(Student’s Full Name)
Bauhaudin, Elias, and Saifudin define the green building as an edifice that has the capacity to “reduce the undesirable human impacts on the natural surroundings, building materials, building assets, and enhances human health and the natural environment” (Bauhaudin et al. 2). In other words, a green or sustainable building is designed with the intention of allowing human beings to co-exist harmoniously with the environment by creating an edifice that is environmentally friendly. However, it should be noted that “the perception of what is a sustainable building is changing over time and depending on the location” (Kreiner et al. 2). Therefore, while bearing this point in mind, the architect who is concerned about being eco-friendly should be able to provide a personal perspective on what he believes a green building should be. Additionally, the architect should be able to adapt this personal perspective to the demands of the culture and the time period in which the green building is being created. Hence, the architect’s task is not to provide a set of criteria, based on mathematical formulae or data, such as those provided by the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED). Nevertheless, there is still validity to the argument that a sustainable or green building should “fulfill environmental, social and economic as well as functional and technical aspects” (Kreiner et al. 2). Since a modern green building needs to suit the versatile and high demands of a present technological age, today’s architect should think more freely how to securely change a particular set of rules to best fit his artistic vision.
In light of the above, it can be argued that today’s architect will need to do a personal assessment of what he thinks a green building should look or function like. Additionally, the architect will be challenged to create a sustainable building that can mimic a resilient “ecological [system]” (Folke et al. 437). In developing his artistic vision for a green building he can decide to go against conventions set by LEED (and other similar bodies) as well as the conventions dictated by the current international style as it regards the built environment culture.
LEED Gold certification obtained for the Environmental Science and Chemistry Building at the University of Toronto Scarborough.
Therefore, in developing a theory that relates to the approach that today’s architect needs to adapt when designing a sustainable building the some questions need to be posed. Firstly, one needs to ascertain what a green building should look like, if it is to suit the demands of a particular location, culture, the current technological age, and the architect’s artistic vision? Or should this sustainable building depend on a particular look or appearance? Should it depend on any kind of artificial forms of energy, natural forms of energy, or include an integration of both? Does the type of material used be taken into consideration when creating such an edifice? Should the interior and exterior be harmoniously intertwined in its design or should there be a separation of the two? Should there be a rhetorical message conveyed in this building? Why or why not?
According to Peter Brandon and Patrizia Lombardi (2005), the “building accommodation” in which persons “reside” or “work” have a “negative effect on the environment” (Brandon & Patrizia Lombardi 10). For instance, the consumption of each person in the UK averages 6 tons of material per year “broken down into 1.5” tons for “new infrastructure for new buildings” and 3 tons for “repair and maintenance” (Brandon & Lombardi 10). This represents “17% of the total waste” in Great Britain. Jurgita Alchimoviene and Saulius Raslanas (2011) mention that a “significant amount of energy, materials, and finances” are “consumed” and the “environmental impacts” when building “using, and demolishing” the edifices (Alchimoviene & Raslanas 835).
Additionally, Heather Chappells and Elizabeth Shove (2007) argue that countries’ response to global warming poses a “real danger” as it will allow residents within these countries to rely heavily on “air-conditioning,” which, in turn, will lead to “increased energy demand” and more carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere (Chappells & Shove 32). Diana Lopez-Barnett and William D. Browning (1995) note that the “‘modern architect’” has created the “‘most flagrantly uneconomic and uncomfortable buildings,’” which can only be resided in with the help of “‘the most expensive devices of heat and refrigeration’” (as cited in Lopez-Barnett & Browning 1). Constructing edifices in such a manner has led to the creation of “‘glass-sheathed buildings without any contact with fresh air, sunlight, or view’” (ibid. 1).
Lopez-Barnett and Browning (1995) contend that despite today’s edifices being “more resource-efficient than those thirty years ago,” the “average house, office, school” and “apartment building” still places a huge demand on nature’s resources, “wasting tremendous amounts of energy and water” (ibid.). Lopez-Barnett and Browing (1995) explain that although “green buildings can cost about the same as conventional ones” and “improved aesthetics, comfort, and performance” increases the sale and rental prices of these buildings, the “operating costs” are lower compared to traditional buildings (ibid. 7). The scholars explain that sustainable buildings are “much cheaper, to heat, cool, and light” (ibid.).
Furthermore, a green building creates a healthier indoor environment compared to a traditional building. Laura E. Jackson (2003) explains that the “most healthful architecture exposes inhabitants to natural light and ventilation, views of greenery, and close proximity to outdoor green space” (Jackson 192). Therefore, it is essential that stakeholders within the construction industry implement principles related to sustainability to not only prevent environmental degradation, but also improve the health of those living and working in an edifice.
