Green Buildings

Green Buildings – Reconciling

The emerging interest and development in

green building design since the early 1990s

has been supported by an increasing number

of conferences and publications that

continue to define the state of the art, clarify

prior ities and offer guidance to design

professionals. A consistent feature of these

developments is that most discussions are

technically framed, i.e., emphasising

technical systems and their attendant

potential reduction in resource use and

resultant ecological loadings. This focus

makes scant ref erence to how users interact

with technical features and systems or, more

generally, to the cultural acceptance of

green buildings. In practice, however, a

building designed with excellent ‘green’

performance standards can be severely

compromised because the specification and

technical per formance fail adequately to

account for the inhabitants’ needs, expecta

tions and behaviour. Moreover, long-term,

broadly based solutions to environmental

problems will depend on major changes in

human values and actions. Roslin (1996, p. 8)

argues that an ecologically aware society ‘. .

. has as much, if not more, potential for the

conservation of resources than technical

innovation’, and that this potential is

‘culturally bound’. Although redefining

technical performance goals is an essential

part of green building design, the absence of

a parallel understanding of users’

engagement with environmental

technologies is potentially problematic.

More significantly, the current debate may

be detracting from what Guy and Farmer

(2000) characterise as a ‘situated,

contextualised and social understanding of

the environmental problem’. 58 Buildings,

Culture and Environment This chapter

provides a countervailing view to the current

bias toward technical performance, and

argues that significant and sustained

progress in green buildings will only result

from an understanding and reconcilia tion of

technological change and occupant

engagement with it. Clearly, the plethora of

contextual influences that shape occupant

expectations and actions, and differences

between individual and group actions, are

both complex in definition and

interpretation. However, the emerging

experience from built projects since the early

1990s, together with relevant ideas from the

social and behavioural sciences, offer

considerable potency and guidance for

reframing current design strategies. The

primary objective is not to provide a detailed

understanding of the way that building

occupants engage with technical systems,

but to identify aspects of human

expectation, behaviour and culture that can

usefully inform clients and design

professionals when making strategic design

decisions. Adapting to change Creating a

context where people are receptive to

environmental issues is an essential

prerequisite to improving the environmental

performance of buildings. There are two key,

yet interrelated, human characteristics that

are of relevance to this discussion – those

that influence our ability to acknowledge the

significance of environmental issues, and

those that influence our ability to change

and adapt to new conditions. The first relates

to both the demand for higher performance

standards created by building users and the

willingness to commit building owners and

designers to deliver such buildings. The

second takes on greater sig nificance for

building users and their acceptance of any

new environ mental conditions or innovative

green design features. Within this context,

the extent to which clients and designers

understand the needs and expectations of

current and future building users assumes

consider able importance. Guy and Farmer

(2000) argue that the debate around green

buildings no longer simply focuses on the

question of whether there is an

environmental crisis, but rather on how it

can now be ‘visualised as a landscape of

often fragmented, contradictory and

competing values and interests’. Moreover,

they suggest it ‘has become a site of

conflicting interpretations in which a

complex set of actors participate in a

continuous process of defining and

redefining the meaning of the environmental

problem itself’ (Guy and Farmer, 2000, p.

73). Reconciling Technological Change and

Occupant Expectations 59 Declaring shared

environmental performance goals within the

full design team and collectively aspiring to

achieve them, and their subsequent

acceptance, comprehension and sustained

commitment to the resulting design

strategies by building occupants, are clearly

important. However, Shove (1995) argues

that it is insufficient to search for closer,

more col laborative relationships between

the various players ‘. . . in pursuit of more

and more sustainable ways of providing

what has now become reified standards of

indoor comfort’. Instead, she suggests ‘. . .

we need to recognise the malleability and

negotiability of those seemingly fixed

requirements’ (Shove, 1995, p. 166). Values

and world-views Education is clearly part of

creating awareness and demand for green

build ings and the ability of design

professionals to deliver them. If education is

critical in creating this shift, a logical

argument would suggest that reli able

information and knowledge are therefore

key. However, Bazerman et al. (1997)

identify that ‘. . . most people have pro-

environmental attitudes, yet engage in

environmentally destructive behaviour’, and

that more or improved knowledge about the

physical state of the environment will not

solve this ‘attitude–behaviour gap’.

Moreover, confronting people with ‘well-

reasoned persuasive’ messages and

arguments often has little impact, especially

if they hold strongly ingrained attitudes

(Eagly and Kulesa, 1997). If a sense of

importance is value dependent, then users

of new information and knowledge must be

predisposed to the issue to which these

values relate. Sustain ability and ethical

judgements stem from an ecological view of

knowledge that ‘respects the moral standing

of non-human entities, necessarily extending

beyond anthropocentric concerns to

encompass a moral concern for the integrity

of the natural world’ (Guy and Farmer, 2000,

p. 77). The ‘world-view’ held by a society

operates silently to ‘channel attention, filter

information, categorize experience, anchor

interpretation, orient learning, establish

moods, secrete norms, and legitimate

narratives, ideologies, and power structures’

(Gladwin et al., 1997, p. 245). World-views

have, historically, embodied different

notions of the rela tionship of humans to the

natural world. They have also taken

centuries to mature and become manifest in

the shaping of human settlement and 60

Buildings, Culture and Environment building

practices. Western societies remain

entrapped in the dominant Cartesian–

Newtonian mechanistic world-view of the

mid-seventeenth century, one that implicitly

places human enterprise dominant over and

essentially independent of nature. Indeed,

Gladwin et al. (1997) argue that human

minds have evolved in ways that render us

unable to comprehend, let alone begin to

address, the challenge of sustainability.

These now ingrained biases that favour

notions such as simplicity, certainty and

immediacy, they suggest ‘. . . serve to

impede adaptive learning deemed essential

for sustainability’ (Gladwin et al., 1997). It is

reasonable to postulate that a future

sustainable built environment will be

different from what currently exists and that

we will be using buildings in different ways

than at present. Presumably this will also

exist within the context of a mature and

prevalent environmental ethic. In the

current early stages of a transition, new

design strategies and new condi tions will be

introduced that may be qualitatively

different from that with which building

occupants are familiar. This raises issues

regarding the extent to which building users

or those who commission buildings can

anticipate the benefits or attributes of a

different kind of building, and the extent to

which occupants will adjust or accept these

conditions. The supply side of the

construction industry is generally

conservative and reluctant to introduce new

features into buildings it commissions.

Although industry is fundamentally risk

averse, this tendency is not evident in either

recognising or responding to larger

environmental issues. Individually and

collectively, we tend to ‘underestimate

larger uncertain ties or unknowns’ and

display ‘imprudent risk aversion and under-

invest in precaution, preemptive safeguards,

reversible actions, safety margins, and

preparation for perceptual surprise’

(Gladwin et al., 1997, p. 243). Despite

powerful arguments on the importance of

environmental issues and evidence on the

multiple benefits of early adoption of higher

per formance standards, most national

construction industries procrastinate in

making changes that are perceived to

increase initial cost until con vinced of the

‘facts’. The exact nature of these facts is

often unstated and, even when the industry

is convinced, progress typically occurs

through modest incremental advances

rather than more comprehensive leaps. The

economic issues related to selling or leasing

buildings typically rely on features that offer

immediate and visible attraction, and the

building development mind-set is more

often reactive to the market rather than

offering it direction. The implicit assumption

is that users will not accept or adapt to new

circumstances. Loewenstein and Frederick

(1997) identify several human traits that

suggest otherwise: Reconciling

Technological Change and Occupant

Expectations 61 • People ‘not only

underestimate how their psychological

experience of a given situation will likely

change over time, but also underestimate

their ability to alter the conditions they may

experience.’ (p. 59) • People are ‘remarkably

good at adapting to or coping with

deficiencies or inconveniences in the

circumstances of their life’ (p. 56). Moreover,

rather than simply getting used to a new

condition, they ‘may take active steps to

mold their preferences or their material

circumstances to deal with such changes.’ (p.

59) • People may ‘underestimate’ their own

tendency to adapt to change and

‘overestimate’ the impact of any one factor

on their future quality of life. (p. 66) This last

point implies that when attention is focused

on only one possi ble future aspect of

building performance, its importance is

typically exag gerated. Clearly the

experience of a building depends on a wide

variety of qualities and attributes, and unless

any one particular environmental feature is

completely debilitating, it is unlikely to sway

users’ preferences and engagement. The

reuse of existing buildings, for example, is

often dis missed as an ‘environmental’

option because of their perceived inability to

meet specific contemporary needs, e.g.,

accommodating information and

communications technologies. Yet

occupants show a remarkable ability to

adapt to seemingly constraining interiors

because of other qual ities inherent within

some existing buildings. Similarly, comfort is

not just an outcome of the physical

environment, but as Brager and de Dear

argue in Chapter 11 ‘. . . it is our very

attitudes about comfort – both on an

individual and cultural scale – that influence

our basic need for (or aver sion to)

mechanical heating and cooling’. An

alternative and proactive mechanism for the

incorporation of new environmental

features into buildings is to create a market

demand for those features. Targeted

advertising and other forms of promotion

are effective mechanisms for shifting

‘consumer’ opinion, and larger devel opers

often have the resources to make use of this

option. Such strategies, however, typically

pander to current human desires for greater

conven ience, luxury and status and other

attributes of the prevailing consumer

cultural paradigm. It is uncertain whether

similar marketing techniques will have the

same potency in communicating

environmental values and attributes and,

moreover, also raises concerns regarding

advertising’s potential abuse as ‘greenwash’.

Operating within any prevailing ‘collective’

value set, there are obviously widely varying

personal points of view on the significance of

environ mental issues derived from one’s

education and experience. Moreover, a 62

Buildings, Culture and Environment host of

specific building-related contexts such as

management strategies, relationships with

co-workers and dress codes, also shape

individual oc cupant priorities and actions to

environmental conditions and systems.

More interestingly, many contemporary

Western countries continue to experience

significant immigration that creates rich and

complex collages of diverse cultural and

ethnic groups. New immigrants bring prior

values and experiences and, with varying

degrees, reinterpret, adapt to, influence and

change the new situation, making the idea of

defining cultural values and expectations

increasingly difficult. Whereas whole subsets

of environmental strategies do not engage

the user – improved insulation levels,

improved windows performance, etc.

neither do they challenge the status quo or

nurture new attitudes. By con trast,

strategies that potentially affect the

appearance of buildings, the comfort

conditions experienced by occupants, the

comprehension and use of controls, and

fundamental changes in use patterns,

require greater thought and consideration as

to their potential conflict with prevailing

social and cultural norms. Visual expression

of environmental strategies The appearance

of buildings is a powerful expression of

values and prior ities, and represents a

critical part of architectural discourse.

However, the Modern Movement

demonstrated how quickly visual qualities of

buildings can be coopted without necessarily

being respectful of philo sophical

underpinnings that initially generated them.

In its search for universal principles, the

Modern Movement jettisoned vernacular

envi ronmental strategies in its quest to

further technological innovation. Indeed, the

ease with which local architectural traditions

succumbed to the universality of modernist

vocabulary was a defining characteristic of

twentieth century architecture. Green

architecture, by contrast, repre sents an

ideological shift that acknowledges the need

to accommodate local conditions,

expectations and ways of life. In his essay

‘Architecture as Pedagogy’, David Orr (1999)

comments on the building in which he

teaches. This building communicates

nothing whatsoever that reflects its locality,

offers no clue about the origins of the

materials used to build it, resonates with no

part of human biology, evo lutionary

experience, or aesthetic sensibilities and

reflects no under standing of ecology or

ecological processes. In sum, he argues that

it teaches that ‘disconnectedness is normal’.

A measure of successful green architecture

in its broader role of educating a public may

well therefore Reconciling Technological

Change and Occupant Expectations 63 lie in

its ability to capture the public imagination

by communicating new values in explicit and

engaging ways. Surprisingly, much of

contemporary green design involves too

literal a transfer of technical strategies from

fundamentally different climatic and cultural

contexts without any serious critique of

either their validity locally or their

acceptance and engagement by building

occupants. Passive solar strategies Since any

transition toward sustainability is likely to

parallel our shift to renewable energy, solar

technologies – passive systems, and

photovoltaics– will become increasingly and

widely used design strategies. Depending on

how they are accommodated, these can

have a significant impact on the exterior

appearance of buildings that is contrary to

existing norms. For example, the eight-unit

Kitsun Townhouse project in Vancouver rep

resented the most advanced residential

passive solar design in Canada when

completed in 1979 – south facing Trombe

walls with insulating cur tains, skylights fitted

with solar activated insulating shutters, high

per formance windows and above average

wall and roof insulation. Annual heating

energy use for the units initially varied from

1.5 GJ/year to 30 GJ/year according to their

occupant’s lifestyle and their engagement

with technical operation. Since the Kitsun

project’s completion significant

modifications have been made to the

building’s original design – all diminishing its

passive solar emphasis (see Fig. 5.1, a, b and

c). In particular, the original dark walls

necessary to absorb winter solar gain have

been repainted in varying pastel colours.

