Invisible Green & Visible Green
There is much debate about the relationship between aesthetics and beauty. Some architects think when it really comes down to it, you have to pick one or the other. The optimists believe both are possible.
In his typical contentious style, Eisenman has stated, “Green and sustainability have nothing to do with architecture.”
Architect James Wines is highly critical of starchitects’ role in sustainable architecture, especially Frank Gehry. “To build any of these buildings by Frank Gehry, it takes 60 to 80 percent more metal and steel and construction than it would to enclose that space in a normal way… mind-boggling waste,” Wines complains.
Author Lance Hosey writes about this topic in his book “The Shape of Green: Aesthetics, Ecology, and Design”. He categorizes sustainable design strategies, as they pertain to aesthetics, into two categories: Invisible Green and Visible Green. The following are my interpretation of what components of a building design fall into each category, certainly an incomplete list.
Invisible Green examples:
Visible Green examples:
Invisible Green is easier to regulate as it doesn’t threaten artistic freedom. In a sense, they can be independent of the look and feel of the building. In a lot of ways, architects have found comfort in these strategies. They can be concealed and hidden from view while still achieving the sought after goals of sustainable design. Cesar Pelli has said that architects value “the looks” of a building, and “sustainability doesn’t necessarily photograph.”
Unfortunately we can’t live in the invisible. According to Hosey, studies show that up to 90% of the impact of a building is determined by the earliest design decisions: location, orientation, massing, form, and fenestration. To me this poses an inherent problem when you compare the level of involvement by an architect in the project’s 90%. But it also makes my mind wander back to the "retreat to the facade" discussion we've had...
In his typical contentious style, Eisenman has stated, “Green and sustainability have nothing to do with architecture.”
Architect James Wines is highly critical of starchitects’ role in sustainable architecture, especially Frank Gehry. “To build any of these buildings by Frank Gehry, it takes 60 to 80 percent more metal and steel and construction than it would to enclose that space in a normal way… mind-boggling waste,” Wines complains.
Author Lance Hosey writes about this topic in his book “The Shape of Green: Aesthetics, Ecology, and Design”. He categorizes sustainable design strategies, as they pertain to aesthetics, into two categories: Invisible Green and Visible Green. The following are my interpretation of what components of a building design fall into each category, certainly an incomplete list.
Invisible Green examples:
- Embodied energy
- Material sources
- Building orientation
- Concealed building systems (HVAC equipment, low flow plumbing fixtures, occ. sensors, etc.)
 |
| Invisible Green |
Visible Green examples:
- Form
- Skin
- Materials
- Visible building systems (solar panels, chilled beams, etc.)
 |
| Visible Green |
Invisible Green is easier to regulate as it doesn’t threaten artistic freedom. In a sense, they can be independent of the look and feel of the building. In a lot of ways, architects have found comfort in these strategies. They can be concealed and hidden from view while still achieving the sought after goals of sustainable design. Cesar Pelli has said that architects value “the looks” of a building, and “sustainability doesn’t necessarily photograph.”
Unfortunately we can’t live in the invisible. According to Hosey, studies show that up to 90% of the impact of a building is determined by the earliest design decisions: location, orientation, massing, form, and fenestration. To me this poses an inherent problem when you compare the level of involvement by an architect in the project’s 90%. But it also makes my mind wander back to the "retreat to the facade" discussion we've had...
Phil, interesting post! I hope we begin to see more buildings that are successfully sustainable and designed well on the cover of magazines vs. buildings that look good but are bad for the environment. Your post makes me think that architecture theory can be taught hand in hand with sustainability. Maybe when students learn about Frank Gehry's projects, they not only learn how he came up with the forms but also why it is not a sustainable building.
ReplyDeleteI think about the cost of sustainable design, specifically active strategies, a lot. I think most clients are more willing to pay for the visible green rather than the invisible green, which as you mentioned, keeps architects working in the invisible. In this sense I understand the "retreat to the facade" argument (even though I still disagree with it). I'm optimistic that in the near future the value of the invisible will be sought after by the paying party.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of energy technology and aesthetics I think you're right in saying there's still a clear boundary between the two. Mostly it stems from the design wanting to be seen from a systems perspective or not.
ReplyDelete