In my country,Iran, To save energy in urban areas, the territorial, economic status, composition, texture and use of the land, it should be noted. Take the traditional architecture in the city and find the experience of using natural energy such as solar, wind and … Long been common. Using past experience can be used in the urban fabric of the natural energy from fossil fuel consumption due to reduced energy and helped to improve the quality of the residential environment of comfort and health. Therefore, the use of natural energies to harmonize with the environment, climate is the first step. Detail of an old principle of consistency in the architecture, whether in a single building complex or utilize. Each component of the overall plan we will outline to represent each of the components. It was originally designed to be compatible with a climate much use. Old cities, particularly in the context of what the desert can be effective in saving energy on the one hand there is the traditional architecture principles are consistent with climate And thus the use of appropriate materials, the environment, and on the other hand small and compact tissue adjacent homes and Retaining courtyard gave it up.

Economics of Sustainability

Nowadays in different areas of human being, economics has a great importance. It is every where.
Every thing what is around you is a part of a big complex economy system.
That is one of difference between human and animal. Is a complex system of relationships. And  economy is one of that systems.What does it mean Economic system for Architects.

We can see that in different countries there are different economy conditions.
It influences on quality of food, water,  fuel,etc. And It influences on buildings also.
For architects it is quiet important to think about economy. Because when you (Architect) starts to work about project, you start from research.
Research suggests that you exploring everything in live around your future project.
When you get information you start to think how can you build your project, and you should think about who much could it coast.
Obviously It is really important to understand that modern world is rapidly goes straight forward.
Like people trying to produce a new biological fuel, that would be better than petroleum.
People trying to develop an alternative to different kind of materials and things, because we cant use nature resуrves indefinitely and
most of a products that human produce now are really heartfull for a nature.
I understand Economics of Sustainability as complex of details that we should use when we design a building.
Imagine that you are design a small country house for someone. You should start from what kind of materials you will use.
It is better to use a local products. For example wood.
Next Is  that 80% of sustainability achieved by the type of structure.
Of Course  to save money on electricity it is important to think  abou correct orientation of a building, by it is possible to increase quantity of a nature light.

All of the tips that you can use in design could help you to produce a better Sustainable situation around.
We should thing about it every time we sit down to work.

It is very tempting to seduce ourselves, as architects or as anybody keen on architecture or otherwise involved in the design process that the answer to our problems lies with buildings. Do you actually believe you can separate buildings out from the infrastructure of cities and mobility of transit and the expectations and incentives of people?

I would say, NO a building cannot exist in “Isolation”.

A building is very much “Context Driven” .

A building needs a good Infrastructure to thrive and live. Each one cannot co-exist without the other. We are living in times where our natural resources are depleting . We cannot afford the luxury of ignoring the environment and the urban fabric while designing buildings.

We shouldn’t approach designing buildings as just walls and roof but approach it like we are designing Eco-Systems.

Architecture has to be good understanding of a wide range of subjects from physical geography, through to social science, and an appreciation for disciplines, such as real estate development, urban economics, political economy and social theory.

Architects therefore need to consider a lot of parameters before constructing a building. The main task of architects is to incorporate the basic human consumption of these resources into our natural environment. There is a need for a solution for future development which doesn’t restrict us to the current lifestyle but improve it in a better way.

With an intelligent infrastructure the architect can thus save cost, time and money/respect the economy and the expectations and incentives of people ,providing them with a perfect environment to live in.

A sustainable project should improve way of life and make sense economically.

 Why do people tend to believe that what is financially profitable (for developers) is not actually equivalent to economically feasible (positive impacts on social welfare)? How would you show that this does not necessarily have to be like this (but rather the opposite)?

Developers are only interested in what is financially profitable for them and think only about short term. The architect doesn’t typically choose a site for the developers; he is given the site and told to design accordingly. The way out of the damage causing the environment could be an sustainable and thoughtful, sustainable development. Hence sustainable development is about finding better ways of doing things, both for the future and the present. We might need to change the way we work and live now.Creating a sustainable architecture is one of the way. Having local materials for the building, considering the social need, with green and self-sufficient technology, collecting informations of  the neighbor, etc can get along together. Think and act sustainable can join these two of approaches. It creates the best behavior for developing an architecture. This is a challenge for us as architects, or as the users.

