Print

Print
The 4D Charter & Anti environmental architecture Dear Jim, Chris et al,

i try to follow the discussions that float through my  Inbox but have rarely had time to contribute (...but thanks to all for the vital discussions...)

On seeing the recent exchange i thought i should let you all know of an initiative that i am hoping to catalyse into ACTION. I have been as frustrated as Jim by the total complacency with which architects often treat the environmental crisis and their (relatively big) role as ‘part of the problem’. A year or two back when the then new darling of architecture, David Adjaye, spoke at the RCA i asked the final  public question of him re. wether there was ever ANY consideration given to environmental issues. I am sure that he then chose to deliberatley mis-interpret the question and waffled on about indoor air quality and social contact etc (important, but i did make clea afterwards NOT the issue i was aking him to address!). My partner had a similar reaction on questioning the Libeskind
representative on an architectural tour of the, then newly opened, ‘falling down building’  for London Metropolitan University on the Holloway Road in London (i.e. shocked look of incredulity at the question, followed by an evasive answer).

Details of the thinking behind this Charter are below, but basically, inspired by the 1964 & 2000 ‘First things First’ manifesto (for graphic design) and ten years of experience as an educator in Sustainable Design, frusration then drove me to try and catalyse a Charter (for Design) (defining ‘design’ very broadly; to include architecture, landscape architecture, product, engineering etc.).

As you see, the BIG IDEA is to get these issues discussed and committed too throughout the design professions: in studios, industry, colleges, AND BY THE CONSUMERS. “Once drawn up, well known designers (incl. architects etc) will be invited to endorse the principles as signatories to the charter. This will then be followed by maximum exposure in design and professional journals, as well as the mainstream media.”

Obviously a corollary of the publication of this list could be to name and shame any big name architects and designers WHO REFUSE to engage with the issues!

Unfortunately i will not have time to develop the 4D charter initiative for a few months (we badly need a web site/email or discussion forum), but i hope that others will be getting more involved as i don’t anyone should be the author of such a thing; other than the signatories of course! (Sarah Johnson at Redesigndesign.com has agreed to perhaps host the virtual side in time). Interest or comment from the Architecture Association, Architects and Engineers for Social Responsibility, or others would be good to hear.

I’m attaching a document with a clearer introduction to therationale and concept. All thoughts, comments or criticisms greatfully received!

Cheers,
michael

Michael Herrmann FRSA
Associate Senior Lecturer
Design (for Sustainability)
 
BA (Honours) Design
The Leeds School of Architecture, Landscape and Design
Leeds Metropolitan University

+00 44 (0)771 427 0069 (mobile)

Email: [log in to unmask]


*********************************************************************


The 4D Charter for Design

Aim: to progress towards a Charter for Design.

Rationale: What is meant by Four Dimensional Design? Designing with the fourth dimension – TIME - in mind. To do this requires both awareness and strategies that really address the ecological impact of products of all scales: from skyscrapers to biros. Responsible designers will need to arm themselves with new knowledge, skills and understanding, but more than this, they need to demonstrate commitment to considering the ecological and social impacts of their proposals, as well as championing the sustainability agenda to their clients and colleagues throughout the design process. Once drawn up, well known designers (incl. architects etc) will be invited to endorse the principles as signatories to the charter. This will then be followed by maximum exposure in design and professional journals, as well as the mainstream media.



On 29/10/06 10:46, "SoW Net" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Thanks, Chris,
It would be nice were local planning authorities to do so, but I doubt whether they would be prepared to stand up to say Norman Foster, Richard Rogers or Zaha Hadid.
I am copying in a long-term colleague and friend in Architects and Engineers for Social
 Responsibility, in the hope that she may suggest a way forward.  I have received no reply from the Director of AA School of
Architecture, so far.
Best wishes from Jim Scott

Sign up on-line to VALUE LIFE ITSELF ABOVE ALL ELSE !!!
and support the
NEW MOVEMENT FOR SURVIVAL
Global site: www.save-our-world.net <http://www.save-our-world.net> , Challenge page


----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Keene" <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >
To: <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 3:28 PM
Subject: Re: Anti environmental architecture

I wonder if it would be possible to have an impact via local
authorities, since they control planning permission. Having Green
councillors in place could make it more likely that the council enforced
better standards perhaps? Does anyone know much about regulation in this
area?

