(This essay won the grand prize for the 1st United Architects of The Philippines (UAP) Professional Development Center essay competition on sustainable environmental development held in April 1996.)
The Greening Of Architecture
(The Architect’s Social Responsibility
Towards Sustainable Environmental Development)
Towards Sustainable Environmental Development)
Man is a singular creature. He has a set of gifts
which make him unique among the animals: so that, unlike them, he is not a figure in the landscape
- he is a shaper of the landscape.
Jacob Bronowski
The Ascent of ManWittingly, or perhaps unwittingly, man, in his desire to shape the landscape to satisfy his whims and dreams, has altered irreversibly the natural order of the earth, sea, and sky - the habitat of his physical existence. Such is the irony of progress that man, through his two million years or so of evolving into the intelligent Homo sapiens who, according to the Utopian visionary, Joseph Beuys, has learned to “equate the concept of creativity with the possibility of shaping the world,” perchance to modify the environment, for better or worse, has come to terms with. Even as man creates does he destroy.
In his quest for a good life, man learned to explore and manipulate the resources of nature – to shape and control the physical environment to suit his own ends. Man’s ingenuity enabled him to attain scientific discoveries and technological inventions that facilitated a comfortable and highly civilized lifestyle that resulted unfortunately to the wanton exploitation of nature. The dawn of the Industrial Revolution sealed the fate, as it were, of the earth. From then on the environment had been subjected to immeasurable despoliation, pollution, contamination, denudation, depletion, and devastation. In the name of progress, man insensibly opened a Pandora’s box of technological genies which sowed the seeds of destruction of earth’s fragile ecosystem – the complex network of biological, physical, and chemical interactions that constitute the web of life.
Earth, with its delicate organic and inorganic composition, can only endure so much degradation. Through the years it has been sending signals indicating that a cataclysmic backlash may as well be triggered by man’s insensitive desecration of the environment. Indeed man has been witnessing the wrath and fury constantly unleashed by nature in ever increasing destructive magnitude. These natural catastrophes, aggravated by man’s irresponsible intervention, lead to earth’s entropy and the eventual extinction of the human specie. It is a biological fact that an organism that destroys its habitat destroys itself. Earth, from its ancient beginnings as a chunk of molten rock and gas some 4.5 billion years ago, will continue to evolve even without man. And Ecclesiastes hints, “One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh; but the earth abideth forever.”
Somehow man realized the folly of careless tinkering with the nature’s vulnerable equilibrium. Gradually he became conscious of ecology, a term originated in 1869 by the German biologist, Ernst Haeckel, from the Greek word oikos – “the study of the interactions of organisms, populations, and biological species with their living and non-living environment.” Out of guilt, everyone became concerned with the environment; and everywhere appeared a frantic attempt to heal the earth. In 1988 Time even named the endangered earth as Planet of the Year in a significant move to stir worldwide awareness towards the deteriorating state of the environment. And in June 1992, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development held an Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro to formulate the Rio Declaration which became the basis for Agenda 21, the blueprint for action for sustainable development which “meets the needs of the present generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” It essentially called for international cooperation “in a spirit of global partnership to conserve, protect, and restore the health and integrity of the Earth’s ecosystem” relative to man’s economic, social, cultural, political, and technological growth.
The architect has always had a hand in shaping the environment. As the master builder he was creatively involved in the building of the early settlements when man, after getting tired of nomadic existence - of endless wandering in the primordial landscape where he hunted and gathered whatever he needed for his subsistence - decided to settle down as he discovered agriculture and the live-giving essence of the earth. Even at that crude stage of architecture, the master builder, with his mystical reverence towards the elements of nature, reflected on the essential features of the site such as topography, sun and wind orientation, and climatic variations before building the structures. Vincent Scully states in Architecture: The Natural and Manmade that all pre-Greek or non-Greek cultures, regarding themselves as integral parts of the landscape, attempted to echo in their structures the shapes of the landscapes and evoke its depths. The architectural principle was that of the imitation of natural forms of human beings who sought to fit themselves safely into the order of nature.
And then man eventually settled down with the sense of permanence which, as pointed out by the British art historian, Sir Kenneth Clark, was the prerequisite of civilization. The civilized way of life required man to seek for an enclosed space to live in - a personal environment suggested by the patterns of his activities which led to the design and construction of structures for living, trading, governing, worshipping, and entertaining. As civilization flourished and a complex interrelated set of human movements and activities developed, the architect/master builder created spectacular forms of structures and landscape features that altered the shape of the earth. Urbanism signaled the laying out of towns and cities where, as Aristotle said, men gathered to live and remained in order to live a good life. And as population grew into ever increasing proportions, more and more urban centers were planned and built which resulted to the transformation of the natural landscape into a man-made environment where all the despoliation of nature emanated.
It is not yet too late for the architect to lend a hand in rejuvenating the impaired environment. Ken Yeang, a Malaysian architect who specializes in environment issues applied to building design, espouses in his book, Designing with Nature, “green architecture” or “sustainable architecture” which is environmentally responsible and in a harmony with nature. He premises that every act of building alters the environment, there are finite limitations to human use of earth’s natural resources, and the human impact increases proportionately with the increase in demands for living conditions beyond those of simple existence. Therefore, it is the architect’s responsibility to engage in a holistic approach to design which requires a proper understanding of the spatial interactions of ecosystems or the relationship between the biosphere and technosphere or between the natural and man-made environment.
Holism is “a theory that the universe and especially living nature is correctly seen in term of interacting wholes (as of living organisms) that are more than the mere sum of elementary particles.” It is the principle with which Constantinos Doxiadis formulated ekistics, the science of human settlements that draws on interdisciplinary researches and experiences. Frank Lloyd Wright alluded to it with his “organic architecture” or architecture from within outward; or in a philosophical sense, the relationship of a part-to-whole and whole-to-part. Viewed in that context, the architect must be aware not only of the interrelationship of the elements of his design but also of the impact of his design to the immediate surroundings and, to a greater extent, the earth’s ecosystem. The built environment is a dynamic system that has continuous interactions with its ecological environment. Therefore, the architect, as Ken Yeang suggests, “must be concerned not only with the extent and range of human use of the ecosystem and earth’s resources in the designed system, but also with the way in which these elements are abstracted, stored, assembled, used, and finally disposed of (or reintroduced) into the biosphere.”
As an ecologically sensitive designer, the architect must be aware that any structure he builds upon a site will inevitably affect the site’s ecosystem by virtue of its physical presence and the range of human activities that will be generated by its existence. He must realize that the structure will add to the depletion of earth’s non-renewable resources by consuming vast quantities of energy and materials for its construction, operation, and disposal, and that it will generate large quantities of wastes and pollutants. It is therefore imperative for the architect to design a built environment that will make the least demand on earth’s resources or minimize negative impacts to the ecosystem. Ludwig Mies van der Rohe’s maxim, “less is more,” takes on a new meaning - the less we mess up the environment, the more is left for future generations to enjoy and make use of.
Given a design problem, the architect must initially consider an environmental impact assessment: the impact of the project site on the ecosystem, the ecological properties of the project site’s ecosystem or its assimilative ability to absorb human activities and wastes, the impact during the life cycle of the structure, the impact of other activities and development generated by the structure, and the impact on the rehabilitation of the site after the useful life of the built form. He must also look into waste management, water resource management, air and noise quality control, and energy conservation. Having investigated and analyzed these environmental parameters, the architect can then design on a site of least ecological impact, integrate with the local pattern of landscape and ecosystem factors, respond to the climatic characteristics of the location to derive a passive low-energy configuration, or even eliminate the structure from the site completely. He may even consider the reuse, refurbishment, or regeneration of old structures.
To practice sustainable architecture, the architect must consider the following strategies for ecological design. For building materials and construction methods, he must tap local sources of materials, design for long life and multipurpose use to avoid short term replacement, design for ease of reuse in the same physical state within the built environment (e.g. demountable structures and systems), and design for re-use in a lower grade form elsewhere. He must consider using recycled materials, materials derived from renewable resources, biodegradable materials which can be assimilated into the ecosystem, and materials that consume low energy and emit less pollution. For building utilities and servicing systems, he must consider utilizing ambient energy sources (e.g. solar energy, wind power, biogas) or other alternative sources which have a symbiotic relationship with the ecosystem. In his design he must consider reducing overall standard of user needs and comfort and consumption levels (e.g. building automation system or “intelligent building” features that monitor and automatically reduce energy consumption in air-conditioning and electrical systems), optimizing use of energy and material inputs (e.g. natural illumination, passive cooling and cross-ventilation, solar-powered heaters and lanterns, wind-driven turbines), recycling within the built environment (e.g. gray water for landscape irrigation or for creating wetlands), and assimilating outputs into the ecosystem (e.g. waste filtration) . He must also consider the beneficial effects of exterior and interior landscaping. The ecologically responsible architect must therefore consider reuse, recycling, and regeneration to attain sustainable architecture.
As the Greenpeace environmental activists have learned, publicity stunts are no longer enough. The time has come for man to devise a more pragmatic approach to saving the planet. And the architect, as the creator of the built environment and the shaper of the landscape, is faced with the global challenge to harness his artistry and ingenuity towards the healing of the ailing earth. Indeed he has the talent to mix art and technology to create energy-efficient and ecologically-viable solutions to the despoliation of nature.
And as civilization approaches the second millennium and mankind gears up for a brave new world – a world unfolding hopefully not in the direction of H.G. Wells’ grim fiction, The Time Machine; but toward a radiant future beautifully shaped by man, the traditional principles of architecture as formulated by the first century Roman architect, Vitruvius, will have to be revised relative to the ever expanding global concern for sustainable development. Aside from utilitas, firmitas, and venustas or utility, firmness, and beauty, the twentieth century architect, in the pursuit of environmental responsibility, is heretofore bestowed the honor to have unearthed, as it were, the fourth principle of architecture which, in the light of the present state of the endangered planet, seems to be the most essential – oikos or ecology.
Holism is “a theory that the universe and especially living nature is correctly seen in term of interacting wholes (as of living organisms) that are more than the mere sum of elementary particles.” It is the principle with which Constantinos Doxiadis formulated ekistics, the science of human settlements that draws on interdisciplinary researches and experiences. Frank Lloyd Wright alluded to it with his “organic architecture” or architecture from within outward; or in a philosophical sense, the relationship of a part-to-whole and whole-to-part. Viewed in that context, the architect must be aware not only of the interrelationship of the elements of his design but also of the impact of his design to the immediate surroundings and, to a greater extent, the earth’s ecosystem. The built environment is a dynamic system that has continuous interactions with its ecological environment. Therefore, the architect, as Ken Yeang suggests, “must be concerned not only with the extent and range of human use of the ecosystem and earth’s resources in the designed system, but also with the way in which these elements are abstracted, stored, assembled, used, and finally disposed of (or reintroduced) into the biosphere.”
As an ecologically sensitive designer, the architect must be aware that any structure he builds upon a site will inevitably affect the site’s ecosystem by virtue of its physical presence and the range of human activities that will be generated by its existence. He must realize that the structure will add to the depletion of earth’s non-renewable resources by consuming vast quantities of energy and materials for its construction, operation, and disposal, and that it will generate large quantities of wastes and pollutants. It is therefore imperative for the architect to design a built environment that will make the least demand on earth’s resources or minimize negative impacts to the ecosystem. Ludwig Mies van der Rohe’s maxim, “less is more,” takes on a new meaning - the less we mess up the environment, the more is left for future generations to enjoy and make use of.
Given a design problem, the architect must initially consider an environmental impact assessment: the impact of the project site on the ecosystem, the ecological properties of the project site’s ecosystem or its assimilative ability to absorb human activities and wastes, the impact during the life cycle of the structure, the impact of other activities and development generated by the structure, and the impact on the rehabilitation of the site after the useful life of the built form. He must also look into waste management, water resource management, air and noise quality control, and energy conservation. Having investigated and analyzed these environmental parameters, the architect can then design on a site of least ecological impact, integrate with the local pattern of landscape and ecosystem factors, respond to the climatic characteristics of the location to derive a passive low-energy configuration, or even eliminate the structure from the site completely. He may even consider the reuse, refurbishment, or regeneration of old structures.
To practice sustainable architecture, the architect must consider the following strategies for ecological design. For building materials and construction methods, he must tap local sources of materials, design for long life and multipurpose use to avoid short term replacement, design for ease of reuse in the same physical state within the built environment (e.g. demountable structures and systems), and design for re-use in a lower grade form elsewhere. He must consider using recycled materials, materials derived from renewable resources, biodegradable materials which can be assimilated into the ecosystem, and materials that consume low energy and emit less pollution. For building utilities and servicing systems, he must consider utilizing ambient energy sources (e.g. solar energy, wind power, biogas) or other alternative sources which have a symbiotic relationship with the ecosystem. In his design he must consider reducing overall standard of user needs and comfort and consumption levels (e.g. building automation system or “intelligent building” features that monitor and automatically reduce energy consumption in air-conditioning and electrical systems), optimizing use of energy and material inputs (e.g. natural illumination, passive cooling and cross-ventilation, solar-powered heaters and lanterns, wind-driven turbines), recycling within the built environment (e.g. gray water for landscape irrigation or for creating wetlands), and assimilating outputs into the ecosystem (e.g. waste filtration) . He must also consider the beneficial effects of exterior and interior landscaping. The ecologically responsible architect must therefore consider reuse, recycling, and regeneration to attain sustainable architecture.
As the Greenpeace environmental activists have learned, publicity stunts are no longer enough. The time has come for man to devise a more pragmatic approach to saving the planet. And the architect, as the creator of the built environment and the shaper of the landscape, is faced with the global challenge to harness his artistry and ingenuity towards the healing of the ailing earth. Indeed he has the talent to mix art and technology to create energy-efficient and ecologically-viable solutions to the despoliation of nature.
And as civilization approaches the second millennium and mankind gears up for a brave new world – a world unfolding hopefully not in the direction of H.G. Wells’ grim fiction, The Time Machine; but toward a radiant future beautifully shaped by man, the traditional principles of architecture as formulated by the first century Roman architect, Vitruvius, will have to be revised relative to the ever expanding global concern for sustainable development. Aside from utilitas, firmitas, and venustas or utility, firmness, and beauty, the twentieth century architect, in the pursuit of environmental responsibility, is heretofore bestowed the honor to have unearthed, as it were, the fourth principle of architecture which, in the light of the present state of the endangered planet, seems to be the most essential – oikos or ecology.