Architecture should be an integrated concept in the strategic planning from micro to macro level.The optimal development is the one that meets the needs of the present, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs that looks to balance different, and often competing, needs against an awareness of the environmental, social and economic limitations that we face as a society.

All too often, development is driven by one particular need, without fully considering the wider or future impacts, which does not help in the future. We are already seeing the damage this kind of approach can cause, from large-scale financial crises caused by irresponsible banking, to changes in global climate resulting from our dependence on fossil fuel-based energy sources. The longer we pursue this approach, the more frequent and severe its consequences are likely to become.

Architectural design is important to every aspect of our lives. It informs the places in which we live, work, learn, heal and gather. The belief should be that even our clients are designers in their own right.Hence Architecture cannot be dealt at a particular level but be thought parallely at all levels as it has an wider and greater impact on humanity .

Architecture has to be good understanding of a wide range of subjects from physical geography, through to social science, and an appreciation for disciplines, such as real estate development, urban economics, political economy and social theory.

Uncontrolled growth for urbanisation denotes a diffusion of the influence of urban centres to a rural hinterland and also moving to cities, changing from agriculture to other pursuits common to cities. The causes for the increasing trend of construction development would be industrialization which inturn has effected urbanization. It has expanded the employment opportunities. Rural people have migrated to cities on account of better employment opportunities. Which in turn increases the demand for unthought construction development.

The positive impact could be employment opportunities in urban centres, transport and communication facilities , educational facilities, increase in the standard of living.

Urbanization can yield positive effects only  if it takes place up to a desirable limit. Extensive urbanisation or indiscriminate growth of cities may result in adverse effects.

Rapid rise in the new trend of urban development by developers, is leading to many problems like increasing slums, decrease in standard of living in urban areas, also causing environmental damage all over the world.The way out of the damage could be an sustainable and thoughtful, sustainable development. Hence sustainable development is about finding better ways of doing things, both for the future and the present. We might need to change the way we work and live now.The way we approach urban development affects all strata of people. The impacts of our decisions as a society have very real consequences for people’s lives. Poor planning of communities, for example, reduces the quality of life for the people who live in them. Sustainable development provides an approach to making better decisions on the issues that affect all of our lives . In the right hands, urban development can determine or at least influence the destiny of a city and may be a turning point for its existence and optimistic future and better world for humans.

While privatization of development seems the only viable option to meet this jarring gap between demand and supply for housing unfortunately the free capitalist economy only increases this gap even more because the people who don’t have houses lie in the lower income group or even below the poverty line.

According to Census 2001 23.6 % of the urban population resides below the poverty line. The fact that the numbers of the poor have declined in rural areas, and increased in urban areas over the last three decades suggests that to escape rural poverty, the poor migrate to urban areas. As per the 11th five-year plan there is a shortage of 24.71 million dwellings, close to 99% of shortage in EWS & LIG segment.

This can be seen in satellite towns outside major cities that are now urbanizing. The multinational organizations increase their profit by being close to the major city yet getting cheaper land prices and offices start shifting from the main city to the outside which increases the commuting.

This is the case of Gurgaon. The National Capital Region Planning Board, a body that overlooks planning for regions surrounding Delhi, had forecast that by 2021, Gurgaon would have a population of 16.5 lakh people. That number will be breached this year, nine years ahead of projection. Their is no overall master plan being implemented because the zones are being governed by different authorities which fail to cooperate and work together. The land was bought from the villagers at very cheap prices where new housing projects are being developed and being sold at much larger prices with the agricultural land being used for development.

“HUDA has started construction of a road across Gurgaon, called Dwarka Expressway, joining Dwarka, in Delhi and Manesar in Haryana. The total construction cost of the road is just Rs 75 crore. But it translated into real estate collectively appreciating by around Rs 10,000 crore on properties along the road. “Most of this land is bought by private developers who are unlikely to plough back the profits into Gurgaon—something HUDA could have done had it developed the area itself.” A 2009 WWF Report on Indian Urbanisation quotes Arun Maira, member of the planning commission and part of a local NGO trying to revive Gurgaon.

