The "S" Word


I once had a professor in undergraduate school that completely despised the word “sustainable.” If you ever used the word in a presentation or group discussion, he would stop you right then and there and lecture you (and all whom might be present for the very educational moment you were about to be exposed to) about how the word is a cancerous term that is not only misleading but a sign of weakness as a designer. To be clear, he did not condemn sustainable design. He only wanted his students to avoid prioritizing their designs to fit an agenda only suitable for an energy focused structure. He believed this was a risk that could completely bypassing the humanistic touch and experience of the space that architecture school works so hardtop instill into its students. With climate change and the economic catastrophes that we have experienced in the late century, I believe it is clear that we should, in fact, hone our designs to be more endurable for these potential avalanches, but we must remind ourselves that preserving the quality of life should still remain as our number one goal in any design we produce.





Comments

  1. In my mind, sustainability is important but I also agree that it shouldn't be the first thing to concern for architecture. The quality of life especially for housing is the most important part. I hope the goal for sustainability won't be one factor to bother the design , but a extra shinning points.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Space and life trump all, however for a building to fully integrate natural ventilation, energy collection, rainwater harvesting, etc. effectively it HAS, HAS, HAS, to know that it wants to do this from the start. I HAS to be hand and hand with the design so that these "features" don't seem tacked on.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular Posts