We Can Do Better Than "Less Bad" Buildings

I really enjoyed this week’s topic on sustainability because David discussed many different ways architects address architecture to conserve energy. By tackling this issue head on, often the building’s form was influenced but not compromised.  We briefly discussed how important it was for architects to address issues of ‘designing with energy’ and ‘engineering the environment’ to have a better sustainable impact on the environment. Everyday we hear about why it is so important to reduce our carbon footprint because of climate change, sea levels rising, pollution, etc.  Sometimes I wonder why our field doesn’t take these issues more seriously, especially since buildings generate nearly 40% of annual global GHG emissions.

I am currently reading Cradle to Cradle by William McDonough and Michael Braungart. One chapter in particular questions if being “less bad” is enough for the environment? The authors ultimately argue that we can do better, and it starts with good designed materials.  In turn, I would argue that ‘good design’ for sustainability should be mandatory for all buildings. That meeting some LEED standards and specifying some recyclable materials is just "less bad" for the environment, and architects can do better than that.  It should become a norm and not a suggestion. We should all strive to create architecture that is not only designed to look good but also is good for the environment.