The core problems lie in the disintegrated approach of all the stakeholders involved in the development of a city or the country. Instead of letting the private developers go berserk I think the government should introduce incentives so that the developers invest in the infrastructure as well as create dwelling units for EWS and adhere the development to the overall masterplan.

The Maharashtra Government has introduced policy level changes to encourage PPP in which they increase the allowed FAR for a developer for them to integrate affordable housing in their scheme, which the government later rents out. This scheme also works because it locates the lower income groups closer to employment opportunities and reduces commuting distance.

Other than giving incentives an integrated Masterplan is very important instead of to trying to later solving problems that arise from bad planning or unsustainable development. If the developers follow norms set by the masterplan then the city infrastructure can be better utilized.

Above all I think that it is the responsibility of the architect to understand the impacts and relationships involved between the building and the overall complex system of the city or the context and vice-versa. These social economic and environmental impacts if understood and dealt with more sensitively can lead to an overall sustainable development and a better civic life.

Refrences : Kaul N. (2012) Rental Housing. Solutions for housing urban poor. 

http://forbesindia.com

In the earth, which has been and still is our mother, where we supposed to be guide and example, we have been just owners and avid consumers. And that intellect which make us different and raise us in the erect position is now conscious enough and erect enough to see the horizon of its own being. This deadline has built during the time by the human kind, by its progressive detachment from the natural world, by its obsession of himself, living a life which deny the life, residing, this, just in the nature. Because this is in the innate contradiction of human nature, of human intelligence, so relative, so dependent by space and time, so closed in its little own being, as any other species live in this in planet, but with such absolute  presumption and arrogance to tend  forces, once collaborating, in two different and opposite directions, creating huge fractures.

But there wouldn’t need these words, which don’t make anything better, which could just unsettle and discourage, or predict future collapses, if I was talking for the future, but I’m not, or not only. Again in the boundaries of our relativity  is the time-space dimension, our scale which don’t allow us to look farer than our own nose and farer than our days, and I’m sure that even if the earth was closer to our scale, so smaller, we would have less calamities, we would sooner point and, more than what’s happening nowadays, solve problem. Mine is a general comparison, but it could be applied in any case of every day life, still easier is the Azimov’s metaphor of the bathroom, when he asserts that in an house with two bathrooms can live one or two people very comfortable, three, four or five should adapt to it, twenty would get crazy; and it is stupid to say, because obvious, but isn’t it as obvious in a bigger scale? When I was saying not to talk just about future, but even, and most of all, of what happening today, present time, but that no one seems to care enough, is again a factor of scale, of space-distance this time (to make it easier, in space-time, with a bottle of wine and four tapas you won’t invite twenty people for dinner, indeed it never happen); during the lecture we have talked about the value of life, pointing it with no value because infinite, so what about thousand and thousand of life that somewhere also, far away from our sight and our interest, for cruelty, negligence, inhumanity, or, maybe in this case more than ever, humanity of the man, and of nothing also, cease to be like that? (A.Huxley: “facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored”).  It can seems banal and is not my intent to preach on taking care of human kind’s misfortunes, but to sensitize, to make us feel responsible, even a little bit, it won’t be a waste; just like, as children, were reprimanded of killing an ant, because a live-being, because part of the nature, and so part of ourselves (actually parents don’t go so deep), even this tell us a lot about the human capacity of thinking globally, just a needed condition to inhabit this place.

If, from sustainability, I’ve been speaking witch a peace and love spirit, with a Greek tragedy character, feeling not able to talk as architect or economist, is with the arithmetic essentiality that we should start to deal. And so, not to be very long, 60% of ecosystem are used in an unsustainable way, which mean they won’t reproduce themselves in long terms, in the 32% of carbon dioxide increase, from industrial revolution to now, 60% is just from the last 60 years, and again, from the 60’s, the world population has doubled, or at least when the six billionth was born, now we are seven billion, in the same lapse of time, for assonance of numbers, the global economy six fold … and better not to go deeper with data about increasing of damages and decreasing of benefits that, with their exponential line, become alarming.

