The notion of sustainability as a socio-cultural construct came up in another thread in reference to this article, and actually serves as much of the theoretical impetus for my master's design studio (thesis).
Whether you agree/disagree with this notion is not my chief concern (however, it would make for intriguing dialogue). I believe that before we, as a society, can make progress (environmental) in terms of sustainability, certain reforms (cultural) must be made in the architectural profession to make our professional environment more conducive to this purpose.
The cultural problem starts with an inverted incentive structure. As we all know, architects have traditionally been compensated based on what they spend of the client's budget, not what they save. For the sustainability of our civilization to ever make environmental headway, this incentive structure must be inverted, so that architects are rewarded for what they save. What do you think? Is it possible? Do we need more civicly-engaged professions or is it beyond our scope?
it is a social construct. all animals and plants seek to dominate/out-compete their neighbors for resources. we humans are just significantly better at obliterating stuff.
so sustainability requires that we act against our instincts and self interest to maximize our short term goals. that my friend is definitely a
'socio-cultural construct' if there ever is one.
There are these shows on Discovery now, (and movies like I am Legend) that I think a recent author has written about it, dealing with what the earth might look like with out "us". This whole "tree in the woods making a sound" tale shows how we attempt isolate our ontological foundation to a point of denying we exist for the sake of the intrinsic value of the earth as the epitome of nature. I think our very presence sort of nullifies the need to evaluate the earth with out us, , but I do think there is merit and trying to harmonize our efforts to improve "us". I don't really think we understand completely what the "us" is just yet though, and so Sustainability isn't fully understood yet either.
the basic problems of mankind with regards to the environment etc revolve around the fact that we have for too long considered only "our" needs and wants, and not those of others..
This can be solved by attempting to be more bio-centric...Meaning ackowledging that there is value in all organisms (plant, animal or other) existing in their own right. Regardless of whether or not we find value (economic or otherwise) in their existence...
Therefore, yes sustainability is a soci-cultural construct. All human conditions are...
Personally, this is one of my fundamental problems with the whole LEED/tech fix appraoch to sustainability..
In nature, all ecological lifecycles even out. All of them, every single time, even if some cycles are longer than others. 'Nature' doesn't seek to dominate (THAT is a human construct) but rather to survive and spread. Growth is kept in check by other lifecycles. As humans, we've ignored that. That willfull ignorance is a brand new phenomenon, even.
Our generation seems to think that we invented sustainability, reusing, recycling, alternative energy, etc.... but far from it! Although the names of these things might have changed, they've always been there, in use by humans. NOW, however, they've become marketing terms.
Your great-grandparents didn't waste anything, trust me.
your great-grandparents didn't waste anything, trust me.
maybe true, but then again, they didn't really have the option. we often do. changing behaviors that are not in our immediate self-interest is the challenge of this generation.
I think the idea of some lost Golden Age is the ultimate socio-cultural construct.
I haven't met all of my great grandparents, but those I was lucky enough to meet had plenty of problems, waste was the least of them.
Ever seen a tannery? How about open sewers running into a river upstream of the spot the bakers use to get water for breadmaking? There was plenty of waste in the past.
"...The cultural problem starts with an inverted incentive structure. As we all know, architects have traditionally been compensated based on what they spend of the client's budget, not what they save....this incentive structure must be inverted, so that architects are rewarded for what they save..."
I'm trying to think how that could possibly work...being paid for what you DIDN'T do, in a way. In another way, I disagree that the incentive structure is necessarily inverted, which sounds like a premise based on current viewpoint. Aren't architects already involved in client "savings" anyway? And wouldn't sustainability simply become another project "given", like budget, ADA, fire codes, etc.? I think compenation for sustainability "savings" would have to occur in a similar way, and would not require the changes you describe.
I'm not sure if nature does balance out excessive growth in all cases. Humans have hit malthusian limits before and suffered, ie the anasazi and many other civilizations that dropped off the face of the earth. As vado's nihilism points out, we've made catastrophes a plenty.
I don't think that the current exponential growth of anthropogenic impact is only a 21st century phenomena.
we're just to damn smart to avoid the simpler positive feedback mechanisms that limit most plant and animal spreads. tools are our deliverance and our curse.
Sustainability is finally a tool that forces us to reckon with our technological footprint and recognize the value of ecological services.
I'll add something quickly as my brain is on weekend mode. But most social constructs are controlled by the media, including sustainability. It is now chic for people, read americans, to be green...and the media has found it marketable to be such.
Sustainability failed when it was aligned with the social good...who cares what is good, it can and is working because it is profitable. Profit = Success
i think pursuing this notion of sustainability as a social construct is great as a thesis- as evidenced above there is an anti-thesis here as well. duality is a bitch.
the one thing i have a problem with this "new paradigm" of sustainability is that: while the US is in the midst of the campaign of conserve, reclaim, remediate, etc... but then we drop 40,000lbs of bombs within ten minutes in Iraq- [which takes decades to remediate ecologically...] and that has been going on for years and years... so is this just the "oh shit" analogy? oh shit we totally fucked up the earth, so to make ourselves feel better we will use the wealthy countries as a back up plan for the earth so we can continue our political and social agendas.
and ultimately you cannot talk about a "social construct" without referencing politics and economics.
architechnophilia, +i: much thanks for the positive words. it's been a highly engaging topic, albeit sometimes difficult to define (as its subject is highly intangible).
SandRoad: well, the incentive structure for one. also, more architects involved in policy and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Wynn]civic life[/url]. a more interdisciplinary architectural curriculum (ok, that ones not professional) and generally designers that have an active interest in the cost implications (and i don't mean just financial; but especially environmental and social opportunity costs) of their design decisions and how to communicate this with a client.
Nature generally doesn't "balance itself out" because nature is not self aware. It is, in fact, a social construct.
The important social constructs to disassemble for a discussion of sustainability however are the dialogic of nature and culture, and markets.
