Instead of looking through impositions of the mainstream towards the discipline of architecture, today, it is essential to approach environmental problems in an alternative way including critical evaluations. The transition in development and transformation of environmental concepts in architecture and design disguises social and political shifts. Therefore it is not surprising that sustainability covering environmental, social and economic aspects, is defined in reference to development. The thought that the concept of sustainability shall reverse all of the current practices suggesting a brand new paradigm is out of basis.

On the contrary, Western construction sustainable development represents a compromise for groups and sectors having totally opposing interests, therefore it carries more hypocrisy than environmental devotion. Moreover, today, the concept which is expected to carry a criticism of the spending society faces one of the most important merits: rapid consumption. I think that it is essential to develop alternative approaches on architecture’s place for nature, ecology, environment and sustainability. Because it is obvious that equipping architecture with environmental technology does not contribute too much to the saving of the world. On the other hand naturalistic solutions in buildings to protect environment does not radically differ from the practices of the earlier centuries. Besides today architecture can not be fully understood without the forces of capitalism, spending society and globalization and therefore environmental problems seem to require a more generalist approach. According to some researches, it is observed that the “real” differences in environmental matters, mostly depends on transitions in societies’ unsustainable habits. This idea requires a broad perspective covering humans (the user of the building, city and its structure) and social conditions. It is obvious that environmental features of the buildings and cities mostly depend on people’s choices and their adoption. Place with its urban/spatial pattern has a role in environmental awareness. I think if the urban/spatial pattern is settled properly, it contibutes to the life of neighbourhood, sustainablity of the residents’ lifestyle, assembly of public spaces, social relations and environmental attributes. As a result of this, it enables the residents to adopt their place and develop environmentlist approach.

Considering the building, city, and people as a user are intertwined and interrelated to each other, it is unimaginable to separate buildings out from the infrastructure of cities and mobility of transit and the expectations and incentives of people.



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