Sustainable by Design - Why Aesthetics Matter in Stewardship
July 19, 2012 | ∞ In my earlier post, Of Time and Place, I proposed that creating buildings rooted in place is more important than creating buildings that are “of our time” partly because the phrase “of our time” is meaningless. In his comment on that post, Steve Mouzon had an interesting point:
…it’s actually worse than meaningless because insisting that design be “of our time” means that we must continually throw things away. As you’ve noted, that which is most intensely “of our time” is most quickly “outtadate” tomorrow. That has meaning… serious meaning. Also, to expand on points you’ve raised in this post, I’d say that building things that are “of us” and “of here” trends toward timeless design because the essence of being human changes very slowly, as do regional climate and conditions.
This is why aesthetics are an integral part of good stewardship. The greenest building that shows off it’s sustainable features with a “techie-green” appearance will quickly go out of style as fads change. An out of style building, regardless of how many sustainable features it boasts, will be unloved, uncared for, and eventually demolished. For ugly green buildings, being demolished before their useful lifespan is finished is a serious blemish on their sustainable pedigree.
Stewardship holds that a building must not just be “less bad” but also should contribute towards a greater good. There is always a cost associated with development. Stewardship maintains that the benefit must outweigh the cost. This is a very holistic analysis that goes beyond general sustainability or LEED and I believe that aesthetics play a vital role in accommodating this goal. Timeless buildings age more gracefully and enjoy longer useful lives. Timeless buildings are loved and cared for. Timeless buildings, when coupled with the best sustainable strategies, are the greenest buildings because they last.
Reader Comments (1)
Agreed on all counts, and with a couple caveats:
"Aesthetics" is used in several quarters as a synonym for "superficial" and all concerns about lovability are brushed aside with "oh, that's just about aesthetics." The implication is "you can't be a serious person if aesthetics are a major concern to you." That's why I prefer the term "lovable"... It throws them off a bit.
One other thing... You mentioned the "useful life" of a building. What that really means is e life of the use. Uses come and uses go... Look at the building uses that existed in 800 AD versus today. Even the ones with the same name ("house," or "bank", for example) bear little resemblance then to now. We should be building flexible buildings that can be many things over time, so that they can far outlive their original use. Buildings that are lovable enough, durable enough, and flexible enough may be used for things other than their programmed use for 90-95% of their lifetimes. This means that the program is the most overrated thing in architecture.