i

Sustainable architecture for the XXI century.

A personal guide

Manuel Eduardo Gines Salazar

ii

UNIVERSITY OF HUDDERSFIELD

School of Art, Design and Architecture

Department of Architecture and 3D Design

TMA 1502 Dissertation

Sustainable architecture for the XXI century.

A personal guide

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for

Diploma Architecture

by Manuel Eduardo Gines Salazar U0767153

The candidate confirms that the work submitted is their own and that appropriate credit has been given where reference has been made to the work of others.

14 December 2010

iii

Abstract

Humankind has reached levels of consumption far beyond the Earth’s capacity. We are

reaching the limits of survival. We need a change, but what kind of change. As architecture

consumes around fifty per cent of non-renewable resources, architects have a great

responsibility in inverting this process and promote a change. Sustainable architecture

pretends to face this challenge. But what is really sustainable architecture? Do we

architects practice sustainable principles? This dissertation reflects about how architects

are coping with their responsibility, and on doing so I am also reflecting about my own

responsibility.

iv

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Silvia for her patience and help.

Thanks to my mother for her support.

Thanks to Vijey Taheem for his advice.

Thanks to Eugenia Solis Umaña and Jose Ali Porras Salazar, from the School of

Architecture of Universidad de Costa Rica, for offering me their vision of sustainable

architecture and Costa Rica.

To Diana Crew for her help with my English.

To Costa Rican people for allowing me to know them and their country.

Pura Vida!

v

Contents

Abstract ................................................................................................................................. iii

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................... iv

Contents ................................................................................................................................. v

List of Illustrations ............................................................................................................... vii

Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 3

Chapter ONE: Why sustainable architecture? ....................................................................... 6

THE LIMITS TO GROWTH. ............................................................................................ 8

MANIFESTO ................................................................................................................... 12

Chapter TWO: Three aspects of sustainable architecture. ................................................... 15

ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................................ 16

SOCIOCULTURAL ........................................................................................................ 18

BUILDING ...................................................................................................................... 22

Chapter THREE: Sustainable architects. ............................................................................. 31

EDUCATION .................................................................................................................. 31

ARCHITECTS AND SOCIETY ...................................................................................... 32

ARCHITECTS AND ME ................................................................................................ 35

Conclusion. .......................................................................................................................... 37

Epilogue ............................................................................................................................... 43

vi

References ............................................................................................................................ 45

Bibliography ........................................................................................................................ 48

APPENDIX A ...................................................................................................................... 49

APPENDIX B ...................................................................................................................... 52 

vii

List of Illustrations

Fig. 1. The Global City. Planet Earth. Planet Coruscant. Star Wars (1977) Directed by George Lucas [Film] Los Angeles: Universal Studios. Available at: http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100115192304/starwars/images/1/17/Coruscant-AoTCW.jpg

Fig. 2. The Earth from the Moon. Apollo 8 NASA. Available at: http://www.larsonsworld.com/blog/archives/cat_photos.html

Fig. 3. Human perspectives. Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J. and Behrens III, W. W. (1972) The limits to growth. 1974 edn. London: Pan Books Ltd. p.19.

Fig. 4. Scenario 2, 2004: More Abundant Non-renewable Resources. Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L. and Randers, J. (2004) A synopsis, Limits to growth, the 30-year update. p.15. [Online] Available at: http://www.sustainer.org/pubs/limitstogrowth.pdf (Accessed: 30 October 2010)

Fig. 5. Scenario 9, 2004: World Seeks Stable Population and Stable Industrial Output per Person, and Adds Pollution, Resource, and Agricultural technologies from 2002. Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L. and Randers, J. (2004) A synopsis, Limits to growth, the 30-year update. p.20. [Online] Available at: http://www.sustainer.org/pubs/limitstogrowth.pdf (Accessed: 30 October 2010)

Fig. 6. Sunset in the Global City. Planet Earth. Planet Coruscant. Star Wars (1977) Directed by George Lucas [Film] Los Angeles: Universal Studios. Available at: http://sw.motleyplayersiii.com/wp-content/gallery/views/coruscant_at_night.jpg

Fig. 7. Greece (Santorini), China (Shanghai), India (Jaisalmer), Spain (Cordoba). Author’s photographs.

Fig. 8. Aerial view of Tortuguero. Nadine and Bill Beard (no date) [Online] Available at: http://www.billbeardcostarica.com/php/note_detail.php?id_home=28&id_edicion=299

Fig. 9. Bryan Boyer. BalnaeNY. Ritter, A. (2007) Smart materials in architecture, interior architecture and design. Basel: Birkhauser. p.71.

Fig. 10 and Fig. 11. Building structure. Façade structural subframes. Windows and insulation. Natural stone cladding. Technal Hydro Building Systems SL. (2005) Apuntes de Construccion Technal (Spanish) No 32 April. [Online] Available at: www. technal.es

Fig. 12. House in Tokyo. Rael, R. (2009) Earth architecture. New York : Enfield : Princeton Architectural. pp.88-91.

viii

Fig. 13. Responsive surface. Hensel, M. (2008) ‘Material performance’, Architectural design, Vol 78, No 2, pp.34-41

Fig. 14. We were astonished by our achievements. Blade Runner (1982) Directed by Ridley Scott [Film] United States: Warner Bros. Pictures. Available at: http://flicksided.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/blade-runner-eye.jpg

Fig. 15. At the dawn of a new planet discovery. American Museum of Natural History (no date) Visions of the Cosmos. [Online] Available at: http://luminousinspiration.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/universe.jpg

1

Fig. 1 The Global City. Planet Earth.

Year 2210, the Earth has become a planet without resources. Any trace of an ecological cycle cannot be

found. Finally the Human Race has become what they fear the most. Many years waiting an alien

invasion to steal our resources never came, because the invader was at home. We have become a parasitic

specie that has consumed every natural resource. Buildings have covered the entire earth. This is the

result of a parasitic architecture and an unsustainable development.

The universal encyclopaedia refers for first time the term “sustainable development” in the year 1987.

“Meet the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to

meet their own needs”. (Brundtland Report, 1987)

2

What has happened then? How have we got to this point? Further research on ancient documents

reveals that sustainable communities existed on Earth:

During a period called the Medieval Age in a region mentioned as Europe small groups of humans lived

in “monasteries where they produced their own food, created buildings with local materials, captured

and recycled water, developed renewable energies in so called water mills, cultivated the land according

to ecological principals and farmed fish, birds and animals with humanity” (Edwards, 2001, p.10).

End of universal encyclopaedia entry.

Another entry referring to an indigenous group called Bribri in Costa Rica, describes how they lived

there from around 900 to 2079, when their land was parasitized by new buildings for the global city.

The earth's population is in seek of a new planet to parasite. How many planets does the Human Race

need? Is this the collapse of civilization as we know it? Are we living or surviving?...

3

Introduction This is but a short story, a hypothesis about a possible future to express where our

architecture might be moving towards; to reflect on the sense of sustainable architecture

and the role that architects play as individuals to achieve a relationship of equilibrium with

nature.

During my travels around Costa Rica I discovered that sustainable architecture is not really

about eco-friendly materials, CO2 emissions, recycling or embodied energy. It is about how

the building contributes to the local community. Sustainable architecture has to engage the

community where it settles. It has to be adapted and be adaptable to the context or future

contexts. It has to reflect cultural and social matters. It has to address local issues.

Different societies have different problems. In Europe one of our problems is the polluted

air so we tend to focus our sustainable architecture in energy saving issues to produce less

CO2. Countries like Costa Rica face problems such as polluted water, thus sustainable

architecture looks at rain water collection or black water management. Hence sustainable

architecture only makes sense if it looks to the local community and context of the place.