In light of the above, constructors, “builders, developers” and “architects” felt the need to focus on sustainable building (Barnett & Browning 2). In doing this, the academic community and organizations (such as LEED) felt it was necessary to develop a set of criteria for determining how a sustainable or green building should be constructed.
Bauhaudin and Saifudin (2014) define green building as a “set of [practicing] human activities to increase the efficiency in which the buildings use energy, water, and materials” (Bauhaudin and Saifudin 2). On the other hand, the US Green Building Council (USBGC) defines green building as the “‘significant reduction or elimination of the negative impact of buildings on the environment and on the building occupants’” (as cited in Baudaudin, Elias, & Saifudin 2). Furthermore, the US Green Building Council (USBGC) recognizes that green building “‘design and construction practices address: sustainable site planning, safeguarding water and water efficiency, energy efficiency, conservation of materials, and resources, and indoor environmental quality’” (ibid. 2-3).
The U.S. Green Building Council attains to certify several new sites in Kentucky.
In order to ensure that constructor, builders, developers and other stakeholders in the construction industry, building assessment systems have been created to aid in “assessing buildings for their environmental performance” (Kibert 129). It should be noted that “[environmental assessment tools vary to a great extent” (Haapio & Viitaniemi 470). Haapio and Viitaniemi (2008) explain that a “variety of different tools exist for building components, whole buildings and whole building assessment frameworks” (ibid. 470). However, for the purposes of this research paper, only a few of the main assessment methods will be focused on.
LEED, created by the USBGC, uses one such building assessment system that is based “as much as possible on the laws of physics” (Kibert xv). The LEED building assessment and “rating system took 4 years and culminated in a 1998 test version as the LEED Version 1.0” (ibid. 49). Kibert (2008) noted that the building assessment system was enormously successful in the United States. This then motivated the Federal Management Energy Program to “sponsor a pilot effort to test its assumptions” (ibid.). In 2000, LEED 2.0 was “launched” and provided for a “maximum of 69 credits and four building certifications” (ibid.).
Its British counterpart, Bre Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) was “developed in 1992” (ibid.). This assessment method, like the LEED building assessment system, is based on a “complex arrays of numerical and nonnumerical data” (ibid. 77). In addition, BREEAM provides a score that indicates “the performance of a building according to the scoring and weighting system built into the method” (Kibert, 2008, p.77). The building certifications used by BREEAM include the following: “Pass, Good, Very Good, Excellent and Outstanding” (BREEAM para. 2).
Although much can be said about the BREEAM and LEED building assessment methods permitting stakeholders in the construction industry bringing the green living “movement” and “collective green building design concepts and strategies even further into the mainstream,” the argument still holds that a different approach needs to be taken when dealing with concept of sustainable or green building (Kibert 77). The architect has to go beyond “numerical and nonnumerical data” when designing a green building (ibid.). The scholars “resist the categorization of [environment and green living] only in scientific terms” (Kibert 140). The architect needs to use the principles of sustainability and green living to create an artistic vision when designing a green building, which suits the culture, location, and time period in which the building is being constructed.
Nestlé Waters UK currently uses 100% renewable electricity.
Marita Wallhagen, Mauritz Glaumann, and Ulla Westerberg (2008) argue that “one tool is not always the best way to reduce environmental impacts” (Wallhagen et al.7). In fact, the scholars suggest that a “complete environmental assessment of a building ought to consider the whole life cycle” (ibid.). Researchers explain that “‘green building’” is “far from universal” (p. 7). Therefore, this means that the architect is free to provide her interpretation as to what she thinks a green building should look like.
Lopez-Barnett and Browning (1995) argue that “sustainable design is more than a philosophy than a building style” (Barnett and Browning 13). The writers explain that “green features can be highlighted to demonstrate a building’s connection to the environment” while not dominating the “design” of the building (ibid.). Therefore, this means that any architect can easily integrate her personal philosophy about sustainability and green living into any design while realizing her artistic vision.
Lopez-Barnett and Browning (1995) contend that sustainable buildings are not a “new” concept but it is an ancient art form (Barnett and Browning 14). The scholars explain how the Anasazi cliff dwellers, who lived in the Southwestern region of the US, built “climactically appropriate structures” (ibid.). The Anasazi cliff dwellers were known to reside in “high-mass, adobe-type dwellings” ere constructed in “south-facing caves” which “provided passive solar gain in the winter but blocked heat gain in the summer” (ibid.). Hence, today’s architect is charged with the task of using locally-sourced materials (while bearing in mind the location, the demands of the present technological age, and the culture) to create a space that adheres to the principles of sustainability in an artful manner.
