|
Article Excerpt
Abstract: Globally wc arc grappling with the concept of sustainability. What does it mean and how should we respond to ensure that the planet's current ecosystems survive? Architects are in the 'front line' because of the impact of buildings on resource use and waste generation. Most definitions of sustainability are unhelpful because of their wordiness, lack of detail or ambiguity. Others distort the concept of sustainability to allow business-as-usual (i.e., unsustainable) activity to continue. Using one particular model of sustainability, this paper explores the ethical dilemma faced by architects in the residential sector when confronted by a client who wants a house that is clearly unsustainable. The paper begins with definitions of sustainability and ethics; then the literature examining sustainable architecture is reviewed for possible solutions to the dilemma. Two indicators are suggested to make a broad-brush assessment of sustainability. Finally, some practical options for the practising architect are suggested.
Keywords: Architecture, Ecological footprint, Ethics, Housing, Sustainability
Introduction
Globally we are struggling to understand the concept of sustainability. What does it mean and how should we respond to ensure that our planet's current ecosystems survive? While the problem of living in a sustainable way must be addressed by all sectors of society, architects are arguably at the 'front line' in terms of the consequences of their decisions. Buildings last for 50-100 years, and the impact of their construction and use is therefore significant (UIA, 1993). In 1990, as just one example, 28% of Australia's energy-related emissions were attributable to the building sector (AGO, 1999). End-use energy is predicted to rise by 40% and 91% in the residential and non-residential sectors respecrively by 2010, assuming business-as-usual. The resource use and waste generation of buildings is also considerable. It is estimated that 30-40% of all Australia's solid waste disposed at landfill comes from the construction and demolition of buildings (Newton, 2001). Typically consisting of concrete, soil/rubble, clay, timber-based materials or plasterboard, the country buries approximately eight million tonnes or 430 kg per capita of this type of waste every year.
Only three percent of residential homes in Australia are designed by an architect (ABC, 2000). While this figure could imply that the influence of architects on residential housing stock is small, the work of architects continues to be promoted and an architect-designed home is desired by many residents, whether as a new home, or a remake or renovation of an existing dwelling. Architects, however, are also influential in establishing design trends, which are adopted by producers of mass housing and new residential neighbourhoods, such as in Palm Cove, Queensland, which offers potential buyers the choice of "unique architecturally designed homes" by "some of Australia's leading architects" (Oceans Edge, 2008). A greater involvement of architects in the provision of housing has been proposed by London (2007, p 48), who reminds us that in the 1960s and 1970s "many architects worked closely with house builders to produce affordable, well-designed modern houses" in cities such as Sydney and Perth. This proposition is part of a recent discussion within the profession in Australia for architects to engage more in the "concept of mass customization" in the delivery of suburban houses, particularly "ones which are more environmentally sustainable" (Lyon, 2006, p 9). Architecturally designed houses are, by definition, different from mass housing and are generally more expensive because of the architect's fees, design and constructional uniqueness. The architect's clientele usually have an above-average disposable income and a desire to express their own individuality in terms of their dwelling. Meeting any criteria of sustainability is unlikely when a wealthy client intent on a large well-appointed house confronts an architect. How should an architect behave when confronted by a client seeking and unsustainable design? How does and architect trying to practise sustainable design deal with such an ethical dilemma? Can an architect test their designs for basic sustainability? This paper explores these questions, not just for Australia, but also in general.
The paper begins with definitions of sustainability and ethics, together with their guiding principles. The literature, which discusses the ethics of sustainable architecture, is then reviewed to see if these texts offer any insight or guidance to the resolution of the problem. An attempt is then made to establish some objective indicators of sustainable housing against which current practice in residential architectural design might be critiqued. The paper finally suggests some of the options that practising architects might employ if they attempt to resolve the contradictions between their clients' desires and sustainability.
Sustainability
While there are apparently more than 300 definitions of sustainability (Sustainability Now. 2008) there is no universally accepted definition of this overused word. Most definitions are complex and wordy, and do not provide a good benchmark against which to evaluate one's practice. In reality, sustainability is a straightforward concept. An activity, condition or state, which is sustainable, is commonly understood to be one that can continue indefinitely or at least for a very long time. If this cannot occur, then it is quite simply unsustainable. For sustainability, we understand that inputs must equal outputs. We can imagine simple systems in our every day lives, which can be described as sustainable or unsustainable. For example, a person whose expenditure is less than or equal to their income could be described as living a financially sustainable lifestyle. A person who consumes more calories than they use will not be able to maintain their current weight, which could then be described as unsustainable. More complex systems such as buildings are harder to evaluate but this does not mean that their sustainability (or otherwise) cannot be tested against some basic criteria. Sustainability itself is not...
|