Currently the architectural scene is dominated by some sort of global style of architecture,

where global architects can design a building that would fit in anywhere. This style does

not reflect specific contexts and is driven by a need of iconic buildings. Therefore this

international style of architecture dominated by western countries, that predominates in our

4

global world it is doomed to disappear; and “social, ecological and cultural sustainability

will be the measures for tomorrow’s buildings” (Edwards, 2001, p.22). This means that

people will be part of a building, will be part of the architecture. Sustainable architecture

implies a relation between architecture and users, there is a social dimension. Sustainable

buildings should have the capacity for change; they have to be adaptable to face new

challenges and new expectations from users.

Sustainable architecture also sets out the question how much our cities can grow? What is

the limit factor? Pollution or resources? The ecological footprint is an index that compares

the human demand with Earth’s ecological capacity to regenerate. The data from 2007

(Appendix B) shows that our ecological footprint is 2.7 hectares and the biocapacity is 1.8

hectares. There is a deficit of 0.9 hectares. A report from “the Club of Rome” shows that

the world cannot support the present rates of economic and population growth for more

than a few decades. At this level of consumption we already need the resources of another

Earth.

Every living creature is part of a cycle, except us, we live in a paradox. As Brian Edwards

(2001) points out, nature not only recycles; it moves upwards towards even greater

complexity and beauty with the minimum use of resources; and wipes out what it is out of

these parameters. On the contrary we use the maximum resources to generate the minimum

richness and beauty, leaving behind a tremendous ecological footprint. Our parasitic

architecture is completely opposite to ecological cycles; architecture consumes over a 50%

of the planet's resources. How can this become sustainable? We have to rediscover

architecture as another life form with its own ecological cycle. Can architects imagine a

new renaissance of architecture? Can we imagine migratory buildings? Can we move

upwards towards a symbiotic architecture? Can we design buildings with an inbuilt

ecological cycle? Can we change our architecture without changing ourselves? Is our

parasitic architecture ethical? This questions will be discussed in the following pages.

This is a journey through my inner self, what kind of architect do I want to be? A journey

to discover my own thoughts and positions on sustainable architecture. Will I be able to

overcome my delusions of grandeur? As architects, we want to leave our buildings as we

built them forever and get the recognition for our grand designs, but is this compatible with

sustainable design? If a building has to grow and change, in just ten years, the building we

5

find will not be the one we thought up and designed. It will be the design of the new users

and new contexts. What commitment do I have with myself, society and nature? Let us see

if I can figure it out.

6

Chapter ONE: Why sustainable architecture? When I started this dissertation it became obvious to me that I did not know why

sustainable development was so important. Yes, I had the basic knowledge anybody has,

but I did not know the profound roots. Why, in a very short period of time this term had

become relevant to each of the human activities and why, had it become so present in

architecture. I needed to justify myself as to why I was writing about sustainable

architecture. Also I needed a scientific basis for my work.

During my research I found different authors writing about the topic but just one

publication really drew my attention. This book was published in 1972, even before the

definition of sustainable development was coined, in 1987 by United Nations at the

Brundtland Report. The book was referring to the term sustainable development as “state

of global equilibrium”.

In 1970, commissioned by the “Club of Rome”, an international research team at the

Massachusetts Institute of Technology began a study about the possible future of the

Mankind according to the present patterns of growth. They simulated with a computer

modelling engine (World3) the consequences of the interactions between Earth and human

growth. Two years later, in 1972, they published a book titled the limits to growth where

their findings were exposed:

7

1. If the present growth trends in world population, industrialization, pollution, food

and resource depletion continue unchanged, the limits to growth on this planet will

be reached sometime within the next 100 years. The most probable result will be a

sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity.

2. It is possible to alter these growth trends and to establish a condition of ecological

and economic stability that is sustainable far into the future. The state of global

equilibrium could be designed so that the basic needs of each person on earth are

satisfied and each person has an equal opportunity to realize his or her individual

human potential.

3. If the world’s people decide to strive for this second outcome rather than the first,

the sooner they begin working to attain it, the greater will be their chances of

success.

(Meadows et al., 1972, pp. 23-24).

When you read this, you are probably more than ever aware, that there is no providence or

any high mission for mankind. You realize that mankind is responsible of their own future;

as Donella H. Meadows et al. cite (1992) “we intuit a kind of cosmic loneliness” (Vargish,

1980, p.179) where man has to write his own destiny.

Fig. 2 The Earth from the Moon. Apollo 8 NASA.

8

THE LIMITS TO GROWTH.

Reading the book we are aware that every one of us tends to think and plan the near future,

we think about our life in a few years and maybe we think about our old age but do we care

about the future generations? Not our children or grandchildren, but beyond this. This is

not only about time; it is also about space, the neighbourhood, the nation, the world. A

very few have a global perspective. We are not aware of the long term problems. This

situation has become evident in the last decades as our world has been moving towards

globalization.

Many civilizations in history have suffered a societal collapse but it did not affect the

general trend of the world. Those events took place unnoticed and only affected the

geographically nearby population. But now, as seen in the last financial crisis (2007-2010),

a collapse would affect the entire world. Personal and national objectives can be frustrated

by long-term problems or tendencies in a broader context. The authors of the book were

looking at this broad context leading far into the future.

Fig.3 Human perspectives.

The concerns of the limits to growth fall in the upper right hand corner of the space-time graph.

The modelling tool World3 does not make predictions, it tries to understand the behaviour,

the tendencies of the world related to five aspects: population, food production,

industrialization, pollution and consumption of non-renewable resources. All these

elements have an exponential growth and they are interlinked.

Population has been growing exponentially over the last centuries due to an unbalanced

equilibrium between fertility rate and mortality rate, being the positive feedback greater

9

than the negative. When the Limits to Growth was published the world population was

under 4 billion today is near to 7 billion (United States Census Bureau). And we have to

emphasize that the rate of growth is greater in poor countries.

The other area of exponential growth has been the world economy, industrial capital. This

is not the financial capital, money; it is the real thing money stands for. The industrial

capital is consumer goods and a fraction of it is more capital, investments to increase the

industrial capital. This is the positive feedback. Part of the industrial capital becomes

obsolete or is discarded; this is the negative feedback, analogous to the mortality rate. In

this case also the positive feedback is greater than the negative which in the end is reflected

in an exponential growth. But this growth is just improving wealth in rich countries

widening the gap between rich and poor. More industrial growth, as believed, does not

generate fairness.

Population and industrialization are affected by food production, pollution and availability

of resources. Consequently limits to growth are the limited resources and energy dug out

from Earth, and the capacity of Earth to absorb the pollutants generated by human

activities. And these two factors alter the capacity of earth for food production. “Population

cannot grow without food, food production is increased by growth of capital, more capital

requires more resources, discarded resources become pollution, pollution interferes with

growth of both population and food” (Meadows et al., 1972, p.89).

The 1972 book presented 12 possible scenarios for the future, from one keeping the present

trends to different variations including optimistic views in technology improvement or

increase on Earth limited resources. Most of the scenarios ended in a final collapse due to

famine, industrial depletion, excessive pollution...These results have been revised over the

years by the same group, first in 1994 and the latest 2004, including new technology

developments and the new stocks in non-renewable resources, the results are as valid now

as before, with the only one difference, the urge for change is much greater now.

Let us look at the Limits to growth, the 30-year update. At the first scenario society is

proceeding without any major change as long as possible but finally collapse occurs

because of scarcity of non-renewable resources. Industrial capital grows to levels where the

amount of resources needed requires an enormous effort so part of the capital is diverted to

obtain more resources weakening industrial investment thus industry declines followed by

10

the agricultural sector. Population reaches a peak around 2030 and decreases due to lack of

food and health services.

At a second scenario earth resources are doubled and advances in technology reduces the

extraction cost. The result is a delay of 20 years for the collapse. Pollution rises, land

production declines, huge investments in agricultural recovery are needed; finally

population falls because of food shortage and health problems due to high levels of

pollution.

Fig. 4. Scenario 2, 2004: More Abundant Non-renewable

Resources.

