On Sustainability & Scarcity in Architecture

“What we might call “scarcity thinking” opens up new possibilities for redistributing what already exists. By redistributing I do not mean doing more with less, or even renovating things in the world; I am arguing for a different kind of activity in which the creativity of the designer is focused not on objects but on the processes that precede and follow the making of objects.”

After reading Jeremy Till’s article Scarcity contra Austerity, I really began rethinking any preconceived notions I may have had on the idea of sustainability within the practice of architecture and began looking at things from a different perspective. With sustainability we often focus our attention on ensuring our buildings follow LEED guidelines and measures, leave a small carbon footprint, use less water and energy, produce less waste and pollution, and etc. However, with a more complex understanding of scarcity, versus the more straightforward definition of the term as a lack there of, we can begin to challenge this view of sustainability as a limit in which buildings are thought of as merely objects.

After the alleged boom we have seen in the profession within the recent decade following the recession, architects seem to be hooked to the idea that creating and adding more shiny new buildings to this world is our main role as designers. And with our education and training it is honestly easy for us to jump to the conclusion that building something new or different is the solution to the problem when that may not always be the case or proper response. This may go against the capitalistic side of our business, but it remains true to who we are as designers and the values we hold as a profession. It involves setting aside our assumptions about how a space should be designed and beginning to think outside the box to find the right solution.

Secondary school examined by Architecture 00

Alejandro Aravena's proposition for Constitución, Chile

“Conditions of scarcity demand new ways of thinking, an expansion of the role of the architect and designer outwards in order to function more broadly and imaginatively as spatial agents.”

The example Till presented in his article about the London based firm Architecture 00 that provided a more modest approach to easing the crowding and congestion in a corridor within a secondary school by simply retiming and staggering their daily breaks was to the point. It actually reminded me of Alejandro Aravena’s proposition for the city of Constitución in Chile where they suggested placing a forest or public park on the waterfront to help protect the city against future tsunamis and flooding, allowing the vegetation to slow down the flow of the water naturally. In the end nothing was physically built, but he provided a solution to the problem that was effective and provided the community with the public space that they lacked before.

I think this goes without saying but as architects we are first and foremost problem solvers. Yes, we may possess the technical skills and knowledge to address a wide variety of problems, but these are merely tools within our kit that we should when we appropriate. So, moving forward, with the immanent conditions of scarcity we face we may need to begin rethinking the way that we as architects may have to operate in the future.