aesthetical aspects of sustainability

8/18/2019 Aesthetical Aspects of Sustainability

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aesthetical-aspects-of-sustainability 1/8

Florian Techel: Aesthetical Aspects of Sustainability p. 1 of 8

Aesthetical Aspects of SustainabilityBy Florian Techel

Department of Architecture

American University of Sharjah

PO Box 26666, Sharjah

United Arab [email protected]

Table of Contens:Aesthetical Aspects of Sustainability .................................................................................. 1

Abstract ........................................................................................................................... 2

Discussion of Sustainability in the past 30 Years ........................................................... 2

Results ............................................................................................................................. 3

Developments in other fields, Examples ........................................................................ 4

Concept of Branding ................................................................................................... 4

Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 5

Outlook for the field of Architecture & Building ........................................................... 6

Marketing the right architecture...................................................................................... 7

Final Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 8




Abstract

The topic of sustainability in the design of buildings has –in the past- been viewed

primarily under the aspects of morality, responsibility, ethics, etc. While these areperfectly reasonable arguments, the turn towards sustainable behavior, especially in

affluent societies, has not yielded the proper behavior, has been a slow one at best.

Simply speaking: the need for conservation is more readily understood if external factors

dictate such behavior.

While there have been some references in the past that viewed the topic under aesthetics

aspects, for example, proportional aspects, such as “Small is Beautiful”1.

This paper will investigate possible reasons as to why the aesthetic aspects of

sustainability have been underexposed in the past. It will also argue why the aestheticaspects are important in this discussion in the future and may develop into the driving

force behind the movement towards sustainable design.

Discussion of Sustainability in the past 30 Years

Since the so-called Energy Crisis in the early 1970s the topic of Sustainability has been

widely discussed primarily under aspects such as economics, ecologics and ethics.

This approach has only lead to a partial change in behavior, in some countries better than

others and within those countries to changing degrees. A generally higher taxation of the

use of energy, especially the burning of fossil fuels, has lead to increase in the efficiencyof cars, primarily in Europe and Japan. On the other hand a recent trend towards Sports

Utility Vehicles (now offered by every big car manufacturer), especially in the United

States has reversed a trend started in the mid 1970s towards more efficient automobilesand lead to grotesquely inefficient vehicles.

The trend towards higher energy efficiency in buildings, at least in Europe, was less of avoluntary one, but rather mandated by performance standards and regulations established

by the respective governments. Depending on the price of fuel, the temptation for owners

of real estate to either follow or to try to circumvent the toughening performance

standards varied. As the price of energy varied throughout the years (e.g. depending on

the exchange ratio of the dollar towards other currencies) the customer behavior varied.

In times that the price for energy was high landlords were more likely to follow the

regulations towards energy conservation, in times of lower energy prices they were

tempted to circumvent the standards.

During these times, however, few landlords demanded more efficient (sustainable)

buildings. Clients therefore were not the driving force behind a more energy efficient way

of building, a sustainable architecture.

1 E.F. Schumacher: Small is Beautiful, London, Blond and Briggs, 1973.




Sustainable behavior can be measured to a certain extent by the amount of energy used

by a nation per capita.

1. Qatar ..................... .................... 26,772.64 (2000)2. Iceland ........................ ............... 12,245.61 (2000)

3. Kuwait ......................... ............... 10,528.89 (2000)

4. United Arab Emirates ..... ............ 10,174.86 (2000)

5. Bahrain ....................... ................. 9,858.09 (2000)

6. Luxembourg ......................... ........ 8,409.00 (2000)

7. Canada ....................... ................. 8,156.31 (2000)

8. United States ............................... 8,148.38 (2000)

9. Trinidad and Tobago .................... 6,660.09 (2000)

10. Finland ................................ ......... 6,408.98 (2000)

Average .......................... .............. 2,546.56 (2000)

China (Mainland) ..................... ......... 904.93 (2000)

India ....................... ......................... 494.03 (2000)

Bangladesh ..................... ................. 142.43 (2000)2

Whether, or whether not such an energy turnover is sustainable depends greatly on thevantage point. A middle-eastern gulf country with vast oil reserves most likely will look

at the topic differently compared to a country in the subcontinent without these energy

reserves. A meteorologist, who is increasingly alarmed by more frequent and moreintensive weather phenomena, and tracks these back to global warming, again may look

at the topic differently.

Results

Since the mid-1970s the conduct of an intensive environmental discussion in

industrialized countries has led to two distinct results.

