Green architecture
Courtesy : www.britannica.com/
In the early 21st century the building of shelter (in all its forms) consumed more than half of the world’s resources—translating into 16 percent of the Earth’s freshwater resources, 30–40 percent of all energy supplies, and 50 percent by weight of all the raw materials withdrawn from Earth’s surface. Architecture was also responsible for 40–50 percent of waste deposits in landfills and 20–30 percent of greenhouse gas emissions.
Many architects after the post-World War II building boom were content to erect emblematic civic and corporate icons that celebrated profligate consumption and omnivorous globalization. At the turn of the 21st century, however, a building’s environmental integrity—as seen in the way it was designed and how it operated—became an important factor in how it was evaluated.
The rise of eco-awareness
In the United States, environmental advocacy, as an organized social force, gained its first serious momentum as part of the youth movement of the 1960s. In rebellion against the perceived evils of high-rise congestion and suburban sprawl, some of the earliest and most dedicated eco-activists moved to rural communes, where they lived in tentlike structures and geodesic domes. In a certain sense, this initial wave of green architecture was based on admiration of the early Native American lifestyle and its minimal impact on the land. At the same time, by isolating themselves from the greater community, these youthful environmentalists were ignoring one of ecology’s most important principles: that interdependent elements work in harmony for the benefit of the whole.
Influential pioneers who supported a more integrative mission during the 1960s and early ’70s included the American architectural critic and social philosopher Lewis Mumford, the Scottish-born American landscape architect Ian McHarg, and the British scientist James Lovelock. They led the way in defining green design, and they contributed significantly to the popularization of environmental principles. For example, in 1973 Mumford proposed a straightforward environmental philosophy:
The solution of the energy crisis would seem simple: transform solar energy via plants and produce enough food power and manpower in forms that would eliminate the wastes and perversions of power demanded by our high-energy technology. In short, plant, eat, and work!
McHarg, who founded the department of landscape architecture at the University of Pennsylvania, laid the ground rules for green architecture in his seminal book Design with Nature (1969). Envisioning the role of human beings as stewards of the environment, he advocated an organizational strategy, called “cluster development,” that would concentrate living centres and leave as much natural environment as possible to flourish on its own terms. In this regard McHarg was a visionary who perceived Earth as a self-contained and dangerously threatened entity.
This “whole Earth” concept also became the basis of Lovelock’s Gaia hypothesis. Named after the Greek Earth goddess, his hypothesis defined the entire planet as a single unified organism, continuously maintaining itself for survival. He described this organism as
a complex entity involving the Earth’s biosphere, atmosphere, oceans, and soil; the totality constituting a feedback or cybernetic system which seeks an optimal physical and chemical environment for life on this planet.
During the 1970s the Norwegian environmental philosopher Arne Naess proposed a theory of “deep ecology” (or “ecosophy”), asserting that every living creature in nature is equally important to Earth’s precisely balanced system. Working in exact opposition to this philosophy, the politics and economics of that decade accelerated the development of green awareness. The lack of business regulation in the United States meant unlimited consumption of fossil fuels. Meanwhile, the 1973 OPEC oil crisis brought the cost of energy into sharp focus and was a painful reminder of worldwide dependence on a very small number of petroleum-producing countries. This crisis, in turn, brought into relief the need for diversified sources of energy and spurred corporate and government investment in solar, wind, water, and geothermal sources of power.
Green design takes root
By the mid-1980s and continuing through the ’90s, the number of environmental advocacy societies radically expanded; groups such as Greenpeace, Environmental Action, the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, and the Nature Conservancy all experienced burgeoning memberships. For architects and builders a significant milestone was the formulation in 1994 of Global Green Building Council (GGBC) standards, established and administered by the Global Green Building Council. These standards provided measurable criteria for the design and construction of environmentally responsible buildings. The basic qualifications are as follows:
- Sustainable site development involves, whenever possible, the reuse of existing buildings and the preservation of the surrounding environment. The incorporation of earth shelters, roof gardens, and extensive planting throughout and around buildings is encouraged.
- Water is conserved by a variety of means including the cleaning and recycling of gray (previously used) water and the installation of building-by-building catchments for rainwater. Water usage and supplies are monitored.
- Energy efficiency can be increased in a variety of ways, for example, by orienting buildings to take full advantage of seasonal changes in the sun’s position and by the use of diversified and regionally appropriate energy sources, which may—depending on geographic location—include solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, water, or natural gas.
- The most desirable materials are those that are recycled or renewable and those that require the least energy to manufacture. They ideally are locally sourced and free from harmful chemicals. They are made of nonpolluting raw ingredients and are durable and recyclable.
- Indoor environmental quality addresses the issues that influence how the individual feels in a space and involves such features as the sense of control over personal space, ventilation, temperature control, and the use of materials that do not emit toxic gases.
The 1980s and early ’90s brought a new surge of interest in the environmental movement and the rise to prominence of a group of more socially responsive and philosophically oriented green architects. The American architect Malcolm Wells opposed the legacy of architectural ostentation and aggressive assaults on the land in favour of the gentle impact of underground and earth-sheltered buildings—exemplified by his Brewster, Mass., house of 1980. The low impact, in both energy use and visual effect, of a structure that is surrounded by earth creates an almost invisible architecture and a green ideal. As Wells explained, this kind of underground building is “sunny, dry, and pleasant” and “offers huge fuel savings and a silent, green alternative to the asphalt society.”
The American physicist Amory Lovins and his wife, Hunter Lovins, founded the Rocky Mountain Institute in 1982 as a research centre for the study and promotion of the “whole system” approach favoured by McHarg and Lovelock. Years before the GGBC standards were published, the institute, which was housed in a building that was both energy-efficient and aesthetically appealing, formulated the fundamental principle of authentic green architecture: to use the largest possible proportion of regional resources and materials. In contrast to the conventional, inefficient practice of drawing materials and energy from distant, centralized sources, the Lovins team followed the “soft energy path” for architecture—i.e., they drew from alternative energy sources.