Facing this it looks ridiculous even just talking about growth, because with these numbers there won’t even be time and space for growing, if we just think that, following these rhythms, in four centuries the human density on the earth will be 1:1 ( one person per square meter), and if growth mean well-being, extension of life expectation, reducing diseases, maybe for centuries would be even too many, and so just wars and pestilences will re-establish the equilibrium on the planet. Contradictions, unfortunately, not avoidable to reach, and maybe pause on them, if we want to change our lifestyle, if we want to reflect on the man’s role on the earth, if we want not to grow with sustainability, but actually decline (in a positive meaning, of course, referring on what said, because contraddictions are needed to oppose to the contradictory development of the man in this place).

An economically, scientifically and also philosophically huge work has been undertaken by various teams of academics from different disciplines, met together in different moments, and published the first time in 1997 in the article “The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital” by Robert Costanza and others. This survey, then amply developed in the books “Ecosystem and Human Well Being”and “Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services”, try to give an economic value, a monetary one, to the different (17) ecosystems services, direct and not, existing on the earth, and used by the man for his well-being. Doing this, in some way, especially when we are going to see the huge amount of data, percentages, and exponential results come out from those, the human-centric vision of the world fall off. More than finding real financial values, these research force us to be conscious to the immense treasure that surround us, and of which we are not that aware, they tend to impress us with astronomical numbers that redimension the global economy’s weight, and with this the man itself, they point to further studies path to follow, and sectors where intervene, they foster of thinking, individually and globally. H.L.Menken used to say ““is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant and embrace what is obviously false but comforting”. What’s at the base of everything is the man’s capacity of making choice, to take decisions which can condition what said, and that make him an economic subject and in an economic relationship with the surrounding nature. So is it this the time for great decisions?

As well as I want to end differently than the dramatic tones used until now, I cannot pertain to contemporary world or contemporary man, because I would justify a means just condemned, but to the man in general no doubts. The man as species, essential part of the nature, with the amazing capacity of adapting himself and regenerating in the new, and it is just from this disposition that we can find again a balance between us and what around us; is just rediscovering what is inside us that we can find a peace with what is different than us. Is from this nature of adaptation that we can restart from reconsidering ourselves and our being inside something much bigger and live with it; not with one, but thousand steps back, which, again because of our nature, we can engage and deal with; and even relooking back, at those two statutes that from the beginning of civilization has scared the way of happiness, “conosci te stesso…secondo misura” (Delphic Sibyl,  Apollo’s temple).

Per affrontare un tema simile, in una classe d’economia in un corso d’architettura, mi sento poco adatto sia come studente di quest’ultima, sia se avessi profonde basi di conoscenza economica; è difficile e fastidioso parlare come persona singola in un momento come questo, e lo è altrettanto spendere parole e non azioni riguardo al nostro rapporto continuo, ma distante e conflittuale, con la sostenibilità. La sostenibilità è un problema purtroppo recente, o almeno è recente la frequenza con la quale usiamo questa parola, ed è approcciata come una componente avanzata delle più svariate discipline; ma la verità è che discutendone non possiamo farne un discorso architettonico, o economico, scientifico o chicchessia; almeno dal mio punto di vista, ciò che porta ad indagarne cause e conseguenze è una questione in tutto e per tutto a sfondo filosofico. V’è filosofia perché è dal genere umano, nel pensare umano che risiede il germe di quel virus, del quale la sostenibilità sembra esserne la cura, e il quale sembra invece poter essere solo contenuto e frenato, forse, ma difficilmente rimosso o sanato; ed anche se volessimo parlare da architetti, economisti, biologi, sappiamo tuttavia che alle spalle di queste figure sempre risiedono pensieri e comportamenti prima di tutto umani. La crescita di cui ci vantiamo, l’estremo sviluppo in cui il nostro presente è immerso, e insieme la profonda insostenibilità in cui queste condizioni convivono, possono si essere analizzati disciplina per disciplina, periodo per periodo, o scissi in note positive e negative, con costante occhio di riguardo alle prime, ma ciò che resta chiaro, unicamente certo, è che tutto quanto noi chiamiamo presente nulla è se non il frutto di come l’uomo, e solo l’uomo sulla terra, è stato in grado di esprimere se stesso e la sua indole al solo fine del proprio e immediato benessere.