It led to the formation of a political (green) movement. This group is open towards

rational and primarily ethical arguments and is willing to change its own behavior

accordingly. This has, to date, been a minority within these countries.

Through the participation of some green parties in government coalitions, it has led to an

increase in sanctions towards environmentally unfriendly (unsustainable) behavior.Legislation has been passed to increase the taxation on fossil fuels (with the beneficial

side-effect of reducing the demand for imports) and technical standards have been

introduced and repeatedly stiffened defining the energy consumption of buildings.

This has, in part, led to an increase in the efficient use of energy and thus thesustainability of modern buildings. At the same time a general increase in wealth in these

2 http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/ene_com_ene_use

Commercial energy use (kg of oil equivalent per capita). Commercial energy use refers to apparentconsumption, which is equal to indigenous production plus imports and stock changes, minus exports andfuels supplied to ships and aircraft engaged in international transport.




societies has led to the desire for more and larger residential and office spaces and thus

partially consumed the increases in efficiency.

This approach assumes that the clientele is susceptible for rational arguments. Theintroduction of laws, however, concedes that a significant portion of a society is not able

or not willing to follow rational arguments in this area and, in varying degrees, has to be

forced.

Unfortunately this approach only focuses on one single aspect (utilitas) of the trinity ofarchitectural design as originally formulated by the Roman architect Vitruvius Pollio:

Firmitas (Stability), Utilitas (Utility), Venustas (Attractiveness). Vitruvius stated the goal

that every building design should strive to fulfill all three aspects. Consequently a

building that is wasting energy may be attractive on the surface but not truly beautiful for

it is not in harmony with its environment.

Developments in other fields, ExamplesThe previous discussion has shown that sustainability appealing towards the ratio or the

conscience of the user may have a limited effect. The pricing of energy, while generally

impacting the behavior of the customer, is not generally a limiting factor. In an affluent,

post-industrial society, people are not kept off purchasing expensive items simplybecause they are expensive. The trend towards fuel-guzzling SUV’s in industrialized

countries with a perfectly developed road system, in the past decade, is ample support to

this assessment. Instead customer behavior is frequently motivated by irrational motives:

love, envy, jealousy, greed, vanity, sense of belonging, self esteem, etc.

Concept of Branding

Many industries, such as cars (Mercedes, BMW, Lexus, etc.), sport shoes (Nike, Adidas,

Puma, etc.), mobile phones (Nokia, Sony-Ericsson, Motorola, etc.), computers (Toshiba,

Apple, Dell, etc.), fashion (Nike, Levis, Tommy Hilfiger) have shown in an exemplary

way that customers are willing to spend more for a brand product for various soft issues(not necessarily rationally motivated). Self-definition, alleged user-friendliness, fashion,

lifestyle, role models, etc. are strong motivators in the purchase of brand products.

Companies have realized this long ago and invest large amounts of money in advertising

not particular features or qualities of a single product, instead developing an image for

the brand label overall. Research has shown that customers frequently display a strongbrand loyalty, hardly ever changing the car manufacturer, frequently staying with one

mobile phone manufacturer and frequently sticking to the same computer brand. This is

why so much advertising is going after young customers, for once the brand loyalties

have been formed, the average customer is not likely to change his/her opinion towards acertain brand / label.




Various Brands known worldwide

Conclusion

People do not always behave in a reasonable and sensible fashion when it comes to

making purchasing decisions. Customers are displaying a behavior in their daily lives that

is not always oriented towards maximizing returns, increasing efficiency and saving

money wherever they can. Customers frequently incorporate additional soft aspects intotheir decisions, such a fashion, belonging, desire, self-identification, that extend beyond

mere utilitarian and/or rational aspects and dictate behavior.

In other areas, such as politics and religion many people are tempted to give credibility toa statement not primarily because of the statement itself and if it makes sense or not, but

more likely because of the individual or the company who stated it.




Outlook for the field of Architecture & Building

This behavior extends well into the realm of architecture. It is common practice to quote

prominent architects with the motif of adding credibility to the point one is trying tomake. The better is the enemy of the good in itself may be a statement worth some debate,

but if Walter Gropius has stated that The better is the enemy of the good one is less likely

to question the statement, simply because the phrase has been made by a famous

architect. That appears to be one main motif behind the usage of quotes to begin with.

