Sustainable Thinking

The implementation of sustainable qualities that we like to brag or complain about shouldn’t be an added bonus or somehow seen as an opposing force to affordable, aesthetically pleasing, and comfortable design. These components can and should work together for truly well-rounded architecture. The question of which high-tech or low-tech strategies will work best can be answered on a case by case basis after careful consideration of the project function, climate, available resources, etc. The foremost issue is that sustainable policies are most often looked at as some kind of obstacle, when they should be ingrained in practice.

When the constraints for what should be common sense design are embedded in the design process, they don’t feel like limitations. We should not only be considering interior and envelope in tandem, but the way that these will interact with appropriate materials and MEP systems, even going so far as to suggest a new way to better condition or distribute air or light as necessary. We’re taught to understand the reason behind every form and aesthetic choice, but not to understand or really care about the reason or way that our buildings actually work. Retrofitting a design with incompatible systems is when we begin to feel restrained by environmental considerations. 

The strategy of building intelligently and for the future can itself only be maintained if it works within practical parameters. To make a terrible fitness magazine analogy, sustainable design is not a crash diet we’re undergoing to combat climate change, it is a lifestyle choice that we need to make in order to maintain, or potentially improve, the conditions we’ve created for ourselves. This should include creative solutions for the repurpose and renovation of existing structures as well as a full understanding of the impacts of any new building after determining its necessity. The first step is getting everyone on board and understanding the gravity of these concerns at their most fundamental level.