Architecture's Image

Abalos and Rham discuss sustainability as needing a radical change in the way architects approach the issue.  Abalos sees the importance of image and ties aesthetics strongly to the future of sustainability while Rham is looking for a phenomenological approach to changing architecture.  The ideas seem to compete with each other and bring up questions in response to the articles:

Abalos writes: " ...if there only exists an aesthetic debate, if there is an idea of beauty following sustainability, it will be here to stay."

If sustainability has to be aesthetic, does it lose the power by flattening the project to just an image or does it strengthen it by bringing the ideas to the public's attention?

On the other hand, Rham looks to touch and feeling as new ways of determining space, saying we need to bring our focus away from tectonics and onto the meteorology of architecture instead.  He writes: "The task is no longer to build images and functions but to open up climates and interpretations."

Is Rham looking to remove the importance of the tectonic nature of architecture for the future of sustainability?  If so, how is architecture supposed to provide for the safety and shelter of people if it is not a built element, but a phenomenological experience alone.