Our Buildings Were Built for a Different World | The climate crisis demands that we retrofit them—which won’t happen at scale until architects start seeing themselves as political actors.
Our Buildings Were Built for a Different World | The climate crisis demands that we retrofit them—which won’t happen at scale until architects start seeing themselves as political actors.
The climate crisis demands that we retrofit them—which won’t happen at scale until architects start seeing themselves as political actors.
Archived copies of the article:
I originally had a reactionary response to this... Like why should the burden be on Architects. Most of us would love to make a building as efficent as possible, but at the end of the day it all comes down to who's paying. Sometimes no matter how much u try to educate a client they don't care and will barely be swayed with "it's not to code" as a reason. There's sooo many people above us with more power pulling levers and making decisions and we're lucky some times to push a client in the direction of more sustainable (and expensive) windows that are above code minimums.
Then I read the article, and after pulling my head out of my own ass where I was apparently throwing myself a putty party, I came out agreeing with the author. Although we do not usually hold much leverage, even with organizations like AIA and Ncarb, we do have a unique position of understanding the complexities of how things go from being design to built should use that knowledge to help inform and guide movements for the betterment of the environment. For example, even if IEEC insulation regulations go up, it is up the the individual municipality to accept them, same with all building codes, and I can tell u there is Wide variation depending on how liberal the municipality is and this can be just from county to county.
So while I want to blame everyone else that is responsible for allowing the wrong codes from being rattified or rich developer for skimping on windows and insulation(still legal cause energy codes) in a high rise, it's on architects to educate and try to push the system from the bottom.
I really appreciate reading this, terry_jerry. I work rn at a small architect firm in midwest US, I'm an engineer by training and just happen to be at an architect firm to help them with office management and admin work. They do mostly small-scale residential stuff, and I see this attitude of "at the end of the day it all comes down to who's paying" so prevalently here too.
How do you go about educating and pushing the system from the bottom in your professional role? I get stumped when my coworkers here just throw up their hands and undersell the influence that they can have on shaping the client's final say. Sure, some clients come to the firm just because they need a licensed architect to check the boxes and get their project built, but many others are coming to the firm because they respect the architects' perspective and big-picture vision. The architects that I work with though haven't had any role-models to show how to push for more sustainable details, or even a shifted paradigm, when in conversation with a client's unconscious preferences for design approaches that are environmentally-ambivalent. Any suggestions from personal experience here, or even just what you can imagine in a hypothetical interaction with a client?
My (solarpunky) hope is just that all of us step into the power that we really DO have. Architects, however local or global their recognition, are in the perfect position to be shifting the paradigm of what clients and the broader population can even imagine - that's the power of solarpunk and any speculative genre!
I'm pretty early on into my career and am honestly still trying to navigate this myself, but after over a decade I'd say I'd agree with what clover said somewhere else in the thread, u just have to advocate any way you can. Depending on the client, that might be using the economic angle, or the environmental angle. Some people only see dollar signs and don't care the most of Canada is on fire and there's no wining, but in trying you may sway the people below them that might be in decision making roles in the future.
Idk, like just try I guess :)
- Awnings
- Insulation
- Energy recovery ventilation
- Heat pumps
- Energy recovery drains
- District heating/cooling where applicable
Anything more to add to the list?
Kinda related to insulation, but:
- Windows
- Weather-stripping
- Heat leak audit
District heating/cooling is a big one. I think NY is still using 1st gen technology which is kind of crazy in this day and age (also crazy it's one of the few places in the US using DH). We've moved so far in DH that I can't imagine why they're still using steam. The newest generation networks operate just above ambient, so the fact they're still using steam blows my mind.
The U.S appears to be suffering from an aversion to public investment, to their great detriment.
Looks like a Technology Connections playlist tbh.
I mean basically yeah
Not every job is a climate/sustainability job, but any employee can be a sustainability advocate. Leverage your power
architects, looking up from their NEOM designs: No, I don't think I will
The popularity of things like LEED seems to indicate that a lot are willing.
Do they view LEED as something political? Or do they view LEED as something clients want? I think it's the latter
I'd say the majority of architects are more than willing but there are contrarians. LEED does provide an avenue for Architects to get involved but its not without his issues LEED is an interesting program that has its issues. For example there are a lot of credit swap opportunities in LEED that allow u to bypass some of the other requirements that would be more impactful. The core tennents of what LEED is trying to achieve is great, it just doesn't seem to be rather effective where it counts, production builders that are supplying the majority of housing. These developers stray away from LEED certification due to the extra cost, it takes alot of extra documentation to go for LEED. Documentation that would not be neccissary even if you would choose to build a building that is equal or better than a LEED building. I view the program similarly to Target turning their logo rainbow, low investment for big businesses looking to posture.
Now, via Councilwoman Linda Lee’s cynical and vague Intro 772, the real estate lobby’s coming for a third: an exemption from the law’s provisions for condo and co-op building owners. LL97 targets large buildings. Make no mistake: Residential buildings don’t just stop polluting because people are living there instead of companies.
I'm stumped by this one. Does the real estate lobby have much investment in co-ops and condos? Especially co-ops! I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding here, or if I'm noting something true here that this third example provided is less a matter of bowing to the pressure of the real estate lobby and more about easing the collateral effects that the legislation had on smaller (both far less resourced and far less impactful) entities