The profession of architecture is a complex system of design problems and their solutions which must be unique, creative, logical, and now more than ever, sustainable. The global environment has taken a hit from decades of innovation and development with no regard or foresight for its impact. As research pours out more information on climate change, humanity is faced with an opportunity to actually impact positive change. As the driver which shapes our built environment, architecture is positioned to have great influence on changing the rate at which our planet plummets further into self-destruction. However, change is dependent upon the willingness of everyday civilians to submit their immediate comfort for greater long term results. The future architecture of suburbs will look drastically different depending on how environmental responsibility is incorporated. Architecture doesn’t exist without clients and mobilizing the client towards a sustainable lifestyle is essential.
Why is architecture, specifically the construction of buildings, important when considering climate change? As stated in a previous blogpost, buildings contribute about 50% of a city’s carbon emissions, so the direct impact on the environment is evident with that statement alone. Architecture has an impact on the environment, beyond construction, by shaping the spaces we inhabit. Depending on the influence of our environment is our ability to impact positive change for the environment. This reciprocal relationship between architecture and the environment runs deep and both depend on each other to operate well.
There is a cost of impacting for good but is that reason enough to restrict change? In an article by David Roberts with Vox, he looks at the monetary impact of climate change and sustainable technologies. He states “First, the future damages of climate change are coming into clearer focus, and, more to the point, the damages have arrived, here in the present, in brutal fashion. And second, the costs of sustainable technologies and practices (e.g., solar panels) have fallen at a dizzying rate in recent years, especially in the energy sector.” When it comes to architecture related energy costs, because of the ability to produce energy, there are savings to be had. Roberts says “more compact, connected, and coordinated cities are worth up to $17 trillion USD in economic savings by 2050 and will stimulate economic growth by improving access to jobs and housing. They can strengthen resilience to physical climate risks and could deliver up to 3.7 gigatons per year of CO2 savings over the next 15 years, just shy of the total emissions of the European Union (EU) today.” If sustainable practices continue to become commonplace, Roberts estimates $26 trillion by 2030 is the net savings for the US.
Change is inevitable but the rate at which it occurs is dependent upon factors like the social climate, economy, cultural influences, and so on. The world of architecture has changed immensely over the last few decades thanks to advancements in technology and office culture. The article “Emerging Trends That Will Shape the Future of Architecture” explains that today “there is a focus on the importance of green infrastructure and energy efficiency, and the line between private and public space is becoming increasingly blurred.”
Newer technologies such as virtual reality, Building Information Models (BIM), and sustainable technologies have changed the approach to design. They have enabled buildings and work flows to become more efficient and integrated. As digital tools are able to realize the ideas of designers and equipment is able to improve the energy efficiency of buildings, more ideal communities can be constructed. In regards to sustainability, “Emerging Trends” explains, by keeping the energy we consume inside our buildings for as long as possible, we will need to supply less energy and by using less energy, we are put in a position to become more environmentally responsible and more resource efficient. Sustainable technologies, such as geothermal heating systems, solar power, and responsive climate control can now begin to be incorporated into suburban residential architecture.
Other key trends which will shape the future of architecture are in regard to building project management and design goals. Up until the late 1980s, architecture firms functioned as a top-down system in which a master architect would conduct communication between owner and builders while training up apprentices in the trade. More recently the hierarchical structure has spread out horizontally, where decisions are made collaboratively and responsibility is shared. According to the Medium article, “Experts say collaboration with system leaders is no longer a luxury, but a necessity for meeting complex structural needs.” This idea reflects the ideals of modern culture. No one is an expert in every field and therefore we must rely on those who are experts to contribute their part to the whole. Cities are growing vertically, “making room for not only more commercial and residential spaces but infrastructure and public services that will be able to cope with an increased population, such as roads, schools and hospitals.” The line between public and private spaces is becoming more blurry as architecture considers the public impact of its private function, aiming to incorporate the values and culture of its surroundings. As the goals and values of the general public shift towards a more sustainable lifestyle, the sprawling suburban landscape may disappear.