One could argue that architectural styles, at least in the 20th century, had the prime focus

of selling architecture. An architect, alone by him- or herself, appears relatively weak

versus the market as a whole. The moment he or she starts to engage in a compound, a

network, starts to bond with other, similar minded architects, starts to promote them as

he/she expects to be promoted by them, a strengthening effect takes place. Workers

unions claimed long ago: United we stand, divided we fall!

The International Style, Post-Modernism, Structuralism, Deconstructivism are all design

doctrines that were conceived by individuals with a certain rationale in mind, but onlybecame successful once a certain minimum number of supporters rallied behind the

respective theme. Once they became successful, many, for the urge to simply emulate the

previous economic success, copied them.

Few big architectural design offices have been successful at creating architecture brands

for themselves: Foster & Associates, HOK, Perkins & Will, Renzo Piano, Richard

Rogers, SOM are all internationally recognized names. Although the architecture of these

offices has changed substantially over time and depending on the respective chief

architects (e.g. Gordon Bunshaft, Bruce Graham, at SOM), these offices can sell their

architecture worldwide primarily on their own reputation, similar to a car company wherethe sense of brand quality transcends beyond the individual model line.

Most other architectural practices are small in size and therefore do not have the

respective marketing clout, therefore are either known only on a national, perhaps even

regional level, frequently only post-mortem.

Strangely the topic of sustainability has not become an architectural style, an ism, perhaps

thankfully so, because styles have the tendency to come and go. On the other hand,perhaps it is worth the effort to learn some marketing-101 from the successful branding if

only to do the right thing.




Marketing the right architecture

When comparing the emergence of previous architectural styles one can trace certain

similarities:

1. Manifestation of certain ideals

2. Gathering of a group of followers

3. Coining of a catching name

4. Careful creation of images that either describe objects of that style or that help to

define and render the objective

5. Occupation of the media, first special trade magazines, later more popular general

periodicals

Sustainability, even among architects, is too frequently still viewed as an afterthought,something for specialists, just not genuinely architectural, something that the profession

as a whole and with every stroke of their design is concerned about. In as much as the

topic is afterthought it is not really surprising that the profession still not fully identifies

with it as genuinely theirs, therefore rarely makes it to the front page of architecturalmagazines. In many countries architects leave the energy performance calculations to a

specialist similar to leaving the structural calculation to a civil engineer.

The questions arises: Is it possible to view a building as sustainable, i.e. are there

typological elements in the building that can be recognized as sustainable or elementsthat make a building sustainable? Just as deconstructivist architecture could be identifiedby elements that defy order, symmetry and organization (all elements of previous

architectural styles that the deconstructivist movement tried to overcome) the question is:are there building elements that can be identified with sustainability or that identify

sustainability? If that were the case this could be translated into an imagery language that

could be exploited in an aesthetic sense. It would then become possible to brand

sustainable architecture by carefully exploiting these elements in a language of images.

Some readers may start to wonder if these have not been the same questions as with any

other architectural style in the past (always good architecture, of course!). Any good

architecture should have always incorporated all aspects of the design of a building and

consequently also the aspects of environment and sustainability.

The difference may be, that, after a quarter century of discussing the topic, architects

have received some strong allies. Big business has become involved in this market. MajorEuropean energy conglomerates (oil, electricity) are investing major amounts into

renewable forms of energy. No more are a few (lonely) individual architects behind this

movement, but major capital-intensive industries. Market forces dictate that they need a

return on their investments. If architectural quality, both technical and aesthetic, supports

that direction, they are behind it just like the board of any car manufacturer is behind a

breathtaking new car design that promises lots of sales.




Final Conclusion

Instead of repeatedly emphasizing the utilitarian, ecological and ethical dimensions of

sustainability, which should all appear perfectly clear to the experts, it is theresponsibility of designers to visible-ize these aspects. Our challenge as designers is to

make sustainable buildings so breathtakingly beautiful that potential clients will look atthem in their neighbors yard, magazines, coffee table books, or the Internet, gasp and

exclaim: “I want to have one of these!” The fact that these buildings will be friendly to

the environment then turns into a very welcome side-effect, but the main motivator will

be aesthetical aspects of the respective design.

New communication technologies such as the World Wide Web have helped to level theplaying field and now permit small architectural firms or interest groups to easily

compete with the “Big Guys.” It is not very difficult to create online discussion fora that

focus on these topics, consequently little excuse to doing it.

Just like the architects of the Modern Movement, we know we are doing the right thing.

So (paraphrasing the American philosopher Nike: “let’s do it!”

We all will be better off because of it.

aesthetical aspects of sustainability

Documents