Do green buildings look worse than their carbon-emitting counterparts? That’s what art critic Kriston Capps argues in an article appearing in The American Prospect.
“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,” Capps writes. Capps is adamant that urban landscapes are being polluted with “LEED certified and certifiably hideous” buildings, but the story is short on examples.
The central question that Capps seeks to answer is why many “starchitects” and established architecture firms across the country shy away from green design:
“[T]he most lauded design projects in recent history have made virtually no attempt at sustainability. “Look at the architecture of the last 15 years,” says James Wines, a professor of architecture at Penn State University and the author of Green Architecture. “It’s been more flamboyant and more wasteful than it’s ever been before. To build any of these buildings by Frank Gehry, it takes, what, 60 to 80 percent more metal and steel and construction than it would to enclose that space in a normal way. So you’re talking about incredible waste. Mind-boggling waste.”
Clients, meanwhile, are choosing function and efficiency over form, but they’re being met with resistance from architectural leaders. Capps sees the green movement as an opportunity for architecture to reinvent itself and “marry the built and natural environments,” thus resolving that fundamental tension.
What do you think: Are green buildings necessarily uglier than conventional buildings?
My concern is less with ugly or green than with non-functional. Numerous new high-rise condos are still being designed and built with little thought given to anything beyond the ‘sizzle’ — no space for package rooms, offices for management, shop and storage space for maintenance/janitorial workers, door staff desks behind posts, etc etc. Green is great, but functionality is even better!
My problem with “green” isn’t at all about the way a building looks and has to do more with it being used as a gimmick. I’m not saying all of them are that way, but several are. I wish I could remember more names off my head. But when you start listing (From Wrightwood Crossings) Energy Star appliances, High-efficiency mechanical systems, Minimized construction waste, and others these are all common sense things not marketable “green” items in my opinion. When you start approcahing the zero energy buildings and others that push the idea of “green” are the true “green” buildings to me. Not just the easy items to do…the common sense items that we should all be doing regardless of what we call it.
As an architect and LEED AP, I have to step up and argue that the marketed popularity of “green” and “LEED” has taken away from good design. Can (and should) good design be sustainable? undeniably YES. Should it be LEED certified or loudly labeled green? Not at all necessary! And many projects which are very responsive to their environment get lost in the shuffle because a clear label is not placed on them.
A checklist is not necessary to qualify a project as good for the environment, especially an insufficient checklist like LEED. Truth be told that following LEED often limits good design, because LEED has little to do with actual design. Limited points are given to design strategies which result in an environmentally responsible project, rather points are given to materials, products, and construction practices. I will not argue that these do not aide in a more sustainable project. But sustainability must start at good design and not end at LEED.
Stan,
A few months back I asked one of the doormen at a luxury high-rise how the building worked from the staff’s perspective. I can summarize his answer in two words: completely dysfunctional.
He made many of the same points you note.
Additionally is the problem I have with Proffessor Wines is that some of these LEED certified or designed are ugly, that look like complete cheap piles of poo that may last as 30-40 years structures, then be torn down and thrown in a waste pile (same issue I have with some of the modern design & material substitutes). If you get 1/3 to 1/2 of the life out of a LEED favored building, where is the energy or carbon footprint savings if you have to build it 2 or 3 times to last the life of the more solid, yet less LEED friendly building. As others have noted on the functionality issues, the goal is being messed up by the process and others interpretation of it.