As sustainability becomes more integrated into the profession of architecture and the construction process, the built product will reflect those improvements. The two markets in residential architecture are made of the few who can afford to have their homes designed and the majority who buy homes from developers. So the power of effecting the future of suburban architecture lies mainly with developers who build as cheap as possible with less regard for environmental impacts. David Roberts from Vox states “the fact is human progress is fitful, sporadic, irrational, and insufficient because that’s just the way human beings are. If we ever achieve something like sustainability, it will certainly involve myriad distributed acts of leadership, but I very much doubt that it will involve a rapid, top-down, coordinated, multi-sectoral, international wave of policy.” A select few can choose to be environmentally responsible with their buildings but without participation and full support from the majority, very little change will occur. Like Roberts explained, when it comes to human progress change must be widespread amongst the majority, not just the few with money. The general population must require those with power to take action on their behalf.
The struggle with motivating people to take action is our desire for immediate comfort and reluctance to change. While studies show the benefits of sustainability within architecture can save large amounts of money personally and nationally, it still hasn’t been quite enough motivation. According to a poll by the Washington post, about 8 in 10 Americans say that climate change is fueled by human activity yet barely half believe action is urgently needed. The amount of people who say climate change is a “crises” has doubled in the last five years, but it is still less than half of those surveyed. So the conflict is evident, Americans realize there is a problem yet don’t feel responsible for being the solution. In fact, 6 out of 10 people think only minor individual sacrifices are needed to help mitigate climate change. This is contrary to the opinion of Roberts who believes change starts from the bottom, with common people. The poll results show “while nearly half of adults say they would be willing to pay a $2 monthly tax on their electricity bills to help combat climate change, just over a quarter say they are willing to pay $10 extra each month. And while two-thirds support stricter fuel-efficiency standards for the nation’s cars and trucks, increases in the gas tax remain deeply unpopular.”
When considering how many Americans are concerned about climate change and also realize that they as humans are big contributors, the probability of action taking place looks promising. Once their response to different mitigation suggestions is factored in, the probability goes way down. For these purposes, the probability of someone being willing to pay extra a month on an electricity tax (A) is 2.5 out of 10, or 25%. And the probability of a person being concerned with their impact on climate change (B) is 8 out of ten, or 80. Combining these probabilities to get the likelihood of a higher electricity tax even being considered, the probability P(A|B) would be closer to 20%. These rough calculations give a better picture that a tax on the general public to mitigate climate change would not be well received. It is a prisoner’s dilemma for those who want to help but may not be able to afford it. In the Washington Post article, Tiffany Hickman, 42, vice president and general sales manager for Holston Valley Broadcasting Corp. in Tennessee, said she would be willing to pay 15 percent more for electricity to combat climate change, comparing the decision to buying a salad for $10 and cheeseburger for $3. “I know which one is cheaper,” she said, “but I know which one is healthier.”
With the potential savings of $26 trillion in mind and the urgent need for action, one would hope that the general public would react with support for climate change mitigation. Roberts adds onto his idea about the general public needing to lead the charge, “We know what needs to be done. We have the tools. The numbers have been run. The economic arguments are solid. The choice is clear. Now we just need leadership or political will… With the benefit of quieter, safer, more livable cities and better respiratory health, we’ll wonder why we ever put up with anything else — why we nickel-and-dimed the transition to electric buses; why we fought over every bike lane and rail line.” Those with the will to fight for sustainable design and environmental responsibility need a form of leadership. According to Roberts, conjuring the leadership and political will is the challenge.
By understanding the impact architecture has on the built environment and therefore the way we live our lives, it is clear that sustainability is an integral part of the future and today. The immediate costs are slim in comparison to the long term impact of thoughtful design and sustainability however, change can’t happen without people. Architecture, and thereby environmentally responsible action, is dependent upon people, from layperson to government officials, and based on historic events, mobilizing people is the hardest part.
Bibliography
Dennis, Brady. “Americans Increasingly See Climate Change as a Crisis, Poll Shows.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 22 Oct. 2019.
“Emerging Trends That Will Shape the Future of Architecture.” Medium, TMD STUDIO’s Insights, 22 Mar. 2019.
Roberts, David. “We Could Shift to Sustainability and Save $26 Trillion. Why Aren’t We Doing It?” Vox, Vox, 6 Sept. 2018.