Cascade Built Blog
October 29, 2008
Musings on Sustainable Design
Posted by admin, 1:04 AM
(excerpted from a writing on the philosophy of sustainable design)
Approaching sustainable design from a philosophical perspective has the distinct benefit of providing a clear definition of the term, as well as the implications of that definition on the design process and what the designer must consider in any project. Sustainable design is a broadly used and misused term. As ecological awareness has continued its rise in mainstream consciousness, sustainable building has fittingly taken up residence in the thinking and projects of increasing numbers of architects, builders and contractors.
However, not all participants are in agreement as to the meaning of the terms, what buildings would qualify as sustainable, or why it’s important. With the increased popularity of environmental awareness has come the inevitable green washing, where firms tell consumers what they want to hear (“Our product is Eco-Friendly!”) but don’t back it up with meaningful actions. We are today with green building where we were ten or fifteen years ago with food, where “All Natural” foods were competing with “Organic” foods and what exactly that meant to the buyer.
Philosophical definition of the concept corrects the misconceptions that green design is an aesthetic style or that somehow it’s a quality of life compromise where a yurt is the end goal of the process. These not uncommon assumptions are discarded, and we are left with the basic definition that sustainable design seeks to maximize quality, and to minimize or eliminate negative environmental impacts. The concept of good design is simply expanded to include the consideration of the ecological impact into the design process. How good can the design be if it achieves many apparent objectives but in the process imposes steep environmental costs?
The pitfalls of the philosophical position are several in my experience. For one, environmental costs are generally externalized in the sense that those costs are neither measured nor borne by the architect, builder, contractor or owner, but rather they are shouldered by society at large. So from that standpoint, it is difficult to justify the enacting of any sustainable design concepts except in cases where the owner is dedicated to the principles.
A counterpoint to this argument is that rising energy costs, and increased productivity reports from green buildings in the commercial sector demonstrate economic rationale for sustainable building practices. So there are cases where the costs are internalized, but they are few and far between. With the continued use of measurement systems and green building rating systems, some of the cost externalization issue will reverse.
Another pitfall of this or any paradigm shift is that change is difficult and inertia is hard to overcome, and introducing new methods and concepts into complex systems such as buildings can lead to increased risk and expense and market rejection.
Discussing the philosophy of sustainable design is an exercise in vision, context, where we must go, and why it’s important but it fails to illuminate the path we need to travel to achieve sustainable design. That part of the story is being written right now…
However, not all participants are in agreement as to the meaning of the terms, what buildings would qualify as sustainable, or why it’s important. With the increased popularity of environmental awareness has come the inevitable green washing, where firms tell consumers what they want to hear (“Our product is Eco-Friendly!”) but don’t back it up with meaningful actions. We are today with green building where we were ten or fifteen years ago with food, where “All Natural” foods were competing with “Organic” foods and what exactly that meant to the buyer.
Philosophical definition of the concept corrects the misconceptions that green design is an aesthetic style or that somehow it’s a quality of life compromise where a yurt is the end goal of the process. These not uncommon assumptions are discarded, and we are left with the basic definition that sustainable design seeks to maximize quality, and to minimize or eliminate negative environmental impacts. The concept of good design is simply expanded to include the consideration of the ecological impact into the design process. How good can the design be if it achieves many apparent objectives but in the process imposes steep environmental costs?
The pitfalls of the philosophical position are several in my experience. For one, environmental costs are generally externalized in the sense that those costs are neither measured nor borne by the architect, builder, contractor or owner, but rather they are shouldered by society at large. So from that standpoint, it is difficult to justify the enacting of any sustainable design concepts except in cases where the owner is dedicated to the principles.
A counterpoint to this argument is that rising energy costs, and increased productivity reports from green buildings in the commercial sector demonstrate economic rationale for sustainable building practices. So there are cases where the costs are internalized, but they are few and far between. With the continued use of measurement systems and green building rating systems, some of the cost externalization issue will reverse.
Another pitfall of this or any paradigm shift is that change is difficult and inertia is hard to overcome, and introducing new methods and concepts into complex systems such as buildings can lead to increased risk and expense and market rejection.
Discussing the philosophy of sustainable design is an exercise in vision, context, where we must go, and why it’s important but it fails to illuminate the path we need to travel to achieve sustainable design. That part of the story is being written right now…
