A public rebuke from the UK-based activist group Architects Climate Action Network (ACAN) has triggered an enlivened debate online around greenwashing and the 2022 RIBA Stirling Prize shortlist after the initial group of projects was revealed last week.

Two London area residential projects included in the six-project shortlist — Panter Hudspith’s Orchard Gardens and Hopkins Architects’ 100 Liverpool Street — were given as examples of what the environmental group called “architecture that pollutes the planet.”

ACAN called out the former over its involvement in the demolition of the Heygate Estate as part of developer Lendlease’s Elephant Park ‘regeneration’ scheme, which helped displace some 80 percent of council housing residents in the SE17 postal code. In response, Panter Hudspith said: “It’s the job of the RIBA to judge buildings on their architectural quality with environmental credentials being an ever-increasing criteria in their assessment. So it seems unreasonable to suggest that the RIBA is somehow responsible for the decisions made by local authorities to demolish their own housing estates.”

Thank you for exposing what @ElephantParkLDN@Lendlease @lb_southwark have done! Not only have they socially cleansed Elephant & Castle, value engineered their Carbon footprint & biodiversity, they have hoodwinked institutions like @RIBA into considering them in the first place!
— Real HFL (@Real_HFLambeth) July 27, 2022

The 100 Liverpool project was likewise lambasted for the unnecessary demolition of a 1980s office block and positioning of the “net-zero” label, which ACAN claims is mute and illusory when considering the overall destructiveness of a large office block’s removal. ACAN also criticized the new structure’s glazed facade as an expensive impediment to building performance they say is “thoughtless to promote” in the face of dual challenges from fuel poverty and climate change. 

ACAN also commented on the use of carbon offsets on the project, the purchases of which they say “reinforces the status quo of pollution and takes land out of the control of Indigenous groups.”

“These projects have been described by the RIBA as ‘ambitious’ and an example of ‘generous architecture fit for a low-carbon future’. We ask — whose ambition do they further? Who are these projects generous towards?” part of their statement reads. “Upholding projects like these as good examples grossly underestimates the level of change required from the industry to adequately tackle the climate crisis and neglects the needs of marginalized groups in pursuit of profit for a select few.”

Hopkins has not commented directly, though on Thursday, it did issue a statement in which some of the claims made in the ACAN letter were addressed.

In a response published by AJ, RIBA President Simon Allford said: “Materially and operationally, they are not net-zero buildings, but their ambition to deliver sustainable design for long-term community benefit shows promise. There are many elements of these schemes that should be celebrated: When re-use is prioritized, when low-carbon materials are consciously specified despite heavier costs, and when one space has the capacity to serve multiple purposes to ensure long-term functionality.”

In the midst of a heated presidential election, RIBA is under an amount of pressure both internally and from outside groups like ACAN. Climate issues have been addressed by candidates during the election’s hustings, elsewhere online, and in statements made recently in our own pages; and the selection process behind prestigious awards such as the Stirling has been a lesser criticism lobbed at the organization for some time. 

None of the houses shortlisted for the 2021 RIBA House of the year award has an A-rated EPC. Half were D or worse, including the winner.
Shocking incompetence from the 'top' UK architects.@RIBA #Greenwashing #ClimateActionNow pic.twitter.com/eMshlF3kbu
— Stop burning stuff (@greennotmean1) January 30, 2022

To its credit, RIBA has set an example in deliberately favoring an adaptive reuse scheme for its important headquarters upgrade. But the pursuit of a comprehensive suite of climate-related goals developed under Alan Jones and continued by Allford has been called into question quite often over the past few years, marked by developments like these that are reminders of the influence external groups have over the UK's largest architectural body, as well as the direction the organization will be most likely pulled further in the future as responses to the climate crisis become more urgent. 

The full ACAN statement can be found here. Archinect will share any more updates to the shortlist controversy as they become available.