Technology or 'Vernacular'?

 As I was reading Inaki Abalos' writing, 'Aesthetics and Sustainability: Alternatives', I reflected back to our topic a little while ago which focused on vernacular architecture. I noticed the question of sustainability in architecture: is it an increase in technology and new material studies? Or is it the application of 'old' techniques such as using the land, surrounding environment, building orientation, etc to create sustainable architecture? Do we build for the structure to last or design it to be disassembled in 20-30 years? Why not both?

It's an interesting topic to be sure as it's introduced to students almost directly from the start of our academic career. There is encouragement for sustainability, but this topic means something different to each professor and more often than not, it's technological mixed with "prior vernacular strategies." As if the prior strategies are the best sustainable solutions and need to be included so that each area approves of the sustainable design.

I appreciate architecture that utilizes the surrounding landscape and environment as the best approach to sustainability. One project that was done in Spain for an industrial building was made almost entirely from the earth that it sat on. The exterior walls were made of compacted earth held together with limestone so that when the shelter was no longer needed, the earth could be put back as it was with minimal disturbance. Other projects that utilize orie
ntation and an in depth study of the sun and wind to optimize human comfort and reduce energy consumption are more beautiful and successful projects in my eyes than ones that rely purely on new construction materials and technology.

But this varies based on location and building size. Both are needed for a successful reduction of earth-ruining construction habits.

Rammed Earth Walls

"...sustainability gives rise to a never-ending number of questions by changing scale slightly, and focusing on what is nearby..." -Inaki Abalos