Living Buildings
"...provide the architect with instruments that allow him/her to think of his/her buildings as live organisms, entities, permanently exchanging energy with their environment, with a limited life cycle."
- From Abalos_Aesthetics and Sustainability
There is a rising and more prominent need for action. Action from all, but we as designers and architects must take it upon our buildings to keep the conversation up. Buildings account for almost 40% of carbon emissions, and if that by itself isn't a reason to think about how your design can change that statistic - then you are in the wrong place!
Yes, the conversation about sustainability has been muted and mundane - but the topic of Technology, Energy, and Sustainability makes this doable! At the end of the Abalos reading he states, "if there only exists an aesthetic debate, if there is an idea of beauty following sustainability, it will be here to stay." Well guess what, we can start that conversation. We just need to turn the conversation to innovative design strategies rather than technical legitimation (Moshen Mostafavi). Many examples David has shown in class are doing this. Solving a design problem is what we are best at, and with insight from other disciplines such as physicists and ecologists we can design buildings that are living organisms and better the environment as a whole.
I had the change to tour the Bullit Center in Seattle, Washington. As we walked through the building and noted all the systems that make the building "alive" there were signs describing each one. This helped me understand the more complex system, but put it into graphic terms I could understand from a design standpoint. Taking that information I learned will help me inform design decisions regarding living buildings moving forward.
I think the Bullit Center fits into the aesthetic conversation as well, because it's hard to ignore the giant roof of solar panels - DUH... That's the idea. But unlike some of the examples in class, the aesthetics themselves within this building are not creating the systems... Such as the Evaporated Building (Philippe Rahm) & The Zhuhai Huafa Contemporary Art Museum (Abalos & Sentkiewiez). I think the combination of the two varying techniques is how we solve this design problem!
- From Abalos_Aesthetics and Sustainability
There is a rising and more prominent need for action. Action from all, but we as designers and architects must take it upon our buildings to keep the conversation up. Buildings account for almost 40% of carbon emissions, and if that by itself isn't a reason to think about how your design can change that statistic - then you are in the wrong place!
Yes, the conversation about sustainability has been muted and mundane - but the topic of Technology, Energy, and Sustainability makes this doable! At the end of the Abalos reading he states, "if there only exists an aesthetic debate, if there is an idea of beauty following sustainability, it will be here to stay." Well guess what, we can start that conversation. We just need to turn the conversation to innovative design strategies rather than technical legitimation (Moshen Mostafavi). Many examples David has shown in class are doing this. Solving a design problem is what we are best at, and with insight from other disciplines such as physicists and ecologists we can design buildings that are living organisms and better the environment as a whole.
I had the change to tour the Bullit Center in Seattle, Washington. As we walked through the building and noted all the systems that make the building "alive" there were signs describing each one. This helped me understand the more complex system, but put it into graphic terms I could understand from a design standpoint. Taking that information I learned will help me inform design decisions regarding living buildings moving forward.
I think the Bullit Center fits into the aesthetic conversation as well, because it's hard to ignore the giant roof of solar panels - DUH... That's the idea. But unlike some of the examples in class, the aesthetics themselves within this building are not creating the systems... Such as the Evaporated Building (Philippe Rahm) & The Zhuhai Huafa Contemporary Art Museum (Abalos & Sentkiewiez). I think the combination of the two varying techniques is how we solve this design problem!
"Solving a design problem is what we are best at, and with insight from other disciplines such as physicists and ecologists we can design buildings that are living organisms and better the environment as a whole." Your point here goes along with the importance of collaboration and learning in our field. We are the masters of solving design problems but to truly tackle this issue maybe we need to spend some time with some knew cohorts to gain insight from them. What is the way to transfer their knowledge into design? Another design problem right there that WE can solve if we put our minds to it.
ReplyDeleteGood point, we are capable of bringing architetural concepts and sustaiable measure together in a pleasing way. We typically do not like the aesthetics of sustainable architecture as it overpowers the architecture and make buildings look like machines, but if we start to see building as a living organism rather than efficiency machines, we might come up with a new model for sustainable architecture. Something that feels more natural and alive rather than assisted living.
ReplyDeleteWe definitely need to do more, I also feel that LEED certification should be the springboard not the goal for sustainable design. Too many buildings that have obtained that certification fall into the mundane. I think what's really exciting is the idea that we should be using these limitations as opportunity for new design. I respect what the Bullit Center has done and can do, even some of the economics of the building are rather innovative and progressive, however the design of the whole could do more.
ReplyDeleteYou bring up a good point about LEED Aaron. I feel that sometimes, LEED is not really the "best" standard for sustainable design. While it certainly helps, it is not the gold standard. Many buildings are built with certain credits in mind, that are not the best possible practice of sustainability.
ReplyDelete