Chris

SoW Net wrote:

> Dear George and all,
> I have been despairing over the ethical blindness of my fellow
> architects for years, especilly the * star * ones.
> There are a very few of us promoting social and environmental
> responsibility (which is how I met my first wife), and I did a PhD in
> the area of Community Design in housing. There is an exceptional
> organisation called Architects and Engineers for Social
> Responsibility, that actually sent a delegate to the Climate and
> Energy UNED-UK working group in the run-up to the 2002 UN World Summit.
> But by and large we go unheard and my PhD unread.
> I went to a recent lecture by Zaha Hadid at the AA School of
> Architecture, and was shocked that all the students around me were
> totally enraptured over what she was saying about her grossly
> profligate use of concrete, and no one of any age questioned her about
> environmental impacts at all (I was in a basement overflow room).
> A welcome but very occasional article appeared in The Guardian on Sat
> 14 October, on the imminent Stirling Prize, entitled 'The truth about
> those iconic buildings ..' but it was chiefly concerned about their
> '...roofs leak, they're dingy and too hot', not their environmental
> profligacy.
> As a member of the AA, I have just put in a call to the PA for the new
> Director at the AA School, to request a debate on the environmental
> profligacy of star architects, and await a reply, with great interest!
> Best wishes from Jim Scott
> *Sign up on-line to VALUE LIFE ITSELF ABOVE ALL ELSE !!!
> and support the
> NEW MOVEMENT FOR SURVIVAL
> Global site: **www.save-our-world.net*
> <http://www.save-our-world.net <http://www.save-our-world.net> >*, Challenge page*
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     *From:* George Marshall <mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >
>     *To:* [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>     <mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >
>     *Sent:* Tuesday, October 17, 2006 3:25 PM
>     *Subject:* Anti environmental architecture
>
>
>         October 17, 2006
>
>
>           Anti environmental architecture
>           <http://climatedenial.org/2006/10/17/anti-environmental-architecture/ <http://climatedenial.org/2006/10/17/anti-environmental-architecture/> >
>
>     I watched the Stirling Awards for Architecture
>     <http://www.channel4.com/4homes/microsites/S/stirling_prize/2006/index.html%20 <http://www.channel4.com/4homes/microsites/S/stirling_prize/2006/index.html%20> >
>     on Saturday with a deep despondency.
>
>     These awards are the Booker of Buildings. Although all manner of
>     croneyism, politics and fashion determines who makes the short
>     list they are as good a reflection as any of what the architecture
>     and arts world see as the cutting edge of new design.
>
>     Watching it I can only conclude that architects exhibit a
>     particularly interesting and complex form of denial. Architects
>     are, in my experience, aware people with progressive politics. As
>     a profession they have a huge responsibility for causing climate
>     change (the energy consumed by buildings and their materials are
>     the single largest source of greenhouse gases) and a huge
>     opportunity to develop the forms and structures of a low carbon
>     economy. And, to be fair, they do talk about climate change a fair
>     bit in magazines and conferences and books.*
>
>     But the people at the top of the profession who get the Stirling
>     and Pritzker prizers and the Gold medals and the gongs and the big
>     fancy projects are not building anything that remotely reflects
>     the realities of climate change. *
>
>     This is an extremely interesting period for architecture- the most
>     inventive and expressive in thirty years- and that expression is
>     being achieved through technologies and materials that are the
>     antithesis of a low carbon sustainable economy.
>
>     Take concrete for example. Cement has horrible CO2 emissions- very
>     high temperatures are needed to slake the lime which produces yet
>     more carbon dioxide as a by product. Cement manufacture accounts
>     for 5% of the worlds greenhouse gas emissions. If we were serious
>     about climate change it would be used very sparingly indeed.
>
>     And yet the bookies favourite to win the Stirling prize was Zaha
>     Hadid’s extraordinary Phaeno Science Centre. It is is a symphony
>     in ‘compacted concrete’ – the concrete floors sweeping up and
>     around the museum to create one organic whole. It creates a
>     thrilling new language for concrete that will be imitated widely.
>     But it pays a high price. It used 27,000 cubic metres of concrete
>     which produced nearly 10,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide. Given that
>     a sustainable level is probably not much more than one tonne of
>     carbon dioxide per person per year, that is a huge footprint.
>
>     Architects adore reinforced concrete because it combines strength
>     with immense sculptural potential. Another Stirling shortlist was
>     a ‘brick house’ by Caruso St John, the most striking quality of