The latter, being conscious and omniscient in the same way nature is, somehow becomes our benchmark for maximizing efficiency, as well as determining what efficient is.
The former is the claim that on one side there is nature, and on the other culture, and the twain shall never meet. A useful distinction for differentiating the methods of social scientists from those of technoscientists, but probably not helpful otherwise. Try thinking of it this way: if culture is that which is touched by man, and nature is it's other, than the likelihood that a sustainable solution is a natural one is almost none.
this is not a new topic, but oftentimes it seems the LEED platinums get more recognition than, say, squatters in favelas in brazil... the social construction of sustenance and sustainability has been the basis of slums throughout the world for many many decades. you don't even have to look past the ghetto or rural US to understand how this works.
someone mentioned above- sustainability is popular because it's profitable- i would completely agree. i heard/read somewhere that the word "sustainability" has had a detrimental effect on architecture... because why would you ever want to design to merely "sustain"? in any other context, merely sustaining is rarely positive.
on a related note, i've actually done some research on the concept of biomimicry and how nature's biological processes don't merely 'sustain' but adapt to it's context and subsequently endure. Natural scientist, Janine Benyus gave an incredible TED lecture on the possibilities of design via biomimicry.
I don't think you can ever say "mere" sustainability. It is practically impossible to balance or offset the resources needed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and possibly demolish the building, at the scale of which buildings are being built. And because we're talking about balance, it can exist at different scales - so for example a tree house in the middle of the woods would be easy to make sustainable, but a totally sustainable building in a city would not be.
And since when was sustainability popular and/or profitable? The marketing term "Green" is popular and has gained some profitability only recently. I mean, I agree that sustainability WOULD be more popular if it was profitable, but in my opinion it might be very difficult to make it profitable in the purest sense of the word. I don't think it can be "profitable" because inherently there are no short-term gains, and in the end might not even be tangible (which is probably why we don't feel morally responsible in the first place) - hence the usefulness of financial incentives in some cities, emission taxes, and emissions trading (more like avoiding financial penalties than profit).
that is where things fall down, isn't it? the definitions part...
bush defined success in iraq in increasingly narrow ways to fit the reality of his failures there until success lost meaning altogether.
but without a definition all discussion is nonetheless meaningless. there was a bit of a discussion on that point here recently, if interested.
as far as nature being a human idea...hm, maybe. the gaian hypothesis of self-regulation on a planetary scale through mindless interaction of all life is now more or less accepted by most scientist, or at least accepted enough to be included in many major declarations by scientists on issues of sustainability. gaia exists regardless of the human point of view, so there is a question there that ould be interesting - ie, what is humanity's place in gaia, etc.
the question of incentives however is a more troubling one for me. how do we do it, if the payoff is not something that can be confirmed for 5, 10, or even 20 years? the city hall of london was supposed to save a lot of money (and co2 emmissions) in energy use, and all the technical calculations suggested it would. but where they right? in hindsight, it didn't meet the 1/4 of normal energy use that was aimed for, was not in fact even close...so how do you invert the payment system? the cost of the building was more than normal and didn't work as advertised...but the outcome could not be known in advance...
so i wonder...inverting the payment system sounds nice but how can it work? it seems much too easy to game, unless payments are deferred until the building is proved to meet claims...
i know of projects where money was saved on construction costs due to clever engineering, and the engineers who asked for a bonus as a result were rebuffed, saying it was their job and they were being paid to be clever, not to NOT be stupid. stupid could be had for lower fees all over the world. not quite in agreement with that sentiment, but why should we be paid for not being idiots? and how do we prove we are not being too smart for our own good, as foster and others have done numerous times?
if you have ideas would love to read/hear about them.
biomimicry is cool. i think in architecture it often becomes aesthetic misdirection rather than a real design solution...maybe architects are too visual oriented to catch the right waves...?
I'm partly in agreement with that... the problem is that the game gets so much bigger for A/E... I think more fee IS going to be required. let's say that LEED -- or whatever -- does become the given process and paper trail. Right off the bat, it costs money to add LEED into the process of a project, and so some extra fee would be rightly earned. The paperwork is nuts. Plus, very often -- or always? -- green adds technical complexity -- extra CA work to ensure things are built as required. More fee? Then, the very highest potential extra costs/fee/liability issue lies on the end of the project...or does a green project ever end? On the performance end of the project, there seems so be unlimited and never-ending potential liability based upon implied performance expectations. Get ready for some insane insurance costs...
sometime last year i was involved with a project with the VP of a major cruise line because of their desire to turn a caribbean island into a tourist destination for their line...
both the cruise line and the several international developers involved with the project wanted the island to be "sustainable"- because (their words, not mine) it is extremely popular and profitable for them to appear to be environmentally conscious. in fact, they would not accept a scheme which did not include sustainable - LEED Platinum rated- buildings.
ironically enough... they were willing to completely forego the existing culture and ecological systems in order to accomplish this.
this EXACT same conversation occurred during a competition in china i worked on earlier in the year... in fact, shanghai's goal is to have the most number of LEED platinum rated buildings in the world. except... they are demolishing every existing community which gets in the way.
even the United Nations have recognized this concept. read their "proposals" for Sri Lanka... before the tsunami... will give you a very good idea as to why they privatized the entire shoreline.
so to say it's not profitable... is foolish. developers, governments, and corporations have recognized that to be considered sustainable is a recognition that gives them a "caring" image.
i would agree you need to define "sustainability". you do not need to reinvent the wheel... many arch students before you have written theses revolving around this... and professionals. Sym Van der Ryn, James Lovelock, even the artist Andy Goldsworthy could give you a new meaning...
on the topic of biomimicry... think less about aesthetics and more about function- as someone mentioned above it often gets lost. but there are plenty of theses out there which have defined the functions of biomimicry and have successfully implemented them. i dont know what university you attend, but you could check with several university libraries for the online text versions of student theses- which are often published.
its actually my current post-professional degree thesis. the privatization and so-called "eco-tourist" based development plans for "Sustainable" shorelines.
my thesis developed from an undergrad B.Arch thesis... and now i'm pursuing an in-depth post-pro M.Arch on this basis.
it's in the writing of the Kyoto Protocol- which i have read- and in every ratification...
yes, sustainability is profitable... mostly because of its social-construction: which ends up equally privatization of the world's greatest resources... and what is the scariest part of this, it's not for the betterment of the people who inhabit these areas.
sri lanka is only one example.
