Author Nicolas Sharp
Lecturer Colleen Fay
Date 13 April 2022
Level of Education Three
Text Type Literature Review
Word Count 1522
What makes an architectural design sustainable? And how is this evaluated?
The term sustainable architecture has become synonymous with following rules and guidelines. However, in order to practice sustainable architecture, there is a need to understand its intent and primary drivers. This literature review will investigate the different views on sustainable architecture by different architectural practitioners and theorists, explore the different methods of evaluation through rating systems, as well as examine whether these systems are sufficient in today’s world. The areas covered respond to the natural environment in terms of climate conditions, how theory is practiced, what is emphasised in design, and how this is evaluated. The review ultimately aims to define what the true and in‐depth meaning of sustainable architecture is.
Sustainable Architecture has been used by many people all over the globe to respond to the natural environment and climate conditions. German‐based architects Matthias Sauerbruch and Louisa Hutton (2011) state that the way we must design today is a response to the ecological damage of our planet. There must be a demand for footprint reduction through technological innovation and energy efficiency. Similarly, Erzsebet Lanyi (2007) defines sustainable architecture as creating healthy built environments and responding to the demands of climate through smart energy use. In further support of these statements, Melinda Williams (2018) refers to sustainable homes as warm, dry, and well‐ventilated buildings that have a minimal impact on our planet. This is done through strategies such as materiality, use of natural resources, designing for longevity, and connecting to the site and the natural environment. Each of these authors recognises the importance of the natural environment and the changing climate, and how architecture must respond dynamically to these conditions. A sustainable building must respond to the natural environment and current climate conditions through principles such as energy efficiency, natural resources, and materiality. This response is also commonly known as Green Design.
In contrast, many individuals debate that these green principles only make up a small part of what sustainable architecture is. American‐based architect Daniel E. Williams (2007) states that sustainable design incorporates green architecture principles, however, goes further than just energy efficiency and ecological sensitivity. Buildings, therefore, become living organisms rather than an object. Williams defines sustainable architecture as the creation and construction of projects that contribute to the improvement and continuation of community, economy, and environment. Similarly, Sim Van der Ryn and Stuart Cowan (1996) contend that sustainable design solutions develop from place and nature. It is about being sensitive to the cultural context of the place, through understanding local knowledge and traditions of materials and technologies. These authors concur that sustainable design is more than green design, that green design is precisely just a principle of sustainable design. Architects and designers must be able to approach as many principles as possible while using best practices for each project’s specifics. Sustainable design thus becomes a very broad topic that tackles many aspects.
The aesthetics of buildings is an important aspect considered in architecture. Williams (2018) suggests that buildings must be pleasing to look at as we look after what we love. Therefore, for sustainable buildings to be accepted by the occupants they must be aesthetically pleasing to them. The inhabitants will understand that a decrease in consumption does not mean a reduction in quality. Conversely, Kenneth Frampton (1984) argues that architecture must put emphasis on the tactile senses over the visual sense. A tactile design approach allows for resistance against the destructive use of universal technology where the visual perspective has distanced us from direct experiences with the environment. Similarly, Sauerbruch and Hutton (2011) mention that we should no longer only think about the visual sense but also how it feels, what it smells like, and what sounds can be heard. Therefore, sustainable architecture must address all the senses of its occupants. These authors all have similar opinions about sustainable architecture allowing the building occupants to experience the architecture and space through all our senses.
The visual response to architecture is partly due to the acceleration of global connectivity which is creating homogenised representations of architecture across the globe. Architectural historian Anthony D. King (2016) discusses that objects and ideas are being transferred to different places without being adjusted to the new cultural and historical location. Similarly, British architect and critic Kenneth Frampton (1983) states that universalisation constitutes a demolition of our past cultures and traditions. Frampton goes on to discuss critical regionalism (an approach which aims to counter universal standards, homogenisation, and placeless architecture) as a reaction against these “placeless objects.” Critical regionalism would primarily emphasise connecting the building to the site’s context in terms of nature, history, and culture, but would adopt modern global strategies while keeping the focus on the geographical context. As previously mentioned, Van der Ryn and Cowan (1996) mention that sustainable design should grow from the place in which it is situated. Understanding cultural context, local knowledge, and traditions would allow architecture to develop into sustainable design. These ideas can be seen through the practice of Australian architect Glenn Murcutt. Author Francoise Fromonot (1995) discusses Murcutts strong knowledge of materiality and respect for the natural environment. However, it was his knowledge and passion for the cultures and traditions of place that has allowed his work to not just be green but also respect the context of place. In a short documentary Murcutt (2019) talks about his Simpson Lee House project completed in 1994. The house located in the Blue Mountain forests of New South Wales was designed using many responses to the physical site and nature. However, most significantly it acknowledges the relationship to the historical past of an existing aboriginal path. The circulation of the house thus becomes a response to the way the aboriginal people would move through the landscape. (Maryam Gusheh and Catherine Lassen. 2014)
Figure One. Simpson‐Lee House. Mount Wilson, New South Wales, Australia. 1994
Ever since the founding of the World Green Building Council in 1998, sustainable rating systems have been used to create increased awareness, set targets, and acknowledge sustainable architecture (Say, C. & Wood, A. 2008). As of today, New Zealand’s most common systems are Greenstar and Homestar provided by the New Zealand Green Building Council (NZGBC). The NZGBC aims to improve the quality of New Zealand homes, making them safer, healthier, and happier. Greenstar focuses on commercial buildings and Homestar on residential homes, but both consider principles such as management, energy, comfort, water, transport, materials, site, and emissions. (New Zealand Green Building Council, 2016 & 2020). In comparison, the Living Building Challenge aims to create buildings and developments that are energy-efficient and beautiful but also respond to the characteristics of the place. The challenge consists of seven principles: place, water, energy, health and happiness, materials, equity, and beauty. The principle of place is intended to respect the natural environment and restore the deep story and uniqueness of the context. (International Living Future Institute, 2019). Both systems espouse principles that respond to climate change and healthy buildings. However, the Living Building Challenge goes further than this to respond to the cultures and traditions of place.
Across the globe, there are many rating systems that are concerned with sustainability. However, most of them tend to only cover energy efficiency and green architecture. Daniel E. Williams (2007) mentions that sustainability has no completion; it can be thought of as a continuum. When a project is completed, it can be rated sustainable; however, that does not mean it will still be sustainable in 10 or 20 years. Thus, in this case, a rating system can only define a building to be sustainable at the time it has been tested. Also, as a building ages modifications can be made which can either increase or decrease its sustainability of it. Opposing this idea, C.A. Poveda and R. Young (2015) discuss the benefits of sustainable rating systems. The many systems in place across the world allow a greater engagement in sustainable design, standards are set, and practitioners strive to achieve them. A greater engagement leads to best practices and healthier buildings. Although the majority of the rating systems do not approach sustainability as far as some practitioners would like, they allow people across the world to begin to start thinking about sustainability.
The concept of sustainable architecture is very complex. An overview of this literature shows a multiplicity of definitions of what this is. Many architectural theorists and practitioners define sustainability as a response to the natural environment and climate conditions. However, others suggest that sustainability goes beyond this response, that sustainable architecture creates vernacular architecture through place-making while using technology to harness the natural environment, not replace it. Once a building is designed it becomes a living organism. Therefore, the question of performance is constantly shifting. Consequently, the review systems in place are unable to define if a building is sustainable for its entire lifespan. This review offers an in-depth understanding of how to approach sustainable architecture. From my investigation, sustainable architecture is a very complex topic which makes it difficult to confine it to one definition. However, one might conclude that building for sustainability requires designers to design using a vernacular response to place while using building science to work alongside the natural environment and climate conditions.