One of the jurors from the panel that selected this year’s COTE Top Ten wrote about her experience and some of the things that she saw in the jury. And the question of great architecture versus green architecture was also raised in the AIA weekly newsletter this past week as well. The COTE Top Ten showcases some very attractive buildings with some serious green building credentials (LEED Gold and Platinum buildings and a building that claims “carbon neutral opearations”, to name a few). But the larger question seems to be how much green building and good building design are, or can be, connected.

Architect Rebecca Henn is a PhD candidate at the University of Michigan and was also the “student” member of this year’s jury. She shared some of her thoughts about the COTE jury process at BuildingGreen. My lament that the winners were all too much of the same type seemed to be echoed in her comments, as well:

“Which was a larger accomplishment: a big federal agency who regularly produces dim bland boxes now getting a more sustainable and beautiful building, or yet another LEED Platinum-rated environmental center (yawn…)?

“What about the inspirational design done for a project that faced budget cuts (twice) and a hurricane, but still stuck to its sustainable goals? The house we wanted oh-so-badly to give an award to had 4,000 square feet for two people. The big box store that could have been an exemplar of sustainability was, frankly, really ugly. The history of environmental design has enough poor aesthetic examples for people to use in repudiation of environmental goals. We refused to feed that fire.”

Good architecture is not easy, but the balance of design and sustainability needs to take both into consideration. This was the direction of another relevant article. While not directly addressing the issue of this year’s COTE Top Ten, Michael Crosbie writes about The Duty to Beauty in the AIArchitect weekly newsletter. In his article, he quotes James Wines, from a recent visit to the University of Hartford architecture program:

“An aesthetically inferior work of architecture,” says Wines, “no matter how environmentally correct in terms of green technology, cannot justify the investment, enhance a client’s public image, or qualify as sustainable design, simply because people will never want to keep a boring building around.” Great architecture and green architecture are one and the same—you cannot have one without the other.

With the current bandwagon of green building rolling along, everyone is looking to get on board. In trade publications now, page after page of ads for every imaginable product in the construction realm are all trying to wrap themselves in the green mantle. Too often, green is being used as the determining factor in a project in place of good design, rather than melding the two and achieving something that surpasses the easy trade-offs and creates something truly worthy.

As Rebecca Henn writes: “Sustainability needs to be seen in our profession less as a technological fix reserved for the spec writers and engineers. Instead, it should be seen as our responsibility to society in exchange for the state-licensed monopoly we enjoy. If we don’t hold both beauty and sustainability as equal cultural commitments, then we might as well hand over our licenses and call ourselves aesthetic consultants.”

Image Source: Aldo Leopold Legacy Center via AIA COTE Top Ten

But while I’m excited by some of the design presented in this year’s lineup, there are some troubling aspects of the roster as a whole that struck me almost immediately.

There is a strong slant toward a certain general kind of public building in this year’s COTE Top Ten. Of the ten winners (plus one honorable mention) almost all of the projects are buildings with a strong visitor component. Most of the buildings are Visitor Centers, Galleries and Libraries. Only one is a residential building, and the only office building is the honorable mention Internal Revenue Service Center in Kansas City MO.

Of the remaining nine, there are a Sculpture Building and Gallery, a Botanical Garden Visitor & Administration Center, a Learning Center, a University Center, a Center for Science and Art, an Environmental Education/Visitor Activity Center, a Discovery Center, a Library, and an Environmental Center. These are buildings which typically have a sizable budget and which are showpieces, meant to impress visitors. The inclusion of green building elements in all projects like this should be a given.

But do these really represent the best “examples of sustainable architecture and green design solutions that protect and enhance the environment”? Or should the best buildings represent the whole range of building?

As a program of the AIA, superior architecture and design are going to be key in any national awards, whether related to environmental issues or otherwise. So expecting these to be more ordinary buildings may be a bit much to ask of COTE.

The best examples of environmental design should be found in a range of buildings and building types. Monocultures are rarely a good thing in the long run. Too much of the same kind of building runs the risk of developing a public perception of green building being limited to only certain types of buildings, a niche, rather than a direction in which all building must start moving.

All of these projects are fine examples of green building, and I do not want to detract from any of this year’s winners. But if the AIA is going to “Walk the Walk,” it needs to promote a broader range of sustainable building projects. The Committee should take a closer look at its selection process and the methods it uses to arrive at its Top Ten award winners. A wider range of the implementations of green building needs to be recognized as part of the program. Without a greater representation from a wider variety of project types, the COTE Top Ten recognition runs the risk of becoming a marginalized and insignificant award, rather than a standard of excellence for all building design and construction.

My congratulations to all of this year’s winners.

See Also:
What Makes It Green? 2008 Winners

Architecture Week 2008 - Is It Sustainable?

Image: Pocono Environmental Education/Visitor Activity - Bohlin Cywinski Jackson, Architects, via: AIA.org

The American Institute of Architects (AIA) has ambitious goals for reducing carbon emissions related to the built environment: it hopes to make all buildings carbon neutral by 2030, and aims for a 50% fossil fuel reduction by 2010. But to accomplish what is, in effect, a complete overhaul of the way the construction industry operates, the AIA must make sure that its message is heard by people outside its own membership. Toward that end, the group announced its “Walk the Walk: Architects Leading the Sustainable Evolution” campaign On January 15th of this year.

Intended to “inform the marketplace” on the benefits of green building, the initiative sets forth a multifaceted communications strategy. Christine McEntee, Executive Vice President and CEO of the AIA, is quoted as saying, “As America continues to be saturated by messages of ‘going green,’ there is a general lack of understanding that buildings are one of the primary sources of the greenhouse gases contributing to global warming and climate change. The ‘Walk the Walk’ program will raise awareness of this issue and provide practical energy saving solutions for people who build, work and live in buildings of all shapes and sizes.”

The marketing firm Giant Ideas was hired to orchestrate “Walk the Walk,” and their website has a blog detailing the campaign’s development. One component of the campaign is the AIA/Dwell “How Green are You” contest, which focuses on sustainable home design and renovation. Tapping into Dwell’s audience should be a strong move for the campaign; the research company Erdos & Morgan found that Dwell magazine reaches an affluent, professional readership, and has the unique duality of appealing to consumers and trade members (in a 60/40 split). Dwell has received many awards and honors, including a 2005 National Magazine Award, a 2003 Circulation Excellence Award from Circulation Managment, and a Top 10 listing in Capell’s “Best Performers in Circulation for 2005″.

“How Green are You” is open to anyone and the entry period is from  April 5th to June 20th, 2008.

Judging Criteria include:

• Sustainability
• Functionality
• Originality
• Cost effectiveness, and
• Design

To enter the contest, click here.

Image credit: AIA

Related links:

http://greenbuildingelements.com/2008/04/07/architecture-week-2008-is-it-sustainable/#more-295

http://greenbuildingelements.com/2008/01/09/greenbuilder-magazine/

http://greenbuildingelements.com/2007/07/25/is-green-just-a-fad/

While the AIA has another program it also began last year titled “Walk the Walk” that offers a good number of resources on sustainability both for architectural clients and the general public, as well as for architects and other building professionals, the topic is not highlighted in the Architecture Week program in any significant way.

Architecture Week provides a chance for the architectural profession to draw some attention to the issues of buildings and energy use.  And while sustainability is only one of a number of issues that architects must address in meeting their clients’ needs, the opportunity seems to have been missed for a stronger message and more outreach to educate clients and building owners (from individual homeowners to corporate office managers) about the importance of buildings in the perspective of energy use and energy savings.

While increasing the efficiency of every vehicle on the road today by 10% would require a huge technological development, it would only save a bit less than 3% of our present national consumption of energy.  Transportation represents slightly more than 25% of the national energy consumption, while buildings represent nearly half of all energy used in this country.  So while research into improving vehicle efficiency is an important step to be taken, improving the efficiency of buildings will have a significantly larger overall impact.

Moreover, many of the developments needed to improve the efficiency of buildings are known and existing technologies, rather than requiring new technological developments.  By taking better advantage of daylighting, passive heating and cooling and other design techniques, we can build better buildings that will not leave a legacy of wasteful energy use.  And, new and improved technologies will help further improve building performance to be able to reach a goal of carbon-neutral buildings as a standard by 2030.

Better buildings need to be part of the steps we take today in order to move toward creating a sustainable future.  Architects should use the opportunity of being in the public spotlight to encourage greater public awareness of these issues.

Links:

AIA Architecture Week

Article about Architecture 2030

Architecture2030.org