Dissertation

r a j u n o o r

Aesthetics and Sustainability | Beyond the clichés of Sustainable Designdissertation | stage six | MArch | 2009-10

i

ABSTRACT

Buildings account for 50% of Co2 emissions within the UK. As a result, the construction industry

is under pressure to apply sustainable design practices. Architects are playing, and will continue

to play, a vital role in the development of this new movement in architecture. Although discussed

widely, there is still a cloud of confusion covering the subject. It is noted that many cover the

scientific side of achieving sustainability but very little exists on the connection between

architecture, as the art of design, and sustainability as an architectural approach to design. As

a result, a number of myths have surfaced concerning architects and how sustainable design is

being addressed within the industry, creating a barrier for sustainable design from becoming the

dominant paradigm within architecture. Sustainable design as an approach to architectural design

is clouded by misperceptions. However, it is not the purpose of this dissertation to cover all the

issues but to focus on the role aesthetics play in sustainable design within contemporary domestic

architecture.

Many sources of literature, from influential text to journal articles, criticise overtly sustainable

design but similarly, many criticize contemporary architects for not practicing sustainable design.

To architects aesthetics are at the core of architectural design, however, some believed it detracts

architects away from designing sustainably. There is an askew assumption expressed by many

architects that sustainable design can only be achieved by adopting bolt-on technologies which

act as indicators for sustainable design. Consequently, this has led to the emergence of a ‘green

aesthetic’ which has an association with sustainable architecture.

This research intends to explore the role of aesthetics in the context of sustainable architecture. The

dissertation asks the question: is the architectural profession failing to address the environmental

ii

question out of fear that it will compromise the aesthetic qualities of their buildings? The paper

examines whether green design can be good design. It also appraises literature, together with

case studies and interviews, to determine if a ‘green aesthetic’ exists and if architects are fully

engaged with sustainable design practices. The purpose is to identify if sustainable design can be

viewed as a theoretical and philosophical proposition for good architecture instead of the narrow

minded technological focus of current day practices which is noted as being deficient.

The dissertation concludes by suggesting that the continual association of a ‘green’ architecture

harboring a distinctive aesthetic has created a barrier to its widespread acceptance. It recommends

that architects view sustainable design as a resurrection of what good design should be instead of

a symbolic gesture; therefore architecture and sustainability are synonymic.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Sincere thanks to all people who have made this research possible and have helped me while

completing this project. Thanks are due to Penny Lewis, supervisor of this dissertation without

whose advice and support this work would never have been completed. Special thanks are due

to Mary Arnold-Forster, director of Dualchas, who let me into her house, which coincidently was a

case study, and took the time to explain various aspects of her house and the topic of sustainable

architecture. I must also thank Colin McColl and William Tozer for their time and feedback. Last

but not least, I would like to thank all my friends and family for putting up with me during a very

testing and challenging time. All assistance with this dissertation has been most appreciated, I can

not thank you enough.

iv

CHAPTER OUTLINE

Abstract............................................................................................................

Acknowledgements..........................................................................................

Chapter Outline..................................................................................................

List of Illustrations..............................................................................................

Chapter One Introduction...........................................................................

Chapter Two Literature Review......................................................................

Chapter Three A Green Aesthetic....................................................................

Chapter Four Aestheticisation of Sustainable Design....................................

Chapter Five Architects and Sustainability....................................................

Chapter Six Taking a subtle approach........................................................

Conclusion Can Green Design Be Good Design?.......................................

References.....................................................................................................

Appendix one Interview | Mary Arnold-Forster............................................

Appendix two E-mail Interview | William Tozer...........................................

Appendix three Interview | Colin McColl.....................................................

i

iii

iv

v

1

6

10

17

23

29

36

41

47

52

54

v

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure 1 BedZED (Beddington Zero Energy Development) DUNSTER, B. Et al. 2008. The Zed Book. Oxon: Taylor & Francis

Figure 2 BedZED (Beddington Zero Energy Development) DUNSTER, B. Et al. 2008. The Zed Book. Oxon: Taylor & Francis

Figure 3 no.9 Stock Orchard Street, Islington, London SOANE, J., 2003. New Home: Architecture and Design. London:Conran Octopus Limited

Figure 4 Woven willow panels forms separation between public and private realms SOANE, J., 2003. New Home: Architecture and Design. London:Conran Octopus Limited

Figure 5 Quilted Cladding and Sandbags SUDJIC, D., 2001. The Straw Bale House. Domus. 843. pp.65-75

Figure 6 Straw Bales through cladding ‘window’ on facade SUDJIC, D., 2001. The Straw Bale House. Domus. 843. pp.65-75

Figure 7 Structurally column is constructed using an ‘as found’ free trunk SOANE, J., 2003. New Home: Architecture and Design. London:Conran Octopus Limited

Figure 8 The Shed, Tokavaig, Skye , NOOR, R., 2009. Study trip to Skye

Figure 9 Open plan kitchen/dining room, Photograph courtesy of Mary Arnold-Forster

Figure 10 Wood burning stove on concrete plinth/surround Photograph courtesy of Mary Arnold-Forster

Figure 11 Open staircase, Photograph courtesy of Mary Arnold-ForsterFigure 12 First floor lounge, Photograph courtesy of Mary Arnold-ForsterFigure 13 ‘Inhabited wall’ forms window seat, Photograph courtesy of Mary Arnold-Forster

1

CHAPTER ONE | INTRODUCTION

James Wines (2000b), in his inspirational book, Green Architecture, argues that the profession

of architecture is facing a challenging time in answering the global climate problems through

building. He is apprehensive about the manner in which “building design professionals face these

issues and at present, there are concerns about the way they are being tackled” (p.11). Wines, a

professor of architecture at Pennsylvania State University, approaches the subject from a more

“conceptual, philosophical and artistic” (p.9) perspective rather than a technical one. The book

was published ahead of its time as many of the ideas discussed are being brought to light in recent

years. James Wines (2000b) argues that art, the essence of design, is missing from sustainable

architecture:

“...Without art, the whole idea of sustainability fails. People will never want to keep an

aesthetically inferior building around, no matter how well stocked it is with cutting-

edge thermal glass, photovoltaic cells, and zero-emission carpeting...” (p.20)

This observation, cited by many (Hawthorne 2001; Weinstein 2008; Proetrock 2008; Huong and

Soebarto 2003 etc.), highlights the underlying challenge sustainable design faces if it is to become

a dominant paradigm within the discipline of architecture. Wines believes that so called ‘green’

architecture can be cosmetically green in an attempt to symbolize the environmental science

behind the design, yet architects do not fully engross themselves in the philosophy of designing

sustainability. He defines green architecture as fusing art and environmental technology without

simply being a single minded approach to design. Wines alludes to the problem of a technological

agenda having a detrimental effect on the “conceptual, philosophical and artistic” (p.9) ambitions

of the architectural profession and the aesthetics of architecture being compromised. The book

2

highlights the increasing environmental problems of today and the important role that architects

and architecture must play.

After three decades of debate, environmentally friendly architecture needs to become the

prevailing paradigm within the discipline of architecture. Buildings account for about 50% of

the UK’s Co2 emissions (Hines 2007) and as a result the profession as a whole has come under

increasing pressure to deliver new solutions to a growing problem. Sustainability is a term that

“provokes fear and a bad conscience”(Sibold-Bultmann 2007 p.3) but what has become apparent

is that the term lacks clarity, often used to describe something “stern, ugly and threatening”

(Sibold-Bultmann 2007 p.3). Although discussed widely in many sources of literature, there is

still confusion surrounding the subject. It became apparent that many authors and researchers

cover the scientific side of achieving sustainability. Very little exists on the connection between

architecture, as the art of design, and sustainability as an architectural approach to design. Wines’

book (2000b) does exactly this as he approaches the subject with a philosophical underpinning.

Ironically, Buchannan (2005) criticises the book for being light on technical discussion, believing it

depicts sustainable design as an axiom rather than based on performance. This situation creates

a great deal of bewilderment as to what sustainable design means and the way in which the

industry should deal with it. As a result, a number of myths have surfaced concerning architects

and how sustainable design is being addressed, creating a barrier for sustainable design from

becoming the dominant paradigm within the discipline of architecture.

The overall aim of this research is to determine the current attitudes of architects on the issue of

sustainable design. The goal is to explore the role which aesthetics has within ‘sustainability’ by

focusing on the aesthetic propositions of individual one-off houses. The one-off houses encompass

within them a client’s vision brought to life by the architect’s design. This often results in a well

3

resolved and higher quality of design in comparison to mass housing. Consequently, contemporary

housing design in the UK is approached from two opposing perspectives - subtle design and

expressive design. Environmentalism is the expressive nature of buildings flaunting their green

assets and technological gadgets, whereby they made to shout out their eco-credentials. A subtle

green approach, which is difficult to identify, considers sustainable design in a more philosophical

manner, building on the idea that sustainable design is good design. This has resulted in the

emergence of a sustainable design philosophy. However can sustainable design be regarded as

being good design with a deep rooted ecological philosophy?

This research looks at whether the architectural profession is failing to address the environmental

question out of fear it will compromise the aesthetic qualities of their buildings and if green design

can indeed be viewed as good design. Does a perceptual barrier really exist within sustainable

design preventing its widespread acceptance? Accordingly, key research objectives are as follows:

• Identify what Sustainable Design principles have been explored

• Assess the attitudes towards Sustainable Design in contemporary housing

• Establish whether or not it matters if a building is expressed as being sustainable

through design

• And finally, what (if any) lessons can be learned

In order to achieve this, the perceptions identified within the industry and the attitudes towards

sustainable design will be critically assessed. Following the introduction (chapter one), the paper

is organized into six chapters which will individually address specifics whilst collectively drawing

conclusions. Chapter two (Literature review) will cover background research through the study

of relevant literature of credible sources in order to summarise current knowledge within the

4

subject area of the project. Once an overview of the issues surrounding the topic of aesthetics and

sustainable design has been discussed, chapter three (The Green Aesthetic) governs the rest of

the enquiry, and explores in detail some of the issues identified in this introduction, in particular

whether a green aesthetic exists within architectural design. Qualitative research in the form of

case studies will determine whether the myths about a green aesthetic and good sustainable

design have any footing in current day practices. Further qualitative research will comprise

of the interviewing of architects to establish the validity of the literature review and whether

they believe the profession is failing to address sustainability. Chapter four (Aestheticisation of

Sustainable Design), with the appraisal of a case study, examines the way in which a house can

exhibit the ‘green aesthetic’ by acts of green symbolism. A further issue is highlighted in chapter

five (Architects and Sustainability) which discusses the link between architects and sustainable

design and concludes whether architects are indeed failing based on the literature. Linking on from

this, chapter six (Taking the Subtle Approach) examines a case study to identify whether architects

can, or are, designing sustainably without recognition because their architecture is so low key

that it does not exhibit typical green indicators, thus challenging the literature. Both case studies

will be critically appraised to identify the reactions towards sustainable design and investigate

whether architects put aesthetic qualities before sustainability. Finally, chapter seven (Conclusion)

discusses whether green design can be good design. Contained within this are specific questions

about the role aesthetics play in architecture and how it influences architects in their practices. Is

the profession failing to address the environmental question out of fear that it will compromise

the aesthetic qualities of their buildings? Suggestions are made as to whether or not sustainable

design can indeed be achieved without having to resort to the aestheticisation of sustainable

design.