In una terra che ci è stata ed è tuttora madre della nostra vita, e di cui saremmo dovuti esserne guida ed esempio, non ci siamo atteggiati che a proprietari ed avidi consumatori. E quell’intelletto che ci ha distinto ed evoluto alla posizione eretta è ora fin troppo cosciente, e sufficientemente eretto, da vederne l’orizzonte del proprio essere. Un termine ultimo costruito nel tempo, con il progressivo distacco dal mondo naturale da parte dell’uomo, ossessionato da se stesso, vivendo una vita che nega la vita stessa, risiedendo, quest’ultima, nella natura appunto. Perché ciò è nell’insita contraddizione della natura umana, dell’intelligenza umana, così relativa, così dipendente da spazio e tempo, così chiusa nel suo piccolo essere come ogni altra specie abiti la terra, ma insieme e diversamente da ogni altra specie con una presunzione ed una superbia tanto assolute da tendere pian piano forze un tempo collaboranti in due direzioni opposte e antitetiche, creando fratture immense.

Ma non ci sarebbe bisogno di queste parole, che non migliorano nulla, che potrebbero solo turbare e scoraggiare, o presagire futuri collassi, se non fosse che di nessun futuro sto parlando, o almeno non solo. Sempre nella limitatezza della relatività vi è la sua scala spazio-temporale, che non ci rende abili di guardare più in là del nostro naso e più in là dei nostri giorni, e sono sicuro che se la terra fosse anche solo in dimensione più vicina alla scala umana, ovvero più piccola, meno sarebbero state le calamità, prima individuati i problemi, e senz’altro, più di quanto non si riesca oggi, risolti. È il mio un paragone generalizzabile ma applicabile ad ogni episodio della vita quotidiana, ancor più semplice è la metafora del bagno di Azimov, quando afferma che in una casa con due bagni una o due persone vivrebbero comode, tre, quattro o cinque si potrebbero adattare, venti impazzirebbero; ed è stupido a dirsi, perché è ovvio, ma non è allora tanto ovvio alla scala più grande? Dicendo di non riferirmi per forza al futuro ma di ciò che accade, ora, presente, ma di cui nessuno prova sconcerto quanto dovrebbe, è  ancora un fattore di scala, di spazio-distanza stavolta (per intenderci, in spazio-tempo, potremmo dire che con una bottiglia di vino e quattro tapas non invitiamo venti persone a cena, e difatti non succede mai); quando in classe si è parlato del valore della vita, additandolo invalutabile, perché infinito, che ne è di migliaia e migliaia di vite che altrove, per crudeltà, negligenza, disumanità, o forse in questo caso più che mai umanità, dell’uomo, non di altro, cessano di essere tali? (A.Huxley: “facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored”). Può forse risultare banale e non è mio intento predicare di farsi carico delle disgrazie della specie umana, ma un minimo sensibilizzare, responsabilizzare, non è mai uno spreco; come quando ai bambini si rimprovera di schiacciare una formica, perché un essere vivente, perché parte della natura, quindi parte di noi stessi ( non vanno cosi a fondo i genitori in realtà), anche questo ci dice molto sulla scarsa capacità dell’uomo di pensare globalmente, condizione soltanto necessaria alla vita di questa terra.

Se dalla sostenibilità ho preso invece i toni di una predica di pace e amore, a carattere di tragedia greca, sentendomi tuttavia inabile a parlare da architetto od economo, è con l’essenzialità aritmetica che sarebbe il caso iniziassimo a fare  i conti. Ebbene, senza dilungarsi, il 60% degl’ecosistemi naturali è usato in maniera semplicemente insostenibile, che a lungo termine vuol dire senza capacità di riproduzione; del 32% dell’aumento dell’anidride carbonica (esistente nell’atmosfera in quantità ridottissime e dunque con minime variazioni) dalla rivoluzione industriale ad oggi, il 60% è frutto degli ultimi 50 anni, e sempre dagl’anni 60 la popolazione mondiale è raddoppiata, o almeno lo era al momento del seimiliardesimo bambino nato, ora siamo già a 7, nello stesso lasso di tempo, per assonanza di numeri, l’economia mondiale è sestuplicata (x6)…non proseguendo con citazioni di dati sconcertanti su aumenti dei danni e riduzioni di benefici che, nella loro linea esponenziale, diventano allarmanti.

