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.
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.
ReplyDeleteSpace 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