With the UK government setting targets for zero-carbon by 2016 (Sell 2009), it is clear that architects

5

will be designing to meet these targets. However, sustainable design in its current state is not fully

understood or embraced by many in the profession. Having identified these problematic areas,

the purpose of this study is to illustrate the situation at present within the industry and conclude

whether or not architects are failing to address sustainability. The relationship between aesthetics,

architects and sustainable practices has barely been addressed in the literature. Although some

have identified the economic and social aspects of sustainable design as barriers (Robinson 2008),

this paper narrows the focus to purely aesthetics as a potential barrier preventing sustainable

architecture from evolving into the mainstream.

6

CHAPTER TWO | LITERATURE REVIEW

In the last 10 years the nature of sustainable design has become a core debate within the field of

architecture. With numerous highly publicised ‘green’ projects being completed in the last decade

it is unsurprising that there has been a significant amount of coverage given to the development

of a new, environmentally friendly architecture. However, the majority of literature and research

on the topic is largely limited to the technical and scientific approaches (Owen and Dovey 2008)

rather than the theoretical underpinning of the movement. Although some have suggested that

architectural design is suffering as a result of sustainable design (Van der Ryn and Cowen 1996;

Wines 2000b; etc), a few have went on to discuss the role and the impact aesthetics could have

on sustainable design as an approach to architectural design.

Within the framework of sustainable design we are seeing not just a demand for buildings that

perform ecologically, but also a demand for aesthetic pleasure to drive environmental design

forward. Aesthetics are viewed as a key component of architecture, therefore it is vital to

understand what is perceived as good architectural design. Susannah Hagan claims:

“Aesthetic pleasure is as necessary as ethical concern to a society that seeks the

greatest good for the greatest number. An alliance of aesthetics and environmental

ethics unleashes the possibility of architecture taking new directions, with typologies

of sustainable form as yet unimagined” (Elsevier 2007)

In her book Taking Shape, Susannah Hagan (2001), a lecturer and researcher for the University of

Brighton, explores the emerging relationships between the built and natural environment. Notably,

the book seeks to challenge the existing framework for sustainable architecture, proposing that

7

environmental architecture has to encompass within it aesthetics and intellect on top of its existing

innovations in technology. As environmentally friendly architecture becomes demanding, with

stricter regulations in place, the impact on the design could be harder to avoid. The author holds

aesthetic appeal in high regard, believing that aesthetic pleasure is as important as the ethical

responsibility to design sustainably. As long as aesthetics and sustainability remain exclusive, there

is no visible “instruments of persuasion” (Hagan 2001 p.97) to change the current perception of

sustainable architecture. Unquestionably aesthetics and architecture are inextricably linked.

Such claims of aesthetics having a key role to play in the development of sustainable architecture

have been made before, most emphatically by journalist Jonathon Glancey (2001), The Guardian’s

architecture and design correspondent. Glancey (2001) asks the age old question: “what is a

‘green building’?”, a question that has been deliberated over many years by many authors and

architects. According to the writer, when people think of a ‘green’ building, they typically think

of “an architectural pot-pourri of miniature windmills spouting from conservatory roofs hedged

in by ineffable solar powered gadgets and ostentatious compost heaps”; yet there are others

think about organic architecture made from wood or mud. There is a great deal of confusion

as to what sustainable architecture looks like, with the diversity of responses making it harder

to clarify. Glancey (2001) demonstrates this by citing Swiss Re in London, believing that no one

would think of contemporary, hi-tech architecture as being sustainable. They always return to

the narrow minded views that sustainable architecture is architecture that outwardly expresses

environmentalism throughout its design. Sustainable architecture is viewed to have a stereotypical

aesthetic expression made up of green indicators-objects and materials that suggest ‘green’

subconsciously. This has led to the emergence of a green aesthetic, whereby any building that

looks green will be seen as being green and the others, designed like any other contemporary

building, will be criticised for not being sustainable.

8

The confusion surrounding sustainable design, what it should look like, and how it should be

practiced has resulted in the criticism of architects. James Wines (2000a) feels that “a major

proportion of the architectural profession has remained oblivious to the magnitude of its

irresponsible assaults on the land and resources”, while contemporary practices are more likely

“to confuse, rather than reinforce, a progressive image of earth friendly architecture” (p.11; cited

in Guy and Moore 2007). Though true, yet disturbing, this can only be described as the current

state of sustainable architecture. Many sources of literature criticise overtly sustainable design.

Similarly, many allude to the core problem being the unwillingness of architects to address the

environmental issues surrounding architecture (Owen and Dovey 2008; Hines 2007; Hawthorne

2001; McLennan 2004; etc). Wines’(2000b) book acts as a critique for much of the modern and

contemporary design practices, claiming that many architects continue to design buildings “rooted

in the style, spirit, and industrial technology” (p.9) identified by Le Corbusier. He highlights the

increasing importance of architecture and architects in the battle to save the planet. There is a

suggestion that architects are not fully tuned into the situation, where they continue to practice

as normal without ever considering the impact their buildings are having on the environment.

An ignorant attitude towards sustainable design, coupled with a negative opinion towards the

practice, acts as a barrier to the inclusion of sustainable design. However, is this merely perceived

or is it a real problem facing the architectural profession?

The existing arguments surrounding sustainable design are shifting from being about the technical

aspirations of what is possible (zero carbon) to instead focus on understanding the deep-rooted

sustainable design philosophy which is embedded within every building. Though a contemporary

topic, it has been discussed before by Sim Van Der Ryn (and Cowan 1996). Van Der Ryn, a

visionary, author, architect and internationally recognised pioneer of ecological design, in his

book ecological design set out to lay the basis for a new philosophy and practice of design. The

9

book is about a vision of what he believes is the starting point of any good design. Without the

vision to be sustainable we could not have good architecture. First published in 1996, the book

was ground-breaking in that it changed the way people think about buildings. More recently, in

Jason McLennan’s (2004) book The Philosophy of Sustainable Design, he sets out to create a new

definition for sustainability:

“Sustainable Design is a design philosophy that seeks to maximise the quality of the

built environment while minimising or eliminating negative impact to the natural

environment...” (p.4)

The author establishes that sustainable design should be viewed as a design philosophy. The

architectural profession should no longer view it as a stylistic endeavour. Consequently, sustainable

design will become a movement that seeks to approach design in a holistic manner, creating the

best solution that balances all aspects of what good design should be.

10

CHAPTER THREE | A GREEN AESTHETIC

“The term architecture only applies to buildings designed with a view to aesthetic

appeal…” Nikolaus Pevsner (Pevsner 1943 p.15)

Wines (2000b) highlights the problem of aesthetics in sustainable architecture when he claims

that “a professionals choice to over-emphasize the technological advantages” can “undervalue

the social an aesthetic aspects” (p.64). Architects have a powerful influence over the design of

their buildings but if designers are to make a change then sustainable design practices must be

encouraged and promoted. Aesthetics are one of the most important aspects of architecture;

hence sustainable design must be concerned with it. However, many preconceived ideas

have emerged suggesting that sustainable architecture has a pre-determined aesthetic, often

technology driven, which is preventing sustainable architecture from becoming the dominant

paradigm. Consequently, this chapter will critique the notion of a ‘green aesthetic’ in sustainable

architecture. A literature review and a series of interviews with architects were undertaken, in

an attempt to identify whether a green aesthetic exists and if it acts as a potential barrier for

sustainable design.

Architecture is the art of designing buildings. Architects design buildings to capture the imagination

of others; yet with the green architecture movement being developed, the quality of design

is coming into question. A number of interviewees highlighted the importance of aesthetics.

Colin McColl, director of McColl Architects, is an Aberdeen based architect whose approach

to architecture revolves around the site and the client to “ensure that the solution is bespoke,

relates to all site conditions and is tailored to the client’s needs” (McColl Architects 2009). McColl

(Appendix 3), together with other interviewees, put aesthetics at the core of architectural practice:

11

“Aesthetics are important if you have any interest in being an architect but like in any

profession, there are some that may not aspire to the aesthetic top end. You can’t

just say a building is aesthetically pretty and that’s good enough. There are so many

facets to it. You have to justify sustainability, aesthetics, commerce, time, quality and

cost. It’s a big equation to get right but it has to be part of it…”

Although this view is somewhat negative to begin with, in criticising architects who do not take

aesthetics seriously, the architect goes onto acknowledge sustainability as part of the design

process alongside aesthetics. Interestingly, McColl does not refer to the word ‘sustainability’

within his practice description and philosophy. One architect referred to their view on the

subject as “pompous”. Mary Arnold-Forster (Appendix 1), a principal of the successful Skye-based

architectural firm Dualchas, would tell clients who wanted something that she, as an architect,

did not agree with: “I have a responsibility to your brief…but I also have a responsibility to the

people who have to look at this…”. Such views reinforce the idea that aesthetics are important to

architects and architecture as a whole.

In 1943, Nikolaus Pevsner (1943), an architectural critic, felt that “a bicycle shed is a building, a

cathedral is architecture” (p.15). This analogy demonstrates the differences in the way the two

extremes are approached. One is beautifully crafted, a product of many years of thought and can

inspire other architects; the other is completely the opposite. A bicycle shed has no underlying

philosophy. It has a pre-determined aesthetic and could not inspire anyone. Consequently,

McDonough (2004) argues that the comparisons made between sustainable buildings being as

banal as a shed put off many architects on the whole idea of sustainability during the 1990’s.

Architecture and aesthetics can be considered intertwined. Therefore architecture cannot be

architecture without an aesthetic appeal: “simply put, design matters” (McDonough 2004).

12

Sustainable design is seen as something bad, unwanted and in Pevsner’s case, a threat to good

architecture.

It has become apparent that whenever sustainable design comes into the debate, criticism shifts

to architects who follow a technological trajectory, thus compromising the aesthetic qualities of

their architecture. With no definitive definition stating the architectural intent or the aesthetic

characteristics of buildings within the movement (Owens 2003), there have been many who

have attempted to define an aesthetic by designing experimental houses. With this has come a

preconceived idea on what a sustainable house might look like. There is an inherent belief that

“mainstream environmentalists have become so focused on narrow technical and regulatory

strategies” (Schnellenberger and Nordhaus 2004), that beauty in architectural design is disregarded.

Art, the fundamentals of design, is missing. Many use technical and scientific knowledge to design

buildings as an accepted form of designing sustainably. It is noted, however, that this distorted

view of sustainable design is deficient which has created a strong wedge between architecture

and sustainability being seen as one entity.

Owen and Dovey (2008) identify the current situation within the architectural field in relation to

sustainability as “serving two masters” (p.14). Sustainable design and architecture are perceived

as being two opposing ideas. When one serves the discipline of art, one cannot serve the discipline

of science as well and vice-versa. The result is that architecture is seen as an artistic practice

with the technical considerations of sustainable design missing. Despite this, the authors fail to

identify that there are two different approaches to design sustainably. The first one is driven by a

technical agenda and made to look so, the other is a more discreet, even an invisible approach to

sustainable architecture. Importantly, both use the science and technical footing of sustainable

design but approach the practice differently. Sustainable design can now be regarded finally as

13

combining the two opposing forces for the first time in architectural design.