Tambovceva, Geipele, and Geipele (2012) explain that sustainable construction is primarily perceived by the construction industry as an attempt to “contribute to the effort to achieve sustainable development” (Tambovceva 2). However, today’s architect can go beyond simply creating a green building to “achieve sustainable development” (ibid.).
In conclusion, the modern architect has to go beyond simply adhering to a set of criteria pertaining to those created by green building councils. The architect is required to bear in mind the location, culture, and the time period in which the green building is being designed. Furthermore, the architect should be able to create a green building that can mimic an ecological system so that it is self-contained and self-reliant, and is independent of external infrastructure. Moreover, the sustainable building should be able to convey the architect’s rhetorical message about sustainability. This message can inhibit the growth of pathogens, but promote the growth of other organisms that improves the health of the individual.
References
Alchimovienė, J., & Raslanas, S. (2011). Sustainable Renovation and Evaluation of Blocks of Multi-Apartment Houses. PDF.
Bahaudin, A. Y., Mohamed Elias, E., & Mohd Saifudin, A. (2014). A comparison of the green building’s criteria. In E3S Web of Conferences (Vol. 3). EDP Sciences.
Barnett, D. L., & Browning, W. D. (1995). A Primer on Sustainable Building. Rocky Mountain: Rocky Mountain Institute. Print.
Bell, P. A., Green, T., Fisher, J. D., & Baum, A. (1997). Environmental Psychology. In D. Halpern & A. Voiskounsky (Eds.), States of Mind: American and Post-Soviet Perspectives on Contemporary Issues in Psychology (pp. 373-376). New York: Oxford University. PDF.
Brandon, P. S., & Lombardi, P. (2005). Evaluating sustainable development in the built environment. Ames: Blackwell Publishing. Print.
Chappells, H., & Shove, E. (2005). Debating the future of comfort: environmental sustainability, energy consumption and the indoor environment. Building Research & Information, 33(1), 32-40. PDF.
Cole, Raymond J. Building environmental assessment methods: redefining intentions and roles. Building Research & Information 33.5 (2005): 455-467. PDF.
Ding, G. K. (2008). Sustainable construction - the role of environmental assessment tools. Journal of environmental management, 86(3), 451-464. PDF.
Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., Holling, C. S., & Walker, B. (2002). Resilience and sustainable development: building adaptive capacity in a world of transformations. AMBIO: A journal of the human environment, 31(5), 437-440. PDF.
Guy, S., & Farmer, G. (2001). Reinterpreting sustainable architecture: The place of technology. Journal of Architectural Education, 54(3), 140-148. PDF.
Haapio, A., & Viitaniemi, P. (2008). A critical review of building environmental assessment tools. Environmental impact assessment review, 28(7), 469-482. PDF.
Jackson, L. E. (2003). The relationship of urban design to human health and condition. Landscape and urban planning, 64(4), 191-200. PDF.
Keeler, M., & Burke, B. (2013). Fundamentals of integrated design for sustainable building. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Print.
Kembel, S. W., Jones, E., Kline, J., Northcutt, D., Stenson, J., Womack, A. M., & Green, J. L. (2012). Architectural design influences the diversity and structure of the built environment microbiome. The ISME Journal, 6(8), 1469-1479. PDF.
Kibert, C. J. (2008). Sustainable construction: green building design and delivery. Hoboken: New Jersey. Print.
Kreiner, Helmuth, Alexander Passer, and Holger Wallbaum. A new systemic approach to improve the sustainability performance of office buildings in the early design stage. Energy and Buildings 109 (2015): 385-396. PDF.
Kreiner, H., Passer, A., Maydl, P., & Wallbaum, H. (2014). Sustainable building optimization–A systemic approach. World Sustainable Building, 1-9. PDF.
Tambovceva, T., Geipele, I., & Geipele, S. (2012). Sustainable building in Latvia: development and future challenges. Proceedings of the XII International Scientific Ecological Economics, 16-19. PDF.
Wallhagen, M., Glaumann, M., & Westerberg, U. (2008). What is a “green” building according to different assessment tools? Sustainable Building 2008, Melbourne, Australia, 21-25 September 2008, 2618-2625.
Wong, David. Green and Culturally Appropriate Building Design. EcoTrust. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Apr. 2016. <http://ecotrust.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Ecotrust_DavidW_Pt2feb2012b.pdf>.
“What is BREEAM?” BREEAM. N.p., 1 Jan. 2015. Web. 22 Apr. 2016. <http://www.breeam.com/>.