“This table postulates that advances in resource extraction

technologies are capable of postponing the onset of

increasing extraction costs. Industry can grow 20 years

longer. Population peaks at 8 billion in 2040, at much higher

consumption levels. But pollution levels soar (outside the

graph!), depressing land yields and requiring huge

investments in agricultural recovery. The population finally

declines because of food shortages and negative health effects

from pollution.” (Meadows et al., 2004, p.15)

Other scenarios address pollution and food shortage through technology but the collapse

overcomes around 2070 due to the increasing capital needed to support these technologies

and the extraction of resources, the demand is higher than what economy can provide. On

the assumption that technologies become cheaper mankind can reach a stable population,

living in a “high-tech” society with a high level of welfare, but by the end of the 21st

century the cost of maintaining technologies, social services and investment becomes too

expensive.

In scenario 9 world seeks a stable population and industrial output, technologies and

policies are implemented in 2002 to prevent pollution, conserve resources and agricultural

land. The result is a sustainable society. In this scenario population and capital are the only

quantities that need to be constant. Any other human activity that does not require a large

11

amount of non-renewable resources or generate environmental impact can grow

indefinitely. A higher productivity can be translated into welfare, more education or

environmental research, if these targets replace growth as the primary value of today’s

society. This means qualitative development not quantitative.

Fig. 5. Scenario 9, 2004: World Seeks Stable Population and

Stable Industrial Output per Person, and Adds Pollution,

Resource, and Agricultural technologies from 2002.

“In this scenario population and industrial output are limited,

and in addition technologies are added to abate pollution,

conserve resources, increase land yield, and protect

agricultural land. The resulting society is sustainable: Nearly

8 billion people live with high human welfare and a

continuously declining ecological footprint.” (Meadows et

al., 2004, p.20)

If we look at all these scenarios (further explanation of the 1972 scenarios is given in

appendix A) the common thing is that they pretend to perpetuate the manner society

understands growth which is through the accumulation of goods. This goes deep into the

basis of the modern concept of welfare, and requires a profound change of human values.

Furthermore a sustainable society does not mean an equitable one. As Donella H. Meadow

et al. cite (1972, p.179) “...The stationery state [sustainable development] would make

fewer demands on our environmental resources, but much greater demands on our moral

resources.” (Dr. Daly, 1971, pp.236-37).

The ideas presented in the books have been object of a lot of criticism from different

authors. One of the main criticisms is that the models consider growth of population and

industrial capital exponential while the improvement in technologies and efficiency grows

linearly. The only attempt the authors do is to double the resources on Earth. From the first

publication indeed the non-renewable resources have increased but not enough for the

demand; hence their assumptions are still correct.

12

Other criticism comes from the lack of data and the validity of the one used in 1972, but

the subsequent updates have implemented this data with new findings in resources,

environmental pollution, recycling technologies and the results are still the same.

Dr Graham Turner, from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research

Organisation, published a paper titled “A comparison of the limits to growth with thirty

years of reality”, where he compares recently collated and public data from 1970 to 2000

with the resulting scenarios of the limits to growth; the conclusion as he explains “...shows

that 30 years of historical data compares favourably with key features of a business-as-

usual scenario..., which results in collapse of the global system midway through the 21st

Century. The data does not compare well with other scenarios involving comprehensive

use of technology or stabilizing behaviour and policies. The results indicate the particular

importance of understanding and controlling global pollution.” (Graham Turner, 2008).

On the other hand new techniques to assess the human impact on Earth have been

developed by different groups and organizations. One of these is the ecological footprint

developed by Mathis Wackernagel and William E. Rees in 1994. The ecological footprint

is an index that compares the human demand with Earth’s ecological capacity to

regenerate. The data from 2007 shows that our ecological footprint is 2.7 hectares and the

Biocapacity is 1.8 hectares. There is a deficit of 0.9 hectares (ecological footprint 2007

results in appendix B). The conclusion is the same, we are overshooting Earth’s capacity.

In my opinion as said by the authors of the limits to growth, we have to consider that this is

a tool to understand the trends and behaviour of the world, it does not intend to make

predictions, so we do not have to miss the important message here. What direction does

mankind want to take?

MANIFESTO

In the present world signals of earth overshooting are appearing everywhere: climate

changes, water scarcity, polar glaciers are retreating, the ozone hole, ocean fisheries are

exploited over their capacity… These are just symptoms of human activities adding

pressure on environment. We are very naive thinking that a few changes in our life style,

such as recycling waste at home, improve the insulation or use the bike, are going to

13

change the world’s course. This, is simply not going to happen! The change many experts

in different fields of knowledge are proposing shakes the foundations of our system. This

means to change moral values and the way we conceive the growth, this means to reject

our consumer society. A lot of money and power is involved in this economic and political

game, many interests are implicated, which make a profound change harder. Modifying

this trend needs more than individual actions, which also make a contribution, but it

requires the imprint of a bigger group.

Architects are an important collective in the global world. We can make a difference! We

are in the very centre of the building design and construction as coordinators of different

professions and aims. We are connected through a profession that seeks human welfare and

advance. We share codes of conduct and similar aspirations and values. We have a

common language, but unlike other disciplines this language is materialized on a physical

discourse, the built environment. We design this built environment which is a carrier of

meaning. But what message are we sending? We are also gifted with a talent, creativity, an

ability to connect ideas, set up new relations, and go beyond the conventions. We are on a

privileged position to promote change. This implies to change architecture and ourselves,

our values as citizen. We can speak of a sustainable architect.

Since buildings consume around 50% of earth non-renewable resources (Edwards, 2001,

p.ix), architects can make a vast contribution towards this change. Architects have a double

responsibility and challenge, on one hand direct architecture as a devourer of resources and

on the other hand architects as individuals, we have the responsibility of devising this

change in human values which their buildings should reflect.

When we design we trust blindly in our resources, that sort of design and technical

guidelines we have in the back of our mind. These personal guidelines come from a set of

values (aesthetics, functionality…) and they are intertwined with our moral values

(integrity, fairness, sensitivity…). Our values are reflected in our designs, the design is the

result of our decisions, good or bad, and the decisions are taken according to our values. It

is inevitable that a change on values will result in change of architecture. This change is a

challenge our generation cannot postpone or avoid.

14

Fig. 6. Sunset in the Global City. Planet Earth.

... for many years the population of the global city trusted in technology. Everything was solved with

technology. Thanks to architecture the global city was able to spread its foundations throughout the

Earth eliminating all arable land on the planet. Huge towers of hydroponic crops sustained the global

population. Renewable energies supplied humanity when all fossil fuels were gone. Vertical gardens

refreshed the polluted air of the planet. The lack of biodiversity was a price worth paying in order to

reach higher aspirations for humankind. During years the global population relied on technology to build

up the global city. We were able to keep growing and generating welfare. Finally humankind had

reached a state of global welfare where...

15

Chapter TWO: Three aspects of sustainable architecture. There are many design guides trying to set guidelines to achieve sustainable architecture

but most of them do not consider social and cultural contexts surrounding a sustainable

design, therefore they lose their validity to capture the whole picture. Many of them only

asses a finished design, they do not offer a guide during the design process when decisions

to achieve a sustainable design are to be taken. An example can be the BREEAM (Building

Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method) which focuses mainly on

energy efficiency, thus you can attain a technologically very efficient building but not

sustainable. This reinforces the idea that a truly sustainable building has to consider a

broader context.

Different authors and professionals identify three aspects in sustainable architecture in an

attempt to consider this broader context. These three aspects cover and answer different

issues. Each author refers to these aspects with different names but the underlying idea is

the same:

Ecological – Social – Built Contexts

(Fox, 2000, p. 225)

Place – People – Stuff

architect Paul Pholeros. (Williamson et al., 2003, p. 128)

16

I will use the terms Environment – Sociocultural – Building aspects which I think better

reflect the purpose of the dissertation, and best condense the questions our values have to

work on. The values that respond to a sustainable architecture.

I would define these three aspects as the cornerstone of sustainable architecture, which

should answer the physical, social and environmental needs of stakeholders involved.

