onsite: so Stephen, what is new in green building these days?
Stephen Pope: It’s a frustrating time for the new in the green building world. The shortsightedness of closing programs like Energuide for Houses (probably the most widely used ‘made in Canada’ energy efficiency program) and the fact that Environmental Builidng News now has a Then and Now column looking back over 10 years that clearly shows the miserably small amount of progress that has been made as green goes mainstream, are both signals that the deeper messages about good design and ‘taking only what you need’ are still too obscure for most. In 2002 the David Suzuki Foundation published their ‘Kyoto and Beyond’ paper by Ralph Torrie & Associates. It claimed that all the technologies required to meet the target were available. The paper referenced a federal government research program in which I was involved — the C-2000 Program for Advance Commercial Buildings. The claim is true, and groups like the Mountain Equipment Co-op now regularly build high performance facilities on market- based budgets. The grim reality is that the architectural and engineering professions are either so technology blind (architects) or commodity focused (engineers) that very little real design ever gets done. The evolution of the architectural press from professional journals to popular journals to the shelterporn that is so widespread on the news stands and TV hasn’t yet produced a more intelligent design audience, just more churn for the fashion industry. The general public does not seem to be any more enabled to demand a new or better product than it ever has been.
The difference in design process between how things are done now, and how they could be done properly is very slight. But the attitudes are very, very different. Trade in starchitects, and the frustrated (and undeserved) sense of entitlement that exists in many Canadian architects suggests that the majority of architects are not going to get onto the positive side of the ledger for a long while yet. I have to admit that I have ended up reading more and more business books as it becomes clearer that the way to move the sustainable design agenda forward is to be clearer about how people organize themselves to procure buildings. In the complementary sense, we as architects also need to be clearer about how we organize ourselves to deliver buildings. I am currently involved with a high performance project that is being developed in a manner that looks very similar to the kinds of offices I worked in as an intern architect in the late 1980s. Following the money that generates decisions about buildings has to start at a much higher level than the client budget presented to the prime consultant. The interpretation of the asset value of a building by a pension fund has a greater influence on how design is implemented than even the calculations of organizational effectiveness undertaken by an owner/occupier/operator. We have to have life-cycle information about buildings down cold, and be able to explain same to the proverbial six-year old. Green designers need to get closer to the business value discussions. Happily, this is not just a benefit for green designers — it is desired for all designers. Having a business relationship with a client is where architects can really deliver value and reduce liability.
6
on | site 16
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator