Sustainability with a Capital S

 In a recent job interview, I was presenting my portfolio with a speech I practically had memorized at that point. When I got to my COTE 10 project, I was interrupted by one of the interviewers: “So would you say that Sustainability is a big priority for you in design?” I floundered. In an exceptionally wordy and repetitive answer, I attempted to cover honesty through a variety of tactics that generally revolved around saying nothing of substance. Thank goodness I was interrupted because I probably would have kept on going for an embarrassing length of time. “It’s okay, you don’t have to say yes.” Although relieved, I still felt as if had committed a faux pas.

To say that I didn’t prioritize Sustainability felt equal to taking a controversial political stance. In reality, I don’t typically prioritize it and the only reason why it was such an important focus in that project was because it was in the prompt. There is no denying that this topic is extremely hot right now and I would have to agree with some of my classmates in saying that it is a buzzword used to virtue signal and gain good press for everyone involved.

Sustainability is such a layered and convoluted subject that can be approached from many angles and tactics. I really appreciated how the projects we were shown this past week was an attempt to remind us that Sustainability with a capital S isn’t the only way. It doesn’t have to dissuade us from making an effort to design buildings that perform their tasks in the most efficient way. Sustainable design cannot just be a checklist of elements that make no sense together and come with many hidden costs. While many of these elements are inherently good, we must take a step back and analyze the building as whole ecosystem. Like Guattari stated with his analysis of three ecologies, we must remember the different approaches to design. And that it’s okay if you don’t always prioritize Sustainability with a capital S.