These three aspects are interrelated and they feed from each other.

As Fawcett (1998, cited by Williamson et al., 2003) pointed out the current thought or

question about sustainability is “what does sustainability mean for architecture?”, but

maybe we should ask “what does architecture mean for sustainability?” The first question

positions architecture on the forefront and sustainability as a tool for architecture. Under

the second assumption sustainability is an overarching term that reformulates other

disciplines such as architecture. The differentiation is a thin line, very subtle, but it makes a

huge difference. How can architecture contribute to sustainability? We can do it working

from a different perspective, giving a different value to the three aspects previously

mentioned. Having a different approach to them. Reworking our values.

ENVIRONMENT

Different currents of human thinking, philosophy and moral have had Man as centre of

their theories or proposals, considering men and women as independent individuals

separate from the natural world. New discoveries in physics and ecology do not support

this point of view. We belong to an interconnected world where there is not supremacy of

Man over Nature. The same value has human and natural, the only difference is man is

able to discern a moral responsibility to allow other species to live (Williamson et al.,

2003). Architecture always has established a limit between nature and building, keeping a

reasonable distance. This way of building has resulted on a fracture with the environment.

The only way to fit together human needs and our responsibility to Earth is designing with

nature. Our buildings should expose nature to people not to keep a distance from it. We are

taking our first steps, and as time passes by and new technologies emerge this relation will

be closer.

17

Environment is the surrounding context of the architectural act. Architecture has to work

with the environment, not against it, and the way of doing it is letting the environment

inform our designs as Ian McHarg states “if one accepts the simple proposition that nature

is the arena of life and a modicum of knowledge of her processes is indispensable for

survival and rather more for existence, health and delight, it is amazing how many

apparently difficult problems present a ready solution” (1969, p.7). In the same direction

Sim Van Der Ryn and Stuart Cowan gave a definition of “ecological design” as “any form

of design that minimizes environmentally destructive impacts by integrating itself with

living processes” (Van Der Ryn et al., 1996, p.x).

Ken Yeang’s work is an expression of Ian McHarg, Van der Ryn and Cowan’s words, his

skyscrapers ventilation is inspired by the termites and ant nests. “Termites design

skyscrapers. The first thing you start to note is that termites are actually better engineers

than we are. They can do buildings several thousand times their own height, whereas we

can build skyscrapers maybe three hundred times our own height. But the other thing you

should note is that there are skyscrapers built by termites in different climatic zones.

Termites and ants already know to do bioclimatic skyscrapers.” (Yeang, 1998, p.110)

Many practices of the world have seen in this an endless resource of inspiration, and the

buildings have been a success.

The environment not only has to inform technical solutions or shapes. The resources

available in the environment should enlighten the material selection as Brian Edward

advices. Three factors influence the decision: future availability, embodied energy and

waste. Future availability relates to the exiting stock on earth of a given material in two

directions, firstly we are not depleting earth of this resource, and secondly our building and

future generations will be able to continue using the material. There is a long-term

availability of natural materials, stone, sand, lime, woods… and they can be found locally.

Usually these materials are heavy and require a light manufacturing process. The

environmental impact of these materials is generated by the means of transport, due to the

energy employed to carry these heavy materials. This leads us to the embodied energy.

Natural materials are abundant, with very low embodied energy in production but very

high in transportation. On the contrary, manufactured materials, aluminium, steel, PV

panels are lighter but the embodied energy is greater in the manufacture process than in

transport. This suggests that a good practice would be processing heavyweight materials

18

locally, so the energy involved in transportation is reduced, and high-tech lightweight

materials globally. The third factor is waste. Buildings are a stock of embodied energy that

can be reused, recycled or returned to the environment. What is going to happen to the

materials is a concern we cannot leave to the next generation. (Edwards, 2001)

Design with the environment requires a long term view. Now we know that climate change

and sea level rise, is more than probable in a near future, this means that any building

which has not been designed to overcome these changes will fail. Some of the future

changes cannot be predicted but if we give our designs the possibility of adaptation their

chances to survive and extend their life-expectancy will be greater. As Charles Darwin

concluded not the most intelligent, not the strongest species survive but the most adaptable

to change. This is a key element of a sustainable design. Sustainable architecture not only

responds to today’s environment, responds to tomorrow’s environment.

SOCIOCULTURAL

Since the very moment humans started to build shelters they were responding to their

needs according to social and cultural requirements. Architecture has ever since served

societies and civilizations to create spaces where their cultural identity has been reflected.

Users have changed over time consequently uses and demands and new buildings have

replaced old ones to reflect new expectations. People interact with buildings and their

expectations and interactions will vary depending on place, therefore we have to work with

the possibilities and limitations of the place with all his social and cultural implications.

The pattern of life creates the building, and becomes a crucial element of a sustainable

building.

The significance is that buildings reflect social and cultural matters. We can take as

example the blinds in a window from a thin curtain in British houses to a lattice work in

India.

Each of these windows displays a palette of resources, they are an interpretation of a world.

They contain the richness of cultural and social values. This exquisite differentiation has

been happening over centuries but lately a global architecture has been replacing this kind

of uniqueness by systems empty of sense of place. Sustainable architecture has to rework

19

Fig. 7. Greece (Santorini), China (Shanghai), India (Jaisalmer), Spain (Cordoba).

traditional methods, be inspired by vernacular architecture; it has to avoid reproduction or

imitation. It has to reinterpret and revise local architecture so new generations can feel

identified with the place which is sustaining them. Sustainability has to keep this

reciprocity. Sustainable architecture has to maintain and preserve the cultural and social

diversity as it does with biodiversity.

We have discussed that sustainable architecture reflects social and cultural matters and

addresses issues. We have noted how in developed countries sustainable architecture

addresses problems such as air pollution through energy saving features; and how in

developing countries addresses water pollution through water management. In this case the

sustainable features of architecture are just a reflection of global problems. This has to be

brought to local terms too; we can take as an example the small town of Tortuguero (can be

translated as Land of Turtles) in Costa Rica. Tortuguero is a coastal community which has

been exploiting the natural resources of ocean and rainforest for decades, and exporting

goods to the rest of Costa Rica. Two of the main products were turtles (meat, shell, eggs

and bones) and tropical woods. Local and market demands of these products reached a

20

point where the depletion of both, turtle and habitat, were on the edge of collapse.

Architecture for all this time was oriented to support these requirements. Around the 60’s a

concern about turtles survival attracted scientists and later on, tourists. In a few years

turtles through tourism were a source of income, instead a source of food. Community,

scientists and government worked together to reinvent Tortuguero as a place for tourism.

The local architecture that served once to exploit resources was transformed into small

guest houses or little restaurants..., keeping the uniqueness which makes Tortuguero the

place it is, different to any other place, with an architecture that reflected the new

challenges Tortuguero was facing, without forfeiting their social and cultural identity.

Fig. 8. Aerial view of Tortuguero.

No design guide can secure you rules to face local challenges, only a profound appreciation

of the local, social and cultural, context can provide specific solutions sustainable in time.

It is the only way a building engages with society. We have to guarantee the continuity of

the culture reflected on the buildings.

The example of Tortuguero shows us how the collaboration of a community can contribute

to generate sustainable architecture. We have to let the user take part of the design process

and the decision making. Users become pseudo architects, in the sense they control and

21

redesign the present and the future building. Ideally a building which can vary its

configuration to accommodate different programmes and uses in time would be perfect, but

as in present days that is not possible, close communication with the user and an insight to

future users, is essential to achieve the best possible organization of the building with

social and cultural appropriateness. In a near future, technology will enable user to modify

spaces with a simple touch. Users will become architects of their space. The architect

Bryan Boyer has made some incursion in this field with his project BalnaeNY. He

proposed neoprene membrane surfaces with electroactive polymers (EAP). These polymers

are a smart material able to change their shape under electric stimulation. Electromagnetic

inputs from mobiles, people, vehicles were converted into movement through sensitive

kinetic surfaces. Deformable floors and walls made of neoprene were capable of changing

its form to suit the user’s needs (Ritter, 2007). The scheme was receptive only to short-

term demands but the potential use for long-term circumstances would allow a building to

be updated day by day.

