ABSTRACT

The term "Sustainable architecture," used to describe the movement associated with environmentally conscious architectural design, has created ambivalence and confusion. An examination of the meaning of "sustainable" identifies why this occurs. The popular interpretation of the words "sustainable architecture" describes an approach to architectural design that minimizes sustenance or resource consumption so as to prolong the availability of natural resources. However, the definition of "sustainable" does not imply a minimization of sustenance. "Sustainable" simply expresses the fact that resources do maintain our environment. The second law of thermodynamics explains that depletion of resources is inevitable in maintaining any environment. Sustainable architecture describes the fact that we receive what we need from the universe. This realization compels us to respond with care or stewardship in the use of those resources. Sustainable architecture, then, is a response to an awareness and not a prescriptive formula for survival.

INTRODUCTION

One of the sessions in the July 1995 International Solar Energy Society's Twentieth National Passive Solar Conference in Minneapolis, Minnesota was a panel forum discussing "The Problem with Sustainability." Among the panelists were Professor Robert Koester, Ball State University School of Architecture, Professor Richard Levine, University of Kentucky and Kenneth Haggard, Architect, San Luis Obispo Sustainability Group. In the audience was Steven Strong, President of Solar Design Associates and author of the Solar Electric Home. Their comments and contributions have been central to the ideas and discussion included in this issue of Architronic . I have tried to capture their informal thoughts and discussion in various ways as a means of focusing on the concept of sustainable architecture.^{Ref. 1}

Kenneth Haggard pointed out that "Sustainability" is a term that represents the social and cultural shift in the world order, patterns and styles of living. It is another step in the process wherein society has moved from a nomadic hunting order, to an agricultural order, to an industrial order and is currently moving to an information based order. "Sustainability" has become a buzzword or symbol describing this inevitable, ongoing transition. As such, the term "sustainability" has little to do with the dictionary, literal definition of the word, but is the name for a new attitude and way of looking at the world.

In addition to this mismatch between the literal meaning and the concept, Ken pointed out two additional problems with the term "sustainability." One, the term tends to communicate that expectations for material qualities in our lives must be decreased -- it represents mere survival at the expense of improved quality of life. This is a marked contrast with the perceived reality of those within the sustainable architecture movement. Sustainability represents to them a transition from a period of deterioration of the natural environment (as represented by the industrial revolution and the associated urban environments generated by the industrial revolution) to a more humane and natural environment. We see improvement and increased quality in our local communities.

A second problem according to Ken is that "sustainability" is a "soft" term when used in this context. It is lacking in definition and without parameters as to meaning. It has created confusion in the minds of those who must be won over to the idea. It may mean something to those who already have a vision of this approach to architecture, but it is very unclear to those who are trying to understand and consider the implications and expressions of this approach.

Related to the nebulous quality of the term "sustainable" in this context is that some proponents of sustainability feel that we really can create environments that consume less than they produce. As the second law of thermodynamics illustrates, this is impossible. Steven Strong stated, "The term is intellectually dishonest. We, as a society, do not know how to build sustainable architecture." Dick Levine went further and stated that the term "sustainable architecture is an oxymoron".

The term "sustainable," as popularly understood, is inadequate and, consequently, it is a negative influence toward the real goals of the sustainable architecture movement. First and foremost, it is a negative concept. The aim of architecture is to improve our quality of life and environment. The intention of architecture is not to save resources but to reorder them to better serve people. In the context of that priority, the issue is, how do we do that?