Despite sustainable design having two approaches, sustainable architecture has been characterised

in the media as harbouring a stereotypical aesthetic. Wines (2000b) acknowledges the importance

of aesthetics and good design in architecture and how green architecture disturbs the status quo:

“…some examples of buildings with a green commitment can seem awkward and out

of place when compared to mainstream ...architecture of today...” (p.68)

This sees sustainable buildings as being an unwanted infringement in contemporary architecture

because it is perceived as ‘the ugly duckling’. The banality of ugly green architecture contains an

element of truth. Glancey (2001) describes the stereotypical green house as “an architectural

pot-pourri of miniature windmills sprouting from conservatory roofs hedged in by ineffable solar-

powered gadgets and ostentatious compost heaps”. Many believe that green design will be “crude

and ugly buildings” (Buchanan 2005 p.13) that no-one will want to live in. Glancey (2001) was

unquestionably referring to the most daring of all sustainable houses in the UK, Bill Dunster’s

now famous BedZED (Beddington Zero Energy Development) [fig.1 and fig.2]. The development

outwardly exhibits its ‘greenness’ by adopting a host of ‘bolt-on’ technologies which are left for

everyone to admire. The houses do not hold any relation to contemporary architecture but are

used to challenge the status quo, offering a sustainable alternative to architecture. It clearly

demonstrates its standpoint on sustainability by using the aesthetics to promote sustainable

architecture. The attention this project has had in the media has made many architects, and

indeed the general population, perceive sustainable architecture as being about windmills and

solar panels but the appearance of these buildings does not satisfy everyone, with its aesthetics

being at the centre of the discussion.

Fig.1 BedZED, Beddington Zero Energy Development (Dunster et al. 2008 p231)

Fig.2 BedZED, Beddington Zero Energy Development (Dunster et al. 2008 p231)

14

The suggestion that a sustainable building has a labelled aesthetic associated with it, showing off

its ‘greenness’, highlights the abuse the whole idea of sustainable architecture is currently facing.

The term ‘sustainable design’ is widely used to describe a variety of building types, designs and

schemes, however, and for this reason alone it is always going to be hard to define (Proefrock

2008). Any new building with any sort of ‘green bling’ attached is attempting to jump onto the

“bandwagon” (Proefrock 2008) of sustainable architecture hoping it gets the kudos surrounding

sustainability. Wines (2000b) makes the observation that sustainable architecture has been

reduced to the use of technology, such as photovoltaic panels and that environmental technology

drives the performance of these buildings. The context here makes it clear that green buildings

can be superficially ‘green’ when an attempt is made to go down the expressive route and make

a point of the environmental science that underlines the design regardless of a true sustainable

agenda. Sustainable design is viewed as simply being the sum of environmental technologies,

photovoltaics and other environmental sciences which are used to symbolize the movement but

these have a detrimental effect on the aesthetics of a building (Proefrock 2008). Arnold-Forster

(Appendix 1) described this approach as just “decoration”. Good design is perceived to come after

the architect has done what it takes to show off the building’s green credentials, therefore ‘eco-

bling’, as McColl (Appendix 3) plainly puts it: “is just nonsense…it’s just a pointless thing”.

Similarly, Owens and Dovey (2008) claim that this quick-fix solution to sustainable design, often

described as “green wash” (p.15), provide false hope for a new sustainable architecture. Many

comprehend overtly green design as unconventional; however, others criticize it as they identify

its purpose as a gimmick: “paying lip service to important ecological concerns” (Porteous 2002

p.48) and potential propaganda. The authors felt that sustainable design is “prone to fashion”

(Owens and Dovey 2008 p.15), where architects adopt indicators of green design and exhibit

them expressively to market their creation as being ‘environmentally friendly’. This has seen the

15

emergence of “add-on sustainability” (Willis and Fry 1999; McLennan 2004; etc) where sustainable

design adopts a predictable aesthetic which uses recycled materials or particular technological

devices. Architects perceive that if they use such materials or technology then they will get credit

for actively practicing sustainability. However, Willis and Fry (1999) claim that such an approach

is actually not sustainable. Susan Hagan refers to this dilemma within architecture as “a haven

for the untalented where ethics replace aesthetics and get away with it” (Stang and Hawthorne

2005). Applying small gestures for doing their bit for the environment, some architects practice

sustainable design as an afterthought, used on top of their existing design agendas (Willis 2000).

Despite this, they fail to address the basic principles of good design such as designing a building

with a right orientation (McLennan 2004). Such extreme views can be described as propaganda

whereby some architects are attempting sustainable design for the sake of provocatively getting

the message through to others, thus getting recognition for it. This subsequently nullifies the whole

building as being sustainable as one gadget cannot make up for a building that is not designed

right. It would appear that it has become fashionable within architecture to be sustainable but the

problem with such trends is that they do not last in the long run. Gimmicky gestures are seen as

quick-fix solutions that compromise both the aesthetic qualities of a building and the sustainable

design agenda.

So, does green design mean bad design? Kriston Capps (2009) thinks so by referring to green

architecture being reduced to purely gestures and acts of symbolism. This has an adverse affect on

the aesthetic qualities of buildings. All of the interviewees agreed that a green aesthetic existed

which brands green architecture in a particular way. Mary Arnold-Forster (Appendix 1) went as

far as to suggest that buildings that are intentionally made to look green do not “help people to

design good buildings”. The “naïve and uninspired” (Willis and Fry 1999) images of sustainability

currently being promoted is creating a divide between architecture and sustainable design as

16

a whole. Clearly, many perceive sustainable design as creating a bad image for architecture

because of the aesthetic association with recycled materials or solar panels and wind turbines

bolted onto buildings. The overall aesthetic proposition is described as “too bland”, “too

unadventurous”(Porteous 2002 p.48), “revolting” (Slessor 2001 p.75) and even “ugly” (Hosey

2007 p.43), giving environmentally friendly design a bad image, thus creating a barrier to its

practice in the mainstream as many are put off by the whole idea. No architect would confess

to designing aesthetically inferior buildings for if they do not care about aesthetics then they

cannot truly call themselves architects (Appendix 3). However, more importantly, the perceived

practices of sustainable design fail to address the core principles of good design in architecture

which turns sustainability into a fake practice. Hines (2007) feels that with the use of eco-friendly

gadgets, it has become “easy to miss other fundamental issues”, therefore the negative aspects of

sustainability have been reduced to purely aesthetics.

17

CHAPTER FOUR| AESTHETICISATION OF SUSTAINABLE DESIGN

Tony Fry and Anne-Marie Willis (1999), in their article Undoing the Relation, highlight sustainable

design as having an “image problem” (p.1), arguing that it is incorrect to view sustainable design

as a problem that can be addressed by “symbols or a new aesthetic” (p.2) for sustainability. In the

previous chapter, sustainable architecture was shown to have an association with a preconceived

aesthetic, with the debate around the topic often based on aesthetic grounds. As with any

clichés, the purpose here is to assess whether there is any seeds of truth in the claims through

the identification and appraisal of a case study. Recent sustainable projects highlight many of

the stereotypical characteristics of green design identified in the previous chapter. There are

countless case studies about sustainable design projects in circulation, however one house that

does explicitly convey the stereotypical appearance towards sustainable architecture is a house

designed by Jeremy Till and Sarah Wigglesworth [fig.3]. The Straw Bale house in London was

conceived as an experiment which was intended to promote environmental consciousness and

provide a precedent for sustainable design practices within the UK but has arguably created

negativity towards sustainable design due to the “polemical” (Sarah Wigglesworth Architects

2009b) nature of the design.

Located in the heart of London, Stock Orchard Street in Islington, the house approaches

environmental architecture in an artistic manner whereby the architects have opted to display

the materials in an unconventional way. Regarded as one of the first contemporary houses to use

straw bale construction in England (Davey 2000), the Straw Bale house by Sarah Wigglesworth

Architects provides a new take on the ideas of environmentally friendly architecture, integrating

old and new materials with new and old technologies (Strati 2003), whilst attempting to bring

Fig.3 no.9 Stock Orchard Street, Islington, London (Soane 2003 p.205)

18

sustainable design into the mainstream. The house approaches housing design in a new manner

which sees the greenness of the building portrayed through a series of expressive, yet poetic,

moves. An attempt is made to create a dialogue between the vernacular and contemporary design

whilst acknowledging its environmental contribution. Offering up a 264msq house and 210msq

office (Sarah Wigglesworth Architects 2009b), both of which are used by Sarah Wigglesworth and

Jeremy Till as home and office, the development offers ample accommodation on an unwanted

Brownfield site (Barrett 2004). However, the controversy surrounding the house is based on the

glorified environmental agenda which has given the house continued coverage in the architectural

press.

Completed in 2001, the ‘L’ shaped house is located next to a railway line in a gritty part of urban

London. One of the first things visitors are encountered by is the house’s somewhat “wacky”

(Barrett 2004 p.53) appearance which plays host to numerous recycled materials [fig.4]. Being the

architects and the clients for the house, Till and Wigglesworth had a rare opportunity to realize

their ambitions and to introduce many new ideas into the industry. The architects have designed

the house with an underlying steel structure; however, it is the fabric of the building where the

house shows off its uniqueness. Firstly, gabion walls filled with recycled concrete (Strati 2003),

typically found on the embankments of motorways, are used to support the walls facing the railway

tracks [fig.5]. Those walls, housing the office wing, coincidently are finished in glass fiber matting

and polyester lining (Davey 2002) which acts as a “puffa jacket” (Barrett 2004 p.48) keeping the

building warm and protecting the interior against the elements. The architects employ another

material to finish the wall overlooking the rail tracks: layers of sandbags piled on top of each other

[fig.4]. Sandbags filled with sand, lime and concrete are suggestive of a primitive building giving

the house a “bunker-like” appearance (Lutyens 2002) but they serve as an effective material to

offer good levels of sound proofing and insulation. Perhaps one of the most contentious, yet

Fig.4 Woven willow panels forms separation between public and private realms (Soane 2003 p.202)

Fig.5 Quilted Cladding and Sandbags (Sudjic 2001 p65)

19

innovative, material choices within the fabric of the house is the use of straw bales as cavity

insulation. Straw bales are incorporated into the wall construction because of their performance

as an insulating material which surpasses minimum regulations by three times (Blyth 1999). On

part of the building, the straw bales are protected with corrugated galvanized steel which acts as

a rain-screen. And finally, the architects have designed a monstrous tower that “dominates the

local skyline” (Barrett 2004 p.53) which has no resemblance to the locality or any respect for the

existing streetscape [fig.4]. Perhaps the architects wanted it to act as a beacon of a lighthouse,

to guide visitors to marvel at their achievements. Although ad-hoc in appearance, the house is

more representative of a primitive shelter created by the occupants with the materials they have

found rather than a contemporary house. The architects, however, firmly believe that the building

proves that sustainable houses can be built simply but maintain a sleek aesthetic without ever

looking ‘green’ (Sarah Wigglesworth Architects 2009a). Obviously this is not the case.

The environmentalism conveyed in the Straw Bale house is a realistic example of the criticism

towards the green aesthetic-or the perception that one exists. The aesthetic proposition of the

house appears confused and incoherent. The use of a variety of re-used and re-claimed materials

creates what Campkin (2007) describes as an “aesthetic of recycling” (p.1). Ben Campkin (2007),

an editor and architectural historian, highlights the emergence of an architectural “aesthetic of

recycling” within the current practices of contemporary urban architecture which portrays a sense

of the ‘gritty’ nature of many urban spaces in UK cities. The author does, however, focus on the

works of David Adjaye, a high profiled London based architect, arguing that he creates a “simple

aesthetic, of elements easily sourced if not recycled” (p.381) materials. His houses are seen as

precedent towards convincing architects that what is perceived as rubbish, essentially waste and

recycled material, can indeed be used in contemporary architecture in innovative ways without

compromising the aesthetic ambitions of mainstream architects. The point being made here is

20

that the use of recycled materials alone does not shout ‘sustainability’ but what is novel is the way

in which the materials have been used in the Straw Bale house to make it an icon of sustainable

architecture. No one would open the sustainability debate with Adjaye’s work, but all the debate

on the Straw Bale house is on environmentalism and green architecture, therefore, putting the

focus directly on the expressive nature of Wigglesworth’s house and its promotion as a ‘green’

house.