Fig. 9. Bryan Boyer BalnaeNY.

Perspective view from above the

swimming pool with the

emerging and submerging

neoprene membrane. Scenario of

deforming sauna walls projecting

into street space. Section through

swimming pool with neoprene

membrane. View into interior of

cave. Unwinding shower

enclosures.

22

From this conversation we can conclude that buildings should tell a story to their users, a

story about where they come from and which are their aspirations. This story can only be

understandable to the community if the same language is spoken. An involvement of the

local people in the design process is the only way building and users can understand each

other. Equally important is the adaptability of space to sociocultural changes, as much

adaptable greater are the chances to keep the building vibrant without major

transformations.

BUILDING

The Building aspect brings together the technologies in the building, its life expectancy

and the recycling possibilities. All of them are very much influenced by the first two

aspects, environment and sociocultural context. The question is if we can provide the

means so that a building can grow, change, develop, die and be recycled in constant

relation with the environment and the sociocultural context which it serves.

In the task of answering Brian Edwards gives us a clue. He thinks a building is likely to be

reused if:

It makes good use of natural light and ventilation

Is well served by infrastructure of various kinds (public transport, utilities…)

Does not contain toxic materials

Is well constructed, preferably using natural materials

Has attractive spaces and character

Is culturally valued

Has access to renewable energy resources.

(Edwards, 2001, p.146)

To these bullet points I would add adaptation. As I have discussed in previous paragraphs

all the characteristics Brian Edwards is setting out can be held by a building, but if it is not

fit for new demands the chances to be reused are little. In the quest of the adaptability of a

23

building the perfectible façade is a new approach. Developed by Technal, from an original

idea of architects Ignacio Paricio and Carlos Ferrater, the proposal is to set out a light

substructure able to support different façade elements from windows to cladding or

shading systems. The final result is a façade of superimposed layers that can be added or

removed any time, hence perfectible. This kind of façade can increase the life expectancy

of a building as it can incorporate new technologies and advances into the building without

any structural change and with a minimum use of energy and resources.

Fig. 10. Building structure. Façade structural subframes.

Fig.11. Windows and insulation. Natural stone cladding.

This kind of approach should be generalized in design. We usually design and build for the

present, and as soon as the project is done we move on to the next scheme. The

conversation we are having here completely refuses this method of work. On the contrary it

demands us to design with the future in mind, it requires to leave latent in the building the

24

capacity of change. How can we do this? We can estimate the life expectancy of different

parts of the building looking at statistics or at least estimate a minimum period of life. Our

decisions should ensure that every part of the building will fulfil its mission for that

estimated period of time, and will support the rest of parts which have a shorter life span.

This method also helps to select each material and decide how they can be reused or

recycled, to complete a full life cycle of the building. We fit the building with some sort of

inbuilt ecological cycle.

To illustrate this idea we can look at the Japanese architecture firm Manabu + Nez/Loco

Architects. They have proven in a very small scale project, in the suburbs of Tokyo, this is

possible. The firm proposed an open house made of rammed earth bearing walls dug out

from the same site. The floor slab was made with steel plates welded on site. During the

design process they had in mind the whole life cycle and provided the building with an

inbuilt ecological cycle. At the end of its life cycle the steel plates were removed to reuse

and the house was left to erode and be reclaimed by the surrounding vegetation (Rael,

2009).

25

26

Fig. 12. House in Tokyo.

It is clear that the variables in this project were narrower than, a real life scheme, and the

future of the building was known as well as its life span, but we can still extract

conclusions. We can give buildings the latent possibility of change, re-use and self-

destruction. We can give buildings the exquisiteness of being part of living processes, the

connection between man and nature is tangible, there is a beauty that goes beyond the

aesthetics and pursues to achieve harmony. The best is, that, architects did it reworking a

traditional material in Japan as is the “rammed earth”, reinforcing the local identity. In my

opinion this kind of thinking has to enlighten sustainable architecture.

As by the example given and as previously discussed buildings have to promote

biodiversity as a way of connecting design with nature. Brian Edwards suggests three ways

in which architecture can influence:

Design natural habitats as part of the development process, ponds, green roofs,

grasslands... all left wild.

Source construction materials from an ecological point of view, helping to

maintain local and regional biodiversity.

Bring nature into closer contact with people’s lives.

(Edwards, 2001, p.21)

Working on this theory, on the process of writing this dissertation I tried to establish a

rational balance, using a ratio, between built and green spaces on a building, relating these

to the minimum volume needed per person. Let us give an example, suppose the space

required by a person is 1x1x3m=3m3. From this volume a space ratio of 0.7 should be

built and 0.3 greenery. The result is 0.9 m3 used for green spaces and 2.1m3 for built spaces

27

on a building per person. The same idea was applied to natural light and ventilation, but as

much as I analysed the idea as it did not make sense. The perspective I had was our

western environments but when I tried to apply this to Tortuguero, Costa Rica, it simply

did not match that environment. Green spaces are all around, and what needs to be

guaranteed is decent built spaces. A systematized process only leads to universal formulas

that are incompatible with the specificity that sustainable architecture requires. The same

happened if we tried to apply similar methods of natural light and ventilation to a

community in the Sahara desert.

This discourse leads us to establish a new relation of building with the environment, the

relation between interior and exterior is changing. As architect Gilles Perraudin advocates

rigid limits should be broken and transitional spaces should replace, like sheltering

envelopes, the building boundaries (Perraudin, 1998). Present technology allows this but in

a very controlled mode. Computer controlled systems which opens or closes windows and

louvers are complicated and alienate the user from the exterior. Sustainable architecture

demands smarter techniques with fewer resources involved. Embedded responsiveness and

mutability are the words used by Michael Hensel (2008) to describe the research project of

Steffen Reichert, such description refers to a sensitive wall but can be perfectly used to

describe sustainable architecture. Steffen Reichert has conducted a study of the response of

given materials to changes in environment and how this can be applied to design. The

result was a full-scale model of a responsive surface structure of veneer composite

components with the capacity to adapt surface porosity in response to changes in relative

humidity. As a pine cone does, when humidity levels raise granting favourable conditions,

it opens to release the seeds. This skin reacts similarly in environmental humid conditions

allowing the skin to breath, opening the building ventilation.

28

Fig. 13. Responsive surface.

29

If we imagine the examples given all together in a single building we can begin to look at

sustainable buildings almost resembling life forms, with water running through arteries to

water plants, facade skins breathing in close contact with the environment, facades and

walls able to grow and change to incorporate new demands. Organic and inorganic

balance. But we have to be realistic, at the moment it is impossible to do architecture

without environmental impact. This does not mean it cannot be sustainable. We have to

bear in mind that each decision we make has a ramification of consequences with its

impacts. What we can do is use a thoughtful process to minimize and reduce those impacts.

We have to look further for each decision we make. All three aspects, Environmental-

Sociocultural-Building, should give a reasoned response.

As we have seen technology can make a great contribution to achieve sustainable

buildings, but also can alienate us from the environment. We have to make building

technology visible to re-established the connection with nature, “The [present] designed

environment does not reveal to us how technology supports us and how in turn it is

interconnected with the natural world” (Van der Ryn et al., 1996, p.161). This does not

mean we have to place the change of architecture on technology, on buildings. The

technology depends on who is using it, on its own does not produce changes only reflects

objectives, aspirations and values. Sustainable architecture cannot change the way we think

but can create the context to favor the dialogue and deliberation about sustainability and

favor a change in society values. Our buildings are a carrier of a message. They have

meaning. A meaning that society interprets, understands and makes its own.

Now, the questions are: Who writes this message? Architects?

