To Build or Not to Build? - Sustainable Architecture
When looking at the debates about energy consumption and energy waste, it is necessary to consider infrastructure and the aspect it contributes to energy waste. What is agreed by all is that in our current world we are in a critical period surrounding the issue of climate change and climate awareness. Many know that multiple actions need to be taken in order to decrease the amount of energy that is consumed and wasted on a global scale. The current debate on infrastructure, more specifically on sustainable architecture, surrounds whether society should focus on remodeling current buildings to fit stricter energy codes, or whether buildings should be torn down and rebuilt entirely. The key to the buildings of the future is finding an equilibrium between what should be built and what can be rebuilt.
In order to focus more narrowly on how a greater level of sustainability can be met by buildings, it is first necessary to look at current energy regulations. As explained by Binger and Pedersen,“if our long term intention is to stretch the limited supply of renewably generated electricity to accommodate all of the essential functions of society, the first step is to cut such energy waste out of buildings” (Rosenberg et. al). Residences, offices, malls, restaurants, and stadiums are the places that we live our everyday lives. If we start by regulating the energy usage and waste that comes from these places, then energy consumption will naturally decrease. Across the United States, it is required that all buildings reach the minimum efficiency standards set by the U. S. Department of Energy. Yet, minimum efficiency standards do not entail how energy must be used, hence “heat pump[s] and furnace[s]...meet the minimum requirements of the code, but they result in a different usage of energy. That means that the two otherwise identical buildings with the same building program can be designed to meet the code but result in very different energy performance” (Rosenberg et. al). This is significant because there are no codes for specific energy performance. It is why many older buildings have such outdated systems and produce greater amounts of waste than newer ones do. The current codes only regulate how much energy can be used, but not what kind of energy is used, where this energy is used, and how efficient the system is. The code leaves much room for designers and architects to build whatever it is they please, as long as it fits the government’s guidelines.
Energy codes help provide some clarity on whether it is best to rebuild outdated infrastructure or start anew. As outlined by Rosenberg in the Journal of Solar Energy Engineering, there are a multitude of ways to make buildings more energy efficient. He details how newer buildings can have ‘intelligent efficiency’, artificial intelligence systems that properly “censor, control, and communicate” energy usage in ‘smart homes’ or ‘smart offices’. These newer buildings are more preferred to outdated structures because they are being made with consumption aware mindsets. These newer buildings can also be built with wind turbines atop the roofs, dynamic glazing windows, and all renewable energy power sources. When looking at new green construction, the possibilities are almost endless. Yet, Rosenberg also describes how energy codes of the future will require more than just new sustainable building. “Deep retrofits”, or more commonly known as remodels, are on the horizon for any buildings that are outdated. He explains that “by 2040 the majority of homes and offices will be ones that exist today” (Rosenberg et. al) because “the greenest building is the one that already exists” (qtd. in Borunda). To retrofit a building is less harmful for the environment because it requires already working materials to be improved, instead of torn down or wasted. Older buildings also require less transportation of material, significantly decreasing the amount of total emissions produced during the construction process. Yet, Rosenberg’s Journal of Solar Energy Engineering presents the issue of what exactly should society focus on? It is unclear whether or not architects should work on tearing down outdated buildings to produce newer, more energy sophisticated ones, or if retrofitting current buildings would be more beneficial for society.
The future of energy consumption lies between the structures of today and the buildings of tomorrow. One of the largest tasks in reducing energy consumption is creating new buildings and infrastructure. What may seem as a feat that is conquered daily by developers, the buildings of the future will need to have a significant shift towards green-building. It is this task, to have the needs of society best represent through buildings, that architects must face head on. But is this task going to be commonly possible? The future of energy efficient buildings lies in the principles of their design, but also in the architects who design them. Energy consumption and energy waste awareness has yet to be seen in common society because “architecture’s disconnect is both physical and spiritual. [Architects are] attempting to sell the public buildings and neighborhoods they don’t particularly want, in a language they don’t understand” (Bingler and Pedersen). Bingler and Pedersens make an emotional connection in their understanding of architecture versus the community’s understanding of it. The authors of the New York Time’s piece define how newer buildings, and architecture in general, “flatly dismiss the general public’s take on our work, even as we talk about making that work more relevant with worthy ideas like sustainability” (Bingler and Pedersen). It is the general public, Bingler and Pedersen argue, that should have more say in architecture, not just the small percentage of wealthy that can actually afford the work they do. They use an appeal to the beliefs of popular culture, and the functionality of everyday Americans to make their argument successful. By sticking to the beliefs of the public, Bingler and Pedersen ground their work in the storehouse of cultural information of the American people. They also claim architecture is “not relevant to the everyday lives of most people,'' (Bingler and Pedersen) furthermore driving home the ideal that they want what the people want. I agree with Bingler and Pedersens’ argument that architects have become a cost only for the wealthy, and more and more buildings are designed for beauty, with no real connection to what the average person needs. This is significant in many green homes and newer construction. Only the wealthy can afford them to be designed and constructed with sustainability in mind, when in reality all homes built should try to fit into green regulations. It is a challenge that will combat energy consumption and reduce energy waste, but it currently can only be found by those willing to pay for it.