Although technical failure of several

innovative systems was a factor, the majority

of modifications were a result of changes in

occupant understanding, expectation and

their desire to bring their home’s appear

ance in line with more conventional norms.

Moreover, the facility is a housing

cooperative and, although its original

members were committed to solar

technologies, only two currently reside in the

complex. Use of salvaged materials The use

of salvaged materials and components to

reduce both resource use and waste

presents a host of technical, regulatory and

design chal lenges, and more significantly

challenges the current prevailing cultural

preference for the ‘new’. Such concerns

clearly depend on the roles the a b c Fig. 5.1

Changes in Kitsun Townhouse complex from

1979 to 1999 Reconciling Technological

Change and Occupant Expectations 65

salvaged components serve (e.g., whether

exposed or concealed), their quality and the

extent of their use. The City of Vancouver

Materials Testing Laboratory (Fig. 5.2) is con

structed of approximately 80% salvaged

materials, components and equip ment,

including the reuse of salvaged structural

timber and insulation, the reconditioning of

used heating equipment and sanitary

appliances and the re-manufacturing of

double-glazed window units from salvaged

single glazed windows. The initial

reservations by the prospective occupants

regarding having to occupy a building ‘made

of garbage’ were under standable given that

they were expecting a ‘new’ building. These

quickly diminished when the result was a

building with materials and furnishings of far

greater quality than would have been

attainable with a new build ing within the

allowable costs. Elimination of finish

materials The elimination or selective use of

conventional interior finish materials as a

means of reducing materials use (Malin,

2000) profoundly challenges occupants’

expectations of interior spaces. The use of

finish materials has evolved to solve

technical and human requirements –

protection, con cealment, acoustics, fire

resistance, ease of maintenance etc. – and

clearly these must be resolved with any

alternative approach. Similarly, a whole Fig.

5.2 Use of salvaged materials (City of

Vancouver Materials Testing Lab. Busby +

Associates Architects, 1999) 66 Buildings,

Culture and Environment industry of trades

and subtrades has evolved, each with

specific roles in constructing buildings, and

eliminating finishes places greater responsi

bility for the final quality of appearance on

those not historically trained to ensure this.

More significantly perhaps, interior finishes

along with fur niture provide the opportunity

for occupants to instil their own person ality

and taste within a building – qualities that

alter over time and with changing occupants.

The elimination of finish materials, by

contrast, speaks of a ‘permanent’ aesthetic,

one immune to changes in fashion. The

Strawberry Vale School in Saanich, British

Columbia (Fig. 5.3, a) raises several issues

related to the elimination of finish materials.

The design consists of a meandering

circulation spine that provides access to the

classroom pods and support spaces. Interior

finish materials gypsum wall board and floor

coverings have been eliminated within this

space, exposing the wood and steel structure

and concrete floor (Fig. 5.3, b). By contrast,

white-painted gypsum has been selectively

used in the classroom and support spaces to

enhance the distribution of natural light (Fig.

5.3, c). These strategies offer the benefits of

visually exposing struc ture to provide

occupants with some comprehension of the

‘making’ of buildings and demonstrating the

importance of selective rather than the

unthinking use of resources. It is uncertain

whether the absence of con tinuous surfaces

to display student work and difficulties

experienced in cleaning the exposed surface

will, over the long term, compromise this

approach. a Fig. 5.3 Elimination of traditional

finish materials (Strawberry Vale School,

Saanich, BC. Patkau Architects, 1996) a.

Exterior Reconciling Technological Change

and Occupant Expectations 67 Fig. 5.3

Continued b. Elimination of finish mater ials

in circulation spine c. Selective use of finish

mater ials in classrooms. (Courtesy of James

Dow, photographer) b c 68 Buildings, Culture

and Environment The finish materials in the

C.K. Choi Centre for Asian Research (1996)

(Fig. 5.4, a) and the Lui Centre for the Study

of Global Issues (2000) (Fig. 5.4, b) at the

University of British Columbia in Vancouver

have been elim inated to reduce materials

use and expose thermal mass to assist

natural conditioning. The difference

between the 1996 and 2000 projects is

insightful. Whereas no attempt has been

made to mask structural and service

elements such as sprinkler lines in the Choi

Centre (Fig. 5.5, a), screening elements have

been selectively deployed in the Lui Centre

to create a more controlled and visually

‘quieter’ ceiling plane (Fig. 5.5, b). Key

lessons emerging in the use of these

strategies are that the architec tural handling

of visible environmental strategies must be

carefully eval uated against time-honoured

human expectations, and that the

robustness of any technical solution is

limited by and must accommodate changes

in tenure over time. Revisiting the definition

of ‘comfort’ Whereas visual appearance may

offend or delight, thermal, luminous and

acoustic conditions may more directly

impact on occupants’ performance. Building

users undergo widely different thermal and

luminous conditions when moving through

and between buildings, so variable

environments can be positive and evoke

levels of arousal, attention and effort

appropri ate to the occupant’s activity.

However, contemporary design goals are

qualitatively different. The prevailing notion

is that internal conditions should be

constantly held at some ‘optimum’ level

both spatially and tem porally. The optimum

condition is typically defined as reducing the

sen sations of discomfort and producing an

unnoticed environment in which work or

pleasure tasks can be carried out unhindered

physically or men tally. Design conventions

have institutionalised tightly controlled con

ditions as a universal performance goal.

These developments are primarily founded

upon physiological research and the

emergence and dominance of mechanical

conditioning of buildings. Shove (1995)

suggests this has ‘. . . fueled particular forms

of technological development’ and has

conse quently engendered ‘new and

converging expectations regarding comfort

and control’ (Shove, 1995, p. 164). Further,

she argues (p. 166) that this tendency has

been instrumental in promoting ‘. . . science,

rather than the culture or anthropology of

comfort, and has supported and reinforced

unsustainable trends toward

standardisation.’ The successful

performance of naturally conditioned

buildings relies on the provision and

acceptance of varied internal environmental

conditions. Reconciling Technological

Change and Occupant Expectations 69 a b

Fig. 5.4 a. C.K. Choi Centre for Asian

Research, University of British Columbia,

Vancouver, Canada (Matzusaki Wright

Architects, 1996) b. Lui Centre for the Study

of Global Issues, University of British

Columbia, Vancouver, Canada (Architectura,

2000) The indoor environment is a ‘creative

achievement’ shaped by the inter action of

building users with control systems in

response to changing external conditions.

Unlike conventional centrally and

mechanically controlled buildings, the

performance of naturally conditioned

buildings 70 Buildings, Culture and

Environment a b Fig. 5.5 Elimination of finish

materials. a. C.K. Choi Centre for Asian

Research b. Lui Centre for the Study of Global

Issues Reconciling Technological Change and

Occupant Expectations 71 is ‘not a foregone

conclusion’ (Shove, 1995, p. 164). These

conditions will likely be less predictable, less

reliable and differ from what occupants

might be typically accustomed to, but should

not necessarily any less desirable. Brager and

de Dear demonstrate in Chapter 11 that

people working in naturally ventilated office

buildings in fact ‘prefer a wider range of

conditions than occupants of buildings with

centrally controlled air-conditioning

systems’. The key issue here is not that

individual occupants can, and often do, make

profound lifestyle and behavioural changes,

but the extent to which these changes

mature into broader, durable cultural traits.

Complexity in building controls and

operation It is widely known that actual

building performance often differs markedly

from that anticipated or predicted during

design. This ‘mis match’ primarily results

from the differences between assumed and

actual patterns of occupancy, the use of

controls, and building operation and

management. Based on a wealth of

experience in evaluating actual build ing

performance, Bordass and Leaman (1997)

point to overly complex building systems as

a major deterrent to efficient and effective

building operation (see also Bordass,

Leaman, and Willis, 1994). The Post-

Occupancy Review of Buildings and their

Engineering (PROBE) studies in the UK

provide feedback on the performance of

many buildings which have been the subject

of much academic study and illustrate the

differences between anticipated and actual

performance (Cohen et al., 2001). In

particular, they show that the actual

performance of buildings is compromised by

the complexity of the systems built into

them and, interestingly, the performance of

some modest projects is far superior to many

celebrated architectural works. High-tech

buildings are relatively complex to operate,

so dedicated management is essential if they

are to achieve optimal performance. Indeed,

the operation of the vast majority of current

buildings is typically too demanding for the

available man agement resources. By

contrast, in addition to reduced energy use

and environmental impact, low-tech/low-

management naturally conditioned buildings

offer the promise of simpler, more robust

control strategies that provide greater

occupant satisfaction. To enable occupants

to solve oper ational problems, however,

such systems must be readily accessible and

comprehensible to building users and clearly

accompanied by a willing ness to use them.

A key lesson is, therefore, that the

environmental success of a building depends

on matching technological and management

72 Buildings, Culture and Environment

sophistication. In addition to paying

particular attention to the ergonomic issues

associated with strategies that require user

involvement, the PROBE work raises a host

of critical questions: • Does the strategy

require the user to participate actively in the

opera tion of the building? • How robust is

the operation? • How visible is ‘failure’? • Is

the (facilities) management equipped to

manage the complexity and systems

inherited from the design team? • Does the

design team know the capabilities of the

facilities manager? The issues raised above

may have more fundamental roots in the

way that contemporary design

conceptualises and provides for the

interactive process between users and

building systems. The dominance of

seemingly universal features of human need

and ‘viewing users as the passive bene f

iciaries of designers’ decisions’ (Shove, 1995,

p. 165) provides little scope for alternatives

and does little to encourage the need for

understanding the culture of specific user

groups. The importation of ‘foreign’

techniques has become an increasingly

common phenomenon within the supply

side of the construction indus try. One

example is North American practitioners

who are increasingly exposed to information

on emerging European naturally conditioned

buildings as a major emphasis in ‘green’

design, and are beginning to incor porate

related environmental strategies and

technologies in their own work. The centre

of the debate and practice of the natural

conditioning of buildings has been northern

European countries – the UK, the Nether

lands and Germany – that had never

committed themselves entirely to

mechanical conditioning. Statistics related to

resource use and air emis sions per capita,

more stringent environmental regulatory

requirements and commitments to

international environmental initiatives,

suggests that there is a greater culture of

environmental responsibility in northern

European countries than in North America.

As geographic and cultural boundaries are

transcended in the importation of technical

strategies to North America, it seems

reasonable to ask if potential difficulties may

arise regarding their acceptability by users

who are not accustomed to more variable

interior conditions and direct engagement in

building oper ation. Given that sealed

buildings, mechanical conditioning and the

use of electric lighting dominate

conventional practice in North America, the

introduction of such strategies originating in

Europe poses potentially considerable

challenges to the engaging of users.

Reconciling Technological Change and

Occupant Expectations 73 A qualitative

strategic difference in natural ventilation

strategies is cur rently evident between

Japan and Canada and is centred primarily in

the way that automated and personal

controls are provided and accessed by

occupants. The Catalog House Company

building in Tokyo is the 5347m2

headquarters for a mail-order company with

a declared corporate environmental policy

(Fig. 5.6). The building can operate in one of

three ventilation modes: full natural

ventilation, full air-conditioning or a

combination of both (Fig. 5.7,a). Natural

ventilation is admitted through a series of

vents around the perimeter of the building.

A central open atrium space or ‘ecological

void’ provides the necessary stack-effect to

draw air through the occupied spaces and

exhaust it back to the exterior (Fig. 5.7,b).

Both the near f loor-level vents at the

perimeter and the ceiling-height vents into

the atrium are automatically regulated in

response to continuous monitoring of both

outside weather conditions and the interior

thermal environment (Fig. 5.7,c). In the

Catalog House Company building,

mechanically conditioned air is supplied

through a raised floor and admitted into the

interior spaces via f loor diffusers and

interior partitions (Fig. 5.8). Occupants can

directly Fig. 5.6 Catalog House Company,

Tokyo (Ishimoto Architectural and

Engineering Firm, Inc., 1999) 74 Buildings,

Culture and Environment adjust the airflow

at their workstations through outlets at the

top of the chest-high partitions without

compromising the overall airflow pattern. By

contrast, recent naturally ventilated building

projects in Canada show a desire on the part

of their designers to engage occupants much

more comprehensively in building operation.

