THE PLANK MARCH 10, 2009
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Does green design mean bad design? Kriston Capps, at The American Prospect, thinks so:
The field of architecture is experiencing a design crisis, with clients ranging from private owners to cities demanding that architects prioritize sustainability above all else--as if design itself were an obnoxious carbon-emitter. This is partly because high designers and the so-called "starchitects," who fear that new methods and materials might not comport with long-established styles, are not taking the lead on sustainability issues, leaving green innovation to younger firms with fewer resources. Both well-known firms and up-and-comers lack experience in working with new, often expensive green materials, which has forced many designers to depend greatly on singular and design-restrictive tactics such as "passive design"--essentially, lots of space and windows--to achieve sustainability goals.
But with all due respect, Capps must not look at many of today's highest-profile buildings. Otherwise, he'd have noted Renzo Piano's sublime California Academy of Sciences, one of last year's most widely praised buildings and the winner of a platinum rating from the Leadership in Energy and Design (LEED) standard system--the highest rating from the world's leading eco-rating program. Piano is also, by the way, among the starriest of the starchitects. The Cal Academy is proof positive that an established career and good design are no impediments to sustainable design.
The list goes on. Kieran Timberlake's Yale Sculpture Building? LEED Platinum. James Polshek's Clinton library? Platinum. Sir Norman Foster's 30 St. Mary Axe in London--aka the Gherkin--incorporates an innovative natural air-flow system that significantly cuts down on energy use. All great buildings, all eco-friendly. Or take any of the recent work by Antoine Predock or Thom Mayne--gray hairs both, but also both recognized leaders in environmental design.
But more to the point, Capps fails to show--outside of a few sniping quotes from Stefan Behnisch--that green design is locked in an "awkward stage." I've toured a lot of new, LEED-certified buildings in recent months--just yesterday I was at David Adjaye's Gold-certified Museum of Contemporary Art in Denver--and I've yet to see a tradeoff between good design and green design. Adjaye's museum, like Piano's Cal Academy, has been uniformly praised for its use of space and light; that innovative use of light also maximizes the amount of indirect sun in the galleries, dramatically reducing the need for artificial lighting.
Obviously, we can debate the aesthetic merits of Piano's Academy or Adjaye's museum. But these are inarguably architects of the highest caliber and celebrity, working on the cutting edge of both design and sustainability. Yes, there are some bad buildings out there. And yes, some of them are built to the highest sustainable standards. But there's no causal link between the two.
--Clay Risen
4 comments
Thanks for the informative post, Clay. You cite chapter and verse against Kriston Capps, demonstrating that first-rate architecture and green goals are not incompatible. The Renzo Piano Sciences building gets mentioned quite often. There is no inherent reason why sustainability and aesthetics need to conflict.
- liberal reformer
March 10, 2009 at 2:50pm
Interesting issue. I'm one of those who view architecture as an art form akin to industrial design in that both involve aesthetics, functionality and a co-dependent, sometimes uneasy relationship between the two. An aesthetic flourish that gets in the way of funtionality is just annoying, whereas an aesthetic flourish that coheres with the functionality -- expresses it, complements it, etc. -- is more aesthetically pleasing.
This poses far more of a problem, I think, for cars than for buildings. I'm beginning to suspect that the Prius and Chevy Volt are visual expressions of perfect functionality, and yet their shape is pretty offensive from the standpoint of traditionally elegant proportions. Too tall, no hood, no trunk, little wheels, slab-sided, etc. Oh well.
- jhildner
March 10, 2009 at 3:57pm
Capps' needs to do more research before making the blanket statement that implies the only people doing sustainable design aka 'green' building are young practitioners. In addition to the project you mention Clay I would add several others.
Having walked through the Denver MoCA myself I would add Jean Nouvel's Torre Agbar in Barcelona, several of Glenn Murcutt's works in Australia, Morphosis' CalTran, KieranTimberlake's Sidwell Friends School in DC, Wieden+Kennedy headquarters in Portland by Allied Works, Jeanne Gang's Aqua tower in Chicago, and Renzo's NYT building. These attest to a wide-spectrum of starchitects and architects addressing sustainability in their designs. Where some push the envelope and others push the process and methods of materials.
Capps opens his missive with a photo caption about the Vancouver Olympic Park being just short of fugly but then he goes on to contradict himself for saying starchitects are too flamboyant and 'green' building is too staid. His quoting of Behnish and Wines doesn't illuminate the complexities inherent in architecture. Many clients...unless they are highly informed and educated on sustainability continue to fall into the trap between glitz and green. That the Bilbao affect had a lasting and I'd say negative affect on architectural progress the last 10 years hasn't helped either because it convinced a lot of clients to pursue the glitz over green. While for others building 'green' is considered too expensive.
If anything Capps should read Wines book more closely and he would understand that the final argument being made by Wines is not that Green Architecture will develop it's own 'style' in the way that Modernism did. Or that it will be relegated to the rammed-earth/earthship aesthetic but that green design will become the normative generator for architecture that has no definitive style. Of course it's happening already if a few folks would take the time to see.
- singlespeed
March 10, 2009 at 4:51pm
Singlespeed: All good points. KieranTimberlake is a great counter-example to the sort of strawman firm Capps is attacking. Their consistent mix of great and eco-friendly design alone proves him wrong. I do, however, think that green is already the new Bilbao, if you will. Or, rather, LEED is the new Bilbao. In part because so many local building codes require it, and in part because there is such a price premium to be placed on verifiable, sustainable design, pretty much every project I can remember encountering in the last year shoots for some sort of LEED certification. And sure, some of those suck. But some are great. LEED has nothing to do with it. (Now, there's a critique to be made against LEED as insufficiently rigorous, but that's not what Capps is saying...)
- Clay Risen
March 10, 2009 at 5:31pm