The architects have deliberately used materials in a particular ways to allow viewers to understand

the purpose of the building, making the straw bale house a symbol for sustainable design. The use

of straw bales can be seen either as an innovative or a contentious decision. Till emphatically states:

“no-one apart from eco-freaks had used straw bales before” (Barrett 2004 p.48). This puts across

the early assumption that straw bales were used in green architecture. Placed in-between the

timber wall trusses, the straw offers an inexpensive alternative to man-made, high performance

insulation, costing only £1.50 per bale (Barrett 2004 p50). However, to provide protection to the

bales against the elements, the architects decide to clad parts of the house in recycled corrugated

metal sheets. Despite this, the architects, at a particular section of the wall made the conscious

decision to insert a polycarbonate “window” (Davey 2002 p.68), revealing the wall build up and

the straw within [fig.6]. Why? Maybe it was an attempt to advertise the use of the straw bales

and to draw attention to the building’s green credentials in order to “reveal the character of the

insulation” (Wilhide 2002 p.46). Ironically, the use of an anti-sustainable cladding material-plastic-

was used to reveal the environmentally friendly material within. Now the straw bales read as part

of the façade and a part of the aesthetic expression of the building. Together with the host of other

recycled materials left on show, the house becomes somewhat of a gimmick, as Porteous (2002)

suggested “paying lip service” (p.48) to sustainability. Many of the materials and the contentious

aesthetic of the house as a whole evoke a sustainable design agenda, creating an image of what

Fig.6 Straw Bales through cladding ‘window’ on facade (Sudjic 2001 p73)

21

sustainable design could look like in the urban environment, therefore, proving that sustainable

design and the symbolism surrounding the aesthetic expression of houses do indeed create an

image for sustainability.

Despite this, Till states:

“…it is not a very green building…Greenness is a very emotive term. Personally I have

a problem with being labeled an eco-house…” (Barrett 2004 p.50)

The architects’ are of the opinion that this house was not conceived as a green project, but rather,

through media and preconceived ideas, has come to be labeled just that. Later, he claims that the

house, when tested for environmental performance, did not come out as “super-duper” (Barrett

2004 p.43) but passed. But is this house not branded as an icon for sustainable design? Clearly by

looking green and exhibiting a fetish for sustainability, the house is assumed to be green regardless

of performance.

Nevertheless, no. 9 Stock Orchard Street remains a “showcase for a collection of eco-friendly

construction techniques” (Tozer 2006), but can it be regarded as merely an aesthetic exercise or

potential propaganda? One of the interviewees, when asked if a green aesthetic exists, felt that

for too long sustainable design has been used by architects as a “marketing tool”(Appendix 2).

William Tozer (Appendix 2), a London based architect whose approach to architecture is often

described as “unpretentious” (WTAD 2009), firmly believes by abusing sustainable design often

results in gimmicky buildings which “in fact bear no relation to sustainability”. Arnold-Forster

(Appendix 1) commented on the Straw Bale house and felt that the house was “quite clever and

innovative, aimed at some kind of publicity”. The Straw Bale house can indeed be reduced to

22

propaganda, which sought to promote sustainable design through aesthetic grounds, however,

the “polemic impact of the design” (Sarah Wigglesworth Architects 2009a) had an adverse affect

on the architectural industry which saw the emergence of the myths surrounding green design:

sustainable design is predominantly aesthetically driven and that certain technologies and

materials will deliver sustainability (Willis 2000). Although it does not perform overly well it still

received a sustainable tag, whereby its aesthetic sent out the sustainable message loud and clear.

The eccentric appearance of the house has had in impact on the architectural status quo and has

indeed brought green architecture into the mainstream (Lutyens 2002).

The cliché that sustainable houses will be “crude and ugly buildings” (Buchannan 2005 p.13), like

all old clichés, has an element of truth to it. It has become clear that the Straw Bale house portrays

an aesthetic quality that is provocative of green design [fig.7] which highlights an element of truth

to many of the myths surrounding sustainable architecture. It is a “pot-pouree” (Glancey 2001) of

recycled materials that lack consistency and appear alien to the locale. The architects made bold

moves that make this house into an icon for sustainability regardless of their claims. However, the

straw bale walls could have been rendered, as they would have been done traditionally (Steen

et al. 1994), with a crisp white finish which would echo many of the contemporary building of

today. It could have been used as cavity insulation, completely hidden from view, but retaining

its impressive insulation qualities. The quilted wall could have been clad in a sustainable source

of timber. The building, at present, is expressed as being unfinished, even naked, still awaiting its

architectural gown. The point being made here is that the architects could have used the same

palette of materials but in a more sympathetic and discreet manner which did not compromise on

the aesthetics of the building but they did not. Instead they opted to label the building as being

‘green’, an aestheticisation of sustainability.

Fig.7 Structurally column is constructed using an ‘as found’ free trunk (Soane 2003 p.202)

23

CHAPTER FIVE| ARCHITECTS AND SUSTAINABILITY

“Designers suck! Designers suck because they are ignorant, especially about

sustainability...” (Thackara 2007 p.xvi)

Views from the book by Edwards (1999), Sustainable architecture, suggests that architects have

the largest amount of responsibility for tackling the global environmental problems compared to

any other industry. Willis and Fry (1999), together with other authors and journalists, criticise

contemporary architects for not practicing sustainable design and “sacrificing sustainability for

appearance”. In the preceding chapters, a picture emerged that sustainable architecture was

in many ways labelled to any building that exhibited a green aesthetic. Sustainable design is

imperative, especially when buildings within the UK consume about 50% of the country’s energy

(Hines 2007). Architects, being the creators of these buildings, have responsibility to make a

change. The aim of this chapter is to examine whether or not architects are committed to and

engaged in sustainability efforts. The architectural profession can be regarded as the driving force

in sustainable design within the UK, therefore, their contribution to its practice is essential.

Buchannan (2005) claims that many architects within the industry fail to acknowledge the

importance and necessity of a buildings performance in the global effects of the environmental

crisis, arguing that contemporary architecture in its current state is not sustainable. The industry

plays a vital role in the whole concept of sustainable thinking and design. Hawthorne (2001)

identifies that top leading architects (“star-architects” as he calls them) do not design ‘green’. He

illustrates the problem by quoting Sim Van Der Ryn:

“Koolhass seems to have zero interest in sustainability...Richard Meier seems to have

24

no interest. Eisenmann -of course, zero. And Gehry- I respect Gehry a great deal, but

the work he’s doing is not about sustainability...”

Van Der Ryn is heavily criticizing some of the professions most important, even pioneering,

architects by questioning their commitment towards sustainable design. Interestingly, Eisenmann

made a comment on what Van Der Ryn was implying within the article. His comeback:

“To talk about sustainability is like talking to me about giving birth…Am I against

giving birth? No. But would I like to spend my time doing it? Not really. I’d rather go

to the baseball game…” (Hawthorne 2001)

Sustainable design is seen to be excluded in architecture. This comes across as quite disturbing

considering the current climate but also reaffirms the rationale for the dissertation being proposed

here. The dismissive demeanour towards sustainability by Eisenmann suggests that he finds

sustainable design a painful activity – akin to giving birth. It also implies that architects are more

concerned about their architecture and their ability to build beautiful buildings but unwilling to

design sustainably. The suggestion being made is that many architects tackle other aspects of

architecture before ever considering ecological design. They perceive green architecture as a

threat to contemporary architectural practices.

Eisenmann’s cynical attitude towards sustainability is one that many architects can relate to

within the industry. Sustainable design is not being taken seriously by the architectural profession.

Architects acknowledge that they should be doing something to help global environmental

problems but when it comes to actually doing it they fail, even though they know it is ethically

wrong. For any architect not to be designing sustainably is regarded as “professional suicide”, as

25

expressed by Deyan Sudjic (1996 p.237; cited in Fuller et al. 2008).

Many approaches exist to make a building sustainable; unfortunately many architects tend to

focus on limited issues such as performance. Mary Arnold-Forster (Appendix 1) feels that some

architects have become lazy as they do not strive to further their knowledge nor seek new

ways in which to challenge sustainable design. For many architects, to design a sustainable

house is something that can be achieved by using some low impact material and good windows

(McLennan 2004), thus only achieving slightly better than current regulations. With government

led schemes to measure building performance, Van Der Ryn implies that it has given architects

“an excuse not to think” (Knight 2008). Hines (2007) suggests that architects get “seduced by easy

ways of apparently becoming carbon neutral, such as carbon offset schemes or techno add-ons”.

Conversely, Fuller (et.al 2008) claims architects ask clients for an “offset” (p.236) where the clients

contribute financially to an environmental scheme of any kind in order to allow them to design as

they normally would without a comprehensive sustainable design agenda. This can be perceived

as architectural bribery, paying off sustainable design for what they believe is good design. There

appears to be a problem. Sustainability is viewed as a technically driven agenda where architects

try to meet specific performance related goals based on a “textbook” approach (Owen and Dovey

2008 p.14); however, the consequence of this is that sustainable design becomes just a check-list

exercise to ensure the building meets regulations. There is an element of cynicism when it comes

to architects and sustainability. Architects will typically provide a token statement on their website

that states that they are concerned with sustainable design and reducing energy consumption and

so on, but when it comes to practice they tend to do only what it takes to meet regulations and no

more. For some it is about merely incorporating some extra insulation or using better windows.

Perhaps this makes them, as Hines (2007) suggests, “feel less guilty”.

26

Equally, in his book, The Green Imperative, Victor Papanek (1995) questions the practice of

architects, arguing that they should design sustainably because it is ethically right to do so.

However, according to Fuller (et.al 2008), practicing architects “are faced with a dilemma” (p.236)

when it comes to sustainable design. Papanek (1995) offers guidance to architects of how to put

environmental design into the design process as a first order priority, suggesting architects ask

themselves what the impact of their work is having on the environment. Being professionals,

architects have many ethical decisions to be made on a daily basis- one of which is whether or not

to design sustainably. Fuller (et al. 2008) on the other hand, argue that it is not the architect who

fails to design sustainably but the clients, who do not wish to, which puts architects in a vulnerable

situation - a thought echoed by further studies (Hanson and Knudstrup 2005; Robinson 2008;

Magadi 2006). Fuller (et al. 2008) does acknowledge that there is no real way to assess sustainable

design at present. Nevertheless, they offer advice for architects when facing such a situation:

architects could reject the job based on ethical grounds; they could educate the client on the

importance of sustainability; design sustainably regardless of clients wishes then confront them;

or just ask for an ‘offset’ and continue to design as one would normally. The authors do concede

that none of the options are ideal as they have other problems associated with them. Clearly,

this research does suggest that the client is at the root of the problem and the criticisms towards

architects are unsubstantiated. However, this may be true but architects within this situation may

find it easier to just practice as usual. Perhaps it is an excuse not to design sustainably-if the client

does not want it, what is the point? Architects can belie sustainable practices but the perceptions

that they do not fully embrace sustainable design will still remain.

Despite Fuller (et al. 2008) attempting to support architects through ethical grounds, a number

of interviewees talked about the role of clients when it comes to sustainable design. The client’s

role in the process of designing and building a house takes focal point as it is they who employ the

27

architects to turn their dreams into reality. One architect suggested that clients were aware of its

relevance in the battle to save the planet but “unless they were well informed” (Appendix 3) they

needed to be educated, while another suggested that they arrive with a preconceived idea of what

sustainable design is, based on what they may have read, or heard about (Appendix 1). Arnold-

Forster (Appendix 1) criticised some architects for succumbing to the clients ideas and letting

their clients design buildings. Here, clients are seen as the problem to the current perception

that the industry is tackling sustainable design in a half hearted manner. Clients come with a

vision of what ‘bolt-ons’ they want to adopt because they feel that in itself will give their house

the ‘sustainable’ tag. Architects are seen as superficially addressing sustainability by employing

the use of techno add-ons in an attempt to make their buildings look green. However, the real

problem is that they are “just fed up” (Appendix 1)and letting clients design their houses. Mary

Arnold-Forster (Appendix 1) offers sound advice to these architects: “a drawing from a client is the

start of the brief not the conclusion…”

If we believe what Thackara (2007) emphatically stated at the beginning of the chapter, that

architects were in some ways “ignorant” (p.xvi) towards sustainable design, we can conclude that

they are indeed failing to address the global situation. Many sources of literature and research

support this claim but can architects be this arrogant? To refuse to design sustainability with all the

problems the world is facing environmentally is both ethically and professionally objectionable.

Architects will need to embrace sustainable design in its entirety if there is to be change. The

narrow minded attitudes towards sustainable design need to be re-addressed. Architects appear

to be more focused on the design of their buildings, as well as their reputations, and fear being

branded as an ‘environmental architect’. However, is the media responsible for this perceived

notion that architects are failing? Have architects actually combined both good architecture

and sustainable architecture without being acknowledged? Are architects actually designing

28

sustainably without anyone knowing?

“...the world will never evolve past its current state of crisis by using the same thinking

that created the situation...” Albert Einstein (McDonough and Braungart 2002 preface)

29

CHAPTER SIX| TAKING A SUBTLE APPROACH

“If sustainable architecture falls short of fulfilling our needs, what would sustaining

architecture look like?” (McDonough 2003)

The main argument of the preceding chapter highlighted that many writers believed architects

were not addressing sustainable design in their daily practices. This put the focus on the aesthetics

of such sustainable buildings as being a symbolism for the movement. It is apparent from chapter

three that a perceptual barrier exists within the industry. Designers find it hard to believe that

it is possible to design good architecture that is also sustainable. The next part of the argument

is illustrated through a case study, to identify whether good design and green design can come

together. Perhaps there is an underlying sustainable philosophy that architects are working to

regardless of the aestheticism of sustainability, which has resulted in good architecture that has

not been branded sustainable architecture.

Sustainable architecture has been perceived to harbour a distinctive aesthetic, whereby providing

a showcase for a collection of eco-friendly gadgets. With no framework or guiding principles

underpinning sustainable design, any building that looks ‘green’ will inevitably be labelled green.

Thus, some argue that architects have a fixation on sustainable design being about technical

innovations (Hartman 2007) and meeting targets, whereas Shiers (2000) proposes a new definition

for sustainable design that makes no reference to the appearance or the technical agenda.

Sustainable buildings are:

“Buildings which by an integrated and holistic approach to location, siting, design,

specification and the use of energy and resources, seek to minimize their environmental

30

impact...” (p.357)

This definition, without doubt, is a more truthful depiction on what good design should be about

without necessarily calling it sustainable design. The realisation that sustainable design could

indeed be regarded as a ‘holistic’ approach to design is similarly argued by Keeping (and Shiers

2004) and McLennan (2004). Therefore, sustainable design can be viewed as a design philosophy

which expands the parameters of good architecture.

Jason McLennan (2004) raises the issues highlighted in the earlier chapters, but instead of criticizing

contemporary architecture, he seeks to argue that there is an underlying design philosophy

which sustainable design encompasses. He is of the view that green design is a philosophical

approach to design “that seeks to maximise the quality of the built environment while minimising

or eliminating negative impact on the natural environment” (p.4). The context here makes it clear

that sustainable design is not merely about aesthetics nor is it about a technology driven agenda,

it is about expanding the parameters of what an architect would regard as good architecture. The

Vales (1991) took it one step further by formulating principles of green architecture:

• Recycling recourses whilst minimizing the use of new resources;

• Conserving energy;

• Building to the climate; harnessing valuable natural resources such wind and sun;

• Minimizing the impact on the environment and respecting the site;

• Creating a healthy home for the users.

Although two decades old, these principles are not dissimilar to the thoughts of McLennan (2004),

Shiers (2000) and Keeping (and Shiers 2004). Where other authors attempt to define sustainable

31

design, the Vales offer a set of guidelines for architects to follow. Green design should not be

viewed as a threat to architectural theory but a more complete approach to design, creating

equilibrium between sustainable design and traditional design theories. Architects should design

to the above principles without a moments thought. It is good design anyway. But does such a

building exist, where sustainable design marries the beauty found in architecture and designed

with an underlying philosophy?

While often rustic and reminiscent in design, the houses designed by Dualchas are an attempt

to reconcile the past whilst thinking about the future by synthesising technology, contemporary

ideologies and value. Dualchas Building Design, widely recognised for their houses that effortlessly

fit into the landscapes of the Scottish highlands (Bain and Lowenstein 2008), are perhaps one of

the practices that do tackle sustainable design as good design. Dualchas underpins its ethos by

criticising the architects within the profession, where for “too long mediocre has been acceptable”

(Dualchas Building Design 2009). Their main focus is on the “continuity of tradition” (Dualchas

Building Design 2009), believing that designing high quality buildings, with a selection of good

materials and a sustainable philosophy will make a building defy time as people continue to

appreciate its beauty within the landscape.

This is specifically true in their house in Tokavaig, ironically called The Shed, where the main aim

was to create a bespoke home for director of Dualchas, Mary Arnold-Forster [fig.8]. The house

sets up beautifully a synergy between the contemporary and the vernacular, with a discreet

environmental agenda. The main idea behind the scheme was to create an affordable home that

“combines a love of humble architectural sheds with modern technology” (Ednie 2008), which

would snuggle itself into the contours of the Scottish highlands. Being a family home, it offers up

the kind of accommodation one would expect: 4 bedrooms, lounge, open plan kitchen and dining

Fig.8 The Shed, Tokavaig, Skye (Noor 2009)

32

space, study and 3 bathrooms. However, it is the manner in which these spaces are arranged

and enclosed by the architect which makes them contribute to the environmental strategy of the

building.

Firstly, energy efficiency is addressed by the proper way in which a house should be sited and

orientated. The house is partially sunken into the landscape, nestling into the contours of the land,

creating a natural defence to the strong winds the site would typically experience. The house is

oriented to an east-west axis which the architect has arranged spaces internally accordingly. A

home is said to have a heart whereby all the accommodation feeds off of, it is no different in The

Shed. The accommodation is spread over two floors with a mixture of public and private on each.

The principle space within the house remains the open plan kitchen, dining and informal reading

area [fig.9] whereby the wood burning stove acts as the focal point. This move by the architect

highlights another key environmental consideration. Facing the primary glazing south will, in

conjunction with the ceramic tiles on the floor, allow passive solar gain throughout the year. This

is a simple yet very effective way to heat the internal spaces, by using nature’s heat source. The

centrally placed wood burning stove acts as the heart of the building, radiating the heat through

the levels. Together with the solid floors, the phenomenon of thermal mass is exploited around

the fire. A cast in-situ concrete plinth, balustrade and wall provide the spine to the building at

the point where the two levels meet [fig.10 and 11]. The flue, left on show, travels up though

the two open plan spaces on both levels. The radiating heat warms up the surrounding concrete,

acting as a heat store (Ednie 2008), providing ambient heat throughout the house. Walking up

the concrete and oak staircase, with the flue on one side [fig.11], one comes into another well

lit open plan space. The lounge [fig.12], an evening space, is the perfect By using simple and

sensible techniques, the architect has helped to reduce the impact in which a house has on the

environment. Similar to Shiers (2000) and Keeping (2004), the principles here- siting, orientation,

Fig.9 Open plan kitchen/dining room (photograph courtesy of Mary Arnold-Forster)

Fig.10 Wood burning stove on concrete plinth/surround (photograph courtesy of Mary Arnold-Forster)

33

thermal mass – are not new and can be traced back to early shelters, criteria Dualchas identified

through the study of traditional Scottish Blackhouses.

Reyner Banham identifies that “such an appeal to fundamentals in architecture nearly always

contains an appeal to tradition and the past...” (Whitely 2002 p.132), echoing the ethos of

Dualchas and their approach to design and environmental architecture. Since man sought shelter,

architecture has been formed around location, climate and the needs of the people who were

to occupy them. McDonough (2004) makes reference to the teachings of Vitruvius and ‘The Ten

Books on Architecture’. Vitruvius dedicates a whole chapter on sunlight and how design should

respond to it, whether it is the location of rooms, size of apertures or the availability of thermal

mass. At a basic level, good building design should to a response to climate, the site conditions

and the needs of the people who occupy them (Rudofsky 1974).

Dualchas attempt to create good architecture by designing their buildings to this philosophy

which sets up a wonderful architectural language that oozes the sleek and contemporary with

the traditional means to achieve sustainable design. The Shed is, unquestionably, inspired by

the traditional Scottish Blackhouse: simple shed like buildings constructed using local materials

and built to the climatic conditions of the site. The house’s “agricultural aesthetic” (Ednie

2008), precisely detailed, exhibits contemporary design with the rustic. The house adopts a

steel portal frame to which corrugated steel sheeting is attached. Corrugated steel sheeting is

a cheap and durable material which requires little or no maintenance. The house is further clad

in a locally sourced Scottish larch which acts as the rain screen. Using local materials is another

key consideration to sustainable design. Locally sourced materials require less transport and

employs local people to manufacture and supply it. Blackhouses were traditionally built using

materials that were found in the locality such as stone or turf. The thick walls, typically with an

Fig.11 Open staircase (photograph courtesy of Mary Arnold-Forster)

Fig.12 First floor lounge (photograph courtesy of Mary Arnold-Forster)

34

earth core, are good enough to retain as much of the heat generated from the open fire within the

house. Internally, the depth of the steel frame is exploited architecturally and contributes to the

environmental strategy. The added depth allows for additional insulation to be incorporated into

the wall construction which results in less heat being lost through the walls. The design gives the

walls a feeling of solidity, reminiscent of traditional Scottish stone walls. The effect is emphatically

portrayed in the picture window to the west where the architect has created a window seat where

the occupants can ‘inhabit the wall’ [fig.13]. The importance of site and the climate as sources of

inspiration is evident in the work of Dualchas but there are environmental factors in the shaping of

their buildings. Dualchas attempt to create good architecture by designing their buildings to this

philosophy which sets up a wonderful architectural language between the contemporary and the

traditional, whilst executing sound ecological design.

Sustainable architecture has always been viewed as an architectural style where there is a

preconceived aesthetic association with that of an ugly building. If good design does not require

environmentalism to be sustainable then why do it? Upon reflecting on the Straw Bale house,

sustainable aestheticism plays a provocative role in the design of the house but it could be regarded

as good design without all the gimmicky gestures riddled throughout. Jones (1998) characterizes a

basic shelter as “primitive buildings constructed by people who are going to occupy them”, adopting

local materials and “basic construction techniques” (p.14) of past traditions. A comparison can be

made between the Straw Bale house and the concept Jones is portraying. Although made to look

eccentrically green, the house does, however, adopt traditional passive measures to minimise

its impact on the planet. Concrete floors help to heat up the internal spaces by exploiting solar

gains and thermal mass. A wood burning stove is placed centrally within the open plan living

space, similar to that of The Shed. The tower is utilized to encourage the stack affect to occur,

ventilating the building naturally. The most effective measure taken by the architects was to use

Fig.13 ‘Inhabited wall’ forms window seat (photograph courtesy of Mary Arnold-Forster)

35

straw bales for the insulation. Over insulating a building will prevent heat loss, conserving as much

energy as possible. Straw bales were used as a traditional building material for housing in the

English countryside many years ago and reapplying the techniques to contemporary architecture

echoes Jones’ philosophy. Although the house does not relate directly to traditional vernacular

architecture Rudofsky (1974) described, the house does exhibit an underlying sustainable design

philosophy similar to that to The Shed. The Straw Bale house could have been an amalgamation

of green design and good architecture if the environmentalism was itself stripped off. The green

‘washing’ has, in many ways, overshadowed the achievements of the architect but what is clear

is that aesthetically pleasing architecture can be achieved if architects stick to the basic principles

of design.

The Shed proves that environmentally friendly housing design is not all about flaunting technology

and bolt-ons. Green design can indeed be a subtle green, using passive design, innovative and local

materials which are easy to source and durable but most importantly, designed to climate and

site. Externally, the appearance of the building is not suggestive of a green building and unlike the

Straw Bale house, does not exhibit any green symbolism. The inspirational and elegant appearance

of the house is a testament to environmentally friendly architecture that has evolved through

time. According to Owen and Devoy (2008), sustainability and architecture are the equivalent

opposite of one and other. Therefore, architecture cannot be ‘architecture’ without sustainable

design and sustainable design cannot be achieved without good architecture, concluding that

“good architecture should be sustainable” (p.13) regardless.

36

CONCLUSION| CAN GREEN DESIGN BE GOOD DESIGN?

“Environmental architecture, in other words, is environmental architectures, a

plurality of appearances with some emphasizing performance over appearance, and

some appearance over performance…” (Hagan 2001 p.4)

This dissertation began with the aim to answer whether the architectural profession failing to

address the environmental question out of fear that it will compromise the aesthetic qualities

of their buildings and if green design can indeed be good design. The purpose was based on

criticisms surrounding practicing architects for not designing, or even acknowledging, the

importance of sustainable design and how some pioneering green projects have been ridiculed on

their aesthetic ambitions. Unquestionably, the current understanding of the topic has distorted

the idea of sustainable architecture. Sustainable design is filled with contradiction as opposed to

consistency. The aesthetic agenda, which is at the core of architectural practices, has resulted in

architects not taking sustainable design seriously. Consequently, this is causing a negative impact

on the profession, especially when architects have an ethical responsibility to address the global

environmental problem. The reason behind this disparity between the philosophical acceptance

and the application of sustainable design emerged through the research. A number of myths have

put a dark cloud over the industry, but these myths were proven to be just that.

During the study, it became apparent that sustainable design had an association with a particular

aesthetic, the ‘green aesthetic’ (McLennan 2004), which was critiqued for being gimmicky.

Case studies were the methodology for this inquiry which was used to back up the argument

around existing literature. The expressive nature of some sustainable buildings, regarded as

environmentalism, have seen the shift away from architecture being an art driven subject to

37

a more scientific discipline, where architects focused on the narrow technical and regulatory

strategies (Schnellenberger and Norhaus 2004). As a result sustainable buildings were branded as

“crude and ugly” (Buchannan 2005 p13) and some often discussed it as propaganda. The Straw

Bale House by Till and Wigglesworth explicitly demonstrated the existence of a green aesthetic,

exhibiting the characteristics of “green washing” Owen and Dovey (2008) identified. The house

shows off many of its green credentials by leaving all recycled materials on show as decoration.

Aestheticism in sustainable design has subjected the profession to a marketing exercise where

many use sustainable indicators for the sake of symbolizing their green intent. The aesthetics

of sustainable design are used to reflect the concept of sustainability, forsaking the existing

relationship architects have with architecture and aesthetics, creating a divide between good

architecture and sustainable architecture.

However, Rebecca Henn writes:

“Sustainability needs to be seen in our profession less than a technological fix reserved

for spec writers and engineers. Instead, it should be seen as our responsibility to society…

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…”

(Proefrock 2008)

This, without doubt, is a more truthful depiction of the architect’s role in architecture and the

importance of aesthetics in sustainable design. An architect is a problem solver whereby aesthetics

is one of the challenges but sustainability is actually another that needs to be resolved. Sustainable

design should indeed be regarded as a process of designing good buildings (Willis and Fry 1999)

and not a stylistic endeavour. Architecture can be regarded as a product of sustainability, where

38

sustainability is about creating good architecture rather than sustainability being a by-product

of architecture. Sustainable Design should be regarded a combining the technical with the non-

technical aspects of architecture therefore, becoming a holistic approach to design.

By viewing sustainable design as a holistic approach to design that aims to produce good

architecture, there is greater potential for it being accepted in the mainstream of contemporary

architecture. When you consider the work of Dualchas, in particular The Shed, it is clear how the

perceptions on green architecture can be altered. The elegant house takes its inspiration from

the land and the local vernacular. Based on a traditional Scottish Blackhouse, the house does

not outwardly exhibit any green symbolism. However, similar to the Straw Bale house, it adopted

recycled materials as part of the envelope. The treatment here is more discreet and subtle making

Mary’s house one that has learned from the past by acknowledging how past techniques, although

abstracted here, can indeed be viewed as sustainable design. The house has not been branded

as sustainable architecture but ‘Scottish Contemporary Architecture’ which demonstrates how

green labelling has created the division between the two. The existence of a sustainable design

philosophy, extensively argued by McLennan (2004), is in many aspects just a design philosophy

for good design. Perhaps taking its origins from Vitruvius and early design theories, the principles

set out by the Vales (1991) are no different to what any good architect should be designing to

regardless of whether a sustainable agenda is part of a brief. Sustainable design is a burden for

some or an inspiration for others but for Mary Arnold-Forster (Appendix 1) it is just the way an

architect should always design.

So is the architectural profession failing to address sustainability based on the aesthetic barrier?

Simply put, no. Some may be and many are perhaps tackling sustainable design but in the wrong

way. This has led to sustainable design being abused. The approach taken by some is a technical

39

one which does not appear to address the fundamental issues identified by the Vales (1991).

Many still assume that the incorporation of technologies themselves is enough to be regarded as

sustainable design. However, there are those who are designing to basic principles of good design

and achieving environmentally friendly architecture by responding to climatic conditions found on

the site, using quality or recycled materials that are locally sourced and providing a comfortable,

and affordable, home for the occupants whilst producing beautiful architecture that people will

admire for years to come. It is not that one approach is wrong and one is right, they are both doing

the same job, however the problem is when gimmicks are used without thought for the cause. By

branding sustainable design as a product of environmentally friendly architecture has added an

unnecessary debate on aesthetics. For this reason houses such as The Shed have not been tagged

as being a green piece of architecture but it is perhaps as environmentally friendly as the Straw

Bale house in Islington.

The study helped the researcher to realize that sustainable design can be regarded as the

resurrection of good design at a time where many architects have lost their way and adopted a

single minded approach towards tackling sustainable design. The industry has to see architecture

and sustainable design as one entity rather than “serving two masters” (Owen and Dovey 2008 p.1)

and design holistic architecture. The integration of sustainability into the existing design process

will help architects to view sustainable design as an inclusive part of their design practices. It will

prevent some from taking an overly technical route because of a ‘sustainable agenda’, therefore,

dismissing good design, and for others, dismissing sustainability for good design. The use of the

term should no longer be an issue as it is an integral part of what good design is. There may be a

point where instead of saying “this building is sustainable”, we begin to say “that building is a good

piece of architecture”, acknowledging all the components that have come together to make up

the design. Hence, green architecture will be addressed without compromising design quality as

40

sustainability becomes part of the process, which does not remain an exclusive practice.

An opportunity exists for architects to re-evaluate their current practices; develop new ideas and

philosophies; evolve this new paradigm into the next century of design and produce architecture

that is aesthetically pleasing and environmentally responsible. As Hines (2007) concludes:

“Even if we did nothing ourselves, the urgent need for action on climate change

requires that we should all do whatever we can in every project. And if we can

strengthen our knowledge and ability to influence change, by taking action to reduce

our own impact, so much the better…”

41

REFERENCES

BAIN, M. AND LOWENSTEIN, O., 2008. Architecture in Scotland 2006-2008: Building Biographies. Glasgow: The Lighthouse

BARRETT, C., 2004. From Straw Bales to Sandbags. Grand Design Magazines, 10, pp. 46-53

BLYTH, A., 1999. House of Straw. Architectural Design. 210(14) pp.29-34

BUCHANAN, P., 2005. Ten Shades of Green: Architecture and the natural world. New York: The Architectural League of New York

CAMPKIN, B., 2007. Ornament from Grime: David Adjaye’s Dirty House, the architectural ‘aesthetic of the recycling’ and Gritty Brits. The Journal of Architecture. [online] 12(4) pp.367-392 Available From: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13602360701614649 [Accessed 26 October 2009]

CAPPS, K., 2009. Green Building Blues: Is “well-designed green architecture” an oxymoron? [online] Washington D.C: The American Prospect inc. Available from: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=green_building_blues [Accessed 17 March 2009]

CHAPMAN, J. AND GRANT, N., eds. 2007. Designers, Visionaries + other stories. London: Earthscan

DAVEY, P., 2002. The Slick and the Hairy. Architectural Review, 211(1259), pp. 64-68

DEAN, P., 2009. ‘Never mind all that Environmental Rubbish, Get on with your Architecture’ [online] London: John Wiley & Sons ltd. Available from: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122325565/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 [Accessed 22 October 2009]

DICKENS, P., 1993. Architecture as Commodity Fetishism: Some cautionary comments on ‘green design’. Housing Studies [online] 8(2) pp. 148-152. Available from: http://dz.doi.org/10.1080/02673039308720257 [Accessed 18 October 2009]

DUALCHAS BUILDING DESIGN, 2009. Dualchas Building Design. [online] Scotland: Dualchas Building Design. Available From: http://www.dualchas.com/index.php [Accessed 10 October 2009]

DUNSTER, B. Et al. 2008. The Zed Book. Oxon: Taylor & Francis

EDNIE, C., 2008. Skye’s the limit for Arnold-Forster. [online] London: Times Newspapers Ltd. Available From: http://property.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/property/new_homes/article4132784.ece [Accessed 12 October 2009]EDWARDS, B., 1999. Sustainable Architecture: European directives and building design. second edition. MA: Reed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd

ELSEVIER, 2007. An Interview with Susannah Hagan, author of ‘Taking Shape’. [online] UK:Elsevier inc. Available from: http://books.elsevier.com/uk/content/item.asp?country=United+Kingdom&community=architecturalpress&contentitemid=1747&mscssid=GN71B5R9SGP68KUF96D5ARB1K95XBCJ5 [Accessed 27 September 2009]

FRY, T., 2001. The state of designing the ability to sustain. [online] Queensland: Team DES. Available From:

42

http://www.teamdes.com.au/pdf_files/Abilityt.pdf [Accessed 10 October 2009]

FULLER, R. et al., 2008. The ethics of sustainable housing design: The dilemma for practicing Architects. Architectural Science Review, 51 (3), pp.231-238

GLANCEY, J., 2001. What does green mean? [online] UK: Guardian News and media Ltd. Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2001/aug/04/arts.highereducation2 [Accessed 16 March 2001]

GUY, S., AND MOORE, S., 2007. Sustainable Architecture and the Pluralist Imagination. Journal of Architectural Education. [online] 60(4). Available from:http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/117990646/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 [Accessed 21 October 2009]