Di fronte a ciò sembra a me ridicolo anche solo parlare di crescita, perché con questi numeri non v’è nemmeno spazio e tempo di crescere, se solo pensiamo che a questi ritmi tra quattro secoli la densità di popolazione sarà di uno a uno ( un uomo al metro quadro), e che se crescita vuol dire benessere, prolungamento dell’aspettativa di vita, riduzione di malattie, forse quattro secoli saranno anche troppi, e allora solo guerre e pestilenze aiuteranno a ristabilire un “equilibrio” del pianeta. Contraddizioni, purtroppo, cui è inevitabile giungere, e magari soffermarvisi, se vogliamo attuare un cambio di rotta, se vogliamo ragionare sul ruolo dell’uomo nel mondo, se vogliamo non crescere sostenibilmente, ma bensì decrescere ( con un eccezione positiva, naturalmente, in riferimento a tutto quanto detto, perché servono contraddizioni per opporsi al contradditorio sviluppo dell’uomo sulla terra).

Un lavoro economicamente, scientificamente e a mio avviso filosoficamente gigante è stato intrapreso da svariati team di studiosi in diverse discipline, radunati a più riprese, e pubblicato la prima volta nel 1997 nell’articolo “The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital” di Robert Costanza ed altri autori. Questo studio, poi ampiamente sviluppato nei testi “Ecosystem and Human Well Being”, “Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services”, mira, in sintesi, a valutare economicamente, a livello monetario dunque, i diversi ( 17 ) ecosistemi presenti nel pianeta terra e i servizi, diretti e indiretti, che da essi se ne ricavano. Facendo ciò,  in un modo o nell’altro, quando soprattutto andiamo a guardare l’enorme quantità di dati, percentuali, e risultati esponenziali che da essi scaturiscono, la visione umano-centrica del mondo viene meno. Più che cercare veri e propri valori finanziari, tuttavia, questi studi ci forzano a prendere coscienza dell’immenso tesoro che ci circonda, e di cui coscienza sembra mancare, tendono ad impressionarci con cifre astronomiche volte a ridimensionare il peso dell’economia mondiale, e di conseguenza l’uomo stesso, indicano a successivi studi strade da seguire e settori su cui intervenire, incoraggiano mutamenti di pensiero a livello individuale e globale. H.L.Menken, a riguardo, diceva: “is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant and embrace what is obviously false but comforting”. Alla base di tutto ciò v’è la capacità dell’uomo di poter scegliere, di prendere decisioni che possano condizionare quanto finora, e che lo rendono cosi un soggetto economico e in un rapporto economico con la natura circostante. E’ dunque questo il tempo delle grandi decisioni?

Volendo concludere diversamente rispetto ai drammatici toni fin qui usati, non è certo all’uomo o al mondo contemporaneo che posso far capo, in quanto andrei certo a giustificare un mezzo finora biasimato, ma all’uomo si, senz’altro. All’uomo come specie, parte integrante della natura, con la speciale qualità di adattarsi e rigenerarsi nel nuovo, ed è proprio da questa disposizione che si può ritrovare un equilibrio tra noi e ciò che ci circonda; è solo riscoprendo ciò ch’è dentro di noi che possiamo ristabilire una pace con il diverso; è da questa indole all’adattamento che l’uomo può ripartire dalla riconsiderazione del proprio essere all’interno di qualcosa più grande e con questo conviverci, non con uno, ma con mille passi indietro, che per nostra natura saremo in grado di affrontare, e far rivivere quei due statuti che dall’inizio della civiltà hanno segnato la via alla felicità, “conosci te stesso…secondo misura”. (Oracolo di Delfi, tempio di Apollo)

The financial project implyes profitability in the shortest term. The urban environment for the most of developers represents the perfect marketplace for the financial investment. Short time, money and competitive unsensitive minds, craving for richness, lead the urban growth towards disconnected configurations and unsustainable scenarios. Politics should be the protagonist in the urban formation, but more than often it becomes a serie of costraints that limits the private mindset. Politics should regulate the urban developement and call people directly interested in the trasformation for partecipating in the decisional process. As architects and as Yona Friedman would say, we should be less architects and more interpreters, trying to read and canalize users needs into collective formal proposals. We should consider the humanity as the only self-designer and us as technical advisors, availing ourself of several experts driving the Architecture to the final aim of sustainability.