The C.K. Choi Centre for Asian a Fig. 5.7

Catalog House Company building. a.

Ventilation modes b. Ecological void c.

Weather monitoring on roof Reconciling

Technological Change and Occupant

Expectations 75 Fig. 5.7 Continued (Courtesy

Ishimoto Architecture and Engineering Firm,

Inc.) Research and the Lui Centre for Global

Studies, for example, expect and require

occupants to manually open and close inlet

vents and windows, and to initiate the

opening and closing of outlet vents.

Moreover, conti nuity of the airflow path

through the interior spaces to maintain cross

ventilation requires permanent openings in

cellular offices that compro mise acoustic

privacy. A building occupant’s pleasure,

comfort and productivity are closely linked

to their real and perceived control over

interior environmental conditions

(Heerwagen, 2000). Such knowledge has

typically translated into guidelines that

specify strategies and systems to provide

users with adequate control, that are

comprehensible, simple to manage and use

and b c 76 Buildings, Culture and

Environment Fig. 5.8 Adjustable ventilation

supply in partitions that provide quick

responses to user induced change. However,

simply providing operable windows, for

example, is clearly insufficient in design ing

naturally conditioned buildings. The

location, ergonomics and extent of opening

and their distribution profoundly affect

performance and use. For example, in

contrast to simple, generalised models of

occupant behav iour assumed in design,

Leaman (1999) presents a list of ‘real’

building user reactions and responses that

indicate occupants tend to: • act in response

to random, external events; • take decisions

to use switches or controls only after an

event has prompted them to do so (rather

than in advance of it); • often wait for some

time until taking action and typically when

they reach a ‘crisis of discomfort’; •

overcompensate in their reactions for

relatively minor annoyances; • operate the

controls or systems that are most convenient

to hand rather than those that would

logically be the most appropriate; • take the

easiest and quickest option rather than the

best for their immediate benefit; and

Reconciling Technological Change and

Occupant Expectations 77 • consciously or

otherwise, leave systems in their switched

state, rather than altering them back again

later, at least until another crisis of dis

comfort is reached. With regard to the points

above, the qualitative difference in the

design of the operable windows in the C.K.

Choi and Lui Centres is instructive. The

operable windows in the C.K. Choi building

have simple trickle vents at their base

designed to provide required background

ventilation during the winter; they are 2.15m

tall, bottom pivoted and open approximately

11cm at the top for increased natural

ventilation (Fig. 5.9,a). They are not

particularly easy to operate and do not offer

direct and immediate gratifi cation to users

when opened. By contrast, the windows in

the Lui Centre, built on the experience of the

C.K. Choi building, are partitioned into

distinct sections: a fixed clerestory window,

a top-hung window that provides and directs

ventilation immediately to the occupants

during overheating periods, and a refined

trickle-vent system for greater control of

ventilation at other times (Fig. 5.9,b,c). For

the Catalog House Company headquarters,

the C.K. Choi building and the Lui Centre

building all have chosen to provide ‘user

manuals’, giving information on their

respective innovative design principles, what

users can expect and how to interact

effectively with the buildings. The effi cacy of

this distribution of user manuals, as with the

success of the tech nical systems themselves,

will become apparent with the passage of

time as occupants and management change.

Change in use patterns In addition to

providing different environmental

conditions within build ings, more

fundamental changes in how buildings are

used may yield greater environmental

benefits, and certainly challenge current

social and cultural norms. Many

contemporary buildings are under-utilised.

For example, if 365 days a year and 24 hours

a day represents a building’s total

availability, then with a five-day week,

holidays, an eight-hour day, lunchtime and

illnesses, typical office workstations are only

used some 16% of the time (Lloyd, 1993).

Social functions and meetings further

diminish this figure. Irre spective of their

environmental attributes, it will be

necessary to get greater utility out of

buildings, either wholly or in part, by sharing

of spaces or overlapping complementary

programmes. 78 Buildings, Culture and

Environment a b Fig. 5.9 a. Openable window

in CK Choi Building. b. Openable window in

Lui Centre. c. Detail of window opening in Lui

Centre Reconciling Technological Change

and Occupant Expectations 79 Fig. 5.9

Continued Intensification c ‘Shared’ spaces

that allow for the coexistence of two or more

complemen tary programmes within a

bound space, or ‘mixed-use’ spaces that

place several programmes within a common

facility, are well established notions. They

are typically economically rather than

socially or environ mentally motivated and,

for the main part, their programmatic

elements are separate from each other and

are conceived to remain so. If environ

mental performance became a more explicit

concern, a wider range of pos sible ways of

sharing facilities, resources, and

incorporating closed-loop systems is

possible, but would require a ‘blurring’ of the

distinctions between use requirements.

Alternative work arrangements Alternative

work arrangements (AWA) is a catchall

phrase for strategies that make use of

temporary desk space, laptops and cellular

phones to eliminate or reduce the daily

commute and the need for a permanent

desk space at the workplace (Hasan and

Cole, 2002). Examples of AWA include

hotelling, which can result in 30 to 40%

reductions in office space (Weil, 1994), and

teleworking, which generally involves an

average of 1–2 days of telework per person

per week (Handy and Mokhtarian, 1995).

Alterna 80 Buildings, Culture and

Environment tive work arrangements allow a

more effective use of office space, elimi nate

the need to commute to work daily, and

open new opportunities to reduce energy

use and related greenhouse gas emissions.

What is uncer tain is the way that

teleworking influences other habits and life-

style pat terns; in fact, a household’s overall

amount of automobile travel as a result of

teleworking may actually increase for social

and domestic chores that were previously

accommodated in the daily commute to

work. Conclusions This chapter has identified

and explored the current gap between

technical and sociocultural issues in green

building design. While almost all current

building environmental concepts are

universal in their validity, a central concern

here is their specific interpretation and

manifestation in design. Addressing the

environmental agenda clearly requires

significant improvements in building

performance beyond current practice and

indeed will continue to require technological

change. However, the supply side of the

construction industry has been increasingly

engaged in the transfer of technology and

design standards across regional and cultural

boundaries, typically without understanding

local context. A key factor in the success of

green building practices may lie in

developing supply side capabilities that

critically assess and adapt global information

to local cultural expectations and habits and

patterns of living, coupled with local climatic

conditions, materials and technologies. It is

unlikely that improved environmental

performance will be achieved by

technological solutions that do not challenge

currently accepted norms or involve building

users. A key part of the discussion in this

chapter has centred on the willingness of

building users to both accept and engage in

green building strategies, and the extent to

which such requirements are recognised and

successfully accommodated by design

professionals. Although comprehensive

feedback on users’ engagement in green

build ings is currently sparse, evidence

suggests that occupants may make changes

to realign these buildings to more

conventional expectations, thereby

reversing most environmental benefits (Cole

and Steiger, 1999). In particular, although an

initial group of tenants or building occupants

may commit to qualitatively different

conditions, through time new occupants

unfamiliar with the initial design precepts

may reject them. As such, it appears that the

time frame over which adaptation occurs is

critical. Sustained occupant commitment to

environmental strategies is clearly critical for

successful performance. Extending the

short-term success of Reconciling

Technological Change and Occupant

Expectations 81 green buildings requires a

transitional period enabling users to

undertake the necessary learning,

reassessment and becoming accustomed to

differ ent conditions rather than feeling

compelled to revert back to old expec tations

and habits. Strategically this is linked to the

way that designers distinguish between

those technical strategies that impact

directly on and engage building users and

those that do not. If green buildings place

greater responsibility in the hands of

occupants as a necessary part of their oper

ation, then supplementary techniques such

as greater user education are probably

necessary to encourage this engagement.

Finally, the introduction of new

environmental emphases to building design

that challenge existing norms can be set

within the broader notions presented by

Shields in Chapter 3 regarding the way that

‘foreign’ strate gies are transformed into

‘naturalised’ or ‘creolised’ elements of a

local context. We are in the early stages of a

transition toward sustainability and

redefining approaches to building design.

Within this transition, tech nical

environmental strategies that have been

successfully deployed else where must be

thoughtfully assimilated within building

design to a local context, and evaluated

carefully in terms of nurturing user

engagement. Above all, it is clearly

important that we take a longer and more

com prehensive view of building

performance and change and how we judge

the success or failure of environmental

strategies. References Bazerman, H.,

Messick, D.M., Tenbrunsel, A.E. and Wade-

Benzoni, K.A. (eds) (1997) Environment,

Ethics, and Behavior: the psychology of

environmental valuation and degradation.

The New Lexington Press, San Francisco.

Brand, S. (1999) The Clock of the Long Now,

Time and Responsibility. Weidenfeld &

Nicolson, London. Bordass, W. and Leaman,

A. (1997) Future buildings and their services:

strategic considerations for designers and

clients. Building Research and Information,

25, (4), 190–195. Bordass, W., Leaman, A.

and Willis, S. (1994) Control strategies for

building services: the role of the user.

Proceedings of First CIB International

Conference on Buildings and the

Environment. Building Research Establish

ment, UK, 16–20 May. Cohen, R., Standeven,

M., Bordass, W. and Leaman, A. (2001)

Assessing building performance in use (1)

The PROBE process. Building Research and

Information, 29, (2), 85–102. Cole, R.J. and

Steiger, M. (1999) Green Building Grey

Occupants. Web-Proceed ings: American

Institute of Architects/US Green Building

Council – Main streaming Green Conference,

Chattanooga, TN, 14–19 October. 82

Buildings, Culture and Environment Eagly,

A.H. and Kulesa, P. (1997) Attitudes, attitude

structure, and resistance to change. In:

Environmental Ethics and Behavior (eds H.

Bazerman, D.M. Messick, A.E. Tenbrunsel

and K.A. Wade-Benzoni), pp. 122–153. The

New Lexington Press, San Francisco.

Gladwin, T.N., Newberry, W.E. and Reiskin,

E.D. (1997) Why is the northern elite mind

biased against community, the environment,

and a sustainable future. In: Environmental

Ethics and Behaviour (eds H. Bazerman, D.M.

Messick, A.E. Tenbrunsel and K.A. Wade-

Benzoni), pp. 234–237. The New Lexington

Press, San Francisco. Guy, S. and Farmer, G.

(2000) Contested constructions: the

compelling logics of green buildings and

ethics. In: Ethics and the Built Environment

(ed. W. Fox), pp. 73–87. Routledge, London.

Handy, S.L. and Mokhtarian, P.L. (1995)

Planning for telecommuting: measure ment

and policy issues. Journal of the American

Planning Association, 61, (1), (Winter), 99–

111. Hasan, A. and Cole, R.J. (2002) Energy

and environmental benefits of alternative

work arrangements. CD-ROM of

proceedings: Sustainable Building 2002,

Oslo, Norway, 23–25 September.

Heerwagen, J. (2000) Green buildings,

organisational success and occupant pro

ductivity. Building Research and

Information, 28, (5/6), 353–367. Jacobs, K.

(1994) Dinosauring the future: Waiting for

the millennium, Part III. Metropolis, 14, (3),

(Oct) 86–95, 97. Leaman, A. (1999) Window

seat or aisle? Architects’ Journal, 3 March.

Lloyd, B. (1993) The future of offices and

office work. In: The Responsible Work Place:

The redesign of work and offices (eds F.

Duffy, A. Laing and A. Crisp), pp. 44–54. Reed

International Books, London. Loewenstein,

G. and Frederick, S. (1997) Predicting

reactions to environmental change. In:

Environmental Ethics and Behaviour (eds H.

Bazerman, D.M. Messick, A.E. Tenbrunsel

and K.A. Wade-Benzoni), pp. 52–72. The

New Lexington Press, San Francisco. Malin,

N. (2000) Structure as finish. Environmental

Building News, 9, (3). Orr, D. (1999)

Architecture as pedagogy. In: Reshaping the

Built Environ ment: Ecology, Ethics, and

Economics (ed. C.J. Kibert), pp. 212–218.

Island Press, Washington DC. Roslin, M.

(1996) Making connections. In: Proceedings

of Evolving Environ mental Ideals, 14th

Conference of the International Association

for People Environment Studies, p. 8,

Stockholm, 30 July–3 August. Shove, E.

(1995) Set points and sticking points for

sustainable building design. In: Linking and

Prioritizing Environmental Criteria.

Proceedings CIB-TG-8 Inter national

Research Workshop, Toronto, Canada, 15–

16 Nov., pp. 163–166. Weil, J.S. (1994) Office

hotelling and changing space demands.

