I had a meeting this afternoon with a colleague who posed an excellent question that I thought was worth sharing here. The questioned asks: Is it ethical for architecture to produce anything but Green design? Is it ethical for builders to build anything but Green? Is it ethical for remodelers to do anything but remodel Green?
This comes across as a tough question when in fact the answer should really be easy.
There is a great deal of noise and attention given to projects across the world that purport to be Green when in fact little about the project is truly Green. Attention may be given to a single attribute that has minimal impact or should really be the baseline for projects rather than celebrated as an achievement. Projects that have met code requirements are hardly examples to be followed.
Much of the problem falls back to our media outlets who struggle to maintain readership and complain that they have to keep their readers attention. The general public doesn’t care about a life-cycle analysis study, or an achievement in embodied energy. You can’t publish pictures of PEX piping or flashing details. Counter-tops, flooring solutions, large homes and lavish furnishings – this is what we want to see.
Even the trade publications want it kept simple and palatable. “We don’t want to overwhelm people.” “We have to take it one small step at a time.” “We don’t want to appear to be too far out there.” “You know how tradespeople are, most of them don’t own computers. You can’t expect them to understand how to properly document a job.”
This pervasive culture of mediocrity and acceptance of the lowest common denominator as the status quo is the reason why in todays world we still question whether the world is changing, whether we humans have an impact on the planet, whether climate change is a hoax, and whether Green building is important. This allows us to still design and build outrageous buildings with no consideration given to impact. It gives us permission to construct 12,000 sf homes for a family of two and present it to the public as Green. The media accepts this and in the interest of a story (substance need not be included) promotes this same monstrosity rather than condemn it.
So is it ethical to continue down the road we are on? At what point do we take responsibility for our actions? When does the Architect refuse to design buildings that are not efficient in resources and healthy for the occupants? When will the public demand a higher standard of living? When will ethics play a role in Architecture?
Found your site via the link to my blog, thanks for that.
That is an excellent question to pose, and sadly the answer must create a tension with the way things are, instead of helping set an appropriate direction. As you state, and I agree, that is because the complexity of industries that make up building culture have not been challenged to think differently about what they do, how they do it, and who they do it for. This is changing, though, and society is rapidly engaging concepts of occupant quality and sustainability, and not just because it is more about bigger picture value creation than resource depletion… but because those that inhabit the environments created by the building culture are understanding the impact of those environments on their lives and the world around them. Society is beginning to get context and consequences with regards to building.
Change of this nature is harder than it should be, especially for Americans given our disposable culture of entitlement and immediate gratification. However, organizations and companies like those you are involved are the vanguard in making the change we want in the world. Rock on.
John,
Thanks for your comment. Your observations are excellent and accurate and I appreciate your taking the time to share them with such well crafted words.
It is that complexity of industries that is in many ways most resistant to change. For the consumer it is relatively easy (the product is developed and for sale), but for the industry it means re-thinking, re-learning, and re-tooling business as usual. For many, they would rather hire a marketing firm to help sell the same product than make the change. For others, as you point out, they are changing and taking those steps towards creating real change in the industry.
Michael
The reality of the building industry, and society at large from my view, is that they are all still slaves to the “All Mighty Dollar.” Until you stop making homes the ultimate status symbol in society, I believe you are not going to be able to make any large scale changes to the industry based explicitly on ethics. The sad reality is that no one will do anything to change until it hits them in the pocketbook. Case in point, the only reason that hybrid or electric vehicles are being explored with any vigor now, is because fuel is $4.00/gal. You could caulk this up to a side effect of capitalism, but I think that it has to do more with the fact that we as human beings think that we are masters of the planet. We have forgotten that we are simply another species sharing this planet with millions of others, or more simply put, we are animals that do not think we are animals. We have forgotten that we have instincts, and that these instincts have more control over our decisions then we let ourselves believe.
To try to get to my point, lets look at money as a symbol for food and shelter. Since food and shelter are basic instincts and those instincts drive us to compete with each other to secure more and more. The more money one has the bigger and more extravagant the food and shelter has to be. Building a society of excess on a foundation of instincts, making large scale changes to our social view next to impossible unless there is a major strain on how we have learned satisfy our instincts. Since money is in short supply these days and the world is beginning to suffer the consequences from its past transgressions, we are starting to see the shift to ethical thinking only because our food and our shelter are being threatened.
the money question is an interesting one…
with the down housing market, some homebuilders may be taking whatever gig they can get… so the question of ethics usually comes second.
however… precisely because of $4 gas, people are thinking more long term about where they live, and their footprint. They are moving back to the cities, where things are within walking distance. They want more efficiency, so they don’t have to pay the extra heating costs per month…
so, the money issue presents both a problem, and a solution…