...so to say it's not profitable... is foolish. developers, governments, and corporations have recognized that to be considered sustainable is a recognition that gives them a "caring" image..."
I guess I'm foolish, but I'd like to understand more why you believe it to be so unquestionably profitable. The "caring image" part -- even on a global / U.N. scale -- smacks more of a sort of political expediency based upon the "right now" rather than a long term philosophy one might reasonably bank upon.
When the "caring image"-based profitability becomes less fashionable, what are you proposeing takes over? What are your marketplace examples that actually make sustainability sustainable?
cowerd: For the projects scope, I have thought of the sustainability of our built environment on two levels:
Macro: This being factors such as the land use patterns, zoning regulations, density etc. that influence our lifestyles (suburban, urban) and the integration/disintegration of public/private space. Also, it's effects on mental/social health as the core thesis idea is focused on the salient hollistic health benefits of a well-concieved, well-built physical environment. Micro: The material nutrient cycles (closed/open) that make up the physical construction of our built environment. The use of natural (passive) sustainable design-strategies and the minimization of technology.
From my program:
For the majority of human history, man and the environment were perceived as one harmonious, self-perpetuating relationship. Primitive civilizations utilized nature-driven strategies such as
passive solar and ventilation not as a means of achieving energy-efficiency, but because nature served as the fruit of life.(1) In other words, they recognized the inherent two-way benefits of human-ecological synergy.
With the dawn of mechanization and more recently globalization, the relationship between society and its surroundings has become more tenuous. Economic concerns tend to dominate most lifestyle decisions and technology has become so intrinsically a part of daily life that most of its deteriorating affects go unnoticed or subconsciously denied by our actions.
Analogous to the phenomenon in medical practice, the building industry has become saturated with intense mechanized, technological strategies and short-term approaches that have had
deteriorating affects on both human and environmental health.
According to T. Colin Campbell, author of the The China Study, a comprehensive and international study of health and nutrition, mechanized interventions in the medical industry are much less
effective than most people realize. In fact, death by healthcare (i.e. drugs, surgery and misdiagnosis) is the third leading cause of death in the United States.(2) The incidence rate (not death rate) for heart disease is about the same as it was in the early 1970’s. In other words, while we don’t die as much from the disease, we still get it as often as we used to. We’re simply prolonging the effort via unsustainable, technological means.
Applied to our built environment, William McDonough and Michael Braungart, the authors of Cradle to Cradle, liken the shortsightedness of death postponement over prevention to the
reductive approaches of reuse and recycle programs. While the efforts may be well-intended, they only defer responsibility to future generations.
However, the dialogue of sustainability is not limited solely to concerns of material nutrient cycles. The second broader component deals with unsustainable land use patterns. Since the widespread inception of zoning laws in the 1920’s, the United States as fallen under a strictly segregated, Euclidean form of land use. Under this approach, uses within each district are generally heavily prescribed to exclude other types of uses. Industrial were placed as far from
possible from residential communities and commerce was centralize in its own individualized zone.
Practically speaking, this meant that simple errands now necessitated an automobile trip. As is the case today, these events typically involved a single participant acquiring a good or service, which within a more integrative environment, could likely be generated within their own community. Sociologically speaking, the degradation of human capital caused by this development paradigm has been devastating. As I will elaborate later, these environments have
contributed substantially to the promotion of sedentary lifestyles and a culture of social and civic disconnectedness.
Additionally, recent interdisciplinary studies on urban sprawl,sustainable development, and sick building syndrome have linked the rapid decay of public health to the development patterns,
technologically-driven methodologies and materials of the built environment.(3)
While political initiatives are necessary to tackle many of the health-related aspects of building, those involved in developing the built environment are well placed to make a positive contribution towards improving public health.(4)
To better understand the relationship between architecture, urban design and public health, we,
as influencers of the built environment must have an intuitive understanding of the intersection
of the built environment and how it affects human behavior.
Subsequently, we can begin to utilize this medical discourse to develop an analogy between
naturopathic medicine and natural (or passive) building strategies; hereby returning to a more
holistically considered usage of our natural resources, and serving mutual benefit to human
health and the natural environment.
Here the application of technology is not considered to be a risk-free operation, and importantly, this discourse has served to highlight that reducing the technological intensity of building (or society) does not necessarily lead to a shrinking well-being; on the contrary even a growth in well-being can be imagined.(5)
(1) Sassi, Paola. Strategies for Sustainable Architecture. New York: Taylor and Francis, Inc., 2006, pp. 4
(2) Campbell, T. Colin. The China Study: The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted and The Startling Implications
for Diet, Weight Loss and Long-term Health. Dallas, TX: Benbella Books, 2004, pp. 16
(3) McCann, Barbara A. and Reid Ewing. “Measuring The Health Effects of Sprawl: A National Analysis of Obesity, Physical Activity
and Chronic Disease” Smart Growth America, (September 2003)
(4) Sassi, Paola. Strategies, pp. 137
(5) Guy, Simon and Graham Farmer. “Reinterpreting Sustainable Architecture: The Place of Technology” Journal of Architectural
Education., Volume 54, Issue 3, (February 2001) pp. 155
i'm not saying it's profitable for architects. i'm not saying it is profitable for locals/citizens. but you cannot ignore the focus and goals of corporations, developers, and governments who are embracing these ideas- and they are not doing it for the good of the masses.
their image of sustainability is not for the future... it is for economics. as architects we wrestle with trying to improve lives- versus the impeding demand from our clients. just because something is sustainable does not make it good. don't twist my words... i am not saying that the goals of sustainability are inherently good... or bad. but many clients have recognized the "new" focus group of people to profit from- and the words "green", "sustainable", and "ecological" are stamped all over it.
jump: I agree, unfortunately aesthetics still dominate most conversations on biomimicry (in architectural circles). A great example of a project that pushes the concept well beyond aesthetic consideration:
I think it's important to look at case studies in 2nd/3rd world countries because they are much better stewards of our natural resources. Also, this is often where the most innovative designs emerge (largely out of necessity, due to scarcity of resources/economic constraint). I have been looking at humanitarian solutions such as 'Design Like You Give A Damn' (thanks Cameron) as a wealth of innovation. As I like to think, 'scarcity breeds innovation'; whereas the U.S. is inflicted with material/economic over-abundance.
