thresholds
Money, Molecules, and Design
By
Mark Jarzombek
The connection of
capitalism to architecture is so obvious that one often wonders why it remains
so discretely undiscussed. Is it because this connection is still wrapped in
professional discourses that pretend that money is only the means to an end? Or
is it because we lack the critical discourse on how to properly document and
historicize its diaphanous realities? Whatever the reason, advanced capitalism
has reduced architectural decision-making more and more to the level of gloss.
To lament this as a loss and to evoke some self-righteous “phenomenological”
alternatives would be to ignore the fact of capital in favor of the seductions
of an implausible authenticity. There is something in-between, but what? In recent years, there has been a growing
interest in the project of Sustainability as a site where ethical commitment,
architectural practice, capitalism and good design could come together. But
before one can assess the legitimacy of the new relationship of architecture to
Sustainability, one must study more critically some of its implications,
especially for the architectural academe.
Though there are several historical tracks that one
can take to understand the origins of this movement (some, of course, reaching
back to nineteenth-century efforts to reform the industrialism, others to the
ecology movement of the 1960s), the disciplinary impetus that has propelled
Sustainability into academic focus is rooted in developments that took place in
the Natural Sciences when the ozone hole was first predicted and then actually
discovered. In 1974, Mario Molina and Frank Sherwood Rowland published their
research on the threat to the ozone layer from chlorofluorocarbon gases as used
in spray cans and refrigerators. Using pure molecular logic they predicted that
these chemicals would significantly deplete the ozone layer. Though their work
was largely dismissed by industry, in 1985, scientists discovered that indeed an ozone hole had
opened over the South Pole. This not only proved the accuracy of their work,
but set in place a series of legislative battles that successfully curbed the
use of these gases.
Illus.1
"Gensler-Respond-Respect-Earth"
From
the title block of Gensler and Associates Architects
Sustainability as a general discourse -- but still
drawing from a type of thinking that puts science, ethics and public policy
into direct alignment – in essence holds that there is only so much oxygen only
so much land, and only so much water to go around; since these natural
resources would want to exist in equilibrium, civilization can only change that
equilibrium for the worse. But whereas the actions of man have in the past been
relatively minor in effecting change, they are now on the verge of creating an unalterable
turn for the worse. The problem is measurable on a global scale, which means
that and it is precisely because the problem is global that it is,
finally, measurable. The main culprit
in all this is the mismanagement of agricultural land and the rapid growth of
industry and cities. New Urbanism is loosely connected to Sustainability in
that it too seeks to consolidate land use. But New Urbanism emphasizes design
solutions and community-oriented politics that are not necessarily the primary
focus of Sustainability. Sustainability, rather, emphasizes an environment that
it defines as a world-of-chemicals-in-dynamic-interaction. This “environment,”
since it is seen as something that can be studied at a molecular level, can
thus – according to the principles of Sustainability – be repaired at the
molecular level. Whether it is about CO2 levels, the ozone hole, or the
developments in global warming, we are now a society conscious of these factual
measurements and their possible implications.
Sustainability thus presents nature as a place that
is chemically constructed and therefore humanly malleable. And this means that
Sustainability holds that capitalism and government, just as much as
they are responsible for the problem, alone possess the resources necessary to
research and then deal with something as vast as our global molecular reality.
But the problem, as was made clear in the Rio conference of 199?, is that
national politics is not calibrated according to the dictates of international
molecular needs. To bridge this gap, Sustainability has tried to forge a link
between the molecular cosmos and the universe of commerce. Atoms and money, in
their respective ways, exist in a delicate balance with each used to modify one
another.[1]
One need only recall the interrelationship between the history behind the
prediction of the ozone hole and the history of hairspray. The esoteric and the
common impinge directly on each other!
Illus.
2
Manufacturers
advertisement.
(Buildings,
Jan. 1999)
Sustainability’s mandate for change is thus not based
on our ability to empathize with the oppressed victims of capitalism, nor does
it aspire to some sort of romantically inspired “return to nature.” It thus
marks an important shift from the traditional Enlightenment ideologies that
attempted to effect change through the notion of equality and freedom. Instead,
Sustainability moves from an ostensibly reasoned understanding of the
unalterable course of inanimate atoms to a political geography that reforms the
world from the inside out. As can be expected, these operations are not always
as straightforward as changing the chemicals in hairspray. Established patterns
of land use and industry are difficult to alter, and this means that as
Sustainability becomes ever more involved in the politics-of-change, it becomes
ever more saturated with the problem of hypocrisy. The Center of Excellence in
Sustainable Development, a Project of the U.S. Department of Energy, for
example, is filled with statements that sound great but mean nothing.
“Minnesotans,” we are told, “will act to protect and enhance their
environment.”[2] Even where
Sustainability has shown itself successful, it still often holds to the
rhetoric of some grand compromise. The Sustainability program initiated in
Northampton County, Virginia claims, for example, that it will “develop the
heritage tourism industry while protecting natural and cultural assets;” that
it will “develop seafood and aquaculture industries while protecting water
quality,” and that it will “develop new industries... while protecting sense of
place, quality of life, and the groundwater.” It is precisely this image of
political harmony as an extension of molecular harmony that makes the political
action of Sustainability so successful in bourgeois politics.
Architecture, often the villain in the world view of
Sustainability, has begun over the last decade to find a greater and greater
role in this type of argument. Apart from the architecture of eco-management,
there are two different strands of accommodation: one comes from the direction
of domestic architecture, the other from the direction of corporate
architecture. In regards to the former, there is a growing legion of architects
who specialize in sustainable domestic design. Though some dig into the sides
of hills, using rubber tires, mud and straw, there is a large group of
designers who specialize in design-build projects, green housing projects,
self-sufficiency houses, solar houses, Eco villages, and now, so-called “Health
Houses.” In a few cases, the architectural forms are novel and experimental,
but usually, though some of the materials are new, the forms rely on
traditional spatial conceptions.
Connections between Sustainability and architecture
have also been forged in the world of advanced capital. There, however,
Sustainability is mainly discussed as a question of how to develop
“environmentally responsible,” thermal-control technologies. Increasingly aware
of the impact that large buildings, and entire cities, have on the environment
– but also, and often more importantly, on building cost and public relations –
corporations have begun to think along the lines of their larger “global”
responsibility. The result has been the emergence of a billion-dollar industry
in green-equipment and green-technology. But, just as there has been much
advancement, there has also been a lot of hypocrisy. Is it real change or
business-as-usual when cost-efficiency and public relations are re-defined as
“Sustainability?” (see ill. 2, 3 and 4)
Illus.
3
Manufacturers
advertisement.
(Buildings,
Mar. 1999).
Low-cost populist architecture on the other hand, and
high-cost, heavily researched technical architecture on the one hand, have had
in their various ways an increasingly important and certainly positive impact
on professional practice, but the fact remains that both are remote from the
traditional concerns of the architectural studio. Formulating an
architecture-of-Sustainability that is more compatible with academe has been
slow in coming. Usually issues of sustainability have been applied
retroactively, like other technologies, to the question of design once the
design phase has been completed. William McDonough (UVa), Andrew Scott (MIT)
and Robert Koester (Ball State) are among the people who keep the question of
design in the forefront. But perhaps the best known example of an architecture
of Sustainability that claims compatible with the studio environment can be
found in the work of Thomas Herzog. He not only uses conventional methods of
environmental design (e.g. high spaces to reduce air-conditioning cost), but
also works with manufacturers to design new and sophisticated types of glass
and cooling systems. In regards to the former strategy, Herzog represents all
the attributes of a smart designer. After all, high ceilings and nuance use of
sunlight make just as much sense now as they have for the last thousand years.
They have less to do with sustainability than with the usual issues of design.
In fact, Herzog himself admits that proportion, and even beauty, must be taken
into consideration by the designer. The problem is that Herzog presents himself
less as a designer than as a technical innovator. The monograph that he
published on his work, for example, glorifies the technical proficiency of his office;
in paragraph after paragraph he deals with his solutions to heating,
ventilation, and structure.[3] Like the commercials for 3M Corporation, he
seems to claim, for example, that he didn't invent the glass facade, he “made
it better.”
In recent years, several schools of architecture,
with a technical emphasis similar to Herzog’s, have begun promoting connections
between design, technology, and sustainability by offering courses on such
topics as wind-flow, construction management, waste management, solar heating,
energy-saving lighting systems, and even entrepreneurship. But the ambiguity of
how to match these technological-governmental concerns with design teaching is
only one part of the problem, the other is that Sustainability remains at its
core a political issue, and not just a technological one. The Charter for
Socially Responsible Schools of Architecture, adopted at the 1996 Habitat II
conference in Istanbul, for example, demands a fundamental refashioning of
architectural education.[4]
Schools of architecture are supposed to train students “for local, national and
international political action.” What started as a need for technical
sophistication (tinged by grass roots activism) disguises a possible utopian
revision of academe. Sustainability thus implies a grand narrative, linking
Western-styled technological innovation with third-world cultural politics, the
likes of which have not been seen since the days of the International Style.
