"Hi, I'll take a sustainable building, but hold the green"
I’d have to say I’m not a huge fan of the staple sustainable aesthetic we’ve seen come out of buildings the last decade or so. Of course, there are some really great projects, but for the most part, I feel as though they mostly look the same and they were just focused on checking off items on a list that deem it “sustainable.” Technology is so ingrained in our lives, we now feel like our buildings have to be just as tech-savvy and designers must sacrifice the identity of the building to fit the sustainable mold. That’s something I really appreciate about Lacaton and Vassal’s work. They maintain their architectural identity while still taking a simple, sustainable approach. In fact, that actually is their identity. It’s not littered with bells and whistles to try and wow the users but rather stripped down to the necessities. The idea of “addition sustainability” vs “subtraction sustainability” is such an interesting concept because for so long I had seen sustainable design as something that should be caught up with the newest greatest technologies or applying green anywhere it’ll stick, but it can also be achieved by stripping away the unnecessary.
When we design, if we could cut the waste and develop architectural concepts that would support sustainability instead of adding sustainable aspects post design. We could retain the architectural character as Lacaton and Vassal. May be that is how passive technologies influence the buildings. They would serve both the purposes.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely love the idea of subtractive sustainability. Minimalist - true sustainability - non consumerist. Very interesting approach which lends to greater user influence in the space post-occupancy.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great idea. If the intention from the start is true sustainability, then its not just the checklist at the end of the project. It's the subtraction of waste from building material and unnecessary fluff.
ReplyDelete