30

Fig. 14. We were astonished by our achievements.

For more than a century we lived our “belle époque”. Past times of injustice or famine weren’t known by

the present global population. A feeling of endless prosperity invaded humanity. We had high hopes for

our future. We were astonished by our achievements. We were already surfing beyond the limits of the

milky way galaxy. We were amazed by the universe. Suddenly, in the middle of this frenzy, signals of

technology shortcomings started to be evident. The solar energy was not enough for the demand,

population had reached a level in which our technology was not sufficient. Pollution was rapidly

becoming a problem...

31

Chapter THREE: Sustainable architects. We have seen that sustainable architecture is more than reducing the environmental impact

of our buildings. The proposals presented are just the surface of a change, the real change

has to come from the architects, we should re-evaluate our values in order to have a

different approach to the three aspects discussed, and change the way we perceive

architecture. As discussed in the previous chapter the community around a sustainable

development is a very important part of sustainable architecture, therefore how we deal

with society has to be revised, but we cannot forget that the way we relate with society is

forged at the school. Have we ever in any of our designs taken into account any ethical

dilemma? They simply do not exist, we do not even discuss them at the interim reviews.

The re-evaluation of the way we do architecture has to come in several directions:

education, our relation with society and from ourselves.

EDUCATION

In 1997 three hundred and fifty architects in Australia were asked to name the “important

factors that define a good design” only 30 per cent of responses included issues concerned

with environmental impact (Wittmann, 1997). When the same architects were asked about

the sustainable features they included in their last five designs a very narrow notion of the

issue was obvious. The most frequently features were orientation, shading, insulation and

natural ventilation. The answers indicated the very short view they had about sustainable

32

architecture. Has this changed in thirteen years? I do not think much has changed. The

concern is higher, but the knowledge we have has not followed it. “Air is stupid (it can’t

follow arrows)” (Were, 1989). This sentence summarizes very well, referring to

environmental section drawings, how we deal with environment at the schools of

architecture. We think we can apply the basic knowledge we have about environment

everywhere. We are convinced about the perfect functioning of our environmental strategy.

Utilize an ancient wind catcher on a new design does not mean the effectiveness developed

after hundreds of years is going to be transferred to the new building. Architects should

practice humility in this sense.

When we are asked to design a building in China, we apply the same environmental ideas

and preconceptions we use in Europe, and probably the same that the above architects used

thirteen years ago. The profession enables us to design globally but sustainable architecture

obliges us to design locally. If we reduce our ability to add some sustainable features, our

capacity of response is very limited, if is not useless.

This type of thinking, of design, of sustainable architecture places the responsibility in the

buildings not in society or us, architects. We tend to believe that adding some features to

the building we have accomplished our environmental responsibility. The ignorance of

what is a really sustainable design releases us of any dilemma regarding the issues

discussed in previous chapters. Ignorance makes us happy. We have to invert this, “an

emphasized human responsibility is an essential element of designing a green society”

(Marko, 2005). My perception as Ian McHarg’s (1998) is that we should study the

environment (hydrology, geology, climatology, ecology, sociology…) as a module at the

school if we want to understand and work within it, and comprehend what is behind solar

shading, ventilation and energy efficiency.

ARCHITECTS AND SOCIETY

We talk about sustainable architecture, sustainable development, energy efficiency...but we

hardly ever mention who designs architecture, architects. This fact is a manifestation upon

who we put the responsibility. Our own life is driven by those principles that modern

welfare promotes, the same principles which are destroying the planet. We want a better

salary, to have a better salary we want to build more and design more; then we desire

33

higher budgets for our designs and expand our studio. We enter in a circle where the only

thing that prevails is to have more quantity. A circle in which we are not able to stop to re-

evaluate what we do. It is this circle itself that does not allow us to see beyond. This circle

is the consumer society. It is after we see the global picture that we realize we cannot

forever have more. How to control this? Who talks about sustainable architects? Design

thinking requires a commitment from the architect; it is easier to design a correct standard

building and get paid. It is easy money. Here resides the ethical commitment of each

architect.

Christopher Alexander, in his Manifesto 1991, advocates for a new type of architect with

enhanced duties:

No matter how big the building is, the architect does some craft work on every

building, with his or her own hands.

The architect controls the flow of money completely: both its distribution at the

outset, and the ongoing flow throughout the process.

The architect assumes legal responsibility for the actual construction.

The architect is leader and artist, but without pride. He or she retains the right to

refuse user requests, not based on the architect’s ego, but in cases where his (her)

grasp of the problem is demonstrably greater...

The architect is committed to make buildings that are deeply and genuinely liked.

The architect... refuses to produce artificial or mechanical repetition...

The architect is committed to daily work and experimentation with techniques,

forming, fabrication, and construction...

The architect will recognize that the life of construction workers, and their spiritual

evolution, is as important as that of architects...

The architect acknowledges that all building is essentially a religious process...

(Alexander, 1991, p. 112)

34

Are we willing to reach this level of commitment? Is it ethical to attain this level of power

over society? Is sustainable architecture demanding this sort of architect? Christopher

Alexander is attributing architects some sort of superior reasoning, we might like to have it

but it is not the case. As we are part of society we cannot pretend to change it if we do not

look to ourselves in first instance. Individuals can change society and themselves, society

can change individuals but not itself. Each architect has to take a deep look at the values he

or she is pursuing. Then we can have an honest dialogue with society, this is, as I see, the

way to engage society with a common objective, and the way a sustainable building can

arise. Alexander reveals an important issue that scares us, which is the personal

commitment an architect has to have with his own work. Le Corbusier, Gropius, Wright,

Mies and others had this commitment, they wanted to improve the built environment and

benefit the mankind. Current architects endorse this with the same deep conviction? I think

something is missing and we are trying to figure out what is.

Current popular architecture is guided by forms (more related with art) they do not imply

any sort of dilemma, where as social, functional, environmental issues require discernment.

Somewhere along the line, we missed these great ambitions. Now the public expects

stunning buildings and it is something we have provoked emptying the building of

substance and giving supremacy to forms. We have forgotten that the “architect is hired to

take on the ethical dilemmas of building” (Spector, 2001, p.5). Society relies on our ethical

professionalism. We have to protect society from the devastating effects of bad

architecture. This has not to be seen as paternalism. If you know of something that

endangers others, it is your duty to say so, to protect them. It is almost an instinct. In the

same direction architects have to protect society from the perils he is aware of. Maybe

every architect should ask himself who is he serving, himself or society? Sustainable

architecture sets out a problem to the architect, which is to reconcile personal values with

societal values (Spector, 2001), an uncomfortable position, a terrible dilemma, this is the

price to pay for somehow leading the future of architecture.

If architects did not intervene in developing a change, what would happen? Would

capitalism be able to sort out the dilemma? Some theorists mainly in USA suggest the idea

of “Natural Capital” (Edwards, 2001, p.52) as a new factor in economy to invest and trade,

this capital would be attached to the industrial or financial capital, as part of the benefits to

balance in an investment. But how this natural capital can protect indigenous groups in the

35

rainforest? Markets self regulate but they do not differentiate between good and bad, not

discern moral dilemmas. We do!

As William J. Mitchell (1998, p.7) suggests our approach to sustainability is not radical

enough. He advocates that we should not accept unsustainable work; but I do not think we

can proceed in this line. Society, who ultimately has to embrace a change, would not

understand this rhetoric. Neither it would have sense as we are imposing conditions instead

reworking the conditions in which sustainable development has to be built.

The ultimate question is, how each of us can do it? Tom Spector sees in Aristotle words a

clue. “Aristotle entreats us to develop the “excellences of character” that will enable us to

act from the best self that we can be or can imagine ourselves to be” (Spector, 2001,

p.192). This would mean to act in response to our strengths and weaknesses. The result

would be many different solutions to same dilemmas. This should be cause of celebration

as diversity in architecture is promoted, which in the end relates to the social and cultural

diversity sustainable architecture encourages.