SandRoad: I suppose what I am suggested (for the purposes of a MArch 1 DESIGN studio; which is why technically, I shouldn't be calling it a thesis) is an integreted consideration of ecological, (human) equity and economic concerns as proposed in texts such as:
Call me an daydreaming-idealist, but I believe that when given equitable consideration, these components have inherent synergies, that is they can work for the good of environmental health, human health and equity, and the economic bottom line.
+i: I go to Texas Tech, not the most resource-saavy school out there.
+i -- I think I caught your meaning on your first post, in that, yes, for some there may be ways to profit from an image of current green fashionability. I'm trying to get you to jump forward a bit and consider what propels green when the novelty wears off. Americans have short memories, and get bored quickly. In the late 70's / early 80's, cheap conventional energy essentially killed interest in alternative research for about the next 20 years.
you might also want to check out UNHabitat, the World Bank, FAO, and other government/international agencies and the way they implement ideas of sustainability. you may be surprised to find out that often a government's response to these issues is not wholly their own, but a joint-partnership between multiple interested parties (ie. Sri Lanka teamed with Switzerland and China).
also in most underrepresented countries, their focus is on industry- so concrete has become a huge part of this, mostly from demand from China, who owns stake in many of these countries for their own purpose of producing more concrete for building... the ways in which they harvest aggregate limestone in these countries (primarily from coral reefs) has become a glaring issue for the U.N. mostly because the U.N. did not recognize the value of reefs in the protection of shorelines... from say, the tsunami.
i think it would help your argument, should you choose to focus on underrepresented countries, to locate a site + then dig deeper into the reasons why these areas are unsustainable, or why their practices are not ecologically sound. often these issues are not as easy as giving a "definition" and may require you to dig deep, not only into biological principles, but the principles of government and architecture. a solution without understanding these preconditions will only be a band-aid.
sandroad-
quite honestly, i am not interested in what propels it... i agree with slantsix and others... that this is not "new". and quite honestly i could care less if it is fashionable. the argument was if it is profitable- and currently it is for many governments + organizations. case in point: Dubai + Shanghai. my interests lie more within what ryanj has previously posted:
"I think it's important to look at case studies in 2nd/3rd world countries because they are much better stewards of our natural resources. Also, this is often where the most innovative designs emerge (largely out of necessity, due to scarcity of resources/economic constraint). I have been looking at humanitarian solutions such as 'Design Like You Give A Damn' (thanks Cameron) as a wealth of innovation. As I like to think, 'scarcity breeds innovation'; whereas the U.S. is inflicted with material/economic over-abundance."
my research lies within these areas- and whether it is fashionable or not makes no difference if our resources are privatized, our coastlines are unprotected, and millions of people reside in slums. those issues will remain.
+i : just to clarify, the project site is located domestically (in Longmont, Colorado; Prospect New Town, see photos 2/3's way down); thus my focus, at least for the scope of the design project is on how we can refer to more resourceful/hollistic examples of sustainable design to influence our wasteful patterns, and economically-dominated building paradigm in the U.S.
However, the long-term goal is to work on more humanitarian, socially-conscious work; but as previously stated, I believe there is much to be learned in this country from those who have far less, and who's passive design strategies can be cross-applied, and vice versa.
No interest in what propels it? Then you'll have a rather tough time contributing to the momentum of the movement. Profitable markets also require some reasonable expectation of staying power.
Also, your examples of profitability seem disappointingly connected to the government... since when has the government run anything profitably? Within the US, the government is the single largest employer, consumer, and polluter. This must not be the same government that you're expecting to profitably oversee the greening of America.
1. im not relying on any government or NGO to oversee the "greening" of any location
2. i venture that China rivals the US for employment, consumerism, and pollution
3. profitable markets do change...
i don't expect my area of research to become "popular"... that isn't why i'm in it. i'm not in the business of strategizing for CEO's why they should go green- or what their long term business plans should be. however, i cannot ignore the fact that some of those clients do have a big impact on what gets built- and what does not. and after being in several roundtable discussions for projects and being told it "must" be green because that was their corporate image and it made them profit- i can't act like that doesn't exist.
i am wondering why you think it is so unprofitable to these types of people?
Jan 21, 08 3:12 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.
Sustainability as a Socio-Cultural Construct
The notion of sustainability as a socio-cultural construct came up in another thread in reference to this article, and actually serves as much of the theoretical impetus for my master's design studio (thesis).
Whether you agree/disagree with this notion is not my chief concern (however, it would make for intriguing dialogue). I believe that before we, as a society, can make progress (environmental) in terms of sustainability, certain reforms (cultural) must be made in the architectural profession to make our professional environment more conducive to this purpose.
The cultural problem starts with an inverted incentive structure. As we all know, architects have traditionally been compensated based on what they spend of the client's budget, not what they save. For the sustainability of our civilization to ever make environmental headway, this incentive structure must be inverted, so that architects are rewarded for what they save. What do you think? Is it possible? Do we need more civicly-engaged professions or is it beyond our scope?
professions = professionals
it is a social construct. all animals and plants seek to dominate/out-compete their neighbors for resources. we humans are just significantly better at obliterating stuff.
so sustainability requires that we act against our instincts and self interest to maximize our short term goals. that my friend is definitely a
'socio-cultural construct' if there ever is one.
