WRITING "SUSTAINABILITY" INTO ARCHITECTURE

The threat of climate change is a growing concern within the architectural community. Calls to action such as the Green New Deal and 2050 Imperative propose the adoption of “sustainable” practices as a response. Certifications provide an authority under which architects can write sustainability into their work. Current multi-attribute building certifications compete with seemingly parallel goals reflecting the calls to action. However, when charting the goals, language, timelines, and means of measurement across the documents, inconsistent messages reveal an incompatibility amongst them.

DOCUMENTS

Certifications provide a way to qualify and quantify issues such as sustainability, while legislation provides broad, large-scale goals. Listed below are two proposed "green" legislative documents and the top five multi-attribute building certifications within the United States in 2020. These documents state intents of sustainability, amongst other goals, but the idea of sustainability is not a completely tangible, objective, or comprehensive in its definition.

How then can architects write sustainability into their work?

PROPOSED LEGISLATION

Green New Deal
“...to invest in the infrastructure and industry of the United States to sustainably meet the challenges of the 21st century.”
2050 Imperative
“we are committed to a truly sustainable and equitable future.”

CURRENT CERTIFICATION

LEED v4.1 2019
“We believe green buildings are the foundation of something bigger: helping people, and the communities and cities they reside in—safely, healthily and sustainably thrive.”
PHUIS v2 2019
“...the PHIUS+ standard just focuses on reducing operating energy... compatible with other green building certification programs and broader sustainability concepts.”
Green Globes 2019
“... evaluate and improve the environmental impact and sustainability of new building projects as well as major renovations.”
LBC v4 2019
“Imagine true sustainability in our homes, workplace, neighborhoods, villages, towns, and cities - Socially Just, Culturally Rich and Ecologically Restorative SM."
BREEAM 2019
“...aims to inspire and empower change by rewarding and motivating sustainability across the life cycle of master-planning projects, infrastructure and buildings.”

ANALYZE

Material and energy imperatives were examined as a way of understanding measurable paradigms of consumption.

Within these documents, goals and initiatives are laid out using specific language, definitions, and forms of measuring. By weaving connections throughout the documents, goals, language, and third parties by which to measure those goals, density of those threads reveals how language is currently defined and valued.

‍*The image above charts the language, third party authorizers, and governing bodies of LEED. The density of lines shows the value held by LEED to address "Global Systems" and "Material Systems" through third-party "Certifications", which are largely governed by the "GBCI'" "EPA" and "EAC". The "GBCI" governing body not only governs the authorizers, but they also are the direct governing body of the document, shown through the dashed line.

VISUALIZE

GLOBAL SYSTEMS
MATTER
MATERIAL SYSTEM

HOW THEN DO ARCHITECTS WRITE "SUSTAINABILITY" INTO THEIR WORK? 

Though "sustainability" is a common goal within these documents, it is not defined in a parallel, coherent manner across multiple goals and scopes. Governing bodies and and third parties hold a powerful role in defining sustainability as well as competing with other legislative and certification documents. In order to write goals, such as sustainability into architectural work, it is important to understand how it is being defined and who influences those definitions. Since a holistic understanding does not yet exist, “sustainability” in itself is an incompatible goal.

‍
‍