ARCHITECTS AND ME

Sustainable architecture demands new forms of expression and each architect has to find

his or her own language, there are no rules. With this dissertation I am creating my own

reference to guide my decision-making to generate sustainable architecture. We have to

assume that sustainability is a means to design not something that can be justified or added

afterwards.

I began this dissertation thinking it would be possible to find a set of universal rules to

create sustainable architecture, but guidelines or formulas cannot reflect all the complexity

of design. After this process I have learnt there are no codes or assessments that guarantee

sustainable design, the only way is learning from our own and other experiences and

experiments, through a thoughtful process considering every aspect of a building. We have

to persuade clients to try new ways of building, experiment with technologies. We have to

feed back from our designs, come back and see how they are working, learn how they have

developed. Warwick Fox (2000) describes this process as the “principle of responsive

cohesion”. “The principle of responsive cohesion points the way to a built environment

36

that both coheres with living systems and is enlivening to the human spirit.” (2000, p.221)

or as Terry Williamson et al. describe it: perform a “Beautiful act” (2003, p.60).

As I cannot detached myself from the society I live in and I am subjected to some of the

capitalism demands in result, it is difficult not to be taken along by the flow. How to

combine these values, “beautiful acts” in everyday practice, with earning money is

something that I still have to figure out.

I believe in us. What other hope do we have?

37

Conclusion. Today sustainable architecture, as some architects are pretending with their green

buildings, is not a style per se. This green architecture or green buildings are just a clean-

up of the consumer society, a “greenwash” (Woolley, T., 2000, p.44) which is not really

making any change in values. A practice can be the greenest but not implement sustainable

ideals. These types of buildings do not go beyond themselves, they are not inspiring,

neither for architects or people.

In opposition to this is the sustainable movement which would be a reflection of

“Postmodernism”; the ideas of the “modern movement” and the “international style” are

not valid any more. Probably we are in a process of overcoming “Postmodernism”, as a

rejection and criticism to the modern movement. Sustainable architecture does not

establish a doctrine regarding to forms, or rules like form follows function. Neither is it a

rejection of the “modern movement”. The building feeds on the cultural and natural

characteristics of the place, not by rules dictated by a predominant style or fashion.

Sustainable architecture is something in between that accepts different narratives and meets

common values. The fact that there is no clear style which “have assembled a coherent

vocabulary of techniques, forms, and conventions so unique to be recognizable as a new

style, and robust enough to encourage others to work within it” makes harder for architects

to solve dilemmas following a set of values. This is, we do not have “new ways of seeing,

new means of expression, new ways of coping the world and new ways of reinventing

38

community by creating new dialogue” (Spector, 2001. p.198-199); and precisely this is one

of the problems sustainable architecture is able to address, devise an unparalleled

architecture.

The buildings of postmodern architects as Santiago Calatrava or Frank Gehry do not reflect

the place, are decontextualized. Architecture like Zaha Hadid’s, Gehry’s or Calatrava’s,

have diverted the attention towards an architecture of masses where what is important is

the individual creative freedom. They have suggested that what matters is the form. As I

see it, form or green features are personal approaches to the way each architect expresses

himself/herself, but architecture has not to be seen only as something sculptural or green

but as a knowledge transmitter with inspirational qualities. These practices are sending the

same message, competition, to impose your vision over the rest, instead of striking up a

dialogue between parties to reach the best solution. They send a message to society and

other architects that ”you have to work on your own to succeed and become the only

connoisseur as to what direction architecture is taking”. Architecture becomes a product

image of consumer society.

Sustainable architecture, in my opinion, balances Setting/Function/Form in this order, but

best of all, is that on doing so, it creates good architecture and “good architecture creates

context” (Spector, 2001, p.184); entering in a cycle that feeds and perpetuates itself,

thereby sustainable architecture transcends the physical limits of the building, to reach a

process close to the living systems, the inbuilt ecological cycle. The architect is responsible

“for sowing the seed” of this ecological cycle that will enable building to grow, regenerate,

be reused, recycled and create new context.

Designing sustainable buildings requires time to think about the three aspects mentioned.

Higher architect fees for thinking and lower building budgets would reflect sustainable

architecture (Williamson et al., 2003), thus quality would take precedence over quantity. A

sustainable reasoning even can lead to the decision of not to build. It can lead to designing

spaces without materials, architecture without building. This would be a new responsibility

for architects, defining spaces without materials. Can sustainable architecture mean virtual

architecture? Virtual architecture does not consume resources; orientation, light, shading

do not matter. Can a space without physical limits mean that future architects will prefer

virtual architecture rather than real? Is this architecture? Yes, it is a virtual space which is

39

used by individuals to cover their needs, only the basic rules of reality are not applicable.

On the other hand we do not have context. But this is the topic of another dissertation.

As we see a simple reflection from a different point of view, poses new challenges. If

predictions like the “Sahara” desert invading Europe as far as Paris are correct, the idea of

migratory buildings is not crazy, it can be a real solution. We cannot afford to abandon our

buildings leaving behind so many resources to relocate ourselves somewhere else. The

simple idea of organic and inorganic balance, makes us consider plants as a building

material to play with. Can we build a biodegradable building?

Architects have to incorporate the technologies described, discover in depth the meanings

of sustainable architecture. When we throw away a cardboard to the green bin to be

recycled, we take a moral decision, but when we chose a building material we do not

consider such a dilemma. Recognizing the interdependence with nature will make us feel

morally obliged to protect it, which will lead to an architectural revolution. From parasitic

to symbiotic architecture.

Sustainable architecture does not pursue an state, but to achieve a process which is in itself

sustainable. The last aim of sustainable architecture is to disappear. As every building

would be sustainable the adjective will not be needed anymore.

Ten thousand words are just enough to scratch the surface of sustainable architecture, but

we have to keep the most important outcome in mind: a change to a sustainable

architecture is not something society or buildings can do for us. It is a change which each

of us architects is responsible for. “Sustainable development is intellectually more

interesting, professionally more challenging, and socially more demanding than any other

agenda of our age” (Edwards, 2000). We find ourselves in a situation where traditional

models are no longer viable, but alternative forms are not yet developed. “Architecturally

the necessity and opportunity for design and technological innovations has rarely been

greater.” (Scott, 1998, p.1). With this dissertation I do not pretend to give an alternative but

setting the conditions in which the alternative can be found. This is a guide to reveal where

the necessity and opportunity of change is. A guide to question why things are the way

they are? This is not a design guide, it is a guide to think.

40

I thought that at least I would be able to develop a guide for ”decision making”, but as I am

concluding this dissertation I realize that it is somewhat useless. Architecture is something

that is part of me, it is the way I express myself to the world, it is my day to day. It is the

reflection of my values, and only a change in my values will be reflected in the way I see

and make architecture. THIS, is my commitment!

41

Fig. 15. At the dawn of a new planet discovery.

Now, at the dawn of a new planet discovery, we think about our own existence. We are about to

colonize a new world in the outer galaxy. A text found in the universal encyclopedia, written 241 years

ago, has become popular among the global citizens. The global population is not in seek of a new planet

but is in seek of itself:

Matter, of this is cosmos, sun, earth, and life made

Sun, shine that we may live.

Earth - home

Oceans – ancient home

Atmosphere, protect and sustain us

42

Clouds, rain, rivers, and streams, replenish us from the sea

Plants – live and breathe that we may breathe, eat and live

Animals, kin.

Decomposers, reconstitute the wastes of life and death so that life may endure.

Man, seek the path of benign planetary enzyme, aspire to be the world’s physician.

Heal the earth and thyself.

(McHarg, 1969, p.xi)

43

Epilogue

When someone says that he is going to change his values, simply nobody believes it. It

sounds like a political conclusion. As I said in the dissertation we must be honest, and I

have to begin with myself. Saying that I am going to change my values sounds nice in my

dissertation, but it is not a believable conclusion. My change in values has to be something

assessable, applicable and possible. It has to be translated in a way of practising

architecture, it has to be reflected in a method of work and thinking, in a set of principles,

within a personal guide. This guide has to be comprehensible enough to pursue the values

but open to cope with different situations.

Building is no longer a building. It is part of something greater, together with the context

constitutes a single entity, an organism.

This organism is not an object in the present, it is a life time.

As the organism has a life time, it has a life cycle, which I have to uncover and reveal.

I must provide the organism with an inbuilt ecological cycle, which allows growth, self-

adaptation and eventually, death in the form of self-destruction or recycling.

The organism has transitional spaces. Not inside, not outside.

The organism always gives something in return to the place which supports it.

Users also constitute the organism, their history flows alongside the organism. This history

has to be discovered as well, in order to reveal the relationship between today’s and

tomorrow’s organism and people. Users are architects of the building; they know best what

they want.

Vegetation is a building material which gives life to the organism and should be integrated.

Some of the functions the organism supports do not need a building, only a context.

Analyzing which functions can be developed in the organism without building is an

essential task to prevent building unnecessarily.

44

There is a beauty which cannot be seen, it can be felt, goes beyond the object and is

possible to create. It is the symbiosis between building, context and human being which

creates this singular beauty, it is a beauty that connects us back with the Universe.

My ego has no place in the organism. The organism belongs to itself and builds up itself.

I must pursue the above mentioned principles in each design. I must not allow myself to

conform to design a correct acceptable building, everybody deserves more than that.

The ideas presented will be tested and improved within the final thesis design, where the

validity of the dissertation conclusions will be challenged.

45

References

Alexander, C. (1991) Perspectives: Manifesto 1991, Progressive Architecture, July 1991,

pp. 108-112. Cited in: Spector, T. (2001) The ethical architect, the dilemma of

contemporary practice. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.

Dr. Daly, H. E. (1971) Toward a stationary state economy. In: Harted, J. and Socolow, R.,

ed. (1971) The patient earth. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Cited in: Meadows,

D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J. and Behrens III, W. W. (1972) The limits to growth.

1974 edn. London: Pan Books Ltd.

Edwards, B. (2001) Design challenge of Sustainability. Architectural design, Vol 71, No 4,

pp.20-29.

Edwards, B. (2001) Rough guide to sustainability. 3rd edn. London: RIBA Publishing

Edwards, B. (2000) ‘Being inspired’. Building audacity. The Building Centre, London, 10

July. Audacity.org Available at: http://www.audacity.org/Being%20Inspired.htm

(Accessed: 25 October 2010)

Fox, W. (2000) Towards an ethics. In: Fox, W., ed. (2000) Ethics and the built

environment. Ebrary [Online].

Available at: http://site.ebrary.com/lib/uoh/docDetail.action?docID=10053858

Hensel, M. (2008) ‘Material performance’, Architectural design, Vol 78, No 2, pp.34-41.

Marko, M. (2005) From Technologically “Green” Design to Authentically “Green”

Practice: The Search for Architecture Capable of Creating Environmentally Responsible

Minds, Rather Than Just Environmentally Responsible Buildings. PhD thesis. Carleton

University, Ottawa, Canada [Online]. Available at:

http://www.mfm.sk/obrazky/marko_thesis_carleton.pdf (Accessed: 24 November 2010)

McHarg, I. (1998) Fitness, the Evolutionary Imperative. In: Scott, A., ed. (1998)

Dimensions of sustainability. London: E & FN Spon.

McHarg, I. (1969) Design with Nature. 2nd edn. New York: Wiley

46

Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J. and Behrens III, W. W. (1972) The limits to

growth. 1974 edn. London: Pan Books Ltd.

Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L. and Randers, J. (1992) Beyond the limits. 1995 edn.

London: Earthscan Publications Limited.

Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L. and Randers, J. (2004) A synopsis, Limits to growth, the

30-year update. [Online] Available at: http://www.sustainer.org/pubs/limitstogrowth.pdf

(Accessed: 30 October 2010)

Mitchell, W. J. (1998) Dematerialization, demobilization, and adaptation. In: Scott, A., ed.

(1998) Dimensions of sustainability. London: E & FN Spon.

Perraudin, G (1998) The micro climate envelope. In: Scott, A., ed. (1998) Dimensions of

sustainability. London: E & FN Spon.

Rael, R. (2009) Earth architecture. New York : Enfield : Princeton Architectural.

Ritter, A. (2007) Smart materials in architecture, interior architecture and design. Basel:

Birkhauser.

Scott, A. (1998) Introduction: A time for change and innovation. In: Scott, A., ed. (1998)

Dimensions of sustainability. London: E & FN Spon

Spector, T. (2001) The ethical architect, the dilemma of contemporary practice. New York:

Princeton Architectural Press.

Turner, G. (2008) A comparison of the limits to growth with thirty years of reality. Socio-

economics and the environment in discussion. CSIRO working paper series 2008-2009.

Canberra. [Online] Available at: http://www.csiro.au/files/files/plje.pdf (Accessed: 1

November 2010)

Van Der Ryn, S. and Cowan, S. (1996) Ecological design. Washington: Island Press. .

Vargish, T. (1980) Why the person sitting next to you hates Limits to Growth,

Technological forecasting and social change, 16, pp.179-189. Cited in: Meadows, D. H.,

Meadows, D. L. and Randers, J. (1992) Beyond the limits. 1995 edn. London: Earthscan

Publications Limited.

47

Williamson, T., Radford, A. and Bennetts, H. (2003) Understanding sustainable

architecture. London: Spon Press.

Wittmann, S. (1997) Architect’s perceptions regarding barriers to sustainable architecture,

unpublihsed PhD dissertation. Sydney: The university of New South Wales. Cited in:

Williamson, T., Radford, A. and Bennetts, H. (2003) Understanding sustainable

architecture. London: Spon Press.

Were, J. (1989) Air is stupid (It can’t follow arrows), unpublished paper presented at the

ANZSES Building Group Conference, Hobart. Cited in: Williamson, T., Radford, A. and

Bennetts, H. (2003) Understanding sustainable architecture. London: Spon Press.

Woolley, T. (2000) GREEN BUILDING Establishing principles. In: Fox, W., ed. (2000)

Ethics and the built environment. Ebrary [Online]. Available at:

http://site.ebrary.com/lib/uoh/docDetail.action?docID=10053858 (Accessed: 27 October

2010)

Yeang, K (1998) The skyscraper, bioclimatically considered. In: Scott, A., ed. (1998)

Dimensions of sustainability. London: E & FN Spon.

48

Bibliography

“Mr. Lava lava” (2010) Conversation at La Fortuna, Costa Rica, 30 September.

Meadows, D. (2007) Interview to Dennis Meadows. Global Public Media [Podcast]. 23

March. Available at:

http://media.globalpublicmedia.com/RM/2004/10/Meadows.FSN.20041009.mp3

Montoya-Greenheck, F., Salas, U. and Carvajal, K. (no date) Descripcion de la cultura del

agua en Costa Rica: Pueblo Bribri (Spanish). UNESCO [Online] Available at:

http://www.unesco.org.uy/phi/aguaycultura/fileadmin/phi/foro2008/Costa_Rica/Pueblo_Br

i-bri.pdf

MVRDV. Maas, Winy, and J. van Rijs and R. Koek, eds. (2006) FARMAX: Excursions on

Density. Rotterdam: 010 Publisher.

Solis Umaña, E. and Porras Salazar, J. A. (2010) Conversation at School of Architecture,

Universidad de Costa Rica, San Jose, 10 October.

Turner, G. (2008) Examining the limits to growth, CSIRO [Podcast] 11 Nov . Available at:

http://www.csiro.au/files/files/pn6q.mp3

Watson Cespedes, V. (2010) Zonas de Vida de Holdridge. [Lecture, School of

Architecture, Universidad de Costa Rica]. 13 October.

49

APPENDIX A

50

51

52

APPENDIX B

53