Urban Land, 53, (9), 44. 6 Cultural Issues for

a Sustainable Built Environment Niklaus

Kohler Introduction The thesis of this

chapter is that regional culture and

sustainability are complementary

components, each essential for the other’s

existence. The prevailing technocratic

approach to the creation of ‘green’ or ‘envi

ronmentally progressive’ buildings will

ultimately fail because it is too narrowly

defined. In order to succeed, the transfer

and acceptance of tech nologies and

techniques has to be based on a sound

knowledge of regional culture. It must be

recognised that the existing building stock

and urban fabric form an essential aspect of

regional diversity and culture. Although the

abstract notions of culture, sustainability,

life style and environment are used almost

universally, through language and context

they refer to specific realities. Cross-cultural

exchange has to be carefully constructed by

considering the specific context. The views in

this chapter represent a European point of

view, i.e. of a society which is strongly

marked by centuries of common history,

intense cultural exchange and the resulting

large cultural diversity. There have been

approximately 200 years of identification

with national states in Europe. A European

approach has come to assume the necessity

of strong public policies, the importance of

public service and active state intervention,

especially in the realms of the built

environment, ‘green’ issues and cultural

heritage. This chapter is composed of five

parts: • Acritical review of cross-cultural

transfer in an increasingly globalised society.

• Ashort definition of the main components

of sustainable development. 84 Buildings,

Culture and Environment • An overview of

the EU policy in the field of environmental

assessment. • Aproposition for an

alternative approach to the cultural and

environ mental long-term strategies for the

built environment. • Strategic conclusions

on cross-cultural exchange and on new

planning paradigms. Cross-cultural transfer

and the built environment The problem of

the natural environment, its carrying

capacity, the limits of resources and

therefore the limits of growth have been

acknowledged to be global problems.

However, we are still a long way from

efficient coordinated international action.

Governmental and commercial interests are

still successfully blocking even such timid

attempts at global environ mental strategies

as the Kyoto Protocol. As a reaction to the

high energy consumption in the building

sector, new construction techniques have

been proposed to considerably limit the

environmental impacts of new buildings.

These are sometimes referred to as ‘green

buildings’ or ‘environmentally progressive

buildings’. Whilst green issues are discussed

in international congresses and publications

and toolboxes, checklists, life cycle

assessment tools, etc. are produced world

wide, their impact in the industrialised world

is negligible and for the rest of the world

non-existent. A more general framework of

sustainable development has been in dis

cussion for some time (Kohler, 1999). The

issue of cross-cultural transfer of

information on environmentally advanced

design and building techniques has gained in

importance since 1998, on the level of both

sci entific communication and international

consulting activity. The recog nition that

cultural issues need to be considered in

conjunction with environmental issues is an

eminently positive initiative. ‘Green

buildings’ and the newer expression

‘environmentally progressive buildings’ are

often seen as positive and universal

objectives. Yet, without consideration of

cross-cultural variables, there is only partial

and insufficient under standing of the

complexity of the built environment. In the

1990s, the debate on the nature of what is

progressive related to the debate on ‘eco

logical modernisation’ (Beck, 1992). This has

been replaced by the more critical discussion

on realising sustainable development in a

globalised economy and the underlying

theoretical concepts of a globalised

economy which militate against this. Cultural

Issues for a Sustainable Built Environment 85

There is no conflict between regionally

appropriate and environmentally

appropriate building practice. Because of the

shortage of resources, tradi tional vernacular

building practices have tended intuitively,

through trial and error, towards

economically and environmentally optimal

solutions (Fig. 6.1). Some modern forms of

vernacular architecture, the architecture of

the slums and favellas, are examples of

forced long-term use of exoge nous

resources and an expression of popular

culture. The conflict is only present in the

‘international style’ of the Modern

Movement and its ‘high tech’ successors,

involving high resource consumption, large

environ mental impacts on one side, and

regional cultural traditions (for which

modernism had only contempt) on the other

side. The expression ‘environmentally

progressive buildings’ implies a rather simple

notion of progress and further suggests it

can be brought to less progressive regional

cultures. Does this imply that ‘progressive’

European ‘cutting-edge green technology’

should be brought to Africa, or North

American ‘progressive’ energy saving

techniques to Asia? Or should there be a

categorical imperative ‘to assess and adapt

global information to their specific regional

context’? Cars can be produced in one place

and exported over thousands of miles,

whereas buildings still are largely one-of-a-

kind products. Designing, con Fig. 6.1

Traditional villages situated in the vineyards

along the lake of Geneva in Switzerland are

the result of a high degree of resource

conservation of materials, energy and

(productive) land. Houses, places and the

landscape are cultural artefacts that have

lasted hundreds of years 86 Buildings,

Culture and Environment structing and

maintaining buildings are social processes

predicated on the constraints of local

climate, local resources and regional

traditions. There are no implicit regional

cultural limitations to environmentally

progres sive buildings, but regional culture

and protection of the natural envi ronment

must be seen as complementary.

Sustainable development Sustainable

development is generally considered as

something positive but rather vague.

Perhaps this is why no one is explicitly

opposed to it. The diffuse origin and the lack

of a unique definition are therefore both a

disadvantage and an advantage. There will

always be multiple views of sustainability;

they are not only equally legitimate, but also

absolutely necessary to the health of the

debate: ‘Sustainable development can be

successfully implemented only if each view

makes its unique contribution to the

solution. Since each repre sents only a part-

truth, there is no single solution to a given

environ mental problem. In other words,

sustainable development strategies cannot

be attained through the dominance of a

single view or by the exclusion of others;

instead they require continual evolution and

balance.’ Samson, 1995 The historical (and

etymological) origin of the term varies from

language to language. The English term

sustainability was created in the 1970s. The

corresponding French expression,

développement durable, is also a recent

fabrication. The German term,

Nachhaltigkeit, derives from a tra ditional

notion used in the nineteenth century

timber industry that was marked by shortage

(Bächtold, 1998) and meant: ‘. . . not to cut

more wood annually than the forest could

give each year’, i.e. not to take more than

nature could provide. In the following

decades the economic interpreta tion (taking

money as an equivalent for value) became

dominant. In the mid-twentieth century the

complex functions of the forest as a climatic

regulator, source of biodiversity and space

for recreation became apparent, and a new

definition of the long-term value of forests

and of sustainabil ity was established. This

definition included four components: • Long

term: the effects had to be assured in the

long term. • Social concern: restriction of

individual user rights in favour of the

community. Cultural Issues for a Sustainable

Built Environment 87 • Economy: use of

resources taking into account economic

principles. • Responsibility: towards a larger

community and future generations. Today

the different aspects of sustainable

development are generally recognised: •

Ecological aspects: linked to resource

conservation and carrying capacity. •

Economic criteria: taking into account long-

term conservation of natural and man-made

capital. • Social aspects: taking into account

intergenerational equity. • Cultural aspects:

taking into account the conservation of

cultural diversity. The ethical need for

sustainable development is highlighted in

the first paragraph of Agenda 21 (United

Nations, 1992): ‘Humanity stands at the

defining moment in history. The world is

confronted with worsening poverty, hunger,

ill health, illiteracy, and the continuing

deterioration of ecosystems on which we

depend for our well being. The disparities

between rich and poor continue.’ For

Bächtold (1998), the ecological, economic

and social components are completed by a

fourth ethical aspect. Other approaches

(Hassler and Kohler, 2001) stress the cultural

aspect as a fourth component of sustain

ability. Figure 6.1 combines the two

approaches. Sustainability is a multi

dimensional concept (Fig. 6.2), and

overemphasising one aspect would diminish

other aspects. The 1987 Brundtland Report

(WCED, 1987) and the Rio Earth Summit in

1992 marked the development towards a

more comprehensive and inte grated

assessment of sustainability. The pre-

Brundtland situation was influenced by

environmental assessment methods, which

did not ade quately address the questions of

resource conservation, environmental

capacity or sustainable development.

Environmental impact assessment (EIA) was

developed as a method concentrating

exclusively on environ mental aspects. Since

the Brundtland Report, the practice of

environ mental assessment has been

challenged both by the green movement and

by other scientific or social communities (e.g.

the cultural heritage com munity, third world

movements, etc.). Critical distinctions have

been drawn between eco- and

anthropocentric techniques of analysis. 88

Buildings, Culture and Environment

ecological criteria carrying capacity

assimilative capacity resilience maximum,

sustainable yield constant sum of natural

and man made capital economic criteria

biodiversity natural cultural landscapes

sustainable development welfare social and

community human health justice and

solidarity inside the present society social

criteria cultural diversity social diversity

needs of future generations cultural criteria

Figure 6.2 Different aspects of sustainable

development (Translated and adapted from

Bächtold, 1998) Germany’s Enquete

Commission for the protection of man and

nature linked the notion of sustainable

development not only to the environ ment,

but also to economy and society. In this

approach, sustainable development

encourages the conservation and

preservation of natural resources and leads

to a reduction of energy consumption, waste

produc tion and transportation impacts. It is

based on patterns of production and

consumption that can be pursued without

degrading the human or natural

environment. It involves the equitable

sharing of the economic benefits across all

sections of society, to enhance the well

being of humans, protect health and

alleviate poverty. It argues that, if

sustainable development is to be successful,

the attitudes of individuals as well as

governments will need to change with

regard to our current lifestyles and their

impacts on the environment. Cultural Issues

for a Sustainable Built Environment 89 The

human settlement, with all its economic,

social and institutional arrangements, forms

a complex system which needs to be

respected. The Rio Conference not only

initiated the Commission on Sustainable

Development (CSD), which prepared the

Kyoto Conference (1997), but also directed

attention to the environment and its

capacity to support the urbanisation

processes and the ‘city of tomorrow’. In

Europe this idea is of particular importance

as the majority of people already live in

cities. The broader focus of assessment

methods now encompasses economic

structures and cultural heritage, and reflects

their close relationship with ecological

issues. As a result, attempts have been made

to use environmental assessment methods

to initiate a more sustainable development

of cities considering environmental aspects

(ecological integrity, equity, participation

and futurity) as well as cultural heritage.

Environmental and cultural issues in EU

building-related projects From energy to

environment Numerous building-related

energy and environmental projects have

been undertaken in the European Union

since the early 1990s, involving many teams,

research alliances and consortia from

member countries. The energy perspective

has been at the forefront and continues to

dominate for both production and

consumption (demand-side management,

etc.). The development of renewable energy

sources has been the objective of large

research programmes and has provided

considerable impetus to Euro pean industry.

In the field of energy consumption, regional

and local climatic differences have been

taken into account, but other aspects were

generally ignored. The question of the

existing building stock and the growing

refurbishment activity has also been of

minor concern, reflecting the predominant

conscience of the European construction

industry as a new building production-

oriented sector. This is also true for most of

the research on ‘building ecology’, ‘green

buildings’ and the ‘sustainable building indus

try’ (CIB, 1998). Energy research was

primarily directed towards new buildings,

with the development of some technologies

such as insulation, higher burner efficiency,

active solar devices, etc., which could be

employed throughout Europe. Building

refurbishment has been a minor issue (at

least until now) and therefore the specific

problems of regional 90 Buildings, Culture

and Environment and local construction

techniques, architectural forms and user

behaviour have not yet become important

considerations. Consequently, the most

important changes in the (common)

understand ing of environment and culture

have derived from the general environ

mental policy, from the definition of cultural

(and above all architectural) heritage and

from attempts to define sustainable

management strategies for the built

environment rather than energy-related

research. All these issues have been

introduced in the ongoing EU 5th Framework

Research Programme, in particular:

Environment and Sustainable Development,

Key Action 4: the City of Tomorrow and

Cultural Heritage. The major urban

challenges considered in this programme

are: • social exclusion; • loss of cultural

identity; • changing employment patterns; •

deteriorating infrastructure and built

environment; • insecurity and criminality; •

urban sprawl; • traffic nuisance; • bad air

quality and noise; • poor water and waste

management. Environmental impact

assessment Environmental impact

assessment (EIA) was first developed in the

late 1960s. The initial purpose was to

encourage a productive and enjoyable

harmony between mankind and our

surrounding environment, prevent or

eliminate damage to the environment and

biosphere, stimulate health and wellbeing

and enrich the understanding of the

ecological systems and natural resources. An

example of a more technical definition is

provided by the UK Department of the

Environment (1989): ‘The term

“environmental assessment” describes a

technique and a process by which

information about the environmental effects

of a project is collected, both by the

developer and from other sources, and taken

into account by the planning authority in

forming their judge ment on whether the

development should go ahead.’ Cultural

Issues for a Sustainable Built Environment 91

The EU adopted EIA in 1985 when the

Directive on the assessment of the effects of

certain public and private projects on the

environment (Direc tive 85/337/EEC) was

established, with a further amendment

added in 1997 (Directive 11/97/EC). An EIA

provides scientific data for decision making

processes. In addition, it is considered a

public documentation system as well as an

environmental management tool for the

developer. The notion of environment has

gradually extended from the biosphere to

encompass larger cultural and social issues.

These include the Environ mental Health

Impact Assessment, a cultural assessment in

environ mental assessment projects

required by the World Bank (1994). Strategic

environmental assessment (SEA) is

becoming a new comprehensive pro cedure.

SEA is defined as: ‘A description of the

aspects of the environment likely to be signifi

cantly affected by the proposed project,

including, in particular, popu lation, fauna,

flora, soil, water, air, climate factors,

material assets, including the architectural

and archaeological heritage, landscape and

the interrelationship between the above

factors. [And] This description should cover

the direct effects and any indirect,

secondary, cumulative, short, medium and

long term, permanent and temporary,

positive and negative effects of the project.’

Directive 85/337/EEC, Therivel et al., 1992,

SEA, 2001 In conclusion, cultural aspects

have now become an integrated part of the

notion of environment in a defined

procedural sense. Culture and the

subsidiarity principle Article 151 of the

Treaty of the European Union (formerly

Article 128) states that: ‘The Community

shall contribute to the flowering of the

cultures of the Member States, while

respecting their national and regional

diversity and at the same time bringing

common cultural heritage to the fore.’

European Economic Community, 1967 The

remarks in this section are partially based on

ongoing work of the author in the EU project:

Sustainable development of Urban historical

areas through an active Integration within

Town (SUIT, 2001). 92 Buildings, Culture and

Environment However, Article 151 adopts a

very cautious approach with respect to the

subsidiarity principle. Point 5 of this Article

explicitly requires that the Council’s

activities are limited to incentive measures,

excluding any har monisation of the laws and

regulations of the Member States. It also

states that the Council shall act unanimously

in cultural matters. Point 4 of Article 151 of

the Treaty thereby states: ‘. . . the

Community shall take cultural aspects into

account in its action under other provisions

of the Treaty, in particular in order to respect

and promote the diversity of its cultures.’

This provision is significant in placing culture

amongst the major objec tives of the

European Union. The EU has recently

adopted its first frame work programme in

support of culture (CEC, 1998). Some of

these incentives will specifically deal with

the built heritage and material assets. Given

its broad definition, culture is likely to be

affected by a number of other EU policies.

From cultural heritage to architectural

heritage Traditionally, conservation policies

of the built heritage have mainly con

centrated on the preservation and

renovation of listed monuments and

individual buildings. One of the weak points

of this policy is its limited ability to protect

heritage buildings from damage caused by

inappropriate developments located in their

close surrounding. In response to this threat,

conservation was extended beyond

individual monuments to create a buffer

zone. The risk is in the progressive

transformation of his torical areas to vast

open-air museums (or even worse, their

‘Disney f ication’). This process leads to

increases in rent and subsequent

gentrification, with a reduction of social

diversity. An alternative is to consider the

architectural heritage in itself, and to

develop strategies to foster an appropriate

long-term development of the urban fabric,

inte grating ecological as well as economic,

social and cultural aspects. This has

sometimes been referred to as ‘active

conservation’ (Dupagne, 2002). The

conservation of urban settings and the

protection of the surroundings of

monuments have progressed slowly over a

very long period of time beginning in 1964

with the Venice Charter. The Amsterdam

Charter (Amsterdam, 1975), adopted by the

Committee of Ministers in 1975, con siders

that architectural heritage conservation

depends strongly upon its integration into

citizens’ living environment and it has to be

taken into consideration in urban planning

policies. The Council of Europe Resolu

Cultural Issues for a Sustainable Built

Environment 93 tion (76)/28 (Council of

Europe, 1975) enlarges again the definition

of the built cultural heritage, insisting

strongly on architectural groupings defined

by a series of criteria. It gives also a more

precise definition of the integrated

conservation of the built cultural heritage.

This concept includes all rehabilitation and

revitalisation measures designed to: • assure

the durability of the built heritage; •

maintain it within the frame of an

appropriate environment (built or natural);

and • allocate and adapt it to the present

needs of society. In 1985, the Council of

Europe adopted the Granada Convention:

‘By contrast with the [previous activities of

the Council], the Granada Convention

contains statutory measures to be adopted

by signatories, among which the

requirement to adopt integrated

conservation policies (art.10).’ Granada,

1985 Practically it means: ‘to include the

protection of the architectural heritage as an

essential town and country planning

objective and ensure that this requirement is

taken into account at all stages both in the

drawing up of develop ment plans and

procedures for authorising work.’ Granada,

1985 The launching of the Krakow Charter in

2000 has recently reinforced the process.

The Krakow Charter (Krakow, 2000)

acknowledges the vast cul tural diversity of

Europe with a concomitant risk of conflict of

interests induced by the various (and

sometimes opposed) values and meanings

attached to heritage assets. Conservation of

cultural heritage is also seen as one of the

ways to contribute to the sustainable

development of society, and so should be an

integral part of the planning and

management processes of a community.

This enlargement of the notion of cultural

heritage from individual (listed) buildings to

the architectural heritage of historical urban

areas (i.e. of a significant part of the

European urban building stock) has not yet

found many applications. One of the first is

the Danish SAVE (Survey of Archi tectural

Values in the Environment) method. This has

been enlarged to an 94 Buildings, Culture

and Environment international version in

InterSAVE (InterSAVE, 1997), and to a Danish

prototype called ReSAVE, which takes into

account not only archi tectural heritage

values but also the resource value of

buildings. Tradi tional methods of historic

building research have been combined with

resource conservation and life cycle analysis

methods (Hassler and Kohler, 2000). The

SUIT project will encompass several

dimensions of sustainability applied to urban

historical areas (urban fragments) which are

threatened by large-scale developments, or

by progressive decay (dereliction). Buildings,

building stocks and cities From the

perspective of a sustainable built

environment in urbanised Europe, the

emphasis is shifting away from the design of

new buildings to the long-term management

of the existing building stock. The main

tenance and improvement of the existing

building stock as the largest f inancial,

physical and cultural capital of industrial

societies signifies that the building stock

itself is becoming understood as a basic

resource. In 1991, the European Commission

established the Expert Group on the Urban

Environment. Originally, the task of the

group was to work on the integration of

urban problems into environmental

concerns. Today, the focus has widened. It

embraces the large field of sustainability

ques tions. The Sustainable Cities Project

comes from the same background (EC Expert

Group, 1996). The first phase of the project

ran from 1993 to 1996, having four major

goals: • spreading the idea of sustainability

around Europe; • exchange of experience; •

sustainability at local levels, with long term

perspective; and • influence on policies at all

levels. The Sustainable Cities Project

respects the individuality of European cities

and is not intended to provide a general tool

for application every where. The city is

considered a complex mechanism with many

internal relations which cannot be treated

with a single instrument. The agenda was

extended at the 1994 Aalborg conference,

where the Charter of European Cities &

Towns Towards Sustainability (Aalborg

Charter, 1994) was passed. Part III of the

charter is the Local Agenda 21. Eighty

European cities and communes signed the

Charter to develop individual measures to

further sustainable development in their

own cities. Cultural Issues for a Sustainable

Built Environment 95 A central point in the

Charter is the requirement for public

participation, as the inhabitants are

acknowledged to be best acquainted with

the prob lems of the environment

surrounding them. Cities are ‘living’ systems,

involving social dynamics, technical and

building networks and the pres ence of

people living in them. The human settlement

with all its economic, social and institutional

arrangements forms a system of its own,

which needs to be respected. Historical

evidence suggests that for their sound

conservation cities must be kept within

sustainable development activity cycles.

Sustainable development emphasises: ‘the

city as a complex system which is

characterised by flows as continuous

processes of change and development’ (EC

Expert Group, 1996). This defines a political

process, implied in planning which has an

impact on urban governance. Several EU

research programmes have been devoted to

the question of sustainable urban

development. The BEQUEST project

(Building En vironmental Quality Evaluation

for Sustainability through Time) is a ‘con

certed action’ involving 14 partners from six

EU countries between 1998 and 2001

(BEQUEST, 2001; Brandon et al., 1997;

Curwell and Deakin, 2002; see also Chapter

12). A key aim of the project was to lay the

foun dations for a common understanding of

sustainable urban development via a multi-

disciplinary network, the BEQUEST extranet,

which includes representatives from a wide

range of actors and groups involved in the

pro vision, use and maintenance of the built

environment. This kind of inte grated

approach will help reduce the environmental

uncertainties facing decision makers and

policy makers in development and

infrastructure industries. In conclusion, the

current broader European approaches to

assessment methods include economic

structures and cultural heritage and reflect

their close relation to the ecological

dimension. As a result, attempts have been

made to use environmental assessment

methods to develop sus tainable cities

considering not only sustainability issues as

traditionally defined (ecological integrity,

equity, participation and futurity) but also

including cultural heritage and social

questions as well. How the process of

urbanisation consumes natural resources,

whether it produces emis sions that pollute

the atmosphere and the effect development

has upon biodiversity, all must be

considered. Economic questions relate to

the f inancing of the infrastructures,

transport and utilities which are required to

support the development of urban

structures. Social issues concern the safety

and security, human health and general

wellbeing in our cities. The long-term

perspective must never be neglected, as

long-term stable con ditions are necessary to

assure general comfort and secure wellbeing

for all social classes. 96 Buildings, Culture

and Environment An alternative approach to

cultural and environmental long-term

strategies for the built environment Threats

There is one main difference between a

green approach and a sustainable approach.

In the former, cultural and social problems

are considered as obstacles to the realisation

of green objectives. In the latter, the

traditional green objectives are considered

as equivalent to the economic, social and

cultural objectives. In a green approach the

emphasis is on limits and obstacles, whereas

in a sustainable approach the emphasis is on

synergy. In the attempt to implement a

sustainable approach two major problems

have to be faced: • how to find central

objectives or ‘values’ which allow this

synergy (Hassler and Kohler, 2001); and •

how to find compatible objectives for

variables which must be measured on

different scales (building/town, individual

behaviour/ collective interests, short-

term/long-term, etc.) The proposed thesis is

that there are two central values, which

allow synergy: enlarged resource

conservation and conservation of diversity.

The problem of scalability can only be

resolved through a parallel top-down and

bottom-up approach. As discussed above,

the issue of the cultural value of buildings

has been associated mainly with the

conservation of individual monuments and

historic urban fragments. However, since the

early 1980s significant urban qualities in

Europe, which are independent of

monument and site pro tection issues, are

disappearing. There are threats to urban

ensembles, urban spaces and structures

which do not include outstanding build

ings/monuments. The main risks come from

the loss of density, historic nature,

complexity and quality of urban fragments.

Speculative develop ments, driven by

financial interests, menace the substance

and identity of European towns by trying to

take advantage of their historic nature as

‘context’ or as ‘background’. The (historic)

town has to be considered as a rare and

endangered resource that is in need of

protection (Johansson, 1996). The issue of

environmental protection has been

associated mainly with individual (new)

buildings. Analysis of the evolution of the

European Cultural Issues for a Sustainable

Built Environment 97 building stocks

indicates that the critical issue for

sustainable develop ment does not reside in

the standards for new buildings. Instead it is

in the management of existing buildings and

refurbishment of the post World War II

buildings as well as the conservation of the

complex quali ties of historic towns (Kohler

et al., 1999). Despite the conservation action

covering monuments (which embraces only

a very small part of the building stock) and

despite efforts to realise green buildings, the

general trend now seen in building

production is shorter life spans and higher

material and energy consumption. In Europe

this tendency is not yet fully visible, due to

the generally long life span of the bulk of the

existing building stock. The slow accretion of

the build ing stocks can be advantageous

because they are resistant to the tendency of

short life spans and architectural fashions. At

the same time ‘slowness’ is a danger when

wrong decisions are taken. The undesirable

effects become apparent when it is too late

to correct the momentum of policy, strategy

and production (lock-in) (Hassler and Kohler,

2001). In a long-term perspective, the

minimisation of the impact of the anthro

posphere on the biosphere will be the

central issue. Minimisation of impacts will

mainly result from the conservation of

resources. In eco nomic terms, this means a

steady-state economy, i.e. the continuous

increase of quality with a minimum

throughput (Daly, 1992). Similar prin ciples

were also prevalent in the pre-modern world

for reasons of resource scarcity.

Intergenerational management and the

production of long-lasting objects have

survived in the building sector despite

industrial production and against the

architectural theories of the twentieth

century. Theory and practice of building lags

behind broader social movements. The size,

the cost, weight, immobility and the one-of-

a-kind character of buildings result in

conservative trends. Buildings and building

stocks follow a slow dynamic of change: the

built environment reflects changes in design

para digms with a large delay. Even the

perception of real changes is subject to a

deceleration process: the changes also enter

the collective consciousness only relatively

slowly (Halbwachs, 1980; Boyer, 1994).

Principles and chances of a stable long-term

development The extensive modelling of

energy, mass and financial flows in national

building stocks in central Europe displays an

enormous disproportion in the input flow

over the output flows (approx. 5:1). This

results in a non 98 Buildings, Culture and

Environment stable situation (Kohler et al.,

1999). The only possibility for reaching a

long-term stable, sustainable development

is by massively reducing the input. In the

future development of the building stock,

the basic resources should not be continually

drawn from nature but rather the building

stock should become the principal resource.

This is not a new idea; it has been the

common practice for centuries. A steady-

state development would need integrated

value systems, which could be based on

different indica tors expressing the speed

and scale of transformations. The

development of such indicator systems and

decisions methods is necessary but not

sufficient. A comprehensive strategy with

guiding long term stability principles is also

needed. Research on ecosystems indicates

that long-term stability resides in the

capacity of a system to absorb and

incorporate shocks (robustness). This

stability seems to result from the

relationship between system components

that have different change rates and

different scales of size. Instead of breaking

under stress (brittle systems) they yield as if

they were malleable: ‘Some parts respond

quickly to the shock, allowing slower parts to

ignore the shock and maintain their steady

duty of system continuity. The combination

of fast and slow components makes the

system redun dant. Fast learns, slow

remembers.’ Brand, 1999 A similar pattern

appears if we look for stability of urban

systems. Johansson shows that urban

culture is intrinsically sustainable and has a

high stability: ‘History provides surprisingly

few examples of cities that have ceased to

exist. The strength of sustainability of cities

is thus the result of the accumulated

investments of generations in the urban

environment. The better we understand

how to administer and develop these

investments, the stronger the environment

will become.’ Johansson, 1996 The tendency

towards a monoculture of cities, favoured

historically by the town planning ideologies

of CIAM (Congrès Internationaux d’Archi

tecture Moderne), furthered by the

development of private car traffic and

supported today by the installation of

shopping malls in the urban sprawl, makes

cities unstable systems. Ruthless

exploitation of natural resources is

combined with growing social exclusion. The

tendency towards mono culture is

characterised by a growing reduction in the

age of buildings that Cultural Issues for a

Sustainable Built Environment 99 comprise

the urban building stock. All buildings have a

similar age; the decay process is self-

inducing. Historic towns (not necessarily

medieval towns or what remains of them)

have preserved continuity and gain a

stability through the existence of buildings

from different periods which allow a

differentiated appropriation by urban

society. Johansson (1996) notes: ‘...In short,

workshops, small shops, local restaurants, in

general small business so popular today,

belong in old buildings. Subsidised theatres

and art museums belong in the new

buildings. Thus old ideas go along with new

buildings and new ideas with old buildings.’

Johansson, 1996 An alternative framework:

scaleable indicators of sustainability The

principle of using different types of

indicators (pressure, state, and response

indicators) to describe the degree of

sustainability has been established

internationally. However, indicator systems

exist on macro economic levels (national

statistics), on regional and town planning (in

particular indicators for local sustainability)

and on the level of buildings and their life

cycle. Ecological indicators (EI) take into

account resource consumption and impact

on the ecosystem. Hofstetter (1998)

presents the state of the art for life cycle

analysis (LCA) and the complexity of

evaluation methods. Crucial problems for

building stocks are the operation energy

related impacts, the evaluation of the

ecological resource value of the existing

stocks, and the local impacts of buildings

which fall between LCA and EI system limits.

Economic indicators for sustainable

development exist mainly on a

macroeconomic level. In environmental

economics, three principles are generally

advanced: • the value of the environment (of

nature); • an extended time horizon; and •

the equity between human beings and

between generations. The economic

valuation of ecological and cultural

resources in the form of non-use values is

the subject of international research (World

Bank, 1994). Crucial issues are the

discounting rates to be adopted, external

costs and accounting for long-term risks.

While economic aspects are 100 Buildings,

Culture and Environment already being

discussed (Lichfield, 1988), the problem of

the urban life cycle is just emerging. Social

indicators for sustainable development of

large groups of buildings and sections of

cities are often linked to social problems and

population changes due to physical decay in

housing estates. The deprivation of housing

leads to social segregation and tends to

concentrate low-income groups in specific

regions. The succession cycle of changes in

physical condition, population, organisation

and economic factors is described by

Madanpour et al. (1998) and MacNaghten

(2001). New indicators, such as health

burden, have been developed by Murray and

Lopez (1996) to inves tigate health

consequences of environmental impacts

along with other factors. Cultural indicators

of sustainable development are based on a

wide defi nition of cultural (architectural)

heritage. The principal challenge is to

develop indicators for a long-term cultural

management of building stocks accounting

for the architectural and cultural qualities of

individ ual buildings and neighbourhoods,

including spatial configurations. As a cultural

resource, the building stock comprises not

only the individual buildings but also the

urban context. It is a main factor in the

preserva tion of cultural memory and social

knowledge and it ensures urban continuity

(Lowenthal, 1985). Through their historic

diversity, quality and continuity the building

stock and urban context constitute non-

renewable resources (Johansson, 1996). The

knowledge about buildings (how to design,

build, maintain and use them) cannot be

separated from the objects themselves; it

takes the form of technical solutions as well

as (artisan) tacit and explicit knowledge on

how to realise them. As a cultural resource,

the building stock constitutes in itself a long

lasting, continuously understandable,

materialised memory. Cultural and natural

resources Cultural resources, in particular

the architectural heritage, require

protection similar to natural resources or

safeguards similar to those for economic and

social resources. This issue becomes

predominant in a sit uation where cultural

production is beginning to eclipse physical

produc tion in world commerce and trade

(Rifkin, 2001). Access to cultural resources

becomes as important as holding on to

property. The commodi f ication of human

culture is leading to the risk of

overexploitation and Cultural Issues for a

Sustainable Built Environment 101 depletion

of cultural resources just as natural

resources were and are still depleted

through industrial development. In this

context, the notion of sustainable

development is the most powerful,

internationally discussed idea aiming at a

harmonious long-term development and

equity between different parts of the world,

different social groups within society and for

future generations. Globalisation, in the

form of the internationalisation of markets,

particularly the ‘cultural market’, does not

provide a satisfac tory development

framework. The idea of ‘green buildings’

reflects the state of development of industri

alised societies. Originally the method of

creating and assessing green buildings and

the synonym ‘environmentally progressive

buildings’ represented a means of market

differentiation. The current assessment

methods, proposed for international

application (BRE, 1993; Cole and Larson,

1998; Cole, 1999), were conceived as an

attempt to distinguish green buildings from

other new constructions and to associate a

sup plementary (non-monetary) value with

these buildings. This notion is per fectly

understandable in local real estate markets.

However, these measures are not linked to

sustainability and even less to the

preservation of the cultural value of the

architectural heritage. The so-called ‘cultural

obstacles and limits’ are in many cases very

legitimate apprehensions about a

development (even one that is well

intentioned as the protection of the

environment) which negates local and

regional cultural aspects. The advantage of

placing the whole discussion within the

framework of sustainable development is

that there could be a real cross-cultural dis

cussion in linking ecological, social and

cultural objectives, and in placing them in a

long-term, inter-generational perspective.

Perspectives What can we learn from each

other? The discussion initiated at the Green

Building Challenge Conference in 1998

(GBC’98) comparing green buildings from

different countries can be extended. Every

comparison needs to account for absolute

quantities of mass and energy flow as well as

local targets (how far from the average or

best local solution). The advantage of using

absolute flux data is that the ecological

footprint of buildings and cities can be

calculated. Through this method large

international differences in impacts for

comparable func tional units will become

apparent (Kohler, 1999). The comparison of

build ings in their national context (in

relation to the ‘average’ building) hides 102

Buildings, Culture and Environment the fact

that the specific environmental impact of

one human being can vary enormously

according to the society in which he or she

lives. Models of the urban metabolism by

Wolman (1965), Baccini and Brunner (1991)

and Moffat (2000) have produced significant

insights into these large differences. There

are interesting attempts to define trans-

disciplinary approaches to the study of

development, in particular urban sprawl,

regional development, urban and rural mass-

flow and cultural issues (Baccini and Oswald,

1998). Furthermore analogies between

urban development and wild ecosystems

have become a promising object of research

recently: ‘Energy and material flows through

human settlements are conceived as urban

metabolism, in which material inputs are

transformed into useful energy, physical

structure, and waste. Principles of

ecosystem succession are used to explore

ways in which city development differs from

that of wild ecosystems.’ Decker et al., 2000

Figure 6.3 shows a comparison of material

flows between the Neolithic period and the

present day. These considerations are based

on physical flows and situated at a rela tively

high level of abstraction through the

complex mass flow (Adriaanse et al., 1997)

and LCA (life cycle assessment) models. This

work highlights how difficult comparisons

can be. In some cases, the mere concept of

‘environmentally progressive’ seems to be

both physically and culturally inappropriate.

300 Fig. 6.3 Material budget (tons per year)

for an individual human from the Neolithic to

the present. Lifetime storage includes built

structures and artefacts (Decker et al., 2000)

Cultural Issues for a Sustainable Built

Environment 103 Of course, there are

certain internationally developed research

methods and tools like life cycle assessment

(ISO, 1997) which can be successfully applied

to a range of situations, independently of the

local and regional traditions. Much of the

fundamental ecological research (Odum,

1983) uses examples of different social

production systems to illustrate how effi

ciently and cautiously natural systems are

dealt with by certain non industrial societies.

In the same way, economic and

ethnographic research can be applied to

different cultures, producing results of high

scientific and social interest (Bourdieu,

2000). Productive cooperation can only be

situated on a high level of abstraction of

common methods and heuris tics, not on the

level of assessment tools, design tools,

construction tech niques and even less on

the level of architectural forms of individual

buildings. The management of building

stocks, the evolution of urban fragments and

towns, the future development of urban

networks (Baccini and Oswald 1998) will be

the crucial discussion points, at least in

Europe, in the coming years. New planning

paradigms The built environment and

(historic) cities are key domains in sustain

ability. The objectives of intra- and

intergenerational equity may be realised

through different strategies. ‘It is uncertain

whether current economic processes are the

problem or the solution to unsustainable

ways. Are “win–win” solutions . . . possible

here? Or are there inescapable trade-offs

that have to be made?’ Davoudi, 2001 There

are basically two options: growth

(expansion) or non-growth (steady state).

The debate exists on a theoretical level

between tenants of the ecological

modernisation (Weal, 1993) and tenants of a

risk-society (Beck, 1995). These questions

are also being discussed in the planning

context (Davoudi, 2001). Sustainability

certainly marks a turning point in the

planning discussion after the Second World

War. In most European nations, town

planning emerged from reformist ideas on

how to improve the social urban situa tion of

the nineteenth century. Rapid

industrialisation, hygiene, health and social

problems should find their solution in a

planned and designed town, while the

culmination of the modernist theories was

the recon struction of towns after World War

II, especially their adaptation to private

mobility (cars). The very determinist

planning techniques (masterplans 104

Buildings, Culture and Environment as

blueprints for the town and the society)

began to be questioned from 1960 onwards

and were gradually replaced by process-

oriented, ‘rational comprehensive’ planning

(based on computer simulations and

managerial competence of the planners).

The advocates of neo-liberal deregulation

theories saw planners as unnecessary

bureaucrats, while the ‘pop-stars’ of the

architectural profession considered

urbanism as an unnecessary ideology.

Deconstructivist design was seen as the only

way to restore ‘meaning’ to the city, which

had been reduced to an urban sprawl as the

historic city was declared dead. The

economic recession in the 1990s showed the

short-term failure of deregulation politics

rather than the probable long-term

consequences. Even developers demanded

stronger government intervention, in

particular through public–private partner

ships. Inside the planning professions the

need for a new vision be came apparent at

the same time as the sustainability debate

reached the built environment. The basic

antagonism between ecological

modernisation and risk society inverts the

question of sustainability objectives. Can the

avoidance of environmental degradation be

reached automatically through a reasonable

growth policy, or is there an irrecon cilable

conflict between development and

ecological needs? ‘Environ mental risks are

produced industrially, externalised

economically, individualised judicially,

legitimised scientifically and minimised

politically’ (Beck, 1992). In the risk society,

the planning task has a pro-active dimension.

