Architecture by nature is a destructive force. The process of architectural creation inevitably requires the loss of something in exchange, whether it be trees, the earth, or even culture. The question becomes whether we can minimize this destruction to a point where it becomes sustainable.
This is the first part in what I hope will be a series of ongoing posts that look at the state of the world and the role that architecture, and specifically ruralARTIFACTS, plays in it. So let's start with the definition of sustainability. Immediately we begin to see that this is a tricky thing to define. The words "sustainable" and "green" have become overused, and as such have developed different meanings and nuances to everyone that uses the terms. A Google search on the term sustainable returns 61 million hits. The best definition I have found to date is from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
...of, relating to, or being a method of harvesting or using a resource so that the resource is not depleted or permanently damaged.
When this concept is applied to architecture, most people immediately think of bamboo and solar panels. But sustainability in architecture goes well beyond the selection of appropriate materials. Sustainable architecture should meet the needs of the present without compromising future generations to meet their own needs. Those needs differ from society to society and region to region and are best defined by local communities. Sustainability, therefore, begins small: it starts with the site, the surrounding ecosystem, and the local economy. From there the effects balloon outwards as we ask the questions: where did this material come from? How much CO2 was generated to get it here? Were people and resources exploited in its production? What effect does it have on global warming?
Pretty quickly we start to see, as with politics, local architecture can have global effects. Another way to look at is to compare architecture to the locavore movement. A locavore is one who eats food that is locally produced and not moved great distances to markets. The intent: sustaining local farmers while reducing carbon emissions and global warming. While this has sprung up as a relatively new movement, one could argue that until the 20th century and the advent of corporate farms, this was essentially how people ate. Likewise with architecture. Traditionally, buildings were constructed utilizing materials that were harvested or taken from within a reasonable radius of the project site. Nails and fasteners were forged at the local smithy. Labor was provided by local workers. The result: indigenous architecture that responded to the climate and culture while maintaining a relatively small carbon footprint. (I am speaking generally here. Certainly the 6 foot diameter, 54 foot long stone columns quarried in Vinalhaven, Maine and shipped by boat to St. John the Divine in New York City don't qualify.)
With ruralARTIFACTS we started by thinking conceptually about local architecture and local culture. We extended this to local materials and site suitability. To this we layered local labor which feeds local economies.
That is not to say that this concept is without flaws. If a Canadian window that is 4 times as efficient as the one made locally can cut our energy use in half, is that a fair trade-off? Is a locally milled wood that is not certified as "responsibly managed" as good as an FSC product from South America? We are constantly considering these questions and they continue to inform our design decisions. But this is only part of the equation...
This is the first part in what I hope will be a series of ongoing posts that look at the state of the world and the role that architecture, and specifically ruralARTIFACTS, plays in it. So let's start with the definition of sustainability. Immediately we begin to see that this is a tricky thing to define. The words "sustainable" and "green" have become overused, and as such have developed different meanings and nuances to everyone that uses the terms. A Google search on the term sustainable returns 61 million hits. The best definition I have found to date is from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
...of, relating to, or being a method of harvesting or using a resource so that the resource is not depleted or permanently damaged.
When this concept is applied to architecture, most people immediately think of bamboo and solar panels. But sustainability in architecture goes well beyond the selection of appropriate materials. Sustainable architecture should meet the needs of the present without compromising future generations to meet their own needs. Those needs differ from society to society and region to region and are best defined by local communities. Sustainability, therefore, begins small: it starts with the site, the surrounding ecosystem, and the local economy. From there the effects balloon outwards as we ask the questions: where did this material come from? How much CO2 was generated to get it here? Were people and resources exploited in its production? What effect does it have on global warming?
Pretty quickly we start to see, as with politics, local architecture can have global effects. Another way to look at is to compare architecture to the locavore movement. A locavore is one who eats food that is locally produced and not moved great distances to markets. The intent: sustaining local farmers while reducing carbon emissions and global warming. While this has sprung up as a relatively new movement, one could argue that until the 20th century and the advent of corporate farms, this was essentially how people ate. Likewise with architecture. Traditionally, buildings were constructed utilizing materials that were harvested or taken from within a reasonable radius of the project site. Nails and fasteners were forged at the local smithy. Labor was provided by local workers. The result: indigenous architecture that responded to the climate and culture while maintaining a relatively small carbon footprint. (I am speaking generally here. Certainly the 6 foot diameter, 54 foot long stone columns quarried in Vinalhaven, Maine and shipped by boat to St. John the Divine in New York City don't qualify.)
With ruralARTIFACTS we started by thinking conceptually about local architecture and local culture. We extended this to local materials and site suitability. To this we layered local labor which feeds local economies.
That is not to say that this concept is without flaws. If a Canadian window that is 4 times as efficient as the one made locally can cut our energy use in half, is that a fair trade-off? Is a locally milled wood that is not certified as "responsibly managed" as good as an FSC product from South America? We are constantly considering these questions and they continue to inform our design decisions. But this is only part of the equation...