These few comments are hopefully sufficient to
outline the fact that Sustainability, as it impacts Western architecture, has
set up at least three different operative political environments: (1) that of
“green architecture” which is an extension of grass roots politics blended with
what I would call Real-Estate Architecture; (2) that of the
corporate-technical, which is an extension and “reform” of the relationship
between political economy and environmental economy; and (3) that of a middle
range architectural practice which is now beginning to include in its purview a
critique and revision of academe. The last is the least explored and the least
developed, with most of the current discussion being generated by technology
advocates. But if Sustainability is to
be more than just a technical fix to the problem of the molecular behavior in
buildings, if it is to be an actual paradigm shift in our geo-political
consciousness, then it is time that we ask some real questions about what
Sustainability in academe will look like. What will be the consequences if the
forces of technology and popular culture unite in redefining the architectural
academe? To help formulate a more critical position toward the dangers of this
possible return of grand narratives, I have broken the topic into the following
categories:
Illus.
4
Advertisement
for a Commercial Credit Firm
(Buildings,
Mar. 1999).
1. The Politics of History
There is a large debate about Sustainability in high
school and college education.5 This fact means that given the amount of
pressure coming from government as Sustainability reaches schools of
architecture, the history textbooks which are now being used, and which usually
emphasize formal-contextual design issues, will have to be dropped from the
curriculum. What will replace them: a history of technology written by
advocates of technology still beholden to some naive evolutionary model of
“progress”? Should we discuss only those buildings that have been designed
“responsibly,” only those which have been proven to have a positive impact on
the natural environment? Even if advances were made in the
history-of-technology, would not the whole endeavor require that the
history-of-architecture be suppressed behind an even more problematic history,
namely the history-of-our-global-survival? Should ethical issues be put on par
with design issues in writing history? Should Herzog be privileged ahead of
Ghery? One faces the daunting question: Who would be authorized to make such
decisions?
2. The Politics of Natural Science
Sustainability has become a central discourse largely
because of the advances made in the Natural Sciences which have created sensors
and devices that record our molecular reality. This means that Sustainability
can only determine progress through the processes of “instrument readings.”
Consequently, Sustainability requires that architecture measure and monitor
itself in order to “prove” that it works.
In other words, architecture is not something that will be built and
appreciated, but built and studied, requiring a new generation of building
inspectors who report back on the successes and failure. Indeed, several of
Herzog’s buildings have been put to such tests. But often we would measure a
building’s impact on the environment by noting the amount of money its owner
saves on electrical bills. Is that the goal? Even if a building is cost
effective in one respect, there are also other important concerns.
Cost-effectiveness allows one to build a house farther out from the city
center, does that not mean, in turn, that one will need more gas to get to work?
Therefore, the nature of cost-effectiveness and its implied “profit” remains an
open-ended question; from a design perspective, a cost-efficient building might
as well be an illusion. Another concern is what happens when the architectural
space is designed in order to be measurable. Herzog’s space already seem to
fall into this category. In fact, in the guesthouse for a school in Windberg
(built between 1987 and 1991), Herzog provided a panel in the lobby that gives
the visitor precise feedback on how the building is performing. It is literally
a machine for living in.
3. Politics of Culture
Sustainability, at its core, is thus a rationalist
project with all the advantages and disadvantages that that entails. This
rationalist tradition is thus an extension of a modernist, functionalist
viewpoint. The difference is that now – unlike in its earlier, internationalist
phase rationalism is now in a mode of self-purification. It is in that sense
meta-rational, as opposed to natively functional. In other words, whereas
earlier functionalism placed the human body at the center of architecture,
Sustainability places the body’s exhausts. In other words, Herzog’s
architecture salvages the most austere form of modernism for technological
revision without critically accounting for the legacy of that form of
modernism. Strictly regimented, Herzog’s buildings offer little alternative to
the Spartan Prussian tradition of German classicism (see ill. 5). Admittedly,
rationalist architecture is a tradition with a lot of pride, but also one with
little tolerance for those who do not fit into its system. One has to question
what happens when energy-efficiency is raised to the level of a cultural
paradigm to the exclusion of other factors.