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.

Image credit: AIA COLLEGE OF FELLOWS AWARDS 2013 LATROBE PRIZE FOR “THE CITY OF 7 BILLION.” (COURTESY PLAN B ARCHITECTURE & URBANISM)

Image Source: http://www2.uregina.ca/yourblog/environmental-economics-reducing-degradation-through-incentives/

• It is very tempting to seduce ourselves, as architects or as anybody keen on architecture or otherwise involved in the design process that the answer to our problems lies with buildings. Do you actually believe you can separate buildings out from the infrastructure of cities and mobility of transit and the expectations and incentives of people?

Approach to Architecture has to be a holistic one and cannot be done in isolation. We are living in times where our natural resources are depleting at an alarming rate and damage caused to the environment in the process is becoming irreversible. We cannot afford the luxury of ignoring the environment and the urban fabric while designing buildings. We shouldn’t approach designing buildings as just walls and roof but approach it like we are designing Eco-Systems.  Architect Sou Fujimoto has emphasized this point a lot in his architecture. He says the house is like an ecosystem within connected to a larger ecosystem (the city) which in turn is connected to the larger ecosystem. As Architects, I feel it is very important to understand this relationship and take into account the urban fabric around the site before designing a building.

• Why do people tend to believe that what is financially profitable (for developers) is not actually equivalent to economically feasible (positive impacts on social welfare)? How would you show that this does not necessarily have to be like this (but rather the opposite)?

From an Architect’s perspective, the issues of urban regeneration, environmental sustainability and economic development, are first impacted by choices or organizations before reaching an Architect’s office. The basic choices are, where the developer decides to build. Those choices are further influenced by governmental policies. Also another factor is the thinking of the society and the way it wishes to grow. The architect has limited power; he doesn’t choose the site or has an power in the law making. To produce a sustainable and a an economic viable project, an architect must be part of a larger team committed to sustainable goals. Having said that, to achieve that goal it requires the attention of all of us, architects, developers, politicians, tenants, and the public at large. For things to be effective the awareness has to happen on a national and global scale.

 image source :http://www.bluegumservices.com.au/environmental.aspx

It is very tempting to seduce ourselves, as architects or as anybody keen on architecture or otherwise involved in the design process that the answer to our problems lies with buildings. Do you actually believe you can separate buildings out from the infrastructure of cities and mobility of transit and the expectations and incentives of people?

I disagree with the point that we can separate the buildings out of the infrastructure of cities and the mobility of transit .There is a pre conceived notion of architects as designers of forms and functions for a building according to the conventional thinking .Instead architects need to become designers of eco systems, and raise questions like how Architects can improve the way of life for people. The ecological and economy systems should not only think about the people but also the natural resources like energy, water etc. The main task of architects is to incorporate the basic human consumption of these resources into our natural environment. There is a need for a solution for future development which doesn’t restrict us to the current lifestyle but improve it in a better way. Sustainability is not just a Technical problem and to make it successful it has to be addressing the Economic context. A sustainable project should improve way of life and make sense economically.

Why do people tend to believe that what is financially profitable (for developers) is not actually equivalent to economically feasible (positive impacts on social welfare)? How would you show that this does not necessarily have to be like this (but rather the opposite)?

Developers are only interested in what is financially profitable for them and think only about short term. The architect doesn’t typically choose a site for the developers; he is given the site and told to design accordingly. The architect has to be part of the larger picture to think about the sustainability of the project. To make it financially liable for developers the architect need to search for strong reasons for the developer to invest in a sustainable project. There is a need for education about the necessity and benefits of sustainable designs to expand the green buildings strategies. The architect needs to get involved in the public discussion so developers make smart decisions.

UDERSTANDING THE ECONOMIC VIABILTY IS THE KEY TO ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILTY