on the right foot with sustainability, environment, solar orientation and other such concerns.
After all, factors such as aperture size to floor area needs to be considered but you would and should be factoring and understanding the principles of passive solar design (for example) or solar-based designing and apply it in your thinking from the start. Don't wait until you are at construction documents before you start thinking about these matters.
Miles Jaffe
Aug 17, 14 6:15 pm
Nope. But the importance of aesthetics in architectural design compromises sustainability and the environment.
Aug 17, 14 8:10 pm
Miles Jaffe,
I wouldn't say that either. Neither way is a guarantee to compromise of the other.
It's the process of holistic synthesis of bringing all the matters together to compose form. Failure in that is where your compromise.
Your design vision would need to already encompass all these 'design concerns' from the start so there isn't really a compromise because the vision from the beginning would already cover this just as you would design structure covered so you are coming at the end having to make compromises (or backpeddling in the design) because you goofed up and forgot to take your considerations together.
Miles Jaffe
Aug 17, 14 8:13 pm
I'm not talking about my work, I'm talking about the vast majority of buildings produced, and especially starchitect work.
Aug 17, 14 9:10 pm
Okay, fair enough point. I'd say often a floating budget and "I want.... I want" is the source of compromises and wreck on designing.
Such is life.
subgenius
Aug 18, 14 9:28 am
i am confused...how exactly is "eco" at odds with aesthetics?
Non Sequitur
Aug 18, 14 9:46 am
I only see Eco as aesthetics where I practice. Developers (and city officials) only care that the buildings appear sustainable in the public/voter's eyes.
ecnal
Aug 18, 14 9:58 am
ESD is by and large a marketing tool. Generally speaking, the small proportion of people who can afford ESD don't need it, and perhaps are trying to prove something about themselves, their business/organisation.
The vast majority of the population don't and never will live in an architecturally designed homes- but the ones that can afford it will likely take the moral high ground.
I'm not saying that buildings shouldn't be 'nicer' to the environment, but the fetishisation of sustainable design is a bit disturbing to me.
3tk
Aug 18, 14 10:53 am
Too much of it is based on narrow parameters - real change in energy use, etc has to do with the users behavior (why is it that US consumers spend more than, say Germans?). While that can be helped along by the design of buildings, I'd say that it's more of a intellectual self-gratification than real impact.
Designing for place is nothing new and shouldn't compromise aesthetics, but I do agree with Miles that the reverse happens more often than not.
Also curious to note that the majority of construction in the US does not involve architects.
Isn't the Loblolly House somewhere near $300/sf? Not sure a whole lot of people will find that sustainable...
eleanor.rose
Aug 18, 14 12:10 pm
Thank you all for your comments so far! They are really interesting and helpful!
Aug 18, 14 1:51 pm
ecnal,
Sustainable/environmental oriented design isn't necessarily cost prohibitive. Anyone who can afford to own a home or have one built can afford to have it designed because we don't cost that much in the overall project cost. ESD as said doesn't mean buy some overly expensive luxury. In fact, that would be a step backward in alot of cases.
Passive solar design is all that is needed in most places of the U.S. ESD doesn't imply you have to use solar voltaic cells and so forth. It isn't that clear cut.
If we are really going to be thoroughly sustainable then no more architecture. Everyone shall live in caves and tents and return to life style of 100,000 to 1,000,000 years ago when we lived in nature not sheltered from nature in artificial structures. That is how humans would be naturally sustainable on Earth. Doubt people want to forego contemporary lifestyle completely. This also means there will be no governments as we know them. We would be natural creatures of the earth just like the animals of our planet. However, I doubt people will go for that.
We must compromise an unsustainable lifestyle to truly meet the measure. Doubt that will happen because people don't want to give up this consumptous lifestyle so it is a matter of trying to find how sustainable people want to go with their money. Sadly, people don't really want to change their lifestyle which is part of sustainability to natural equilibrium. It is obvious that we are imposing an impact on earth that would not be naturally in environmental balance but we can strive to do the best.
Sustainability doesn't always mean compromise but people aren't willing to go to the ultimate measure. So we have to find some point where people are willing to go and do the best we can.
Carrera
Aug 18, 14 1:55 pm
3tk, I offered Loblolly up as an example of Sustainability vs. Aesthetics as she requested. But I don’t think that $300/SF has much to do with sustainability in this case. Loblolly was a study in many aspects of home design and was a prototype in component prefabrication and of sustainability.
