Advertisement
Contact us for information and rates.
Enter your email address to join our mailing list:
Log-In | Register | Members | About Archinect | Contact Us | Advertising

Home > ...
home
features
news
jobs
links
books
image gallery
competitions & events
discussions
archmart
lecture series posters
school blog project
salary poll
archinect t-shirts
Enter your email address to join our mailing list and receive our weekly newsletters:

News
Beware Sustainability and Nuevo-Technocraticism?
To reflect on the prehistory of sustainability is not to find ‘precedents’ of practices that give us tips for the present. Rather these reflections aim to mobilize critical perspectives on the shifting definitions of the term and on the practices that are advanced in its name so as to guard against absolutes. Can architects have partnerships with techno-scientific fields without subsuming design to managerialism and anti-intellectual postures? Can ecological problems be debated in architectural circles without resorting to eco-determinism? Can architects embrace an ethical imperative without resorting to moralistic prescriptions or grand meta-narratives?
Volume
- namhenderson on Jan 02, 09 | 10:58 pm

SHARE : ↑ digg | ↑ del.icio.us | ↑ facebook
sorry, but that really comes off as overly pretentious babbling academic nonsense.
- xcarlx, Jan 03, 09 | 12:05 am
the question is, what is the problem with pandering to eco-determinism and managerial anti-intellectualism in the face of ecological disaster? What do we have to offer in favor of intellectualism and architecture when the stakes are this high? It is obvious that the recipes are far from definitive and that we have to keep questioning them, but sustainability is the new degree zero of architectural practice. Anything that does not address this matter in soome form is just plain stupid and outdated.
- albatross, Jan 03, 09 | 7:11 am
sustainability is the new degree zero of architectural practice. Anything that does not address this matter in soome form is just plain stupid and outdated.

this is not being disputed.

what is being disputed is the consensus mentality of architects taking a morally irreproachable position at the expense of critical thought.
- dot, Jan 03, 09 | 10:44 am
what is interesting about sustainability is precisely that there is no consensus. look at all these benchmarks people are putting together to measure how sustainable is a building... what is a problem is architects believing they are morally irreproachable simply because they are "critical". Criticality for criticality's sake is a pretty empty endeavour. I prefer the people trying to build the standards than those being critical of them, even if we all know that these standards are largely speculative.
- albatross, Jan 04, 09 | 2:50 am
hi albatross,

that's hardly the position i am taking and is actually illogical.

there is plenty of room to be critical of sustainable development. for example, in the case of the masdar carbon neutral city in dubai. the fact that it is carbon neutral does not make it immune to discussions about how people will live in it...not to mention the fact it is in dubai and is completely artificial. there are also cases of eco-tourism resorts that are eco-friendly but only perpetuate further big development around it. these are all cases without absolutes and should be debated critically.
- dot, Jan 04, 09 | 7:30 am
http://wag.myzen.co.uk/thepolytechnic/?page_id=203

i think anyone claiming carbon neutral is like medicine men - get on the gravy train while you can - greenwash is rampet - when it doesnt work blame it on users controls etc etc - and probably can sell sand to aribs!
- TED, Jan 04, 09 | 8:47 am
I was very ready to get irritated by this article, but it's actually a very nuanced position that the author's taking here - neither pro nor con, but a historically reasoned outline of potential problems that arise whenever architects try to expand their mandate. Thanks for posting, nam.
- sevensixfive, Jan 04, 09 | 8:51 am
.

Leave a comment...


Notify me when someone comments?