Sustainable Design: the gentle battle for traction

I read with admiration Lance Hosey’s recent blog on the Six Myths of Sustainable Design.  He got ‘em, and nearly all of them from what I’ve experienced.  They frustrate me often.

I am a solutions person, seeking to figure out not only what’s stopping us, but how to accept it in order to work with the limitations realistically and grow through or around the problem.  After reading the Six Myths blog, I was compelled to compile my thoughts on how to begin to dispel these myths.  We have so many opportunities in our interactions with teams and project owners to make faulty perceptions less solid, to better connect with goals and achievements, and to improve all of the buildings we design.

Below I have listed each of the myths established in Mr. Hosey’s blog, followed by my thoughts as to how to overcome the perceptions, gently and by supporting the project and the project team.  I highly recommend you read his post first. You can locate the original blog at Six Myths of Sustainable Design

1. Sustainability Equals Environmentalism

If this is the preconception, then the best way to counter this is to NOT lead with LEED or with a checklist or with any discussion at all about green or sustainability.  Lead with the mission and goals of the Owner or the campus or the business.  Find out what drives them and make those items the focus of all discussions.  Sustainability in design is a vehicle to achieve excellence. It is a lens that can and should positively inform all of the work.  It can support the mission of a business or an organization and do so in a way that additionally reduces waste, and optimizes comfort and health and material stewardship.  Sustainability as the sole goal of a project is absolutely contradictory, unless the word itself begins to mean “regeneration”.

2. Sustainability Equals Technology

So many people get caught up on the HRVs and the PVs and the control systems and the high tech items that look flashy and scream “GREEN”.  For some clients this is the right thing.  One campus project wanted PV and a vegetative roof so the neighbors could see how green the college is, and that’s okay.  But, find out what the needs and perception of the owner are.  If money is an issue for them, or if their management staff is not ready for the training needed to manage the higher tech controls, don’t go there.  In every case, start with the simple, non tech notions that make buildings more efficient. These include items and concepts such as vestibules and zones, open plans with well-managed acoustics, determination of spacial relationships and operational parameters.  Build from there. Set the initial tone with the owner and the team that you’re not in it for the tech and glamour, then you will be able to apply those solutions when they are appropriate.

3. Sustainable Design Costs Too Much

This is quite simply the largest and most prevalent concern or myth about green building.  So what’s a thoughtful architect to do?  As Bob Fox of COOKFOX points out, he always starts with what’s free: the wind on the site, the daylight, the natural cooling overnight, the water that falls on the site.  Start with understanding the free things, and how to access them effectively, and you’ve got a project.  There is also this same idea in an existing building.  Identify what works and what exists that can be “tweaked” for greater control of energy, better health of occupants, more durability and more beauty.  Remember the strength in building on a good foundation.

And remind the team about how green one can be without any technology at all.  A beautiful stairway that is visible will reduce elevator use (at least fewer than 5 stories or so) and a round-a-bout works even when the power goes out, unlike a 4-way streetlight intersection. And natural clay finished walls can modulate humidity a bit, with no tech required. How clever can YOU be?

4. Sustainable Design Takes More Time

It’s interesting that Lance mentions that this is a typical complaint of architects.  What’s wrong with us all?  IPD (Integrated Project Delivery) is a vehicle for us (architects) to regain our value in this world of large team projects and highly silo-ed risk management strategies.  And in order to eradicate the myth of more time, we need to engage in alternate delivery methods, especially IPD.

There is great resistance.  I believe we are a nation of people trained to procrastinate, and IPD seems to be the antithesis of procrastination.  It is a way to face all your fears early and begin the work on viable solutions. That’s scary – we like to get ready, plan the meetings for a while, meet each other and assign parts and pieces, eventually design something to maybe share for development in DD phase or input later in the project schedule.

I think we can perhaps get over this by focusing on the other aspect of IPD that is not often explored.  Decisions are left until they must be made. I know, this sounds contradictory, and it may help to get people drinking from the IPD well. As Adam Cohen pointed out at BE15 in Boston this year, the secret is to not decide on a structural system (for example) until you must.  In this way you allow ample time for all the aspects of the choices to be fully understood and truly understood in relation to the other moving parts of the complex puzzle that is a building.  Then once you decide on that system, that’s it.  You’re done with that decision and there is no reason to remake it.  Think about that!  You’ve essentially procrastinated on useless re-do’s until there is no longer a chance for them to sneak in. That’s a total time-saver.

5. Sustainability Isn’t About Design

Okay, when I read that successful and visionary architects have divorced sustainability from the art/science of design, I nearly cried.  There is nothing that is more tied to design than sustainability in all its permutations.  Design without setting goals regarding energy, water, health, materials creation and use, and connections with the surroundings, is design that should remain theoretical.  All of the challenges are gone when you choose to ignore these things, and you are copping out of the privilege and responsibility of being an architect. (So say I).

The way to deal with this myth with architects in general?  I would hope that we can still ignite the challenge and innovative spirit of design by helping teams to understand that they are only being creative when there are imposed limits.  And maybe one of those imposed limits is to create more energy than we use, or to support the diversity of local manufacturing by preferentially specifying local building products – these goals require a very well-tuned and engaged team of designers, my friend.

Framing the sustainability aspects as a part of finding the win/win/win would help as well.  In one campus project, we talked about the beauty of the lake view and the large expanse of open glass facing that windy view.  We then talked about a sculptural element or design flow of space to visually connect the building to the rest of the campus.  We finally talked about that wind being a resource and, with some thought investment, led ourselves to using the sculptural form to guide the wind to protect the glass front while additionally doing all that was required in connecting to the campus.  Win/win/win. And a hell of a lot of design minds in that one.

6. Sustainable Design Isn’t Beautiful

“Some of the worst buildings I have seen are done by sustainable architects,” This is a quote by Peter Eisenman that Lance Hosey included in his blog.  I’m so glad Mr. Hosey, along with admirable, successful and wise architects all over the world, does not agree!  I would nod to the fact that there are some pretty crappy looking buildings done by sustainable architects, but this statement is a total whiff in the grand game of whiffle ball.  Let’s not forget how many ugly buildings have been built by non-sustainable architects!

But that isn’t even the proper argument.  The proper argument is that beauty is a much more complex label than we have been allowing it to be.  It should involve all senses, and embrace not only the senses but the fourth dimension of time which allows us to understand use patterns and durability/performance issues.  On top of all of this, we would hope that beautiful buildings have a greater chance of being around longer, making beauty an active piece of the definition of “sustainable”.  This may not have been the case in the past, when we saw Penn Station razed to be replaced with the ugly that is the current Penn station. Or the beautiful city centers demolished to build parking garages and uninspiring city center mazes, but in a global sense, we know it is true.

So start with beauty as one of the goals along with the vision of the owner supporting their mission and value in their planned use for the building.  Start with beauty including the complexity of beauty in use, and beauty of toxic-free, and beauty in connection to the world around the building (the community, the resources, the traffic) and you will certainly foil the myth that sustainable design is not beautiful.

In closing, thank you to Lance Hosey, Chief Sustainability Officer with the global design leader RTKL, who wrote the article “six myths of sustainable design”.  I was, and am, inspired to stand up to these pervasive myths, and I hope you are as well.

 

Be well, and be greener,

Jodi

1 Like this post (no login required)