Panel Talk: Rebuilding Architecutre
Sustainability was definitely high up in the agenda on my design course. Despite being an ‘unsexy’ topic, it is a vitally important one. So in November last year, I visited The Design Museum’s Waste Age exhibition to arm myself with the facts and to find out information on the role of design in response to the client crisis. That evening, I also attended a talk in collaboration with Project Etopia, which focused in on the relationship between waste, architecture and sustainability.
“Architecture faces an array of challenges in its quest to become sustainable – from the lifetime emissions a building will emit through energy use, to the embodied carbon that contributes to its construction. […] In this panel, [we] meet designers working across architecture, engineering and urbanism to rethink the sustainable design process within the built environment. […] From building with recycled materials to building less, from designing energy-efficient homes to designing homes in collaboration with nature, these designers are rethinking architecture from the ground up.”
And as I go on to explain below, the impact of such a quest goes beyond the environment, with far reaching socio-economic implications too.
The Panel
The panel was made up of Joseph Daniels, Tara Gbolade, Ling Tan and Claudia Pasquero and was chaired by Design Museum Chief Executive and Director Tim Marlow OBE.
Founder of Etopia, Joseph’s ethos is that “everyone deserves a comfortable, sustainable home, regardless of income, that has minimum impact on Earth.” Etopia Homes, an arm of Etopia, buys land and builds energy efficient homes for the UK housing market. With Joseph’s ethos in mind, they consider the affordability, sociability (appealing to the masses), sustainability and social acceptability of the houses they build. Focusing on energy, construction and intelligence has meant that each house has an energy rating beyond an A. Joseph now uses his expertise to advise financial institutions, governments and corporations on how best to achieve an aligned approach to sustainability.
Tara is the co-founder of Gbolade Design Studio and the Paradigm Network – “a professional network championing Black and Asian representation in the built environment.” She believes that while we have awoken to the crisis that is facing us, local authorities now need to work out what a climate emergency really means. When approaching specific projects, she suggests that we need to challenge client briefs, take them on a journey and hold them accountable if we really want to defy the status quo.
Ling is a trained architect, multidisciplinary designer and artist. She “uses technology and participatory methods to explore citizens’ interaction with the built environment and our collective agency and responsibility in tackling complex issues surrounding our cities.” She suggests that solutions don’t need to be high tech - instead, it is the accessibility of tech that is important.
Claudia co-founded ecoLogicStudio, an “architecture and design innovation firm specialised in biotechnology for the built environment”. In her opinion, we still view the city as linear, separating waste from living and consciousness. However, in her radical vision for human shelter, we should use what cities expel - one example of photosynthetic architecture uses micro algae which feeds on pollutants to create biomass. Ultimately, we need to change architecture from a machine for living to a living machine.
Discussion
Having discussed each speaker’s background, we launched into an interesting discussion on sustainable architecture, the role of design, top down and bottom up approaches, as well as a focus on beauty and aesthetic.
What are the main issues that architecture poses to the environment?
Tara notes that what is needed for sustainable architecture is actually already available to us - refer to my forthcoming post on The Waste Age exhibition for all manner of designs. We need to go beyond traditional aspects of building, take risks and use such designs.
We also need to be speaking the same language, which is often tough when clients have differing views. Here, you need to be prepared to take them on a journey. Perhaps workshop with them to show why something is important, so that they understand the impact of small decisions and advocate for you when you are not in the room. Sometimes you may need to focus on market drivers - for example, a particular development may be completed in 5 years, by which time people will be thinking differently. Indeed, the younger generation are already making different choices (the woke Gen Z!).
At the same time, you need to remember that things take time and we need to continue learning.
What factors impact participation and approach?
When accessing her participants, Lin recognises that you cannot simply parachute into a community that you do not belong in. She notes the importance of using a local partner investor to source participants.
Joseph’s situation is quite different. His product is pre-formulated - it is based on measurement, data and ‘truth’. Essentially, participants know what they are getting and come to his company for that very reason.
Tara adds to this idea of a single truth. Clearer regulation based on data will likely resonate with clients. And regulation/ policy needs to match up to the targets set out in conferences like COP. We need to connect these elements in order for everyone to sign up to the target. In the future, Tara hopes that there will be no option other than ‘this’ - a non-negotiable sustainable standard.
Lin is realistic. At the end of the day, the approach usually comes down to budget. We need to encourage the spending of money on elements where there is the long term benefit to the environment.
When it comes to top down versus bottom up, Claudia notes that we need to shift from the “we are doomed” narrative, as urgency doesn’t allow for bottom up approaches. We can’t stop change. We need to understand it in a different, more positive way, embracing new processes and materials - that is the role of design. Pleasure and beauty often get left behind, but that doesn’t need to be the case.
How does taste come into play?
Tara takes an architectural view in that beauty follows form. Take, for example, a flower - every cell has a role to play and that’s what makes it beautiful. We need to go beyond the surface to redefine what beauty is. Taste doesn’t stand the test of time and beauty needs to be reflective of functionality.
Taking a different view, Paula suggests that style and function are often interwoven - for example, in wine making, where pleasure and production dance together. We need more integration of the two, rather than deciding between them.
Joseph notes that we need to be versatile and question what can be added to existing sustainable solutions to make them more appealing. When commenting on whether retrofitting buildings is more sustainable (given that new building often require an expected finish), he notes again that we need the live data to fully understand what should to be addressed. That way, we can keep the aesthetic and maintain the cultural value, but also be compliant.
Tara agrees with this versatility - we need to understand materials and then challenge traditional ideas with alternatives. If the material has to be steel, does it need to be virgin steel? If it has to be brick, can we use recycled ones…
The talk was definitely thought provoking. It is clear that we need design to address the problems we face - not merely by creating new products, but by redesigning the whole supply chain, from systems to communication. Studying interior design, I was most interested in the dichotomy between aspiration and sustainability and how this will play out in the future. Sure, sustainable homes exist and are celebrated, but they are not the norm and they do not really adhere to normal luxury finish. How do we bring these two together?
Buzz phrases: Design circularity | carbon neutrality | climate complacency | gamification
