Sustainable Development in Architecture :
Rediscovering Its Relevance
by Dr Marco Macagnano
In today ’ s business environment we have come to hear the words ‘ sustainable development ’ at almost every turn . The term is loosely used when attempting to communicate some form of commitment to environmental values . But have we lost sight of the original intentions of this term , and is it truly relevant anymore ?
I have been fortunate to have spent the past number of years deeply involved in Doctoral research into the future of the architectural profession . In my research I primarily considered the implications of the 4th Industrial Revolution on process and product , delving into what will give our buildings continual relevance and resilience in the context of Smart Cities , the internet of things , even virtual cyberspace . In a world where the future ’ s solutions are presented through technological intervention , one has to ask : will architecture continue to play a role of importance in the future ? The answer to this question requires investigation into a term that defines ‘ future importance ’ at its core .
Sustainable Development , as a concept , has been with us for many years . We would need to look all the way back to 1987 , where the term was established by the
UN and given a very broad , yet important definition in the Brundlant Report . In this report , Sustainable Development was defined as development that meets the needs of present and future generations . Simple , yet poignant .
In 1994 the ‘ triple bottom line ’ was coined by businessman and author John Elkington , giving rise to the widely-known and accepted criteria : Social , Economic and Environmental . It was proposed that the consideration of these three criteria would create conditions for sustainable development . What was revolutionary about this approach was that it finally gave the masses a basis to quantify success . Each of these criteria could be subdivided , split into targets , and theoretically measured . It removed some of the vagueness and gave an abstract concept such as sustainability a ‘ face ’. These criteria were well-considered and broad enough to warrant application in virtually every industry . However , in the decades that followed , sustainable development has been watered-down as a concept , often limited by association to green building and resource-efficient technologies . As it turns out , the triple bottom line criteria were still too vague to implement . It is difficult to measure or simulate social impact , but it is easier to simulate energy savings and CO2 levels . This creates the natural conditions for reliance on rating tools with a green building focus . These are extremely important and valuable , but must be considered as an important piece of a much larger puzzle .
As an architect , I can sympathise with this difficulty in implementation . Embarking upon a design process that emphasises fast and effective results within short time periods , it is difficult to consider what the true long-term social implications a development might have on its immediate context , let alone how this will shape the design of a façade . The truth is that the generic architectural process is not geared to incorporate this data at the onset , often requiring postdesign intervention and development with a ‘ hit-and-hope ’ approach that the building will continue to do the job in the longterm . What I have come to realise is that architecture is limited by its approach to buildings as products designed for a fixed moment in time – in other words , temporal and spatial scale .
When approaching architecture , architects have a responsibility to their Clients to produce solutions to their brief that meet current and next-generational needs .
“ When approaching architecture , architects have a responsibility to their Clients to produce solutions to their brief that meet current and next-generational needs ”
16 Sustainable Development in Architecture