HAGAN, S., 2001. Taking Shape: A new contract between architecture and nature. Oxford: Architectural Press

HANSON, H., AND KNUDSTRUP, M., 2005. The Integrated Design Process- A more holistic approach to sustainable architecture. [online] Alborg: Alborg University. Available from: www.aod.aau.dk/staff/htrh/SB05papermedbilleder.pdf [Accessed 11 October 2009]

HARTMAN, H., 2007. A subtle green. Architects Journal, 8th November, pp.38-39

HAWTHORNE, C., 2001. The case for a Green Architecture. [online] New York: Metropolis Magazine. Available from: http://www.metropolismag.com/html/content_1001/grn/index_c.html [Accessed 2 March 2009]

HINES, J., 2007. Navigating the Green Moral Maze. [online]London: Building Design. Available From http://www.bdonline.co.uk/contacts.asp?navcode=3323 [Accessed 27 September 2009]

HOSEY, L., 2007. The good, the bad...where is the design in sustainable design? Architecture, 96(4), p.43

HUONG, H. AND SOEBARTO, V., 2003. Gaps in understanding Sustainable Housing: Case study in Adelaide and Hanoi. Architectural Science Review, 46 (4), pp.369-374

JONES, D.L., 1998. Architecture and the Environment: Bioclimatic Building Design. New York: The Overlook Press

KEEPING, M. AND SHIERS, D., 2004. Sustainable Property Development: A guide to real estate and the environment. Oxford: Blackwell Science

KNIGHT, M., 2008. Sim Van Der Ryn: Pioneer of Green Architecture. [online] USA: Cable News Network. Available from: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/07/03/derryn.interview/index.html [Accessed 17 October 2009]

LUTYENS, D., 2002. Clutching at Straws. [online] UK: Guardian News & Media ltd. Available From: http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2002/jan/13/life1.lifemagazine6 [Accessed 11 October 2009]

MAGADI, S., 2006. Perceptions and Implementation of Sustainable/Green Design in India. Unpublished MSc thesis, College of Technology Eastern Michigan University. [online] Available From: https://dspace.emich.edu:8443/dspace/bitstream/1970/188/2/thes_MS_06_MagadiS_1.pdf [Accessed 3 October 2009]

McCOLL ARCHITECTS. 2009. McColl Architects. [online] Aberdeen: McColl Architects. Available From: http://www.mccollarchitects.com/default.aspx [Accessed 21 October 2009]

McDONOUGH, W., 2003. Foreword to Big and Green. [online] Virginia: William A. McDonough. Available From:

43

http://www.mcdonough.com/writings/bigandgreen_foreword.htm [Accessed 10 October 2009]

McDONOUGH, W., 2004. Twenty-First Century Design. [online] Virginia: William A. McDonough. Available from: http://www.mcdonough.com/writings/21st.htm [Accessed 8 October 2009]

McDONOUGH, W., AND BRAUNGART, M., 2002. Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the way we make things. New York: North Point Press

MCLENNAN, J., 2004. The Philosophy of Sustainable Design. Missouri: Ecotone LLC

OWENS, S., 2003. Is there a meaningful definition of sustainability? Plant Genetic Resources [online] 1(1). pp.5-9 Available from: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=6&fid=999396&jid=&volumeId=&issueId=&aid=940904 [Accessed 10 March 2009]

OWEN, C. AND DOVEY, K., 2008. Fields of Sustainable Architecture. The Journal of Architecture. [online] 13(1). Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13602360701865373 [Accessed 21 October 2009]

PAPANEK, V., 1995. The Green Imperative: Ecology and Ethics on Design and Architecture. GB:Thames and Hudson

PEVSNER, N., 1943. An Outline of European Architecture. Middlesex: Penguin Books.

PREFROCK, P., 2008. Green Architecture versus Great Architecture. [online] California: Green Building Elements. Available from: http://greenbuildingelements.com/2008/05/05/green-architecture-versus-great-architecture [Accessed 20 March 2009]

PORTEOUS, C., 2002. The new eco-Architecture: alternatives from the modern movement. London: Spon Press

ROBINSON, J., 2008. Barriers to Green Design. [online] New York: University of Buffalo. Available From: http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jr94/John%20Robinson%20Barriers%20to%20Green%20Design%20Proposal_files/John%20Robinson%20Barriers%20to%20Green%20Design%20Proposal.pdf [Accessed 5 October 2009]

RUDOFSKY, B., 1974. Architecture without Architects. UK: Academy Editions

SARAH WIGGLESWORTH ARCHITECTS, 2009a. Stock Orchard Street: Information Page. [online] London: Sarah Wigglesworth Architects. Available From: http://www.swarch.co.uk/ [Accessed 10 October 2009]

SARAH WIGGLESWORTH ARCHITCTS, 2009b. 9/10 Stock Orchard Street: fact File & Credits. [online] London: Sarah Wigglesworth Architects. Available From: www.swarch.co.uk/PROJECTS/type2/Project4/sos information.pdf [Accessed 10 October 2009]

SEIBOLD-BULTMANN, U., 2007. What does Sustainability look like? Green Architecture as an aesthetic proposition. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews. 32(1) pp. 3-6

SELL, C., 2009. ‘Don’t scrap 2016 zero-carbon target,’ urges UK-GBC. Architects Journal, 229 (11), p5

SHELLEBBERGER, M. AND HORDHAUS, T., 2004. The Death of environmentalism. [online] Oakland: The Breakthrough Institute. Available From: http://www.thebreakthrough.org/PDF/Death_of_Environmentalism.pdf [Accessed 18 October 2009]

SHIERS, D., 2000. ‘Green’ Developments: Environmentally responsive buildings in the UK commercial property

44

sector. Property Management. [online] 18(5). pp. 352-365. Available From: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do;jsessionid=6A324C70DB74C97B44FA8F76F65CD4CD?contentType=Article&contentId=845511 [Accessed 18 October 2009]

SLESSOR, C., 2001. Revolting Suburbs. Architectural Review, 1252. pp. 75-77

SOANE, J., 2003. New Home: Architecture and Design. London:Conran Octopus Limited

STANG, A. AND HAWTHORNE, C., 2005. Green, With a high gloss. [online] LA: The Los Angeles Times. Available From: http://www.latimes.com/features/printedition/home/la-hm-chexcerpt30jun30,0,730483.story [Accessed 26 October 2009]

STEEN, A. Et al. 1994. The Straw Bale House. Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing Company

STRATI, R., 2003. Sarah Wigglesworth and Jeremy Till: The house of straw. [online] Floormate. Available From: http://www.floornature.com/articoli/articolo.php?id=189&sez=3&tit=Sarah-Wigglesworth-and-Jeremy-Till%3Cbr%3EThe-house-of-straw,-London-2001 [Accessed 19 October]

SUDJIC, D., 2001. The Straw Bale House. Domus. 843. pp.65-75

SUDJIC, D., 1996. A house in the country. UK: The Guardian newspaper, 2 June, p7

TAYLOR, B. AND DUNGAVELL, I., 2009. Can modern architecture be truly sustainable? Building Design, 1858, p9

THACKARA, J., 2007. Foreward. In: CHAPMAN, J. AND GRANT, N., eds. 2007. Designers, Visionaries + other stories. London: Earthscan. pp. xvi-xviii

THOMAS, R., 2003. Sustainable Urban Design: An Environmental Approach. London: Spoon Press

TOZER, W., 2006. Wigglesworth Till- House of Straw. [online]. London: William Tozer. Available From: http://williamtozer.blogspot.com/ [Accessed 15 October 2009]

VALE, B. and VALE, R., 1991. Green Architecture: Design for a sustainable future. London: Themes & Hudson

VAN DER RYN, S. AND COWEN, S., 1996. Ecological Design. Washington D.C: Island Press

WEINSTEIN, N., 2008. Green Architecture’s new goal: Stylish Sustainability. [online] South Africa: Green Building. Available from: http://www.greenbuilding.co.za/index.php/Vol-2-Issue-8/Green-Architectures-New-Goal-Stylish-Sustainability.html [Accessed 17 March 2009]

WHITELY, N., 2002. Reyner Banham: Historian of the Immediate Future. Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

WILHIDE, E., 2002. ECO: An essential sourcebook for environmentally friendly design and decoration. London: Quadrille

WILLIS, A., 2000. The Limits of Sustainable Architecture. [online] Queensland: Team DES. Available From: http://www.teamdes.com.au/pdf_files/Limits%20Arch.pdf [Accessed 23 October 2009]

WILLIS, A. AND FRY, T., 1999. Undoing the Relation: Image, Sustainability and Architecture. [online] Queensland: Team

45

DES. Available from: http://esvc000439.wic044u.server-web.com/pdf_files/Undoing.pdf [Accessed 17 October 2009]

WINES, J., 2000a. The Art of Architecture in the Age of Ecology in Brown, F., and Pelletier, M., eds., Sustainable Architecture: White Papers. New York: Earth Pledge Foundation

WINES, J., 2000b. Green Architecture. Milan: Taschen

WTAD. 2009. William Tozer Architecture and Design. [online] London:WTAD. Available From: http://www.wtad.co.uk/ [Accessed 21 October 2009]

46

APPENDIX

47

APPENDIX ONE

Interview Transcript

Mary Arnold-Forster | Dualchas Building Design | 15 October 2009

Are clients aware of the importance of sustainable design?

Clients come with a notion of sustainable design. They all come in saying they want something green no one

comes in ever saying I want to burn a lot of fossil fuels but beyond that it can veer very quickly into ‘they’ve

read a lot about ground source heat pumps’. A lot of people have read about them or they’ve been to some

technical show and think that sustainable deign is if you buy lots of bits, If you put all this kit together that’ll

do it and my view is that there is much more to it than that.

Mostly our clients are private individuals so they’re really tunes into their egos and what they want. Luckily

I’m interesting in the concept of home, what home means to different people. It varies a lot really... but really

they’re totally selfish about what they’re doing-and fair enough they’re building a house for themselves and

I’m just helping them.

...so sustainable design, when they say they’re saving the environment, they really want to save themselves

some money...quite often. I don’t have a problem with that. I certainly wanted it here (the shed), to combine

those two things and there a better scheme in Harris called the blue reef. They’re like fully hobbit houses

stuck in the hill and very, very, very profitable and economic. I have a few clients come in and say ‘I really

want that, it’s really green, it’s really sustainable’-but what they really know is that it’s made an a lot of

money-‘We want to building on our land some holiday lets but are very green’. They see it as a marketing

tool. So that’s deeply cynical in a way but totally understandable because it’s such a buzz word.

So the importance of sustainable design, you can define in many ways. My argument is lets step back and

look at the brief and the site and sustainable design will be part of that.

I have people coming in here saying: ‘I’ll have a version of your house, I’ll take of that and squash it there

and that’ll do...’ Its literally cut and paste and that’s really dangerous this is where I live and that view is

48

particular. I live a certain way and they don’t so they think if you if just find an architect whose interested

in these things about climate and place...all the technical stuff should just be absolutely given, its not even

worth discussing. They always want to talk about insulation materials and I always draw them the same

chart which is the greenest material, which is probably sheep’s wool, then its warm cellulose, then there’s

Rockwool, then you go down to these dense insulations like foams and the most horrible is fibreglass. So the

cheaper the material the worse it is. So its like food-organic food is much better. After drawing they typically

say: ‘oh I can’t afford the greenest, so everyone goes somewhere in the middle but they love to get down

into the technical detail of insulation. I’m sure they’ve been to shows and things but I try and pull back from

that and find out what they mean by ‘home’ and ‘place’ and why they want to be there.

Some draw lots of things as well and that’s interesting as a drawing from a client is the start of a brief not

a conclusion...

What are the various challenges faced during the process of designing a sustainable building?

There are no design challenges or technical challenges that a good architect can’t resolve. The challenges

are managing the expectations of the clients. Even the process of getting it built, with the authorities, it just

your job. The mistake of employing bad builders because they’re cheaper-that’s my mistake. To work with a

good builder is important.

...The technical challenges, trying to persuade clients to have a wider view of sustainable design. I think

we’re getting to world where we no longer control our things. For example, to be able to push the shutters,

to be able to have the stove on and the shutters closed, or stove off and shutters open. And the lights on and

the solar panels working and blinds and things. You can control your environment and I think that’s a good

thing. We’ve got to a stage where you can go into a room and switch a button and the right music comes on

and then the right lights and then all the shutters close. Some mechanism decides for you. Particularly here,

where the weather changes all the time, you don’t have seasons you just have different weather. If you have

no control over your environment, then I think that detaches you from the environment. So I’m pretty much

against too much mechanisation and things. I’m against too much electronics in buildings...

How would you define sustainable design?

49

Ehe...that’s a terrible question...

I think you have to start with a very sensible and subtle appreciation for your place that develops into a

solution that works but lifts the sprits at the same time.

Does such a thing as a green aesthetic exist, considering press coverage?

Yes it does but it doesn’t help. I don’t think it helps people to do good buildings.

Discuss the importance of aesthetics in terms of sustainable design.

If your an architect you will be concerned with it...it’s one of your jobs, dealing with aesthetics...

Very, very occasionally my client says: ‘cant I have a round window there or cant I just to this...’ I have my,

it sounds pompously, responsibility to you and your brief-and I take that very seriously- but I also have

responsibility to the people who have to look at this in the landscape it fits in. Aesthetics is also a part of my

job. I does sound pompous doesn’t it...

So yes, for me it’s part of my job. I don’t have any time for decoration

Opinions on Till and Wigglesworth house in London

Oh Sarah Wigglesworth, she was a couple of years above me at uni. She’s quite...em...what’s the word...

she’s quite conscience of PR, she’s quite measured in who she works. I think what she did was very clever

and innovative, aimed at some kind of publicity. For me, I find it too fruity. It not my thing but on the other

hand I do admire her for raising the debate. Decoration and green architecture, here, I don’t think that

matters as it gets people talking about it. It a bit like the Scottish parliament in a way. It doesn’t matter its

not quite your architecture but it makes people start talking about modern architecture, which in Scotland

is about time to, coming to Scotland to see modern architecture and not castles. The content of what they

are doing (Till and Wigglesworth) is ok, its not my thing, but does that matter, it just opens a debate which

is absolutely about time.

50

In terms of architects doing what they want...I hate architects who want to leave their mark on buildings...

someone else has to live with it. Who do do think they are? The client and their brief is impotent. How would

you feel if you got up every morning to see some quirky detail or feature that you didn’t like?...all because

the architect wanted to put it in.

What is your opinion on ‘eco bling’?

The more ‘eco-bling’, the harder I become. I just want to do one material. Today I managed to convince a

client to use wood and thought that was a triumph...to get rid of a stupid bay window and to get rid of a

bit of decoration. Simplify it, reduce and reduce. We are doing rain screen buildings where we even hide the

gutters and downpipes...it’s all about form and landscape.

Is there such a thing as a sustainable design philosophy?

Think about it! Does that count as a philosophy?

I’ve found the Highland Housing fair and the idea of a generic...architects are really really difficult. I just

can’t do it. I don’t know it’s a failing on my behalf or if I’ve just been really lucky to work with these amazing

sites.

I have to come back to my own philosophy. You have to know everything about every aspect of where you

choose to build. Really study it before you start. It’s really tempting to start sketching away immediately

but if you can really resist that and really study your place in every detail...in terms of its micro climate, its

geology, its cultural context, in terms of its history.

Is the architectural profession failing to address the environmental question out of fear that it will

compromise the aesthetic qualities of their buildings?

I don’t think its failing to address it. I think its addressing it in the wrong way...in a technical way...that’s all.

51

There’re plenty of architects, like in any profession, who are just fed up. It’s difficult to make a living so you

just take shortcuts and go for the easiest option. Let their clients design buildings. I’m always saying to

others...it’s a real sensitive subject...but generally you’re the ones who should be designing not the client.

The architect’s profession is just failing in terms of small buildings. I think it’s failing because its tired. A lot

of architects don’t even address aesthetics in some way or if they do, they’ve missed it...if you ask me there

are a lot of architects who haven’t got to the stage of compromising their aesthetic qualities. If you as me,

they’ve blown that anyway. A lot of architects wouldn’t like what we do...

52

APPENDIX TWO

E-mail Questionnaire

William Tozer | William Tozer Architecture & Design | 27 October 2009

Are clients aware of the importance of sustainable design?

I’m not sure that architects really have a clear idea of what sustainable design means, let alone our clients.

There are so many ways to look at the issue, and far too many of the widely held beliefs on the subject are

the result of unconnected thinking. Solar panels and wind turbines on individual houses are a very small

part of the issue but are very easy for people to grasp, whereas larger issues such as building density,

insulation, and efficient heating and cooling are too abstract for people to understand - they can’t be

photographed, and so they are outside of most people’s consciousness. An individual or single family living

in a house constructed of salvaged materials, collecting their own rainwater, generating their own electricity

and growing their own vegetables makes a good television programme or newspaper article, but does not

offer many lessons for how we can provide for the entire population sustainably.

What are the various challenges faced during the process of designing a sustainable building?

There is not much that an architect working on an individual project can do to affect the major issues

affecting sustainability, which are essentially infrastructural, and British building regulations actually require

a fairly high standard of things like insulation and heating efficiency in the design of individual buildings.

Designing buildings efficiently makes a contribution to improving density, and making the most of natural

light can reduce reliance upon artificial lighting and heating.

How would you define sustainable design?

Sustainable design should be the norm, not the exception, so the best things that an architect can do to

contribute to sustainability are the same things that other people can do - lobbying their local and central

53

governments to generate energy from renewable sources on a large scale, develop extensive public transport

systems, and legislate for building density and issues such as insulation and efficient heating and cooling.

Does such a thing as a green aesthetic exist, considering press coverage?

There is a widespread perception of a ‘green’ aesthetic, which comprises features such as timber, curves

and even the colour green, which in fact bear no relation to sustainability. As with all design issues, there

are some ‘wrong’ answers, but an infinite number of ‘right’ answers, so sustainable architecture should not

result in a particular aesthetic.

Discuss the importance of aesthetics in terms of sustainable design.

As Above

What is your opinion on ‘eco bling’?

Our view has long been that a supposed ‘green agenda’ is all too often used as a marketing tool by architects,

and results in visual gimmickry, or the token use of technologies such as photovoltaic cells and wind turbines

.

Is there such a thing as a sustainable design philosophy?

As Above

54

APPENDIX THREE

Interview Transcript

Colin McColl | McColl Architects | Aberdeen | 27 October 2009

Are clients aware of the importance of sustainable design?

They are aware, I think, of the media interpretation of sustainability but what they’re not aware of is truly

what that means. Everybody now uses that word ‘sustainability’ but its quite a veneer. So I would say no

to what actual sustainable design means, unless they are well informed, generally clients are needed to be

educated.

What are the various challenges faced during the process of designing a sustainable building?

That links with the first question. Its education because often you are having to make a capital investment at

the start which is always going to be higher than the cheapest way it build it but you should be able to get

a payback on that commercially over the lifespan of the building. It takes longer to design it. You need more

consultants involved. You have the right people at the right point and there is a cost to that. I think that is

one of the biggest challenges really. Once you can break down that, the building will actually just happen.

And then the more and more of them there are, that will drive the cost down. At the moment you pay a

premium but as more and more buildings are ‘sustainably’ designed they become the norm and that’s the

biggest challenge of all.

How would you define sustainable design?

Sustainable design isn’t just about bolting on solar panels. You have to think about it from first principles,

in my view. What do you as an architect bring to the table through your instinct, your knowledge, your

experience on how a building is placed on a site, its relationship to orientation...passive principles which you

have been trained in. Instinctively good designers are often sustainable. From that you can apply technology

55

in an integrated way...working with the parti or diagram of the building to continue to refine that whole

process. So there’s no bolt-ons, its just part of it.

Does such a thing as a green aesthetic exist, considering press coverage?

Ye I think there is. If you’re doing a building, certainly in recent times where it’s got wind towers or solar

collectors, using atria space, solar shading...all these things are in a way using passive design measures to

maximise the building and to minimise your M&E impact. They do carry an aesthetic with them. I would

argue that, that aesthetic has been to expressive. In reference to Bedzed... I don’t think that. That couldn’t

be designed as minimalist sustainability. If you take a Terry Pawson, or John Pawson. So there is an aesthetic

but its like any movement, green-ism, it would cover all sorts of different strands. I think there is a place

for every approach to architecture, integrating sustainable for your region and it doesn’t have to have that

gimmicky appearance. I personally think its becoming an icon for the movement and I think there is a danger

of people being turned of it. Not everybody wants a BedZED approach but there is plenty opportunity not to

design it like that. They [BedZED] should be commended for what they do...I’m not criticising.

To the question...Yes in a nutshell but just at its beginning of its life.

Discuss the importance of aesthetics in terms of sustainable design.

Its crucial. You as an architect have to have a first principle obligation to that core understating of

sustainability. Aesthetics is a personal preference...you will always have people who like it and dislike it.

Aesthetics are important if you have any interest in being an architect but like in any profession, there are

some that may not aspire to the aesthetic top end. You can’t just say a building is aesthetically pretty and

that’s good enough. There is so many facets to it. You have to justify sustainability, aesthetics, commerce,

time, quality and cost. It’s a big equation to get right but it has to be part of it.

What is your opinion on The Straw Bale house by Sarah Wigglesworth?

I think it’s an experiment and it was revolutionary when it was going on and at the time, it was so unusual

56

but now, 10 years later, it is not as unusual a building as it was. You see mainstream television programs

covering that type of architecture and its in the media more, it’s in the press.

It was an extremely brave thing to do and you have to put your hat off to them.

Aesthetically you can say... ‘oh that looks like a green house’ if your thinking old hat, but we need to move

this conversation on as your doing. We have to commend it actually.

What is your opinion on ‘eco bling’?

‘Eco-Bling’ is false. Bling is for show and it it’s only for show then therefore superficial and transient. These

items of passive design need to be found in aesthetics which is founded in your principles, which you obviously

have a sustainable core. ‘Eco-Bling’ is just nonsense. You can quote me on that...It’s just a pointless thing

Is there such a thing as a sustainable design philosophy?

I think there is and it exists already. It has to be a core part of your thinking. I think that classic architectural

thinking in the last 100 years is sustainable in its nature because your taught about how to design a building

well, how to orientate your building, how to maximise the site...If you add on top of that your ever expanding

knowledge of technology and materials, they can just become part of that guiding instinct that you had

nurtured as a student of architecture and then in practice.

So classic western architecture training is inherently a sustainable way of thinking.

Is the architectural profession failing to address the environmental question out of fear that it will

compromise the aesthetic qualities of their buildings?

No. I think the architectural profession is actively perusing a sustainable agenda however, it’s not going to

be achieve any time soon...I think

I think there are not engaging with it in the right way. I think that there are many not engaging in it at all,

57

choosing to ignore it.

The wider profession are aware that things have to change so ultimately it will.