Architecture “no longer interested in anything but its own image”

There seems to be an outbreak of introspection in the online architectural media.  Two posts ago I praised ARCHITECTURE.AU for hosting an article reflecting on the limited usefulness of the ‘hero shot’.  Today, Deezeen magazine leads with the above headline linking an article by UK critic Owen Hatherley.  It's hard to do better than to quote from that post:

Hatherley says sites like Dezeen and Archdaily “provide little but glossy images of buildings that you will never visit, lovingly formed into photoshopped, freeze-dried glimmers of non-orthogonal perfection, in locations where the sun, of course, is always shining.”

He adds: “In art, this approach to reproduction is dubious enough, but in architecture – where both physical experience and location in an actual place are so important – it’s often utterly disastrous, a handmaiden to an architectural culture that no longer has an interest in anything but its own image.”

Of course, there is irony in that this elegant summary of a much more complex article – written for The Photographers’ Gallery in London as part of a series of critical essays on photography in the 21st Century – is itself published on one of the two sites named and shamed.  That the irony is intended is made obvious by the image of the preening critic chosen to headline the report.

As must be obvious by now, I share Hatherley’s concern.  But if I am to be honest I have to declare that I am a voracious consumer of both Dezeen and Archdaily, because without them I simply would not be able to keep up with what is going on in architecture.  And to be fair, they can only maintain the flood of architectural news through the medium of text and image, mainly supplied to them by self promoting practitioners.  It would be nice to think that the material could be appropriately editorialised, and supplemented by much more contextual and performance information.   But in the real world such editorial resources cost real money and require sometimes deep and elusive expertise, neither of which are easily available in the new world of advertisement supported online magazine publishing.
 
That said by way of excuse for the image peddling media, the architectural profession itself has much more to answer for.  If Hatherley is right in his characterisation of architectural culture, and by implication its practitioners as actual and aspiring narcissistic prima donnas, it augurs badly for the future of the profession.  I wish I knew the answer to how that perception might be tempered. I wish I knew how to fix the corruption of architectural knowledge which is the other inevitable by-product of this relentless image making

Slow architecture

Not so much purposefully, but neither aimlessly surfing for solar and shading software, I came across Gnarly Architecture, a blog by Brian Lockyear of Slate Shingle Studio in Oregon, USA.  Brian describes himself as "a digital voyager with an artistic temperament and an eye for both the sublime and the quirky", and I'm happy to agree with his self-assessment.  For anyone who wants to turn a general fascination with the sometimes dangerous world of parametric architecture into something useful, Brian's blog is compulsory reading.

But the entry that stopped me in my tracks, made me smile inanely, and which I have immediately linked to my First Year coursework site for architecture students at UNSW, is Passive Aggressive Solar Design.  Brian describes it as:

Passive Aggressive Solar is about creating magical spaces by actively considering solar movement in the design. It’s about a window seat and a book at sunrise. It’s about a shady spot at noon. It’s about framing the perfect sunset. At its best, Passive Aggressive Solar is about moments no longer than the time it takes a rainbow to appear and disappear.

He argues convincingly for a healthy synergy between computational analysis now possible to predict exactly the complex geometries of sun movements, and the traditional craft sensibilities of a masterful architect.

Finally, he proposes "a “slow light” approach to solar design, in which we take the time to think about each opening in a space and how it contributes to the magic. Why not use the sun to incorporate movement into the design but on an architectural scale – somewhere between the speed of a waterfall and the stealth of a glacier."

How can you argue with that?  Read the full posting here, and savour the last paragraph.

Challenging imagery

The hero shot.  Memorable to the point of misrepresenting the building, misinforming even the discerning viewer, sabotaging the creation of knowledge?

Probably true in the case of most buildings written about in traditional architectural media, and still true today when most of our information is gathered from the web. But the proposition is seldom subject to critical scrutiny, least of all in the web-based architectural media themselves.

So it is doubly refreshing to come across the article We don't need another hero, in the most recent posting of ARCHITECTURE AU.  More than doubly welcome in fact, because not only is it a rare reflection by the media on their own role, but it is actually an article written as a collaborative essay by a group of Monash University Masters of Architecture students.  That the students' piece itself critiqued magazine reviews of two heavily promoted local projects completes an unusual circularity.

OK, the writing is more earnest than profound.  The issues raised are limited to the lost opportunities for communicating more about the buildings than the hero shot allows.  Tellingly, the students take at face value all other rhetoric about the two buildings represented, and therefore they are arguably complicit in the very process of controlled representation they seek to highlight.

But we should be grateful for any and all attempts by our media to reflect on their role, and especially when they deliberately help us deconstruct rhetoric.  So, congratulations Architecture AU.

