REIMAGINING THE ARCHITECT
INSIGHT
REIMAGINING THE ARCHITECT
The role of designers in a world where less is more
It’s a radical idea: that to negate the environmental damage of construction, we don’t just need to build sustainably, we need to build less. However, most architects and building designers earn a living by doing exactly the opposite: by building stuff. So how can the design practice be reinvented for a world in which we need to do more with much, much less? By Lenny Antonelli
N
ew York architect Clare Miflin likes to tell a story about an engineer she knows. The engineer was consulting for a leading university, who were keen to build a new, green ‘net zero’ building on campus. The engineer told the university that if they just made some timetable tweaks, they wouldn’t need the new building at all — they could fit all their lectures into existing classrooms. But the university had a donor, and the donor was keen to see their name on this new green building. So, the building went ahead. In this climate constrained world, Miflin
76 | passivehouseplus.ie | issue 48
says, there must be a better way. “We have to start rewarding different things, rewarding things that add value,” she says. “We want jobs, but we don’t want to use physical resources. Could architects be paid in a different way?” Emerging thinking says that the climate and ecological crises are so profound that ‘sustainable building’ is no longer sufficient — instead, we should question the merit of new buildings, make better use of existing space, prioritise retrofit. ‘New’ should be our last resort. This is reflected in new initiatives
from the likes of ARUP and the World Green Building Council, and more recently, articles in leading magazines. Last year, UK housing secretary Michael Gove refused Marks & Spencer permission to demolish their flagship Oxford Street Store in London, partly because demolition would, he wrote, “fail to support the transition to a low carbon future, and… fail to encourage the reuse of existing resources” (this decision was later overturned by the High Court). For those working in building design, the idea of building less raises critical questions: