Architecture is a unique art form which I highly respect. The process to produce such art requires an extreme kind of complexity. With many angles of approach, the procedure can begin with a spontaneous and inspirational vision or a master compilation of an idea that has been assembling for years. Then comes decrypting and transferring the images onto paper. Now I’m not an expert of architecture, but I assume once a blueprint is concocted, submitted, approved, and probably revised several times, construction finally ensues.
I, as an observer, look at architecture and I am amazed at its fine detail and majesty. However, I often don’t look much further than that. Take, for example, the dougong, it is more than just a decoration; in fact, it is a central part in ancient Chinese architecture. It serves to hold the entire structure together with many pieces of interlocking wood. This technique is innovative as it disregards adhesives and allows elasticity to withstand earthquakes to a certain degree. It has influenced Japanese culture and invoked further architectural designs. In fact, architecture holds the key to serve much greater purposes than just display; it is a source which can inspire and foster ideas to further their growth and influence.
As a result of climate change, Earth has been plague with extraordinary climatic phenomena. Hurricane Sandy, heat waves, and the melting of ice caps are only a few of a long list of consequences of climate change. To counter these negative effects, people have been very supportive of the idea of a greener world. Philip Nobel describes in his article A Crop of Projects With Green Bonafides how architects are “countering climate change not only by altering the design of buildings, but also the design of the larger systems in which they function.” He brings light to many new constructions and programs which are environmentally supportive; examples include the Sims Municipal Recycling Facility which takes advantage of its waterfront location by allowing barges rather than the annual 70,000 trucks to carry the recyclable material, the programs of the Architectural League of New Yorkers which promotes a limit of 5,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per person rather than the average 44,000 pounds, and Rebuild by Designs’ competition of project design for communities hit hard by Hurricane Sandy.
I find Nobel’s view to be of a mild satire as he later describes other projects, for example, Pérez Art Museum’s 200,000 square feet of trellis, to be “unlikely to be judged as truly kind to the environment.” Earlier, Nobel also says the construction of some green buildings is not only contributing to the greenhouse gas emission, but also that designers know that green sells. His last point that the greenest buildings are the ones we never have to build is certainly ring true; I definitely agree with that. Leaving a natural environment untouched, as opposed to building upon it, is definitely more environmentally friendly. However, I believe that we are in an age of development and expansion. New buildings are bound to be built. The construction of efficiently designed green buildings would be preferable. The benefits include efficient use of energy and water, increase human health and productivity, and reduce waste and pollution. To address the excessiveness, a decrease in the aesthetics of the building would lower costs and materials. Also, future advances in technology can reduce costs. In the meanwhile, improvements can be made to current buildings. Installations of solar panels and green roofs can certainly benefit the environment. Programs which educate and promote environment awareness are also effective.
The truly environmentally concerned green building is worth the price tag; just keep in mind of the disadvantages of too much expansion replacing the natural world. Thus, the green building would not only be more efficient and environmentally friendly, but it would also be the muse to inspire people to contribute to a greener world.
Nobel, Philip. “A Crop of Projects With Green Bonafides.” The New York Times. 4 September, 2013. Web. 13 September, 2013.
Architecture really is fascinating if you ever decide to try sketching preliminary blueprints! There are so many details that need to go onto one piece of paper and it takes hours to get all the measurements correct. I think that’s one reason why I find the dougong so interesting – it’s extremely elastic, stable, and strong, yet it requires only wood.
Moving on (before I start going crazy about that topic), I found this post really interesting as I haven’t encountered the fact that architectures are creating new designs for green buildings to counter the negative effects of climate change. I was aware that greener buildings are being designed and that they would counteract the effects of global warming but not that entire designs were being altered. I thought that the buildings were being made out of different materials and minimized the use of environmentally-unfriendly resources.
I agree with you saying that, while it is better to leave the environment as it is, we are gradually expanding and that going green is better than continuing to build non-green buildings. Have you read the article about Obama imposing a limit to the amount of carbon emission that can be released by power plants? It’s his “Climate Plan.” And while the goals of the plan (less than 1000 pounds of carbon per megawatt-hour) will be hard to achieve, it definitely is a step in the right direction as is the building of greener buildings.
If you want to read the Obama article: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/science/earth/obama-preparing-big-effort-to-curb-climate-change.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
It’s really interesting, as was the article you chose for this post 🙂
So first I should probably start by admitting that I am slightly biased on this subject. In high school I had to take an engineering class that had an architectural chapter in the curriculum. Since I write with my left hand and do not bend my wrist above or beneath the text, the pencil would always smear and ruin my layout. But even so, I completely agree with you, green buildings are completely worth the price tag. Even from a business point of view, a building that conserves energy when heating and cooling itself will in time pay for itself. Seems like a no-brainer.
Sijayou, I have also read about Obama’s “Climate plan,” which while working much like a carbon tax that would increase the cost of oil and energy, I think it is a step in the right direction. The “Climate Plan” which the Obama administration is trying to pass would also dramatically increase demand for “green architecture,” as the more fuel efficient buildings would minimize the effect of carbon taxes and could even be a source of government subsidies.
The debate on making our planet “greener” is certainly an interesting one especially after reading Philip Nobel’s article A Crop of Projects With Green Bonafides. Making our planet more green is ironic considering it started off green in the first place. As humans, we decided to create cities and buildings and will indeed be held accountable for our demise. However, what are we suppose to do? We built a civilization preferable to our desires on how to live and as a well functioning society, and we should be proud of that. How were we suppose to know that the ozone layer would deplete or that we even were contributing to the emission of greenhouse gasses? Humans did what they felt was best for society at the time.
We run into an interesting question when asked if it is even helpful to build green buildings considering in doing so we are still emitting greenhouse gases? As much as I believe that this is an inevitable dilemma, I still think society should attempt in doing the right thing concerning our planet. In the long run, the green buildings are going to be more efficient for the needs of today’s world. Although Nobel says “green sells” at least everybody is buying it! Sure being green might be the hot new trend but at least it is beneficial for the planet.
Your last paragraph sums up my feelings on the issue perfectly, I could not have said it better myself. The greener building is worth the price tag and hopefully society will start listening and contribute to making a greener planet like the architects and projects mentioned in the article.
I think that the concept of greener architecture is very appealing. I remember when I first saw the video of the 3m-3m-3m house that was created as an experiment in a University located in England. I was completely amazed how efficiently the space was used up to create a house that is fully functional for two people, and takes up less space than the average American room. However, I also believe that there should be limit to the amount one is willing to spend on these architectural pieces. People will refuse to spend a greater amount of money just because it is better for the environment. The houses should offer something in return for the greater costs. Perhaps a lower electricity bill, etc.
I’m sorry I posted this so late, I wasn’t aware that we had to post two comments on the blogs as well. From now on, I will make sure to do two comments on the blogs each week.
I feel the world truly needs to make a more substantial effort in going green. Climatic change is occurring at a faster pace then ever; we need to keep up with the quick pace. After reading “A Crop of Projects With Green Bonafides,” I feel architects’ attempt on “countering climate change” to be a step in the right direction. We need to go green in as many fields as possible. For architects to alter building designs as well as the larger systems to more environmentally friendly structures is a nice leap forward.
As far as the prices are concerned, the only way to eventually lower the pricing of these projects is to begin building them and conduct further research on possible green products. Once these projects begin to spring up around the world, people will be willing to pay more and production will be more efficient as Jiajun said. Therefore, I believe there should not be a limit to the cost of these projects or we will never achieve efficiency and expand our research.
I have actually always been fascinated with architecture and although I know nearly nothing about it I have always wanted to learn. Being from the “burbs” I am still getting used to seeing architectural marvels, such as the flatiron building, on my daily commute. When we bring up ‘going green’ I think of the book we read this summer “the age of miracles”. It reminds me how terrible it would be if a horrific natural disaster would change the way we live our lives. It makes me realize that we need to do our best to stop global warming and take the world green as soon as possible. If architecture is a way of taking us green I strongly support it and we should do whatever it takes, including pay extra to get that done.
Hurricane Sandy was a huge incentive to build in a new way that would work with the environment, simultaneously bettering the nature that surrounds us and protecting us from it’s ugly side! We can’t help it now that all these houses and storefronts have been built too close to the water, somewhere they shouldn’t have been in the first place. But it’s too late to change that now, so we might as well try to improve the situation using this new method of building.
It’s ironic that the trend of “green” buildings, if nature is cleared to make room for more and more of them, will hurt the environment. The idea of “building green” should be applied to transforming the areas where there is already manmade activity (such as the Hurricane Sandy houses), but nothing unnecessary should be built where nature once was just for the sake of going along with an environmental fad. Because going green is such a hot topic these days, people in this area of business are taking something that is supposed to be helping us, and warping it because of the greedy need to make a sale- accomplishing the opposite of what the original idea intended.
Coming from someone who wants to work in the “green” business, I am also slightly biased. I guess almost every field of study is concerned and trying to make solutions concerning climate change/global warming (I never thought of connecting architects to that!). However, something needs to be done. And soon. I agree with Josh; something devastating like what happened in “The Age of Miracles” could be coming our way and we may not even know it.
I hope we don’t need natural disasters like hurricane Sandy to make us realize we need to change our ways. I feel the government should start subsidizing architects/construction companies that are trying to build “green.” If everyone who buys a solar panel for their house is getting money back from the government, they definitely should. I agree with everything in your article Jaijun and you made some very good points.
We as a society need to take a step in the right direction and start thinking green about everything.
I felt obligated to comment on this post as the sister of an architecture student. My brother always lectures me on the importance of sustainable architecture and its necessity to the survival of the human race. Obviously, a big part of this movement, as this article points out, is the use of “green” materials and technology. However, an equally as important aspect is responsible urban planning that compels people to move into cities and utilize public transportation.
Vishaan Chakrabarti’s A Country of Cities is an argument for the construction of strong and well-designed cities to combat the American crises of “environmental degradation, unsustainable consumption, economic stagnation, rising public health costs, and decreased social mobility.” Dense cities with high-speed rail and other efficient public transportation systems promote not only improved career and social opportunities, but environmental and agricultural prospects as well. In modeling cities after eastern landscapes, such as Hong Kong, lands immediately outside of cities could be conserved or cultivated as opposed to developed into suburbs, whose infrastructures have proven to be too costly to maintain.
A link to the book here: http://goo.gl/TZrfpC
A YouTube lecture by Chakrabarti here: http://goo.gl/8JkfHy
And a shorter version of the two for you slackers here: http://goo.gl/D51jVO
If you decide not to look into any of those links, at least click the last link and check out the two images included in the article, which depict Denver as it is now and Denver as it could be if Chakrabarti’s ideas were to be applied. Which is more beautiful? Which is “greener?”
“If you love nature, don’t live in it.” – Vishaan Chakrabarti
I was really fascinated by your discussion of the author’s point about the greenest buildings being the ones we never have to build. Leaving a natural environment untouched is good for everyone’s lungs and can also inspire people to go out into forests and participate in physical activities, which is much better than building structures in which people can sit down and laze about.
You made a good point about how green buildings can function well too. It reminds me of the (admittedly fictitious) Stark tower from The Avengers, which was built using green energy and recycles air and water. Maybe it’ll become a real thing in the near future–Germany’s actually already started using green energy (solar, wind, etc) instead of fossil fuels and nuclear power. It is having some problems with its transition period, but it might just be the first step to a building green.
I really like the take on this article and I have to admit that i agree with it all, and feel very similarly about this issue. The idea that architecture is actually helping the world get greener is at first obscure because it requires building, which generally means bad things for the environment. This take on architecture and how it works with the environment is different as it focuses more on how architects help change the buildings to help agriculture, rather than destroy it. With all the damage being done to the world by not-so-natural “natural disasters” can either be greatly decreased, or, at least made easier to deal with. By building more coastal-friendly buildings it is possible that receding shore lines can be halted and thus make it harder for something like Hurricane Sandy to flood entire towns. Along with that is the idea that even if we have already done to much and more hurricanes are coming, architects can construct buildings and houses that are more equipped to deal with flooding and loss of electricity.
I dont not think this is a topic that should simply be commented on, but instead looking further into. Architecture is an art, but it is also fundamental to keeping this world afloat.