Read the original article here.  And open up the excellent Discourse section of this on-line magazine for a generous collection of other content here.

Aussie High School Wins Global ‘Green’ Award

As reported by pro bono news and other design oriented websites, an Australian project has taken out one more global award for sustainability.  I find this one perhaps more significant than most, because almost by definition the greatest impact is likely to be made by an educational institution.

A primary school, especially one that is built through a process of rich community interaction, has more than usual chance of influencing the aspirations and lifestyles of people, far beyond the physical green credentials of the building itself.

Bentleigh Secondary College in Melbourne can claim not just education for sustainability, but sustainable education.  Or vice versa.  How many organisations, how many schools can actually claim to have a Head of Sustainable Practices?

As usual, the lightly editorialised press releases give far too little useful or testable information to the reader hoping to learn from the example.  This is a chronic problem of the architectural media, especially of the specialised trade news aggregators, and even with specialised sources such as econews.

I had been hopeful that in this case, it might be easier to drill down to substantive information, because of the school's systematic approach to integration of sustainability initiatives into its curriculum and public profile.  Indeed, googling the name of school does lead to some better quality information, such as on their water management in an article on the Victorian government sponsored Sustainability Hub.  But surprisingly, the school's own website links to a single newsy page, with hardly any more detail about its admirable programs and achievements in the area of sustainability.  For instance, I found it frustrating that given a clue to the live monitoring of energy use and water budgeting, the Web delivered data turned out to be accessible only behind the school's firewall.  Equally, it is truly hard work to extract even scant detail of the various technologies employed, much the less insight into their true performance.  The architects' website is worse, it contains literally no mention of anything to do with sustainability in relation to the project.

Once again, we are left with the impression that the mission of various awards in sustainability is primarily about giving an upbeat impression of progress, but that all participants, even probably worthy recipients of awards, are extremely guarded about delivered outcomes.  This need not be so.  It is very likely that Bentleigh Secondary College has nothing to hide and a lot to be proud of.  I wonder why it doesn't appear to have occurred to them that they could extend their educational mission to the architectural community at large? 

I live in hope.  In the meantime, congratulations to the school, and  to Suters Architects, who have contributed their services pro bono to this worthy project. 

How sustainable is something really expensive?

The new high-tech sustainable Perth arena opens

That is the headline in the current issue of the online Architecture and Design news sheet.  Part of the way into the article, without comment, we find the following little snippet:

"Construction took four years more than originally thought and cost under $550 million which is three times over budget."

Sustainable?  No sarcasm intended when I say I'd like to know what framework is being used to evaluate the sustainability. 

Back during the Sydney Olympics, it was found that construction price was a surprisingly useful proxy for embodied impact of construction assemblies.  If it is even approximately useful, it seems to me the chances of recovering the embodied impacts in this project through savings in recurring energy use, waste minimization etc, are hopelessly unlikely before the building reaches the end of its useful life.

If there is no good answer to my question, an article like this is just greenwash, of the worst kind.

2012 Houses Awards: Sustainability

It might be to our national shame that Australians build the largest new homes in the world.  And the public's perception might be that architect designed houses are no better, just more expensive.  But an objective overview would also suggest that one of the things that Australian architects are best at are thoughtful and innovative houses – after all, our only Pritzker prizewinner Glenn Murcutt has built little else.

So it is always interesting to look at the annual Houses Awards.  This year, I am particularly taken with the winner in the sustainability category, because of its headline claims.  In my mind adaptive reuse, long life and loose fit, encouraging adaptive behaviour by occupants, etc. have always been the foundations of true sustainability in architecture.  And those are the principles on which this year's winner makes its case.

House Reduction, designed by Shelley Freeman and Melissa Bright of Make Architecture Studio is a fine example of what my friend Tone Wheeler has energetically promoted as 'Alterations and Subtractions' to counterpoint the more usual approach of making old homes much bigger by additions.  The benefits of this alternative approach are quite well discussed in the review of the project in Houses 85, 

On a less positive note, it is always a shame that claims of improved sustainable performance are rarely backed up by access to performance data, even in award-winning houses. So here again, we have to take it on faith that those large new glass areas don't come with significantly increased heating bills, notwithstanding the reduction in the floor plan.  I am not suggesting that they probably do, merely that architects and the architectural press are actually very poor at capturing that sort of information as part of a rigorous knowledge base. We are very good at the rhetoric, not so good at making room for the evidence.

World Architecture Festival awards shortlist

I am not usually a fan of these commercially sponsored awards.  In the beginning, their worth was very dubious, both because it was hard to gauge the breadth of self-nominations, and even harder to put trust in their selection processes.  With the passing of time however, it has become clear that some very respectable firms are nominating very worthwhile projects, and those projects are rising to prominence in these awards as naturally as does cream to the top of milk.

