Where is the Green Architect?
To paraphrase Mem Fox, there are modern architects, classical architects, diary architects, scared architects and brave architects. But where is the green architect?
Architecture has significant influence, and it is especially critical in the current energy transition. Traditionally, architecture has been dominated by debates about form versus function, with some designs imitating nature and others reflecting changing cultural norms. However, in the pursuit of sustainable buildings, many have focused on science, often at the expense of art. However, in order to create meaningful architecture we must balance both elements.
The challenge recently has been that many early 'green' buildings, while technically efficient, were often expensive and lacked aesthetic appeal, making it difficult to gain widespread acceptance. Consider the concept of passive houses, for instance. Technically, these are excellent, demonstrating that there should be no distinction between a building's design and performance. They depict a future of architecture in which buildings not only consume less energy but also benefit the environment. However, there has been little widespread acceptance in Australia.
Early efforts in green building were appropriately focused on scientific advancements to create better structures. However, we must also consider the aesthetic and cultural value of these structures. What do the buildings look and feel like? How do they shape and reflect our culture? Green architecture could transform architecture in the same way that steel did in the early twentieth century. However, it must go beyond scientific principles in order to inspire and uplift.
A building's performance is important, but it must also elicit an emotional response. After all, what is the use of a highly efficient building if it does not provide a positive experience for its occupants? We must evaluate buildings not only based on their technical performance, but also on how they make us feel. A building must provide shelter and security while also connecting its occupants to the outside world.
This idea of having two seemingly contradictory truths is consistent with ancient Chinese philosophy. Accepting paradoxes and inconsistencies in order to perceive a unified reality beyond binary oppositions. As architects, we must strike a balance between technical performance and aesthetics, green and blue. The performance of a century-old building is only important if it is worthy and durable enough to last 100 years.
The relationship between these paradoxes, form and function must be integrative. A building must be aesthetically pleasing, functional, and inspiring. We must consider the building's broader context, including its impact on the community and the environment. A building should make the community feel safe and optimistic while also being environmentally friendly. For example, a garden roof can reduce the urban heat island effect while also providing food for neighbours. Or, a passive house can provide thermal comfort for the occupants with minimal noise to the neighbours. It's about delivering a delightful building, not just technical perfection.
Architects create delight through curating materials and designing spaces that our clients enjoy. So, why do we frequently separate building performance and building enjoyment? This is similar to distinguishing between mental and physical health, where one can be physically healthy but mentally ill, or vice versa. A building's occupants should feel safe and secure, which reduces fear and increases comfort. These feelings are just as important as the technical aspects of energy efficiency.
Architects are responsible for transforming data and emotions into exceptional designs. However, there are times when data and emotions appear to conflict. What should an architect do now? Recognise the constraints, which are frequently site-specific. A difficult site may make it difficult to design a technically efficient building, but this does not mean the project should be abandoned. Instead, strive to create the best possible design within the constraints. Good design is inherently durable; so while it may not be technically perfect, it’s about balancing competing priorities so that these structures can be cared for and cherished over time.
Architecture is a response to technology and culture, combining them in novel and innovative ways. As these factors change, so should our approach to architecture. The green architect must be a visionary, combining sustainability and beauty, technical excellence with emotional resonance, and personal comfort with community well-being. By doing so, we can create buildings that embrace all colours. Buildings that are not only energy-efficient but also inspiring and joyful, thereby shaping a better future for all.
