Category Archives: Uncategorized

Sustainability’s Main Players

It is absolutely irrational to think that the issue of sustainability may be solved only by looking at a building(s) as is thinking that the architect can only affect in the building itself. It is true that building account for a big part of the CO2 emissions, land loss through urbanization, water use, etc. yet a building must be understood as part of a bigger picture. There are two scales that have to be seen to understand this; the building inside a system and the use of a building by its dwellers.
Cities, towns, villages, and any of the kind contains and belongs to a system. A building for instance is part of the built environment system of a city, which in turn relates to the transit system, park system, infrastructure system, social system, information system, and so on ans so forth. Hence, the understanding of a city should be approached as an ecosystem itself. This work is beign done by biologist Salvador Rueda, who has been studying different cities and the parameters that make it a “healthy” ecosystem. Out of his work it is very interesting to understand the importance of density and available services. The best example would be Barcelona city, that given it’s density (along with urban design) only 30% of the trips done inside it are done by car. So in conclusion, the architect when designing a building should look at all this other systems and the parameters that rule over healthy urban ecosystems for it to respond and help make the system better.
Second scale to understand is the dweller. This is much simpler and can be summarized in one question: who pollutes more, a person who lives in an energy inefficient building who consumes little energy or a person who lives in an energy efficient building but consumes a lot of energy?  It all drops down to the dwellers behaviour inside the building. It doesn’t matte how efficient the building is if the dweller wants to have beach weather inside his house in the middle of winter. To be energy efficient, water efficent, waste efficient, and whatever other efficiency regarding a building the dwelles have to modify their behaviour and understand that resources are limited and you someteimes have to balance your comfort levels to help the world survive.
In conclusion, yes, we have to design sustainable buildings yet a building is not sustainable unless it relates to the systems surrounding it and the people inhabiting it.
As for developers, the main issue is that they do business in an “touch and go” manner, meaning that they put money in and want it back as soon as possible. In terms of sustainability of buildings, the return is slower than that expected by the developers, so the ones recieving the economic savings are the managers of the buildings, which are the ones that keep the building for longer. So it needs a shift in the way buildings are financed, by making the developers percieve the economic savings of the buildings by running them for longer periods of time. It would require laws to make the building property of the developer for 20 or so years or make the developers manage the buildings themselves.
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments closed

Architecture & Happiness

Unlike conventional wisdom, not only architecture, urban development or landscape design can be approached from economic analysis; it is also that economic analysis can provide a sound perspective, especially if sustainability is to be a guiding principle. This may seem paradoxical since economic development and growth, as we know them, have been blatantly unsustainable.

Sustainability overall is about the permanence of processes – something is sustainable because it can be sustained throughout time. On the basis of economic theory, sustainability is a capital transfer between present and future generations. Yet, capital is far from being a mechanistic notion of man-made or physical capital; it is also social capital, human capital, and natural capital.

THE BRAIN VS THE HEART

Under the sway of the last four decades of economic thought, a pervasive idea is evolving: the need to redefine prosperity, to recognise that a significant number of consumption and production patterns cannot be sustained without affecting the welfare of future generations and (potentially) basic balances in the Biosphere that could threaten life itself and its diversity. The concept of quality of life suffers from an embarrassing richness of possibilities but what kind of circumstances provide good conditions under which to live? What makes a life a good one for the person who lives it? What makes life a valuable one? And should not this be relevant for architects?

Despite what most people would reckon, economic analysis could provide some answers to some of these questions. It’s not just a question, though, of redefining prosperity on the basis of the absence of growth (or even the so-called ‘de-growth’); it’s also a matter of redefining growth itself, since growth has proved to be a driver for prosperity in many contexts.

To put it this way, the question is not so much whether to grow or not, but how it comes about. Growth based on inequality or environmental degradation, for instance, is notably unsound and undesirable. Yet, in many places and for many people, growth has been extraordinarily successful in ensuring prosperity and opportunity for a wide majority. Growth, prosperity, happiness are after all (perceived as) goods, from a mainstreaming perspective. If using the analogy between growth and happiness is not because one immediately leads to the other but rather because the quest for growth can sometimes prevent growth from being a source of prosperity in such a way as the search for happiness is very often a source of unhappiness.

Daniel Kahneman, a Nobel Prize Laureate in Economic Sciences (2002), presents our thinking process as consisting of two systems: thinking fast (unconscious, intuitive, almost effortless), and thinking slow (conscious, through deductive reasoning, and with significant effort).

We tend (want) to think the latter prevails over the former but we might be wrong. We often associate intuition with irrationality but it is not. On the other hand, the origin of much that we do wrong (as individuals or as an entire society), is also at the roots of what we do right.

Critical thinking, as we have discussed at IaaC, is about solving conflicts. The great game of life, for architects or alike, may not just be about reason versus intuition.

Let me pose some questions for you and feel free to comment on them.

  • 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?
  • 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)?
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments closed