There are these shows on Discovery now, (and movies like I am Legend) that I think a recent author has written about it, dealing with what the earth might look like with out "us". This whole "tree in the woods making a sound" tale shows how we attempt isolate our ontological foundation to a point of denying we exist for the sake of the intrinsic value of the earth as the epitome of nature. I think our very presence sort of nullifies the need to evaluate the earth with out us, , but I do think there is merit and trying to harmonize our efforts to improve "us". I don't really think we understand completely what the "us" is just yet though, and so Sustainability isn't fully understood yet either.
the basic problems of mankind with regards to the environment etc revolve around the fact that we have for too long considered only "our" needs and wants, and not those of others..
This can be solved by attempting to be more bio-centric...Meaning ackowledging that there is value in all organisms (plant, animal or other) existing in their own right. Regardless of whether or not we find value (economic or otherwise) in their existence...
Therefore, yes sustainability is a soci-cultural construct. All human conditions are...
Personally, this is one of my fundamental problems with the whole LEED/tech fix appraoch to sustainability..
treekiller, I think you've got it 100% backwards.
In nature, all ecological lifecycles even out. All of them, every single time, even if some cycles are longer than others. 'Nature' doesn't seek to dominate (THAT is a human construct) but rather to survive and spread. Growth is kept in check by other lifecycles. As humans, we've ignored that. That willfull ignorance is a brand new phenomenon, even.
Our generation seems to think that we invented sustainability, reusing, recycling, alternative energy, etc.... but far from it! Although the names of these things might have changed, they've always been there, in use by humans. NOW, however, they've become marketing terms.
Your great-grandparents didn't waste anything, trust me.
maybe true, but then again, they didn't really have the option. we often do. changing behaviors that are not in our immediate self-interest is the challenge of this generation.
Our great-grandparents killed all of the passenger pigeons to make hats out of them.
slantsix, I'm not sure you've got it right either. eventually some ecological force will even out the damage done to earth by mankind.
I think the idea of some lost Golden Age is the ultimate socio-cultural construct.
I haven't met all of my great grandparents, but those I was lucky enough to meet had plenty of problems, waste was the least of them.
Ever seen a tannery? How about open sewers running into a river upstream of the spot the bakers use to get water for breadmaking? There was plenty of waste in the past.
"...The cultural problem starts with an inverted incentive structure. As we all know, architects have traditionally been compensated based on what they spend of the client's budget, not what they save....this incentive structure must be inverted, so that architects are rewarded for what they save..."
I'm trying to think how that could possibly work...being paid for what you DIDN'T do, in a way. In another way, I disagree that the incentive structure is necessarily inverted, which sounds like a premise based on current viewpoint. Aren't architects already involved in client "savings" anyway? And wouldn't sustainability simply become another project "given", like budget, ADA, fire codes, etc.? I think compenation for sustainability "savings" would have to occur in a similar way, and would not require the changes you describe.
mankind NEEDS a worldwide catastrophe to get its shit together.
ryanj -- on your second paragraph and premise that professional reform is necessary..... What would be an example of this kind of reform?
smoke em if you got em
slant6-
I'm not sure if nature does balance out excessive growth in all cases. Humans have hit malthusian limits before and suffered, ie the anasazi and many other civilizations that dropped off the face of the earth. As vado's nihilism points out, we've made catastrophes a plenty.
I don't think that the current exponential growth of anthropogenic impact is only a 21st century phenomena.
we're just to damn smart to avoid the simpler positive feedback mechanisms that limit most plant and animal spreads. tools are our deliverance and our curse.
Sustainability is finally a tool that forces us to reckon with our technological footprint and recognize the value of ecological services.
great topic
I'll add something quickly as my brain is on weekend mode. But most social constructs are controlled by the media, including sustainability. It is now chic for people, read americans, to be green...and the media has found it marketable to be such.
Sustainability failed when it was aligned with the social good...who cares what is good, it can and is working because it is profitable. Profit = Success
i think pursuing this notion of sustainability as a social construct is great as a thesis- as evidenced above there is an anti-thesis here as well. duality is a bitch.
the one thing i have a problem with this "new paradigm" of sustainability is that: while the US is in the midst of the campaign of conserve, reclaim, remediate, etc... but then we drop 40,000lbs of bombs within ten minutes in Iraq- [which takes decades to remediate ecologically...] and that has been going on for years and years... so is this just the "oh shit" analogy? oh shit we totally fucked up the earth, so to make ourselves feel better we will use the wealthy countries as a back up plan for the earth so we can continue our political and social agendas.
and ultimately you cannot talk about a "social construct" without referencing politics and economics.
two pennies.
architechnophilia, +i: much thanks for the positive words. it's been a highly engaging topic, albeit sometimes difficult to define (as its subject is highly intangible).
SandRoad: well, the incentive structure for one. also, more architects involved in policy and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Wynn]civic life[/url]. a more interdisciplinary architectural curriculum (ok, that ones not professional) and generally designers that have an active interest in the cost implications (and i don't mean just financial; but especially environmental and social opportunity costs) of their design decisions and how to communicate this with a client.
oops...civic life
Nature generally doesn't "balance itself out" because nature is not self aware. It is, in fact, a social construct.
The important social constructs to disassemble for a discussion of sustainability however are the dialogic of nature and culture, and markets.
The latter, being conscious and omniscient in the same way nature is, somehow becomes our benchmark for maximizing efficiency, as well as determining what efficient is.
The former is the claim that on one side there is nature, and on the other culture, and the twain shall never meet. A useful distinction for differentiating the methods of social scientists from those of technoscientists, but probably not helpful otherwise. Try thinking of it this way: if culture is that which is touched by man, and nature is it's other, than the likelihood that a sustainable solution is a natural one is almost none.
Some of the more interesting bits of research...
Reinterpreting Sustainable Architecture: The Place of Technology (eco-medical logic; p. 29) / Guy & Farmer (original article not online)
The Urban Health Advantage
Growing A New Lifestyle
Social Goals of New Urbanism (please, don't peg me as a fad-New Urbanist, although I believe the core values to be sound intelligent growth ideas)
ryanj, if you are really pursuing this as your thesis, i would consider the following resources [below]...
consider checking out the work of Wes Janz @ ball state univ:
Sustaining Sustenance through Everyday Building
check out Bryan Finoki's blog:
http://subtopia.blogspot.com
this is not a new topic, but oftentimes it seems the LEED platinums get more recognition than, say, squatters in favelas in brazil... the social construction of sustenance and sustainability has been the basis of slums throughout the world for many many decades. you don't even have to look past the ghetto or rural US to understand how this works.
someone mentioned above- sustainability is popular because it's profitable- i would completely agree. i heard/read somewhere that the word "sustainability" has had a detrimental effect on architecture... because why would you ever want to design to merely "sustain"? in any other context, merely sustaining is rarely positive.
great points, +i. thanks for the resources!
on a related note, i've actually done some research on the concept of biomimicry and how nature's biological processes don't merely 'sustain' but adapt to it's context and subsequently endure. Natural scientist, Janine Benyus gave an incredible TED lecture on the possibilities of design via biomimicry.
I don't think you can ever say "mere" sustainability. It is practically impossible to balance or offset the resources needed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and possibly demolish the building, at the scale of which buildings are being built. And because we're talking about balance, it can exist at different scales - so for example a tree house in the middle of the woods would be easy to make sustainable, but a totally sustainable building in a city would not be.
And since when was sustainability popular and/or profitable? The marketing term "Green" is popular and has gained some profitability only recently. I mean, I agree that sustainability WOULD be more popular if it was profitable, but in my opinion it might be very difficult to make it profitable in the purest sense of the word. I don't think it can be "profitable" because inherently there are no short-term gains, and in the end might not even be tangible (which is probably why we don't feel morally responsible in the first place) - hence the usefulness of financial incentives in some cities, emission taxes, and emissions trading (more like avoiding financial penalties than profit).
could you define sustainability before you make it a social-construct?
that is where things fall down, isn't it? the definitions part...
bush defined success in iraq in increasingly narrow ways to fit the reality of his failures there until success lost meaning altogether.
but without a definition all discussion is nonetheless meaningless. there was a bit of a discussion on that point here recently, if interested.
as far as nature being a human idea...hm, maybe. the gaian hypothesis of self-regulation on a planetary scale through mindless interaction of all life is now more or less accepted by most scientist, or at least accepted enough to be included in many major declarations by scientists on issues of sustainability. gaia exists regardless of the human point of view, so there is a question there that ould be interesting - ie, what is humanity's place in gaia, etc.
the question of incentives however is a more troubling one for me. how do we do it, if the payoff is not something that can be confirmed for 5, 10, or even 20 years? the city hall of london was supposed to save a lot of money (and co2 emmissions) in energy use, and all the technical calculations suggested it would. but where they right? in hindsight, it didn't meet the 1/4 of normal energy use that was aimed for, was not in fact even close...so how do you invert the payment system? the cost of the building was more than normal and didn't work as advertised...but the outcome could not be known in advance...
so i wonder...inverting the payment system sounds nice but how can it work? it seems much too easy to game, unless payments are deferred until the building is proved to meet claims...
i know of projects where money was saved on construction costs due to clever engineering, and the engineers who asked for a bonus as a result were rebuffed, saying it was their job and they were being paid to be clever, not to NOT be stupid. stupid could be had for lower fees all over the world. not quite in agreement with that sentiment, but why should we be paid for not being idiots? and how do we prove we are not being too smart for our own good, as foster and others have done numerous times?
if you have ideas would love to read/hear about them.
biomimicry is cool. i think in architecture it often becomes aesthetic misdirection rather than a real design solution...maybe architects are too visual oriented to catch the right waves...?
"...why should we be paid for not being idiots?"
I'm partly in agreement with that... the problem is that the game gets so much bigger for A/E... I think more fee IS going to be required. let's say that LEED -- or whatever -- does become the given process and paper trail. Right off the bat, it costs money to add LEED into the process of a project, and so some extra fee would be rightly earned. The paperwork is nuts. Plus, very often -- or always? -- green adds technical complexity -- extra CA work to ensure things are built as required. More fee? Then, the very highest potential extra costs/fee/liability issue lies on the end of the project...or does a green project ever end? On the performance end of the project, there seems so be unlimited and never-ending potential liability based upon implied performance expectations. Get ready for some insane insurance costs...
sometime last year i was involved with a project with the VP of a major cruise line because of their desire to turn a caribbean island into a tourist destination for their line...
both the cruise line and the several international developers involved with the project wanted the island to be "sustainable"- because (their words, not mine) it is extremely popular and profitable for them to appear to be environmentally conscious. in fact, they would not accept a scheme which did not include sustainable - LEED Platinum rated- buildings.
ironically enough... they were willing to completely forego the existing culture and ecological systems in order to accomplish this.
this EXACT same conversation occurred during a competition in china i worked on earlier in the year... in fact, shanghai's goal is to have the most number of LEED platinum rated buildings in the world. except... they are demolishing every existing community which gets in the way.
even the United Nations have recognized this concept. read their "proposals" for Sri Lanka... before the tsunami... will give you a very good idea as to why they privatized the entire shoreline.
so to say it's not profitable... is foolish. developers, governments, and corporations have recognized that to be considered sustainable is a recognition that gives them a "caring" image.
i would agree you need to define "sustainability". you do not need to reinvent the wheel... many arch students before you have written theses revolving around this... and professionals. Sym Van der Ryn, James Lovelock, even the artist Andy Goldsworthy could give you a new meaning...
on the topic of biomimicry... think less about aesthetics and more about function- as someone mentioned above it often gets lost. but there are plenty of theses out there which have defined the functions of biomimicry and have successfully implemented them. i dont know what university you attend, but you could check with several university libraries for the online text versions of student theses- which are often published.
the un's definition of sustainability would address the scenarios you describe, +i. lemme go find it.
its actually my current post-professional degree thesis. the privatization and so-called "eco-tourist" based development plans for "Sustainable" shorelines.
my thesis developed from an undergrad B.Arch thesis... and now i'm pursuing an in-depth post-pro M.Arch on this basis.
it's in the writing of the Kyoto Protocol- which i have read- and in every ratification...
yes, sustainability is profitable... mostly because of its social-construction: which ends up equally privatization of the world's greatest resources... and what is the scariest part of this, it's not for the betterment of the people who inhabit these areas.
sri lanka is only one example.
i would go one step further, ryan and say that sustainability is a socio-economic construct...
http://www.maxestrella.com/artistas/dionisio/expo%2007/prensa_eng.htm
slums as sustainability
...so to say it's not profitable... is foolish. developers, governments, and corporations have recognized that to be considered sustainable is a recognition that gives them a "caring" image..."
I guess I'm foolish, but I'd like to understand more why you believe it to be so unquestionably profitable. The "caring image" part -- even on a global / U.N. scale -- smacks more of a sort of political expediency based upon the "right now" rather than a long term philosophy one might reasonably bank upon.
When the "caring image"-based profitability becomes less fashionable, what are you proposeing takes over? What are your marketplace examples that actually make sustainability sustainable?
cowerd: For the projects scope, I have thought of the sustainability of our built environment on two levels:
Macro: This being factors such as the land use patterns, zoning regulations, density etc. that influence our lifestyles (suburban, urban) and the integration/disintegration of public/private space. Also, it's effects on mental/social health as the core thesis idea is focused on the salient hollistic health benefits of a well-concieved, well-built physical environment. Micro: The material nutrient cycles (closed/open) that make up the physical construction of our built environment. The use of natural (passive) sustainable design-strategies and the minimization of technology.
From my program:
For the majority of human history, man and the environment were perceived as one harmonious, self-perpetuating relationship. Primitive civilizations utilized nature-driven strategies such as
passive solar and ventilation not as a means of achieving energy-efficiency, but because nature served as the fruit of life.(1) In other words, they recognized the inherent two-way benefits of human-ecological synergy.
With the dawn of mechanization and more recently globalization, the relationship between society and its surroundings has become more tenuous. Economic concerns tend to dominate most lifestyle decisions and technology has become so intrinsically a part of daily life that most of its deteriorating affects go unnoticed or subconsciously denied by our actions.
Analogous to the phenomenon in medical practice, the building industry has become saturated with intense mechanized, technological strategies and short-term approaches that have had
deteriorating affects on both human and environmental health.
According to T. Colin Campbell, author of the The China Study, a comprehensive and international study of health and nutrition, mechanized interventions in the medical industry are much less
effective than most people realize. In fact, death by healthcare (i.e. drugs, surgery and misdiagnosis) is the third leading cause of death in the United States.(2) The incidence rate (not death rate) for heart disease is about the same as it was in the early 1970’s. In other words, while we don’t die as much from the disease, we still get it as often as we used to. We’re simply prolonging the effort via unsustainable, technological means.
Applied to our built environment, William McDonough and Michael Braungart, the authors of Cradle to Cradle, liken the shortsightedness of death postponement over prevention to the
reductive approaches of reuse and recycle programs. While the efforts may be well-intended, they only defer responsibility to future generations.
However, the dialogue of sustainability is not limited solely to concerns of material nutrient cycles. The second broader component deals with unsustainable land use patterns. Since the widespread inception of zoning laws in the 1920’s, the United States as fallen under a strictly segregated, Euclidean form of land use. Under this approach, uses within each district are generally heavily prescribed to exclude other types of uses. Industrial were placed as far from
possible from residential communities and commerce was centralize in its own individualized zone.
Practically speaking, this meant that simple errands now necessitated an automobile trip. As is the case today, these events typically involved a single participant acquiring a good or service, which within a more integrative environment, could likely be generated within their own community. Sociologically speaking, the degradation of human capital caused by this development paradigm has been devastating. As I will elaborate later, these environments have
contributed substantially to the promotion of sedentary lifestyles and a culture of social and civic disconnectedness.
Additionally, recent interdisciplinary studies on urban sprawl,sustainable development, and sick building syndrome have linked the rapid decay of public health to the development patterns,
technologically-driven methodologies and materials of the built environment.(3)
While political initiatives are necessary to tackle many of the health-related aspects of building, those involved in developing the built environment are well placed to make a positive contribution towards improving public health.(4)
To better understand the relationship between architecture, urban design and public health, we,
as influencers of the built environment must have an intuitive understanding of the intersection
of the built environment and how it affects human behavior.
Subsequently, we can begin to utilize this medical discourse to develop an analogy between
naturopathic medicine and natural (or passive) building strategies; hereby returning to a more
holistically considered usage of our natural resources, and serving mutual benefit to human
health and the natural environment.
Here the application of technology is not considered to be a risk-free operation, and importantly, this discourse has served to highlight that reducing the technological intensity of building (or society) does not necessarily lead to a shrinking well-being; on the contrary even a growth in well-being can be imagined.(5)
(1) Sassi, Paola. Strategies for Sustainable Architecture. New York: Taylor and Francis, Inc., 2006, pp. 4
(2) Campbell, T. Colin. The China Study: The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted and The Startling Implications
for Diet, Weight Loss and Long-term Health. Dallas, TX: Benbella Books, 2004, pp. 16
(3) McCann, Barbara A. and Reid Ewing. “Measuring The Health Effects of Sprawl: A National Analysis of Obesity, Physical Activity
and Chronic Disease” Smart Growth America, (September 2003)
(4) Sassi, Paola. Strategies, pp. 137
(5) Guy, Simon and Graham Farmer. “Reinterpreting Sustainable Architecture: The Place of Technology” Journal of Architectural
Education., Volume 54, Issue 3, (February 2001) pp. 155
i'm not saying it's profitable for architects. i'm not saying it is profitable for locals/citizens. but you cannot ignore the focus and goals of corporations, developers, and governments who are embracing these ideas- and they are not doing it for the good of the masses.
their image of sustainability is not for the future... it is for economics. as architects we wrestle with trying to improve lives- versus the impeding demand from our clients. just because something is sustainable does not make it good. don't twist my words... i am not saying that the goals of sustainability are inherently good... or bad. but many clients have recognized the "new" focus group of people to profit from- and the words "green", "sustainable", and "ecological" are stamped all over it.
jump: I agree, unfortunately aesthetics still dominate most conversations on biomimicry (in architectural circles). A great example of a project that pushes the concept well beyond aesthetic consideration:
inspiration: Termites
project: Eastgate Centre, Harare, Zimbabwe
architect: Mick Pearce
I think it's important to look at case studies in 2nd/3rd world countries because they are much better stewards of our natural resources. Also, this is often where the most innovative designs emerge (largely out of necessity, due to scarcity of resources/economic constraint). I have been looking at humanitarian solutions such as 'Design Like You Give A Damn' (thanks Cameron) as a wealth of innovation. As I like to think, 'scarcity breeds innovation'; whereas the U.S. is inflicted with material/economic over-abundance.
Steven: Wow, thanks! I think I found a new definition...
SandRoad: I suppose what I am suggested (for the purposes of a MArch 1 DESIGN studio; which is why technically, I shouldn't be calling it a thesis) is an integreted consideration of ecological, (human) equity and economic concerns as proposed in texts such as:
Cradle to Cradle (Three E's)
Natural Capitalism
Call me an daydreaming-idealist, but I believe that when given equitable consideration, these components have inherent synergies, that is they can work for the good of environmental health, human health and equity, and the economic bottom line.
+i: I go to Texas Tech, not the most resource-saavy school out there.
*suggesting
+i -- I think I caught your meaning on your first post, in that, yes, for some there may be ways to profit from an image of current green fashionability. I'm trying to get you to jump forward a bit and consider what propels green when the novelty wears off. Americans have short memories, and get bored quickly. In the late 70's / early 80's, cheap conventional energy essentially killed interest in alternative research for about the next 20 years.
you might also want to check out UNHabitat, the World Bank, FAO, and other government/international agencies and the way they implement ideas of sustainability. you may be surprised to find out that often a government's response to these issues is not wholly their own, but a joint-partnership between multiple interested parties (ie. Sri Lanka teamed with Switzerland and China).
also in most underrepresented countries, their focus is on industry- so concrete has become a huge part of this, mostly from demand from China, who owns stake in many of these countries for their own purpose of producing more concrete for building... the ways in which they harvest aggregate limestone in these countries (primarily from coral reefs) has become a glaring issue for the U.N. mostly because the U.N. did not recognize the value of reefs in the protection of shorelines... from say, the tsunami.
i think it would help your argument, should you choose to focus on underrepresented countries, to locate a site + then dig deeper into the reasons why these areas are unsustainable, or why their practices are not ecologically sound. often these issues are not as easy as giving a "definition" and may require you to dig deep, not only into biological principles, but the principles of government and architecture. a solution without understanding these preconditions will only be a band-aid.
sandroad-
quite honestly, i am not interested in what propels it... i agree with slantsix and others... that this is not "new". and quite honestly i could care less if it is fashionable. the argument was if it is profitable- and currently it is for many governments + organizations. case in point: Dubai + Shanghai. my interests lie more within what ryanj has previously posted:
"I think it's important to look at case studies in 2nd/3rd world countries because they are much better stewards of our natural resources. Also, this is often where the most innovative designs emerge (largely out of necessity, due to scarcity of resources/economic constraint). I have been looking at humanitarian solutions such as 'Design Like You Give A Damn' (thanks Cameron) as a wealth of innovation. As I like to think, 'scarcity breeds innovation'; whereas the U.S. is inflicted with material/economic over-abundance."
my research lies within these areas- and whether it is fashionable or not makes no difference if our resources are privatized, our coastlines are unprotected, and millions of people reside in slums. those issues will remain.
+i : just to clarify, the project site is located domestically (in Longmont, Colorado; Prospect New Town, see photos 2/3's way down); thus my focus, at least for the scope of the design project is on how we can refer to more resourceful/hollistic examples of sustainable design to influence our wasteful patterns, and economically-dominated building paradigm in the U.S.
However, the long-term goal is to work on more humanitarian, socially-conscious work; but as previously stated, I believe there is much to be learned in this country from those who have far less, and who's passive design strategies can be cross-applied, and vice versa.
No interest in what propels it? Then you'll have a rather tough time contributing to the momentum of the movement. Profitable markets also require some reasonable expectation of staying power.
Also, your examples of profitability seem disappointingly connected to the government... since when has the government run anything profitably? Within the US, the government is the single largest employer, consumer, and polluter. This must not be the same government that you're expecting to profitably oversee the greening of America.
OK, there was the US mail...
1. im not relying on any government or NGO to oversee the "greening" of any location
2. i venture that China rivals the US for employment, consumerism, and pollution
3. profitable markets do change...
i don't expect my area of research to become "popular"... that isn't why i'm in it. i'm not in the business of strategizing for CEO's why they should go green- or what their long term business plans should be. however, i cannot ignore the fact that some of those clients do have a big impact on what gets built- and what does not. and after being in several roundtable discussions for projects and being told it "must" be green because that was their corporate image and it made them profit- i can't act like that doesn't exist.
i am wondering why you think it is so unprofitable to these types of people?
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.