No trees please.

For some reason, my posts about trees on buildings have had more attention than any other posts.  My core message has been that architects are putting trees into renderings of proposed buildings, in a disingenuous attempt to divert attention from the lack of any real progress towards truly sustainable new buildings - towards the more considered matrix of urban development that heals the environment in a true, complex way.

But I suspect most people, especially the architects, are ever more hopeful, and therefore my attempt to be balanced by commenting more or less positively on WOHA's Singaposre Park Royal as an actual built example, is possibly my most viewed blog.  Like other hopefulls, I also seized on the hoisting of the first tree into place on Milan's Bosco Verticale with some enthusiasm. Time for a reality check.

The original author of 'Can we please stop drawing trees on top of skyscrapers?' Tim De Chant is himself quite obviously a tree lover and advocate for reforrestation.  It is worth revisiting his rather more extended examination of trees on buildings, in that wider framework of marginal value of ecological rehabilitation.  In 'More reasons to stop putting trees on skyscrapers' back in April, he sets up a simple comparison between the Bosco Verticale and a 'real' forest, both in terms of monetary cost and ecological outcomes.  In his simple comparison, he uses figures from restoring woodlands in the US and from the intensely human modified countryside of Italy.  He even uses urban parkland, not unexpectedly Central Park in NY.

There is no mistaking his conclusions.  There are a couple of orders of magnitude difference between the effort required to achieve nominal tree presence on buildings as opposed to that spent on resuscitating the region’s natural habitat.  He dismisses the claim that trees on buildings are worth it for the inspiration: 

I see them as a distraction and potential liability—what if the Bosco Verticale becomes a brown eyesore, turning people off to his larger vision? I’d love it if Bosco Verticale and other proposed arboreal skyscrapers were sustainable and successful.³ Who wouldn’t want to live in a city full of tree towers? But I just can’t make a case for it. Plant physiology tells me that the trees, if they do survive, will require constant and costly maintenance throughout their short, brutal lives. Finance tells me that the money required to afforest a building would be more effectively used for restoration and preservation. And my gut tells me there are more equitable ways to give people trees, not just to those who can afford it.

I think he is right.  Which is not to say there is no ecologically and financially sound model for maintaining plant communities in cities.  De Chant emphasizes urban parks and street trees.  There are the 'green fingers' of managed drainage systems, doing triple or more duty as active recreation space and channels of cooling breezes in summer (Zurich in Switzerland is the most cited example).  At building level, there seems little problem in growing low scale vegetation on a modest amount of soil on horizontal roofs.  Not only can one realistically aspire to produce some edible crops, but the overall 'capacitive insulation' value of the roof can be demonstrated to have energy efficiency benefits.  The latter can be achieved even where we acknowledge that a lot of roofs have to be low water landscapes.  And even on high rise, large wintergardens can materially affect well being, partly trough measurable effects on air quality of conditioned interiors.

Just not gratuitous photoshopped trees, please.

Read More reasons to stop putting trees on skyscrapers on Per Square Mile.  The extended essay is supported by references.

Saving John Andrews

Scarborough College, Toronto, 1965. Image:  Philip Drew

Anyone would think that I read nothing else than ArchitectureAU.  In the latest issue, architectural critic Philip Drew traces of potted history of Australia's first truly influential architect on a world stage, John Andrews.  He is impelled to action by the threat of demolition facing the Sydney Convention Centre at Darling Harbour.

I am of the age that explains why I was an early and ardent fan of Andrews.  There is no disputing the seminal impact of a number of his buildings.  Starting with Scarborough College in Canada and continuing through the Cameron Offices in Canberra, he actually brought to fruition buildings in the nature of mega structures, that others only managed to illustrate as rhetorical projects.  Arguably, his success was due to his ability to express the guiding principles of his designs in brutally short and evocative words, conveying a quintessential Australian pragmatism in suitably colourful language. These days I am forcefully reminded of him whenever I see Bjarke Ingels of Danish firm BIG present on TED.  Same ruthless logic with a structuralist twist.

To be clear, John Andrews was held in such high esteem that when it came to appointing an architect for the new building for the Graduate School of Design at Harvard, they trusted him to work the miraculous transformation of the program, rather than any of his eminent fellow students, or modern masters who worked there as teachers.  When describing the design of Gund Hall, Andrews would point to the generative placement of the toilets in the circulation system.

I make much of this side of John Andrews, because notwithstanding my own admiration, Philip Drew ignores the obvious.  What was great about Andrews' buildings because of their simply stated organising principles, often came at the cost of similarly simplistic, powerful statements about things he was determined to do, but which were actually (to use his own favourite pejorative term) bullshit.  I have the privilege of being able to quote him presenting his designs from the late 60s and early 70s.

A lot of those things were not particularly important.  About Scarborough College, Andrews said he was absolutely determined to do a building without columns (apparently there is one in the plant room). 

Other things made some of his buildings temporarily remarkable, but were not really great ideas.  The vertical stainless steel space frames supporting acrylic sunshades and window cleaning platforms, which clad what became the American Express Tower in Sydney, were sold to the developer as an idea based on completely circular logic and an economy of truth about the actual cost.  Not surprisingly, the photogenic facade disappeared in favour of a much more practical curtain wall during the building's makeover by others.  The same building had a stunningly convincing diagram for how it dealt with largely imaginary desire lines at footpath level, from which generated a really hostile subterranean space for shopping and dining.  Not surprisingly, this badly oriented and unloved space also disappeared during the makeover.

Cameron Offices Site Plan

Andrews justified the Cameron Offices in Canberra, as a skyscraper laid down horizontally, a good 40 years before Stephen Holl claimed the phrase to describe one of his adventures in China.  But then he elaborated it with the compelling rationale about sun angles giving rise to a deterministic geometry of courtyards and office wings.  Philip Drew refers to this sort of headline logic as a pioneering climatic sensibility.  And as far as he goes, he is right.  But he does not mention that the courtyards were never going to be allowed to be randomly accessed by the security conscious government departments which the building housed, and therefore their hopefully benign environments enjoyed as anything other than a view.  The ultimate frustration of those occupants, with the extremely long circulation paths, ramps and half levels resulting from a misguided social construct, contributed to the demolition of most of the complex, while other, more pragmatic mega structures by other architects of the 1970s continue to function.

Unfortunately, this sort of story can be told about so many Andrews buildings, that you could almost generalise the problem.  Buildings, one after the other with powerful generative ideas.  Let down by one or more equally determined ideas about materials, systems of construction, whatever, but sooner or later irritating enough to compromise the whole.  We might be saddened by the loss of the artistic integrity of his powerful buildings important in their time.  But frankly, we shouldn't be surprised.  John Andrews is a great and influential architect.  But to be one of those, you have to be first and foremost a salesman.  John has always been good at selling his ideas, the bad with the good.

All that said, I agree with Philip Drew that the Sydney Convention Centre does not deserve demolition.  Read Drew's article in full here.

For a short, interesting read about the powerful 'structuralist' thread through Andrews' work, supported by a good collection of images, go to here.

NABERS update

The National Australian Built Environment Rating System (NABERS) is a voluntary rating system for the property industry providing a reliable measure of the actual environmental impacts of buildings on an easily understood scale of one to five stars.

The home rating tool, NABERS Home, has been available in variously improved forms for some time, providing householders with a measure of the water and energy performance of the home. It has also been trialled by local government and state housing authorities as a ‘snapshot’ of community sustainability.

More recent is the performance-based rating system for office buildings, NABERS OFFICE. NABERS OFFICE allows existing office premises throughout Australia to be benchmarked for their operational impacts on the environment. Importantly, it now incorporates the Australian Building Greenhouse Rating (ABGR) scheme to measure and rate energy and greenhouse efficiency. A water rating component, using the same methodology, is used to benchmark water efficiency. Other environmental indicators are currently being developed within NABERS OFFICE to provide a complete environmental performance benchmark, including waste, indoor environment, transport and site management.

According to a recent news release by RICS Australia, since the energy rating scheme was launched in 1999, 478 buildings have rated their greenhouse performance, making up 31% of the commercial office space in Australia. Since NABERS OFFICE Water was launched in April last year, 134 buildings have rated their water efficiency, making up 8% of the available national office space.

Building managers, owners and tenants can self-assess the energy and water performance of their base building, whole building or tenancy at no cost using the on-line NABERS OFFICE performance rating calculators. However, any public use of NABERS or ABGR must rely on an official rating done by a government-accredited assessor.

NABERS Energy and Water ratings for Hotels now available, beginning the expansion of the range of NABERS rating tools to handle variety in building types.

The alternative GreenStar rating scheme promoted by the Green Building Council of Australia has expanded rapidly since its much later inception, by offering a number of additional tools, including an ‘as built’ version of the original GreenStar Office. However, it is probably still fair to say that this industry sponsored scheme remains focused on providing a rating of intended performance of buildings. This ‘declared performance’ can serve very well to position projects in a competitive marketplace, but may or may not be eventually realised in practice.

In contrast, NABERS and ABGR ratings are based on the actual environmental impact of offices over a twelve month period and they are valid for one year. The premises need to be assessed annually to keep their accreditation and continue to promote greenhouse and water efficiency credentials.

It is worth taking another look at NABERS. It may not be as well backed by publicity and promotion as GreenStar, but in spite of its long-delayed full commercialisation, the government promoted NABERS now shows promise of matching and even overhauling the development industry scheme.

Click here to read more about NABERS generally, and to link to the web-based tools.