Therefore it is with considerable gratification that I note the over-representation of Australian firms and their buildings, in the short list of almost all the categories of the awards.  If there is any bias at all, then it might be of interest that Australian architecture is more heavily represented in the built works than it is in the unbuilt future projects.

One of the more accessible comprehensive listings of the shortlisted entries is to be found at
http://www.dezeen.com/2012/07/18/world-architecture-festival-shortlist-announced/

India again: developing regionally appropriate comfort standards

Torrent Research R&D Centre, Ahmedabad, India

In my last post, I was unkind about a new building in India that claimed world leadership in sustainability, as measured by the LEED rating system. My beef with LEED is not only that it is unreliable, but that it is virtually meaningless when applied to buildings in a place like India.

The same thoughts are highlighted in an opinion piece by UTS academic Leena Thomas. She is part of a collaborative effort to develop appropriate comfort standards for India, hopefully for incorporation in a regionally sensitive rating scheme. Read the full post here.

My comment on her article highlights that it's a race between two unequally matched phenomena. There is the staggering speed with which buildings are going up, emulating what their developers and occupants think are normal in 'advanced economies'. Slick, air conditioned buildings are therefore highly desirable, not just for their actual utility, but for their symbolic value confirming India's rise as an economic power.

And then, there is the deep seated feeling that not everything is right with this trend, that there may be a better, more 'Indian' way of doing things, tapping into pride in the longevity, ingenuity and resilience of the culture.

You would think that the latter would provide fertile ground for the sort of localised climate sensitive standards and building practices that Thomas' article describes. But in fact, the exemplar projects mentioned are far too few, done by far too few committed professionals, for far too few enlightened clients, over far too many years. The original Torrent Research Centre outside Ahmedabad demonstrated fifteen years ago that passive design could not only overcome the climate extremes of that location, but that you could do so for the stringent requirements of a pharmaceutical laboratory. Yet Torrent's own extensions since then are fully air conditioned buildings.

India will end up in serious trouble if it doesn’t curb the momentum of its energy hungry development. The only way it can do that is by decisive and appropriate government regulations. But government can only act on good advice, and in India, the people will only comply with regulations that make sense. The importance and urgency of the project described in Thomas' article can’t be overstated.

Indian Building Receives Highest LEED Score Ever

This building in India, for Bayer the multinational pharmaceuticals and chemical company, is claiming the highest ever LEED sustainability rating.  According to Tafline Laylin writing for Inhabitat the building only misses out on five of the LEED points available.  That suggests almost perfect performance in energy savings, water savings, and just about every aspect of sustainable building performance as defined by that rating framework.

Forgive my cynicism.  Even a casual reading of the claimed performance reveals interesting contradictions.  Being a remarkably conventional, albeit heavily insulated construction, only a 40% reduction in primary energy is recorded after a year's operation.  A 70% saving in electricity usage, compared to conventional buildings of the region.  On the other hand, the roof is indeed covered with photovoltaics, and apparently that is enough to supply the building's energy needs.  I balk at the polyurethane insulated panels, perhaps because of the toxicity of the smoke they give off should there ever be a building fire. Or because I just can't bring myself to believe that they are regionally appropriate sustainable building material.

But I shouldn't be so prejudiced.  I suspect it merely demonstrates that the current LEED point system is woefully inadequate to capture any reasonable and rigourous representation of building sustainability.  Apparently the US Green Building Council is issuing a new version this year.  I hope the next building that is claimed to be the world's highest rated inspires more confidence.

SA's Integrated Design Commission to be axed

I was literally just checking out the website of the IDC, when the latest Architecture & Design Newsletter arrived in my inbox with this news, in an article exhorting readers to campaign to save it.

South Australia established it's Integrated Design Commission along with the position of Government Architect a bare two years ago, in an apparent enlightened attempt to leverage the added value of design across both government and private enterprise in that state.  With already a reputation for historical best practice initiatives in urban design, sustainability, and a vibrant design culture, the State had nothing to lose and everything to gain by repositioning itself as it loses the last of its conventional manufacturing base.

That said, I am not an uncritical fan.  Looking at the IDC website, one sees a lot of promise, but a fairly limited outcome.  Conspicuously missing are the promised handbooks and other professional resources that were supposed to be the outcomes of the research partnerships the commission is meant to facilitate.  The elaborate, and on first sight thoughtful, framework of design review panels is supported by the IDCSA DESIGN REVIEW PANELIST HANDBOOK, which I read fairly carefully.  Unfortunately I concluded that rather than being a useful guide to inform the professional conduct of panel members, it is more a well written, bureaucratic feelgood instrument.

Perhaps two years is not quite enough.   But apparently, you can't trust politicians to have a long-term vision.  Read the whole article here.