Thoughts on Sustainability and Green Things

A distinction: "Green" and "Sustainable". "Green" is a techno-scientific view of architecture popularized for the purpose of a new form of consumption. It is a recent term that emerged out of the affordable production of efficient building systems (e.g. wind turbines, solar panels, LED lights etc). These are objects or components that increase a building's efficiency and output and reduce one's carbon footprint. "Green" has little consideration to historical or human dimensions, compared to the notion of sustainability which is inclusive of so many more factors. A building can be green, but not sustainable.

[Image courtesy of Recyclingsupermarket.com]

Sustainability is an ancient concept. More than energy efficiency, it is a concept of well-being. Sustainability requires human and ecological well-being in tandem as one organism.

A sustainable building is one that goes beyond its energy-efficient trinkets to the holistic perspective of integrating its inhabitants into a happy community which is the basis of a prosperous society. A sustainable building is one that meets energy efficiency by default and surpasses this requirement by contributing to an economic, socio-cultural, and environmentally friendly micro-city that is integrated into a larger network. A sustainable community includes jobs that support a mixed income residency, promotes local culture, uses efficient public transportation, pedestrian friendly streets, promotes local industry, accessible education and historical sensitivity. A sustainable architecture is one that fits into this complex network of relationships that at the very heart of things contributes to building a community that will be happy and respective of its built and ecological environment. A building that is not respected or cared for --green or not-- is energy wasted.

A sustainable building will outlast one generation, have the flexibility to be modified, and reused in other buildings as spoils. Consider the analogy: "If your father's axe blade is broken and you replace it, but then the handle breaks and that is also replaced, is it the same axe?" The history and meaning of the axe is retained even if the physical pieces have expired and been replaced. I believe it is the same axe if this sustainable condition exists. A non-sustainable use of the axe (or building) would be to discard and simply buy a new one, erasing the history of the object in favour of a new consumer product. Rather than being a fixed thing, a sustainable architecture is continually adjusting to meet the social and economic needs of its residents while preserving the environment's ability to support it.

It is increasingly common to see high-profile buildings (e.g. all of the towers listed on one of my previous posts) decked out with all the eco-bells and whistles such as wind-turbines, solar panels etc which are highly photographic and sexy in magazines, but in reality tends to do all the damage of gentrification or modernist tabula rasa, meaning destroying sustainable micro-communities in favour of irrespective development.

Architectural offices that claim they do sustainable design will have a hard time producing a single image of a sustainable building. "Green" architects on the other hand will have a portfolio full of wind turbines and glossy green products.

Though it seems to be the solution to our environmental crisis, "Green Architecture" can be as superficial as buildings painted green and are not sustainable from a social perspective. Sustainable architecture is the essential goal.

::Green Skyscraper of Mumbai
::Halifax One of Canada's Most Sustainable Cities