Architecture & Happiness

I have always defined architecture as a problem solving method. Every building is a task that needs to be solved. The design process is the integration of all the elements that could affect the building into one outcome. Many times some of these elements prevail over others that must be sacrificed, but the architect’s role is to find a way to fulfill all the requirements.

This is why I believe it is a total irrationality to think that buildings should be removed from the cities if we would like to solve the problems. It is true, buildings are not the only factors affecting the environmental issues we are facing these days, but they do play a big role. The solution is not erasing the buildings and living in tents, it’s finding a way of making these buildings sustainable. I see them as evidences of growth and prosperity within a city. So if we want the growth of a city to be sustainable, we can start by making a difference in the manner we construct.

This leads to the second topic about constructions that are financially profitable for developers, but not economically feasible for society. We tend to believe this because in most cases, a developer will sacrifice certain things to try to gain the most profit out of the construction. For example, space, green areas, or eco-friendly systems in the building because they have a higher initial cost than conventional systems.

But again, in this case the architect should not have to choose between pleasing the developer or the users. He should not have to pick a side from what seems reasonable to what seems intuitional. The problem solving method would apply here by finding the way of making the developer profitable, and achieving social welfare at the same time.

For example, when designing a sustainable building, at first instance it might seem less profitable for the developer because of the expensive systems that are generally used. It can be feasible though by using bioclimatic solutions that take advantage of the natural resources and evade costly energy and water efficient systems. Bioclimatic architecture has been used all through history with very efficient results and before the technological advances in the past few decades, it was the only way of making sustainable buildings.

With this I am not saying that we should not use the modern systems for recycling water, producing green energy, etc. It should be used in those cases where the developer would not mind recovering the initial investment on a long-term basis. In fact, what many tend to forget is that after this initial price is recovered, the life cycle cost is much lower than that of conventional systems.

In conclusion, and as the text suggests, we tend to believe that prosperity and a good quality of life is interrelated to activities and goods that are environmentally challenging. The goal is to find a way of letting people enjoy the same goods in a viable way, because sustainability should not be pointed at certain social class only, it should be practiced by everyone.

This entry was posted in Economics of Sustainability, Maureen Eunice Estrella Lora. Bookmark the permalink. Comments are closed, but you can leave a trackback: Trackback URL.