>     which, despite its name, is the neo-expressionist crumpled lines
>     of its concrete roof slab. There’s an awful lot of concrete in
>     that house. It pays clear homage to Louis Kahn and the formal
>     language he developed 40 years ago, a long time before we knew of
>     the impending collapse of the world’s weather system.
>
>     The winner of the Stirling Prize is Richard Rogers’ Barajas
>     Airport. An airport wins the prize! A parking garage for the
>     fastest growing cause of climate change! The top architects
>     probably spend half their lives in airports and are especially
>     subject to the near universal denial about the impacts of flights.
>     Yet, if we are going to deal with climate change this building
>     type needs to become as obselete as the bear pit.
>
>     One reason that people don’t see planes as polluting is that it
>     doesn’t feel dirty. There are no smokestacks or piles of coal.
>     Planes feel (and /feelings /count more than reality when we assess
>     impacts) very smart and white and clean. Rogers and his team have
>     concentrated their creativity on creating an airport that extends
>     that feeling- all open and bright and fresh.
>
>     But the openness and brightness of the interiors is made possible
>     by large expanses of plate glass (and a lot of steel to hold it
>     up). What we don’t see in the pictures is the huge cooling and
>     heating plant which keeps it at a tolerable temperature. No doubt
>     Rogers, who speaks often about climate change (his shortlisted
>     Welsh Assembly building appears to have made a serious attempt to
>     be green), has achieved a very high energy design by using lots of
>     clever technology and design to keep the energy load manageable.
>
>     This is the nub. Modern energy saving technology is not being used
>     to create buildings with zero emissions but is enabling increased
>     transparency and expressive potential. This is exactly what is
>     happening in the car industry where the main market for LPG and
>     fuel cells is for sports utility vehicles- the heaviest cars ever
>     built.
>
>     And one could expand on this point endlessly. All around the world
>     the best and most creative architects are using new technologies
>     to push the expressive potential of their buildings. Gehry faces
>     his buildings with sheets or stainless steel and titanium (the
>     most energy intensive metal of all). Rem Koolhaas has built a new
>     library in Seattle
>     <with">http://www.arcspace.com/architects/koolhaas/Seattle/>with <http://www.arcspace.com/architects/koolhaas/Seattle/>
>     entirely glass walls and roof. Work was suspended on Herzog and de
>     Meuron ‘s Olympic stadium in Beijing
>     <because">http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?p=115716%20>because <http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?p=115716%20>
>     of the costs of the 80,000 tonnes of steel involved in its
>     construction. That’s 152,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide- an
>     incredible indulgence…and so I could go on. None of these designs
>     are models for a sustainable future. All the architects have won
>     the Pritzer award- the highest award for architecture.
>
>     As you can tell, I love architecture but despair of what is being
>     done with it. Modernism arose from an entirely valid critique that
>     traditional building was not able to meet the needs and
>     opportunities of the modern world. In fifty years time, as the
>     seas are rising and the hurricanes are crashing every month into
>     Florida these buildings will appear pathetically dated- the last
>     decadent rococo flourish of the carbon age. So why, when all the
>     scientists agree on the problem, are they still be built and lauded?
>
>     This article was posted on www.climatedenial.org <http://www.climatedenial.org> a site which
>     explores the psychology of our denial of climate change. Please
>     feel free to distribute
>
>--
>From
>George Marshall,
>Executive Director,
>Climate Outreach Information Network,
>16B Cherwell St.,
>Oxford OX4 1BG
>UK
>Office Tel. 01865 727 911
>Mobile 0795 150 4549 (I will call you back to save you the high charge of calling mobiles)
>E-mail: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>Website:  http://www.COINet.org.uk <http://www.COINet.org.uk>
>
>The Climate Outreach Information Network is a charitable trust with the objective of 'advancing the education of the public in the subject of climate change and its impact on local, national, and global environments'.
>Charity registration number  1102225
>
>Please join our discussion-free announcements lists by sending a blank e-mail to:
>NATIONAL EVENTS- [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>OXFORD EVENTS - [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>COIN NEWS- [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     No virus found in this incoming message.
>     Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>     Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.4/477 - Release Date:
>     16/10/2006
>