4. Politics of Gender
Feminists would also see in Herzog's space little
evidence of a true alternative. In fact, for eco-feminists, the problem of
ethics and social practice is not solved by such an insistence on technology.
On the contrary, it is only made worse. Admittedly, eco-feminism may not
provide the profession with an exciting vision of architectural space, but
Herzog’s spaces are not particularly exciting, either. There are work spaces
and preparation space, living spaces and “service spaces.” These distinctions
fail to acknowledge the problematics of gender. My point, however, has to do
with the principle: if ethics are now supposed to be an important component of
architectural education, we must expand the discussion to take into
consideration the question of gender.
The question is not how to design for women, or how to make more
energy-efficient kitchens, but how to make women an equal part of the
professional team. How is this to be achieved in a credible way when Natural
Sciences and technology industries in general are still male-dominated? If
architecture moves in the direction of Natural Sciences, all the advances that
have been made in the past decades will be eradicated unless architects take
vigorous action.
Illus.
5
Plan
by Thomas Herzog
5. The Politics of Capital
The problems of capitalism may seem insignificant
from the perspective of a profession that is trying to find legitimacy for
itself, but they are not insignificant from the perspective of academe.
Architectural academe, especially in the United States, has historically been
remote from the capitalist world. It has traditionally emphasized the primacy
of design over cost. If an efficiency paradigm changes this, are we going to
require courses in business innovation? And if so, what courses will have to be
given up in the curriculum to accommodate these interests? The synergy between
architecture and capital, once introduced into the system of academe, will thus
change the teaching of design in important ways. Disguised by its ethical
mandate, Sustainability will force architecture toward a stronger connection to
both government and big business.
6. Individualistic Politics versus Group
Epistemological Politics
Sustainability will exert a shift on academe away
from individualistic practices and toward group-oriented epistemologies (see
illus. 6). Architects will have to learn how governmental and corporate
agencies work, how research labs are organized and how to channel their design
contribution into these ready-made systems. Studios will promote group projects
instead of individual creativity. Reviews will suppress their emphasis on
spatial ingenuity to emphasize spaces that are compatible with
state-of-the-art, computer-aided analytical programs that can prove a design’s
environmental viability.
Illus. 6
This diagram shows the shift that Sustainability will exert on the architectural academe. Though subtle, implications are great, particularly because of the increased emphasis on group epistemological practices, practices traditionally not allowed to play a determining role in prdagogical philosophies.
6. The Politics of a Utopia in Disguise
The mission of history/theory in the past thirty
years has been to historicize and critique modernism, and thus to implicitly
warn us against the return of grand narratives. Sustainability, because it is
constructed on the principle of a grand narrative, will therefore have to alter
the role that history/theory has established for itself as a “critical”
participant in architecture discourse. History/theory will either be jettisoned
outright, or will have to be sidelined to make way for the growing needs of the
sciences. If this happens, there will be a fundamental revision of the
intellectual framework of architectural speculation. The new
“interdisciplinarity” of architecture-with-science will create, for example, an
anti-interdisciplinary polarization of architectural discourse along the
antinomic lines of artistic freedom versus technological complicity. If there
is a “loss” in all this, it is that this polarization allows little access to
the traditional “middle ground” of technology. Since the logic of
participation-in-technology will become equivalent with the logic of
participation-in-capital, the middle of the road designers will be forced to
use those off-the-shelf devices that are discarded from high-end technological
research. But even the new technology-oriented
history of architecture will ignore the reinterpretative innovations of
off-the-shelf realities, since they cannot be folded into its ideology of
history-of-progress.
Conclusion
Modernism effected a profound change in American
architectural academe. By the 1960s there was hardly a school left that had not
adopted its message in one way or another. Is Sustainability going to have a
comparably profound effect? Certainly not in the short term. There is too much
investment in the autonomy of design, especially in the United States for
technology to muscle its way in without resistance. But it doesn’t take much to
realize that a good deal of pressure is being applied. Sustainability’s
operative history, in this case, is already visible. But will we, as a result
of these pressures, see a separation of the technical-political aspects of
architecture from its intellectual aspects? Will we see an escalation in the
rhetoric between the champions of “real world” pragmatism and those of
avant-gardism? Will we see the end of that vibrant history/theory discourse
that has so invigorated the architectural thinking of the last thirty years?
Probably. This means that many of us will have to make some gut-wrenching
decisions about what is the function and purpose of academe.