It is ide ological, socially responsive and

interventionist. The planners’ role is to

defend the environment and the local

identity (-ies) against the risk asso ciated

with contemporary economic processes.

Planners should acknowl edge the

unintended consequences of development

options in a long-term perspective. Ensuring

against future uncertainty requires drawing

on all kind of knowledge, expert and non-

expert and sharing risks with a wide range of

stakeholders (Davoudi, 2001). Conclusions

Regional culture does not limit progress in

the reduction of environmen tal impacts of

buildings. Traditional design and building

techniques resulted both from response to

local climate and limits of natural resources.

The protection of regional built culture and

protection of the natural environment are

therefore complementary. Globalisation, in

the form of internationalised markets, and

particularly the ‘cultural market’ does not

provide a satisfactory development

framework. Regional cultural traditions may

counteract the homogenising tendencies of

globalisation. Cultural Issues for a

Sustainable Built Environment 105 In

Europe, the long-term maintenance and

management of the existing stock of

buildings and infrastructure determine

evolution of the built environment. This

stock is also the principal physical, economic

and cultural capital of European societies.

Through their historic diversity, quality and

continuity the building stock and the urban

context consti tute non-renewable

resources. Urban culture is intrinsically

sustainable and has high stability. It is the

result of accumulated investments of

generations in the urban environment. The

notion of sustainability com prises several

dimensions in a perspective of long-term

responsibility. It cannot be considered as a

simple supplementary attribute to

globalisation of markets, but rather, as an

alternative framework. Relating cultural to

environmental objectives cannot be realised

through a simple improve ment of

information or technological transfer, but

only though new paradigms for planning and

management of towns, groups of buildings

and f inally individual buildings. Productive

cooperation can only be situated on a high

level of abstraction of common methods and

heuristics and not on the level of assessment

tools, design tools, construction techniques

and even less architectural forms of

individual buildings. A different approach is

needed by policy makers, architects,

planners and urban designers, clients. The

successful use of any technological and

design strategy will depend upon improved

contextual knowledge. Furthermore, the

educational curricula will need to provide a

grounding in regional culture and identity to

enable future professionals and others

involved with the built environment to base

envi ronmental, social and economic

decisions on regional values. The man

agement of building stocks, the evolution of

urban fragments and towns, the future

development of urban networks will be the

crucial discussion points at least in Europe in

the coming years. References Aalborg (1994)

The Aalborg Charter European Conference

on Sustainable Cities & Towns. Charter of

European Cities and Towns Towards

Sustainability, 27 May. Adriaanse, A.,

Bringezu, S., Hammond, A., Moriguchi, Y.,

Rodenburg, E., Rogich, D., and Schütz, H.

(1997) Resource Flows – The Material Basis

of Industrial Economies. World Resources

Institute, New York. Amsterdam (1975) The

Amsterdam Charter, Council of Europe.

Baccini, P. and Brunner, P.H. (1991)

Metabolism of the Anthroposphere.

Springer Verlag, Berlin. Baccini, P. and

Oswald, F. (1998) Netzstadt,

Transdisziplinäre Methoden zum Umbau

urbaner Systeme. VdF, ETH, Zürich. 106

Buildings, Culture and Environment

Bachtold, H.-G. (1998) Nachhaltigkeit,

Herkunft und Definitionen eines kom plexen

Begriffs. Schweizer Ingenieur und Architekt,

116, 13, pp. 194–197. Beck, U. (1992) Risk

Society: Towards a new modernity. Sage,

London. Bequest (2001) BEQUEST: Building

Environmental Quality Evaluation for Sus

tainability through Time: A concerted action.

http://www.surveying.

salford.ac.uk/bqpart/ Bourdieu, P. (2000)

Les Structures Sociales de l’Économie. Seuil,

Paris. Boyer, C.H. (1994) The City of

Collective Memory. MIT Press, Cambridge,

MA. Brand, S. (1999) The Clock of the Long

Now. Time and responsibilility. Weidenfeld

& Nicolson, London

(http://www.longnow.org). Brandon, P.,

Lombardi, P. and Bentivegna, V. (1997)

Evaluation of the Built Envi ronment for

Sustainability. Spon Press, London. BRE

(1993) BREAM – Building Research

Establishment Environmental Assess ment

Method. An environmental assessment for

new office designs. BRE, Garston. CEC (1998)

First Framework Programme in Support of

Culture (2000–2004) COM (1998) 266.

Commission of the European Communities,

Brussels. CIB (1998) Conseil International du

Bâtiment: Sustainable development and the

future of construction. CIB Working

Commission W-92. CIB report 225, May

1998. Cole, R. (1999) Building environmental

assessment methods: clarifying intentions.

Building Research and Information 27, (4–5),

230–246. Cole, R. and Larson, N. (1998)

Green Building Challenge Manual. University

of British Columbia, Vancouver BC. COM

(1992) 23 Final: Towards Sustainability – A

European Community Pro gramme of Policy

and Action in Relation to Environmental and

Sustainable Development. HMSO, London.

COM (1999) 73: Amended proposal for a

Council Directive on assessment of the

effects of certain plans and programmes on

the environment. HMSO, London. Council of

Europe (1975) Council of Europe Resolution

(76)/28. Council of Europe, Strasbourg.

Curwell, S.R. and Deakin, M. (2002)

Sustainable urban development and

BEQUEST. Building Research and

Information, 30(2), 79–82. Daly, H. (1992)

Steady State Economics. Earthscan

Publications, London. Davoudi, S. (2001)

Planning and twin discourses of

sustainability. In: Planning for a Sustainable

Future (eds A., Layard, S. Davoudi and S.

Batty). Spon, London, pp. 85–99. Decker,

E.H., Elliott, S., Smith, F.A., Blake, D.R. and

Rowland, F.S. (2000) Energy and material

flow through the urban ecosystem. Annual

Review of Energy and the Environment, 25,

685–740. Department of the Environment /

Welsh Office (1989) Environmental

Assessment: A Guide to the Procedures.

HMSO, London. Directive 11/97/EC (1997)

European Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3

March amending Directive 85/337/EEC on

The assessment of the effects of certain

public and private projects on the

environment. Official Journal of the

European Communities No L 73, 14.3.97.

Cultural Issues for a Sustainable Built

Environment 107 Directive 85/337/EEC

(1985) Council Directive of 27 June 1985 on

the assessment of the effects of certain

public and private projects on the

environment. Official Journal of the

European Communities No L 175, 5/7/85.

Dupagne, A. (2002) The urban renaissance

through preservation of historic centres and

integration of new buildings and urban

aspects: the EU–SUIT project. In:

International Symposium: Restoration

Principles for a new Europe. Conference at

Ghent University, Department of

Architecture and Town Planning, Ghent

2002. EC Expert Group (1996) European

Sustainable Cities, Report. Directorate

General XI, Brussels. Enquete Kommission

(1997) Enquete Kommission zum Schutz von

Mensch und Umwelt des deutschen

Bundestages: Konzept Nachhaltigkeit.

Fundamente für die Gesellschaft von

Morgen. Hrsg. Deutscher Bundestag. Bonn.

European Economic Community (1967)

Treaty setting up The European Economic

Community. Granada (1985) The Granada

Convention. Council of Europe, Strasbourg.

Halbwachs, M. (1980) (Originally published

1950) The Collective Memory. Harper and

Row, New York. Hassler, U. and Kohler, N.

(2000) Interdisciplinary Architectural

Research: Cultural Heritage and Resource

Conservation. 2nd Conference of the ARRC–

AEEA, Paris. Hassler, U. and Kohler, N. (2001)

Cultural and environmental long-term strate

gies for the built environment. In: Rational

Decision-making in the Preserva tion of

Cultural Property (eds N.S. Baer and F.

Snickars), pp. 235–248. Dahlem Workshop

Report 86. Dahlem University Press, Berlin.

Hofstetter, P. (1998) Perspectives in Life

Cycle Impact Assessment. A structured

approach to combine models of the

technosphere, ecosphere and valuesphere.

Kluwer, Boston. InterSAVE (1997), InterSAVE

– International Survey on Architectural

Values in the Environment. Danish Ministry

of Environment and Energy, Copenhagen.

ISO (1997) Life cycle assessment – principles

and guidelines, ISO CD 14 040.2.

International Standards Organization,

Geneva. Johansson, B.O. (1996) The cultural

environment as a resource in a sustainable

urban culture. In: Urban development in an

Eco-cycle Adapted Industrial Society.

Swedish Building Research Council, Report

96:2, Stockholm. Kohler, N. (1999) An

observer’s perspective on the relevance of

GBC’98. (Green Building Challenge

Conference-GBC’98). Vancouver BC. Building

Research and Information 27, (4/5), 309–

320. Kohler, N. and Hassler, U. (2002) The

building stock as a research object. Build ing

Research and Information 30, (4), 226–236.

Kohler, N., Hassler, U. and Paschen, H. (1999)

(eds) Stoffströme und Kosten im Bereich

Bauen und Wohnen. Studie im Auftrag der

Enquete Kommission zum Schutz von

Mensch und Umwelt des Deutschen

Bundestages, Berlin. Krakow (2000) The

Krakow Charter, International Conference

on Conservation, Krakow. 108 Buildings,

Culture and Environment Layard, A.,

Davoudi, S. and Batty, S. (2001) Planning for

a Sustainable Future. E. & F.N. Spon, London.

Lichfield, N. (1988) Economics in Urban

Conservation. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge. Lowenthal, D. (1985) The Past is

a Foreign Country. Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge, pp. 194 and 213.

MacNaghten, P.H. (2001) Sustainable

development in urban areas: setting the

scene. In: Neighbourhoods in Crisis and

Urban Sustainable Development (eds D.

Devuyst, L. Hers and R. Impers), pp. 5–17.

VUB University Press, Brussels. Madanpour,

A., Cars, C. and Allen, J. (1998) Social

Exclusion in European Cities, Regional Policy

and Development. Kingsley Publishers,

London. Moffat, S. (2000) Tools for

Evaluating the Environmental Performance

of Build ings within an Urban Context. The

Sheltair Group Inc., Vancouver.

(http://www.sheltair.com) Murray, C.L.J.

and Lopez, A.D. (1996) The Global Burden of

Disease: A compre hensive assessment of

mortality and disability from deseases,

injuries and risk factors in 1990 and

projected to 2020. Harvard School of Public

Health, Cambridge, MA. Odum, H.T. (1983)

System Ecology. Wiley, New York. Rifkin, J.

(2001) The Age of Access: The new culture of

hypercapitalism, where all of life is a paid-for

experience. J.P. Tarcher, New York. Samson,

P. (1995) The Concept of Sustainable

Development.

http://www.gci.ch/DigitalForum/digiforum/

discussionspapers/concept.html SEA (2001)

Strategic Environmental Assessment. See

the site of the European Commission:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/ei

a/home.htm SUIT (2001) Sustainable

development of urban historical areas

through an active integration within town.

5th Framework key action The City of

Tomorrow and Cultural Heritage.

http://www.suit.lema.be Therivel, R.,

Wilson, E., Thompson, S., Heaney, D. and

Pritchard, D. (1992) Strate gical

Environmental Assessment. Earthscan,

London. United Nations (1992) Agenda 21,

Preamble. Venice (1964) The Charter of

Venice. ICOMOS, Paris. Weal, A. (1993)

Ecological modernisation and the integration

of European envi ronmental policy. In:

European Integration and Environmental

Policy (eds J.D. Liefferink, P.D. Lowe and

A.P.J. Mol). Belhaven, London. WCED (1987)

(Brundtland Committee) Our Common

Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Wolman, A. (1965) The metabolism of cities.