They wax a little about replication but it’s the systems, approach and results that they put into play. This example by no means represents a unit that can/should be replicated. It is said that there are 76 Million existing single family houses in the U.S., consuming 41% of all energy, and some statistics show that new housing is still trending upward in consumption and something needs to be done about it.
With 76 Million existing homes, the die is cast. What really needs to be studied is how to rectify this problem in existing homes. As for new homes there seems to be no way of our applying our inventive solutions to this mass-market, but one thing can be done and its so-so cheap & obvious and that is simple Super-Insulation that should be made mandatory.
Aug 18, 14 2:12 pm
Like Carerra said, the most sustainable thing to do and most impact in reduction of carbon footprint we can make is making existing buildings more efficient and finding new yet appropriate uses for the existing buildings. It is not always the case where it will pencil out in a pro forma.
How does that work?
If the building is structurally sound then perhaps some all you need to do is insulate the roof and insulate some floors and seal up around windows to close up the loose gaps around windows to control air infiltration and moisture intrusion while allowing the building to 'breathe' as it is designed while carefully planned strategy of ECS improvement planning. This alone is a big step in improving what we already have.
New construction can perhaps be designed with better ECS efficiency but we already have a stock of unused existing buildings where the investment is in labor not carbon footprint through building materials lik concrete and steel. Limiting the need for high carbon emitting produced materials is important to environment's future. At some point new construction would be needed but why be wasteful if we don't need to be.
It is a balance to addressing the needs of our clients through what we already have and where absolutely necessary through new construction work. Recycling and relatively immedate re-use of good materials would be strategies that should be considered.
Carrera
Aug 18, 14 5:18 pm
Richard, I don’t suppose you see this so much in beautiful Astoria but this tearing-down and building-back-up of all the box stores because the ceiling height of an existing box is one-foot too low has to be responsible for 50% of waste output and a huge percentage of raw materials used.
With regard to your commercial thoughts. In existing building reuse architects can have an impact, but largely don’t. They get tripped by contractors who control the numbers and selfishly tell owners “It isn’t worth it”. Most of what’s built today are disposable structures that have very deliberate short life-cycles. The only opportunities for reuse today seem to be mainly in CBD’s and historical districts.
But if you do get lucky and get the chance to reuse, tightening-up is the first understandable step but there is much more including passive-cooling strategies (biggest expense in commercial uses), ground-source heat pumps and gray-water systems (big for housing) etc. that can easily be financially justified.
Aug 18, 14 7:25 pm
Yep, I agree with the points you given. In addition, I was giving a few strategies. One thing about passive solar design is that thermal storage can also serve for passive cooling.
the typical box stores would make passive solar design a challenge given the large footprint and limited height and a pretty darn flat roof (well not exactly flat given the need to shed water to drainage but still.
If moe architects became the general contractors, it could eliminate some of the nonsense we have. The best architects and building designers should perhaps also be the G.C. of projects.That's a topic in its own right.
It is amazing if the ceiling was 1 foot too low because of a drop-down acoustic tile ceiling that was probably 2-3 feet below the roof system that they couldn't have just remove the acoustic tile and raise the ceiling and maybe reuse the acoustic ceiling by raising it up 18" to 24". It would rationally make more sense but they don't always care about that... sadly.
Carrera
Aug 18, 14 7:56 pm
Richard, where were you for my thread Architects as Contractors or Developers? Could use you there.
Aug 18, 14 7:59 pm
I'll have to dig i up. It's there somewhere.
Carrera
Aug 21, 14 5:03 pm
Eleanor, a topic that has not been mentioned here is LEED’s. I know you do not have this in the UK but it was a driving force here in the U.S. It is what lead us into Sustainability. It has waned. I don’t think the word sustainable even exist on their website. The words Green Building has largely been replaced by the word Sustainability which serves a broader purpose on all aspects of our planet. The fact that architects have steered toward this broader purpose is a credit to our profession.
I think your investigating this change may lead you to why designs today are not as adversely affected by designing sustainably. LEED’s has rigorous Point requirements that often force designers into rigorous applications that have/do affect designs adversely.
Perhaps others can add their thoughts on the change as a way of enlightening your research.
SneakyPete
Aug 21, 14 8:08 pm
LEED is an acronym. LEED's is a contraction for "LEED is" or a way of specifying that LEED owns something. There is only one LEED. LEED has requirements, but LEED requirements are the requirements of a single organization, not a group of organizations.
Pet peeve.
eleanor.rose
Aug 31, 14 1:08 pm
Thank you Carrera! I will look into this and do some more research.
Carrera
Sep 2, 14 8:47 pm
Eleanor.rose, in some reading I came up with another contribution to your original question and my most recent post. I found a writing by James Wines of SITE where he stated that architectural design is changing as a result of sustainability from being ego-centric to being eco-centric. Sustainability is changing the design form to be a part of nature and moving away from the idea that man must conquer nature. Your question of whether issues of environment hinders the esthetics of architecture supposes that architects are applying things that are eco-centric to their ego-centric designs – such an arrangement would be a failure - but that is not what is happening today.
Hi everyone!
I am doing some research for my Extended Project Qualification (EPQ) with the above title. I am from the UK and currently studying for my A levels and basically, an EPQ is an additional qualification that involves conducting independent research into a specific area of interest that is not covered by my compulsory studies syllabus and relates to the degree I will hopefully study at university. So I'm asking for your help!
If you have any comments on the topic please discuss! it could be really useful for my research. I also have the following questions which may prompt response or discussion:
How important would you say considering the environment and our environmental problems is in architecture today?
Do you think such a heavy focus on sustainability and the environment could hinder the potential overall appearance of a building?
Could zero-energy developments and eco-designs be a worldwide solution to our energy problems and environmental concerns?
In your opinion, are the aesthetics and appearance of a building or it's eco-friendliness more important and why?
Do you have any good examples of successful or unsuccessful eco/zero-energy/sustainable buildings? For example I have researched 'earth-ships' which I personally find quite unattractive but are incredibly eco-friendly. On the other hand 'One Angel Square' in Manchester, UK is one of the most visually appealing buildings I have known to have such a good 'BREEAM' rating and be so sustainable!
Does the importance of sustainability and the environment in architectural design compromise the aesthetics of architecture?
P.S any quotes or general ideas that you give and I end up using as part of my research, I will let you know and fully reference! So, if you specialise in a relevant area, are a professional or have any qualifications related to the topic of architecture and/or sustainability, please let me know! But I am equally as interested in the general public's opinions! THANK YOU!
I think that the environment should be a major driver in the design process. The reality of it happening in professional practice is debatable. The firms I've worked in will tout "sustainable" features included in a building but they were merely a byproduct of the design. The aesthetic is the main driver and so if a wood wall looked good wrapped in the last Brazilian Rosewood tree, they would definitely spec it.
I think that a heavy focus on sustainability isn't a hindrance but in fact a major guide during the design process. It assists with design decisions. For example, if one wants a glassy wall on one side of their building, sustainable design rationalizes where it is located (Just a basic example)
Net zero and eco-designs can help but a global shift in how we as humans live on a day-to-day basis needs to happen.
Yes - why does it have to be either aesthetics OR environmentally conscious designs, can't it be both? I can list a plethora of fantastic buildings that utilize the aesthetic as an sustainable feature. In my opinion I really like multifaceted design decisions. ei: Foster + Partners' Mclaren HQ/30 St Mary Axe/..., Studio Gang's Aqua Tower/Solar Curve Tower/ ect, ect
See above
Eleanor.rose, I think your subject EPQ is and will be a great contribution to the profession. Buildings consume (EPA):
36 percent of total energy use and 65 percent of electricity consumption
30 percent of greenhouse gas emissions
30 percent of raw materials used
30 percent of waste output (136 million tons annually)
12 percent of potable water consumption
Energy consumption and the inability to find/embrace new ways of producing it is a world wide crisis. Who else but architects are really in a position to master consumption?
As suggested many architects are simply playing with sustainability as a marketing tool, but for many more they have made it a part of their sole purpose. I designed/built and live (part-time) in a Super-Insulated cottage. It is at the 45th Parallel and while only about 2,000 SF my average electricity bill is only $65/Mo (The house is total electric, including heat). I am confounded by why the public won’t embrace this and it stands in the way of reaching a solution.
I offer Loblolly House by Stephen Kieran FAIA as an architect and house that “Talks The Talk” and “Walks The Walk”.
I'll say this much, sustainability and environmental concern does not necessiate or mean we have to compromise aesthetics. It can if you starting designing on aesthetics without an integrated consideration of sustainability/environment/solar orientation when laying out space. To make it work, you need to start off design on the right foot with sustainability, environment, solar orientation and other such concerns.
After all, factors such as aperture size to floor area needs to be considered but you would and should be factoring and understanding the principles of passive solar design (for example) or solar-based designing and apply it in your thinking from the start. Don't wait until you are at construction documents before you start thinking about these matters.
Nope. But the importance of aesthetics in architectural design compromises sustainability and the environment.
Miles Jaffe,
I wouldn't say that either. Neither way is a guarantee to compromise of the other.
It's the process of holistic synthesis of bringing all the matters together to compose form. Failure in that is where your compromise.
Your design vision would need to already encompass all these 'design concerns' from the start so there isn't really a compromise because the vision from the beginning would already cover this just as you would design structure covered so you are coming at the end having to make compromises (or backpeddling in the design) because you goofed up and forgot to take your considerations together.
I'm not talking about my work, I'm talking about the vast majority of buildings produced, and especially starchitect work.
Okay, fair enough point. I'd say often a floating budget and "I want.... I want" is the source of compromises and wreck on designing.
Such is life.
i am confused...how exactly is "eco" at odds with aesthetics?
I only see Eco as aesthetics where I practice. Developers (and city officials) only care that the buildings appear sustainable in the public/voter's eyes.
ESD is by and large a marketing tool. Generally speaking, the small proportion of people who can afford ESD don't need it, and perhaps are trying to prove something about themselves, their business/organisation.
The vast majority of the population don't and never will live in an architecturally designed homes- but the ones that can afford it will likely take the moral high ground.
I'm not saying that buildings shouldn't be 'nicer' to the environment, but the fetishisation of sustainable design is a bit disturbing to me.
Too much of it is based on narrow parameters - real change in energy use, etc has to do with the users behavior (why is it that US consumers spend more than, say Germans?). While that can be helped along by the design of buildings, I'd say that it's more of a intellectual self-gratification than real impact.
Designing for place is nothing new and shouldn't compromise aesthetics, but I do agree with Miles that the reverse happens more often than not.
Also curious to note that the majority of construction in the US does not involve architects.
Isn't the Loblolly House somewhere near $300/sf? Not sure a whole lot of people will find that sustainable...
Thank you all for your comments so far! They are really interesting and helpful!
ecnal,
Sustainable/environmental oriented design isn't necessarily cost prohibitive. Anyone who can afford to own a home or have one built can afford to have it designed because we don't cost that much in the overall project cost. ESD as said doesn't mean buy some overly expensive luxury. In fact, that would be a step backward in alot of cases.
Passive solar design is all that is needed in most places of the U.S. ESD doesn't imply you have to use solar voltaic cells and so forth. It isn't that clear cut.
If we are really going to be thoroughly sustainable then no more architecture. Everyone shall live in caves and tents and return to life style of 100,000 to 1,000,000 years ago when we lived in nature not sheltered from nature in artificial structures. That is how humans would be naturally sustainable on Earth. Doubt people want to forego contemporary lifestyle completely. This also means there will be no governments as we know them. We would be natural creatures of the earth just like the animals of our planet. However, I doubt people will go for that.
We must compromise an unsustainable lifestyle to truly meet the measure. Doubt that will happen because people don't want to give up this consumptous lifestyle so it is a matter of trying to find how sustainable people want to go with their money. Sadly, people don't really want to change their lifestyle which is part of sustainability to natural equilibrium. It is obvious that we are imposing an impact on earth that would not be naturally in environmental balance but we can strive to do the best.
Sustainability doesn't always mean compromise but people aren't willing to go to the ultimate measure. So we have to find some point where people are willing to go and do the best we can.
3tk, I offered Loblolly up as an example of Sustainability vs. Aesthetics as she requested. But I don’t think that $300/SF has much to do with sustainability in this case. Loblolly was a study in many aspects of home design and was a prototype in component prefabrication and of sustainability.
They wax a little about replication but it’s the systems, approach and results that they put into play. This example by no means represents a unit that can/should be replicated. It is said that there are 76 Million existing single family houses in the U.S., consuming 41% of all energy, and some statistics show that new housing is still trending upward in consumption and something needs to be done about it.
