I am doing some research for my Extended Project Qualification (EPQ) with the above title. I am 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!
you're putting a lot of emphasis on how a building looks
is it important to you how you think a building looks, or how your client thinks a building should look, or how the people that live nearby thinks the building should look? who gets to decide if the 'aesthetics' are done right?
many architects have bad taste anyway, and think they need to do some fancy curvy shit that isn't buildable. shouldn't eco-friendliness be considered before the bad opinion of what looks good from a bad architect that spent too much time studio and not enough time looking at real-life?
not saying you're going to be the architect with bad taste, but you might be. worth considering. at least an ecologically sustainable building has that going for it. a building that looks 'neat' and leaks and needs to be completely renovated designed by an architect with bad taste has very few redeeming qualities, right?
by the way, you posted this already, and it's still on the front page.
...but taste is subjective, who are you to tell me I can't have hot-pink window frames and a whimsical oval shaped toolshed on my front lawn? Also, the front lawn is not sod but crushed quartz.
but more on point with the OP's main question: "Does the importance of sustainability and the environment in architectural design compromise the aesthetics of architecture?"
sustainable design approaches are irrelevant to the design's look (greenwashing glue-on features excluded). You can have sustainable building designed to look like a 1880's brick warehouse or you can have an energy hog covered in solar panels and vegetated roofs.
Sustainable design starts with the conservation of energy and materials in combination with adequate site use. What I find in practice is that people only care if things look eco-whatever but hardly anyone understands sustainability in the construction world
I once designed a large convention facility where we had to preserve something like 250' clear spans. One of the main concerns from the public (a remote site) was that they wanted a green roof... because green looks sustainable. It did not matter that it was impossible given the structure or budget nor could we convince them that the white reflective roof we had spec was part of our LEED gold submission.
Aug 18, 14 12:39 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.
Does the importance of sustainability and the environment in architectural design compromise the aesthetics of architecture?
Hi everyone!
I am doing some research for my Extended Project Qualification (EPQ) with the above title. I am 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!
you're putting a lot of emphasis on how a building looks
is it important to you how you think a building looks, or how your client thinks a building should look, or how the people that live nearby thinks the building should look? who gets to decide if the 'aesthetics' are done right?
many architects have bad taste anyway, and think they need to do some fancy curvy shit that isn't buildable. shouldn't eco-friendliness be considered before the bad opinion of what looks good from a bad architect that spent too much time studio and not enough time looking at real-life?
not saying you're going to be the architect with bad taste, but you might be. worth considering. at least an ecologically sustainable building has that going for it. a building that looks 'neat' and leaks and needs to be completely renovated designed by an architect with bad taste has very few redeeming qualities, right?
by the way, you posted this already, and it's still on the front page.
...but taste is subjective, who are you to tell me I can't have hot-pink window frames and a whimsical oval shaped toolshed on my front lawn? Also, the front lawn is not sod but crushed quartz.
but more on point with the OP's main question: "Does the importance of sustainability and the environment in architectural design compromise the aesthetics of architecture?"
sustainable design approaches are irrelevant to the design's look (greenwashing glue-on features excluded). You can have sustainable building designed to look like a 1880's brick warehouse or you can have an energy hog covered in solar panels and vegetated roofs.
Sustainable design starts with the conservation of energy and materials in combination with adequate site use. What I find in practice is that people only care if things look eco-whatever but hardly anyone understands sustainability in the construction world
I once designed a large convention facility where we had to preserve something like 250' clear spans. One of the main concerns from the public (a remote site) was that they wanted a green roof... because green looks sustainable. It did not matter that it was impossible given the structure or budget nor could we convince them that the white reflective roof we had spec was part of our LEED gold submission.
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.