Newer construction is not always preferred, even if it is most sustainable in the long-term. The Wall Street Journal article by Nancy Keates describes how Eric Lemenson built his Oregon home to pass the three strictest green-building certifications. That is, his home is defined as a Passive House, LEED Platinum, and Minergie-P-ECO (Keates). These titles essentially mean that Lemenson’s home is as sustainable and green as possible. His home leaves a very small ecological footprint, and uses ultra-low energy to heat or cool itself. Lemenson’s energy bills should be equivalent to “less than $50 a year” (Keates) yet, in order to build such an environmentally stable home, Lemenson spent about $2 million for a 3,500 square foot home. While Lemenson provides a great example for environmental awareness, specifically how newer buildings can contribute to this, what is difficult to reason with is the cost of the home. While it may have not been an issue for Lemenson, it would have been for the average American. In a survey published by Yudelson Associates on the business of green building, 61% of people reported that higher construction costs were an obstacle to green building (Yudleson). Lemenson was fortunate enough to be able to build his custom home to not only be beautiful, but to be built with decreased harm to the environment. It is a luxury that was permitted only by his availability of funds. That is the challenge architects are presented with as detailed previously by Bingler and Pederson. Architects have almost alienated their talents to only the wealthy, while homes that function as Lemenson’s does are what the greater public need. While I agree with the reasoning behind why Lemenson built his green home, I do not agree with the superfluous notion that in order to have a more sustainable and energy efficient home, one needs to spend millions of dollars. It is just not practical in society, yet what society most craves is for our everyday spaces to be less harmful to the environment. In this lense of the debate, newer construction is desired for optimal energy efficiency, but not preferred because of the costs of construction.
So, is it more beneficial to build newer “greener” construction, or to retrofit the buildings that already exist today? To be honest, it is not a black and white issue, and there is no concrete answer. Newer buildings can be more efficient long-term, but produce more waste and release more emissions in their construction process. Older buildings simply can’t reach the maximum energy efficiency that newer ones can. Others may argue that the debate between sustainable architecture is insignificant to advancing society towards energy conservation because no matter what, to build or rebuild still involves waste. While all buildings acquire some sort of waste, it is necessary to think of the long term effects of energy conservation, as practiced through sustainable buildings, can have on the environment. The first step in figuring out how society will best balance the options to build or rebuild is by improving energy codes. Despite the fact that Rosenberg argues codes evolve at a snail’s pace because the burden falls on the designers, contractors, and finances, and all the benefits go to the long term tenants, it is intriguing to ponder exactly what are those benefits? Should not the environment benefit and be our first priority? Would not all of society benefit if energy codes evolved? By rebuilding society and also creating new buildings, the places we live our everyday lives will consume less energy and change the way society has wasted our resources in the past.
I have begun to realize however, in this debate between sustainable architecture, and consumption as a whole, there is not simply an argument around how we should build going forward or even on the ways in which we build. The larger issue at hand is not consumption at all, the true root of the issue is the consumers and the consumer society in which we live. Civilization has sculpted humankind into desiring convenience over burden and excess, even if it produces waste. We have come to a time where we have realized the monstrous amount of damage our waste has done to our environment, and now we look to solve that problem. Sustainable architecture is simply a way to combat for the years where society has lived in excess, accumulating massive amounts of waste and inefficiency. When the societal issue of consumption can be changed, there will then be a better hope for our future.
Works Cited
Bingler, Steven, and Martin C. Pedersen. “How To Rebuild Architecture.” The New York Times,
The New York Times, 15 Dec. 2014,
www.nytimes.com/2014/12/16/opinion/how-to-rebuild-architecture.html.
Keates, Nancy. “MANSION--- Inside Story: It’s Not Easy Being (quite so) Green --- an
Environmental Lawyer Constructs an Oregon Home to Meet Three Notoriously
Demanding Green-Building Codes, and Encounters some UNexpected Challenges:
Feeling Guilty about Opening a Window.” Wall Street Journal, Sep 06, 2013. ProQuest,
https://search-proquest-com.sandiego.idm.oclc.org/docview/1430381074?accountid=147
Rosenberg, Michael, et al. “Journal of Solar Energy Engineering .” A Perspective of Energy
Code and Regulations for the Buildings of the Future , vol. 139, Feb. 2017, pp.
010801–1-01801–6., doi:10.1115/1.4034825.
Yudelson, Jerry. “The Business Case for Green Building .” Jetson Green, 2009,
www.jetsongreen.com/files/ppa-yudelson.pdf .
Borunda, Alexandra. “This Is What Cities Need to Do by 2050 to Meet Climate Goals.” Cities
Can Cut Carbon Emissions by 90 Percent by 2050, Report Says, National Geographic ,
24 Sept. 2019,
www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/09/zero-carbon-cities-future/?cmpid=org&%3Bsf219805724=1&%3Bfbclid=IwAR2GCN68_h1e5MFG0eJgjzFDOPhs2nSaiH05QxgcuVT_npB2mL-wSl5GAGM.