With 76 Million existing homes, the die is cast. What really needs to be studied is how to rectify this problem in existing homes. As for new homes there seems to be no way of our applying our inventive solutions to this mass-market, but one thing can be done and its so-so cheap & obvious and that is simple Super-Insulation that should be made mandatory.
Like Carerra said, the most sustainable thing to do and most impact in reduction of carbon footprint we can make is making existing buildings more efficient and finding new yet appropriate uses for the existing buildings. It is not always the case where it will pencil out in a pro forma.
How does that work?
If the building is structurally sound then perhaps some all you need to do is insulate the roof and insulate some floors and seal up around windows to close up the loose gaps around windows to control air infiltration and moisture intrusion while allowing the building to 'breathe' as it is designed while carefully planned strategy of ECS improvement planning. This alone is a big step in improving what we already have.
New construction can perhaps be designed with better ECS efficiency but we already have a stock of unused existing buildings where the investment is in labor not carbon footprint through building materials lik concrete and steel. Limiting the need for high carbon emitting produced materials is important to environment's future. At some point new construction would be needed but why be wasteful if we don't need to be.
It is a balance to addressing the needs of our clients through what we already have and where absolutely necessary through new construction work. Recycling and relatively immedate re-use of good materials would be strategies that should be considered.
Richard, I don’t suppose you see this so much in beautiful Astoria but this tearing-down and building-back-up of all the box stores because the ceiling height of an existing box is one-foot too low has to be responsible for 50% of waste output and a huge percentage of raw materials used.
With regard to your commercial thoughts. In existing building reuse architects can have an impact, but largely don’t. They get tripped by contractors who control the numbers and selfishly tell owners “It isn’t worth it”. Most of what’s built today are disposable structures that have very deliberate short life-cycles. The only opportunities for reuse today seem to be mainly in CBD’s and historical districts.
But if you do get lucky and get the chance to reuse, tightening-up is the first understandable step but there is much more including passive-cooling strategies (biggest expense in commercial uses), ground-source heat pumps and gray-water systems (big for housing) etc. that can easily be financially justified.
Yep, I agree with the points you given. In addition, I was giving a few strategies. One thing about passive solar design is that thermal storage can also serve for passive cooling.
the typical box stores would make passive solar design a challenge given the large footprint and limited height and a pretty darn flat roof (well not exactly flat given the need to shed water to drainage but still.
If moe architects became the general contractors, it could eliminate some of the nonsense we have. The best architects and building designers should perhaps also be the G.C. of projects.That's a topic in its own right.
It is amazing if the ceiling was 1 foot too low because of a drop-down acoustic tile ceiling that was probably 2-3 feet below the roof system that they couldn't have just remove the acoustic tile and raise the ceiling and maybe reuse the acoustic ceiling by raising it up 18" to 24". It would rationally make more sense but they don't always care about that... sadly.
Richard, where were you for my thread Architects as Contractors or Developers? Could use you there.
I'll have to dig i up. It's there somewhere.
Eleanor, a topic that has not been mentioned here is LEED’s. I know you do not have this in the UK but it was a driving force here in the U.S. It is what lead us into Sustainability. It has waned. I don’t think the word sustainable even exist on their website. The words Green Building has largely been replaced by the word Sustainability which serves a broader purpose on all aspects of our planet. The fact that architects have steered toward this broader purpose is a credit to our profession.
I think your investigating this change may lead you to why designs today are not as adversely affected by designing sustainably. LEED’s has rigorous Point requirements that often force designers into rigorous applications that have/do affect designs adversely.
Perhaps others can add their thoughts on the change as a way of enlightening your research.
LEED is an acronym. LEED's is a contraction for "LEED is" or a way of specifying that LEED owns something. There is only one LEED. LEED has requirements, but LEED requirements are the requirements of a single organization, not a group of organizations.
Pet peeve.
Thank you Carrera! I will look into this and do some more research.
Eleanor.rose, in some reading I came up with another contribution to your original question and my most recent post. I found a writing by James Wines of SITE where he stated that architectural design is changing as a result of sustainability from being ego-centric to being eco-centric. Sustainability is changing the design form to be a part of nature and moving away from the idea that man must conquer nature. Your question of whether issues of environment hinders the esthetics of architecture supposes that architects are applying things that are eco-centric to their ego-centric designs – such an arrangement would be a failure - but that is not what is happening today.