Form, Passive, Active - In that order
After our last class and readings on sustainability, I kept going back to the triangle that Franco drew on the white board. Having at the bottom "form" then in the middle "passive strategies" and the top "active strategies". For me it really summed up my undergraduate education in Mexico, it just made sense.
When I started Architecture in Mexico I really thought it wasn't a good program. That I had made a mistake by staying and not taking advantage of the opportunity to study abroad. Although I had people from the US told me that in fact it was a good program (former high school professors and American friends) I couldn't help but thinking that we weren't thinking about Architecture "holistically". That our view in Architecture was narrowed by the idea of studying the form from different perspectives and relating to its context -not only aesthetically but also in its performance, material choices and its landscape- through different passive and active strategies where needed. I was naive. When I transferred to Texas A&M, I realized that that school of thought was actually being taught in the US as "sustainability" and praised by everyone around me. I quickly understood that the knowledge I had acquired was very much important and relevant within our time.
Sustainability, as Abalos says in his essay, has become a generic term applied to many fields and activities. In Architecture, he mentions Arup's proposal of form, passive and active - in that order, summarizes what I think is a good sustainable design practice. Now, I know there are a loooot of advantages on technological applications that could maximize it but I also believe that working with natural conditions to minimize impacts should be considered. Ecological Urbanism is a great start and Ian McHarg theory of Design with Nature just makes sense to me. Thinking about the form of the building, how it sits on the site and what impact it could potentially have not only ecological but social, economical and political gives us a unique position to design to an ever changing world. If we are able to take advantage of passive strategies and then enhance them with active ones I can see buildings becoming resilient for future generations -in all aspects.
Here are some examples that I know considered the form, orientation and context of the building, took advantage of passive strategies and implemented active strategies where needed:
When I started Architecture in Mexico I really thought it wasn't a good program. That I had made a mistake by staying and not taking advantage of the opportunity to study abroad. Although I had people from the US told me that in fact it was a good program (former high school professors and American friends) I couldn't help but thinking that we weren't thinking about Architecture "holistically". That our view in Architecture was narrowed by the idea of studying the form from different perspectives and relating to its context -not only aesthetically but also in its performance, material choices and its landscape- through different passive and active strategies where needed. I was naive. When I transferred to Texas A&M, I realized that that school of thought was actually being taught in the US as "sustainability" and praised by everyone around me. I quickly understood that the knowledge I had acquired was very much important and relevant within our time.
Sustainability, as Abalos says in his essay, has become a generic term applied to many fields and activities. In Architecture, he mentions Arup's proposal of form, passive and active - in that order, summarizes what I think is a good sustainable design practice. Now, I know there are a loooot of advantages on technological applications that could maximize it but I also believe that working with natural conditions to minimize impacts should be considered. Ecological Urbanism is a great start and Ian McHarg theory of Design with Nature just makes sense to me. Thinking about the form of the building, how it sits on the site and what impact it could potentially have not only ecological but social, economical and political gives us a unique position to design to an ever changing world. If we are able to take advantage of passive strategies and then enhance them with active ones I can see buildings becoming resilient for future generations -in all aspects.
Here are some examples that I know considered the form, orientation and context of the building, took advantage of passive strategies and implemented active strategies where needed:
 |
| Renzo Piano's California Academy of Sciences |
 |
| Tokyo Kinderganten by Tezuka Architects |
 |
| MUAC - UNAM, by Teodoro Gonzales de Leon in Mexico City |
This diagram hit home for me as well. When I was working and we would do a renovation, there's a saying "putting lipstick on a pig." As in, you can fix up an old house but if the house itself is a bad design, it's not going to help. In the same way, throwing solar panels or efficient systems into a building that is formally poor for environment is just putting lipstick on a pig.
ReplyDelete