Scientific American, 213, 179–190. World

Bank (1994) Cultural Heritage in

Environmental Assessment, Environ mental

Assessment Sourcebook Update. September

94, No 8. World Bank (1998) Economic

Analysis and Environmental Assessment,

Environ mental Assessment Sourcebook

Update. April 98, No 23. 7 What is the

Problem? Ian Cooper Despite their differing

perspectives, the four chapters in this first

section share a common concern. Expressed

at its most basic, their authors’ anxiety is

about the continuing opposition or clash

between the ‘local’ and the ‘global’. More

specifically, they are concerned about the

impacts of externally imposed

internationalised design guidance and

standards for buildings on the continued

existence of local identity, cultural heritage

and diversity. Shields is concerned with

globalised built environments that impose

standardised international solutions

regardless of local con ditions and so act as

portals for flows between localities. Gann

shares this concern for the design of

buildings that are sensitive to their local

context. He questions how designers,

planners and developers can (legit imately)

transfer expertise, acquired within the limits

of a specific bio region, cross-culturally

beyond the context that created it. Cole

expresses the same concern using slightly

different language. For him, while the

principles underlying the design of green

buildings may be universal, designers need

to cater for the specific values and world

views of those who will use and occupy

them. Kohler agrees on the need for a sound

knowledge of host regional cultures, but

decries the (Western) imperative to export

‘progressive’ environmental practices as a

form of cultural im perialism incompatible

with Europe’s commitment to sustainable

devel opment. Although Kohler does not

make this explicit, such exportation can

occur both within Europe and between

OECD members, as well as between them

and developing countries. Globalisation, as

the interna tionalisation of markets and

increased flow of information, is seen as

disregarding cultural diversity and so is

dismissed as inimical to the achievement of

a stable, long-term framework for

developing the built environment. 110

Buildings, Culture and Environment Box 7.1.

Scholte’s core theses on ‘globalisation’ 1.

Globalisation is a transformation of social

geography marked by the growth of

supraterritorial spaces, but it does not entail

the end of territ orial geography;

territoriality and supraterritoriality coexist in

complex interrelations. 2. Although

globalisation made earlier appearances, the

trend has unfolded with unprecedented

speeds and to unprecedented extents since

the 1960s. 3. Globalisation appears today to

have acquired certain juggernaut-like quali

ties, but it need not retain its present

momentum indefinitely and could, in

principle, reverse (though the chances of

such a contraction seem remote at present).

4. Although globalisation has touched almost

every person and locale in today’s world, the

trend has spread unevenly, being most

concentrated among propertied and

professional classes, in the North, in towns,

and among younger generations. 5.

Globalisation has had multifaceted causal

dynamics, with the principal spurs having

come from rationalist knowledge, capitalist

production, various technological

innovations, and certain regulatory

measures. 6. Globalisation has not replaced

deeper social structures in relation to pro

duction (capitalism), community (the nation

and communitarianism more generally) and

knowledge (rationalism), but it has

prompted important changes to certain

attributes of capital, the state, the nation

and modern rationality, and it has

encouraged the growth of additional loci of

gover nance besides the state, the spread of

additional forms of community besides the

nation, and the development of additional

types of knowledge besides modern

rationality. 7. Contemporary globalisation

has had some important positive conse

quences with respect to cultural

regeneration, communication, decentral

ization of power, economic efficiency and

the range of available products, but

neoliberal policies toward globalisation have

had many negative con sequences in regard

to increased ecological degradation,

persistent poverty, worsened working

conditions, various cultural violences,

widened arbitary inequalities and deepened

democratic deficits. 8. Globalisation is not

inherently good or bad; its outcomes are

largely the results of human decisions that

can be debated and changed, and a host of

alternative policies could avoid the ills

associated with neoliberal global isation, but

the political challenges of achieving full-scale

reform most not be underestimated. Source:

Scholte (2000) What is the Problem? 111

Globalisation remains a much contested

issue. As Scholte (2000) has remarked: ‘What

is globalization? Why has globalization

occurred? How, if at all, has globalization

generated social change? . . . if asked to

specify what they understand by

“globalization”, most people reply with

consider able vagueness, inconsistency and

confusion. Moreover much discus sion of

globalization is steeped in oversimplification,

exaggeration and wishful thinking. In spite of

the huge deluge of publication on the

subject, our analyses of globalization tend to

remain conceptually inexact, empirically

thin, historically and culturally illiterate,

norma tively shallow and politically naïve.

Although globalization is widely assumed to

be crucially important, we generally have

scant idea what, more precisely, it entails.’

Scholte, 2000, p. 1 Despite this vagueness,

Scholte (2000) has tabled (pp. 8–9) what he

sees as ‘core theses’ on globalisation. These

are detailed in Box 7.1. As Scholte’s list

indicates, perhaps the four authors in this

section are right to be concerned. But what

precisely should they be worried about? The

local versus the global In the West, at least,

a longstanding division exists between: •

thelocal– seen as particular or unique to a

specific place and so often characterised as

‘authentic’ and ‘organic’, and • the

universal– seen as ‘inorganic’ and hence

categorised as ‘artificial’. This division can,

for instance, be traced back to the

Enlightenment (Williams, 1999). Since then,

Europeans and North Americans have laid

claim to universal principles based on reason

– such as scientific and tech nological

progress, rights, egalitarianism and

democracy. While these principles have not

been held to mean that local cultures should

be dis missed, liberal democracy has typically

been viewed as a universally valid system

that the West has a duty to help others

achieve. Not surprisingly, others have

begged to differ – see, for example the work

of Burbach et al. (1997) and Germain (2000)

on globalisation and its critics. 112 Buildings,

Culture and Environment From a variety of

anti-globalisation perspectives, the West is

seen as forcing ‘the other’ (developing or

transitional countries) to submit to Western

(cap italist) ways of running an economy or

ordering political affairs. To express the

same concern in words more pertinent to

the context of this book, the West is

exporting inappropriate economic, cultural

and environmental standards and practices

for buildings and infrastructures, both within

(and beyond) its borders. Much of the

discomfort expressed by the four authors in

this section can be traced to these kinds of

roots. Consequently, their uneasiness

appears to be as much political and

economic as it is architec tural or

environmental. Political economy is

therefore a useful starting point to begin to

explore the underlying reasons for their

unease. As Hutton has commented (Hutton

and Giddens, 2000, p. 3): ’The argument has

to be that the changes [brought by

globalisation] are of such a degree that there

has been a fundamental challenge to the

operation and our understanding of

capitalism.’ The production of the built

environment is not immune from these

changes. Prompted in part by the spread of

the Modern Movement, the twentieth

century saw an increased commodification

of buildings which are now widely seen as

interchangeable units of production capable

of being conceived and built anywhere.

There is now a growing cadre of architects

and engineers willing to practise anywhere in

the world, regard less of their understanding

of local economics, culture, or climate. To

combat this tendency, we now require

architects and engineers explicitly dedicated

to regionally and locally sensitive design,

who are capable of recognising, protecting

and enhancing the significant economic,

environ mental and social traits and

characteristics of the locations in which they

are asked to operate. Internationalisation of

production According to Dicken (1992), the

impact of globalisation was already pro

found a decade ago. He observed (p. 3) that

the most significant develop ment in the

world economy since the early 1980s had

been: ‘the increasing globalization of

economic activities . . . Few, if any, industries

now have much “natural protection” from

international competition whereas in the

past, geographical distance created a strong

insulating effect. Today, in contrast, fewer

and fewer industries are ori ented towards

local, regional or even national markets.’

What is the Problem? 113

Internationalisation is a strategy being

pursued by firms seeking to maximise,

increase, or at least sustain, their

profitability (Dicken, 1992, p. 145): ‘An

internationalization strategy can contribute

to both parts of a firm’s profit equation. On

the one hand, expansion and increased

penetration of international markets

through direct investment can increase rev

enues. On the other hand, location of

production in countries where some, or all,

of the factors of production can be acquired

at lower rela tive cost contributes towards

the minimization of the cost element in the

profit equation.’ For Dicken, a perquisite of

international production is the presence of

enabling technologies – such as transport,

communication and organisa tion. Dicken

gave no attention in his detailed examination

of the processes of globalisation to the role

of the construction industry world wide. But

to his list of enabling technologies should be

added the avail ability of support services to

provide a sufficiently productive built

environment – at least at the point of

immediate production, if not else where in

the general catchment area for employees.

Hertz (2001, p. 33) has commented critically

on such internationalisation because of her

concern about its impact on democracy:

‘Corporations think nothing nowadays of

breaking up their chain of pro duction and

locating the links all over the world wherever

seems most advantageous. Designing their

products in one place, entering into pro

duction alliances in another, outsourcing

components and service activ ities

somewhere else, sourcing their inputs,

capital, raw materials and even labour from

wherever costs of production are lower, tax

benefits more favourable and access to raw

materials or skills cheaper, and mar keting in

yet another place. Even firms previously

comfortably situated within their home

territories and relatively domestically

oriented have recently disembedded their

production and main operations from the

parent state, seeking to lower production

costs and expand in develop ing markets.’

And she has questioned (Hertz, 2001, p. 35)

the outcomes of this process: ‘What is the

net result of global capitalism, of a world in

which people’s economic well-being and

physical safety are determined primarily by

114 Buildings, Culture and Environment the

strategies and actions of international

financial investors and multi national

corporations? A world in which the primary

service that national governments appear to

be able to offer their citizens is to provide an

attractive environment for corporations or

international f inancial investors?’ She notes

that such ‘environments’, while

economically attractive to business, can be

socially and environmentally unsustainable:

‘In such circumstances . . . “pollution havens”

are created as environ mentally unfriendly

policies are allowed far below socially

desirable levels, human rights abuses, a blind

eye turned to illegal acts, all in an attempt to

attract foreign investment. . . .’ Shiva (2000,

pp. 112–13), a founder member of the

International Forum on Globalisation, has

taken this criticism further. She suggested

that, since the 1950s, a ‘non-sustainable

industrial paradigm in the name of

development’ has been exported: ‘In a world

of globalised, deregulated commerce in

which everything is tradable and economic

strength is the only determinant of power

and control, resources move from the poor

to the rich, and pollution moves from the

rich to the poor. The result is environmental

apartheid.’ Such apartheid can be explicitly

marked by the kind of ‘globalised build ings’

that Shields describes in his chapter. These

often stand, particularly in the form of hotels

and airports for international travellers, in

stark and insensitive opposition to local

cultures whose values or traditions are much

less ecologically demanding. Nor are these

stark impositions restricted just to

developing or transitional countries. Their

incongruity can often be encountered in

OECD countries too, especially in or adjacent

to their cultural heritage sites or remaining

‘wilderness’ areas. Consumption versus the

regenerative capacity of the Earth For Rees

(2000), the problem is more systemic than

the existence of localised pollution havens or

even global environmental apartheid. It

centres on the unsustainability of the

ecological niche that industrial society has

carved for itself. As a result, Rees sees

humans as a species that has a pathological

relationship with its ecosphere, the earth:

What is the Problem? 115 ‘Driven by an

uncritical worship of economic growth, it

seems that con sumption by humans

threatens to overwhelm the ecosphere from

within .... The continuous growth of any

species in nature is an unnat ural condition

that can be purchased only at the expense of

other species and the integrity of the

ecosystem as a whole.’ Rees, 2000, p. 23

Looked at from the perspective of other

organisms, humankind resembles an acute

epidemic disease. Recognition of this

problem is, Rees believes (2000, p. 24),

simply the first step in finding workable

solutions. Currently the problem remains, if

not unrecognised, then unconfronted.

Current world development models depend

on high-income regions running a massive

ecological deficit with the rest of the world:

‘For example, Japan and the Netherlands

both boast positive trade and current

account balances measured in monetary

terms, and their popu lations are amongst

the most prosperous on earth. Densely

populated yet relatively resource- (natural

capital) poor, these countries are regarded

as stellar economic successes and held up as

models for emulation by the developing

world. At the same time, we estimate

that...these countries have an ecological

footprint about eight and f ifteen times

larger than their domestic territories

nationally. The marked contrast between the

physical and monetary accounts of such

economic success stories raises difficult

developmental questions in a world whose

principal strategy for sustainability is

economic growth.’ Rees, 2000, p. 34 It is not

just that the ecological locations of high-

density regions no longer coincide with their

geographical borders but that their survival

depends on them appropriating the

ecological output and life-support functions

of distant regions all over the world by

means of both commercial trade and natural

flows of energy and material through the

ecosphere. As a consequence, Rees argues,

development planning has to acknowledge:

‘No [building,] city or urban region can

achieve sustainability on its own. Regardless

of the sensitivity of [environmentally

‘progressive’ buildings,] urban land use or

environmental policies to ecological con

cerns, a prerequisite for sustainable cities is

sustainability of the coun tryside . . . and the

impact urban populations and cities have on

the ecosphere.’ Rees, 2000, p. 36 116

Buildings, Culture and Environment This

diagnosis has been reiterated by two more

recent (and related) studies. First, an

international review based in three

continents (Wackernagel et al., 2002) has

sought to track the ecological overshoot of

the human economy globally. This has

concluded ‘Our accounts indicate that

human demand may well have exceeded the

biosphere’s regenerative capacity since the

1980s’ (Wackernagel et al., 2002, p. 1).

According to the research team’s preliminary

and exploratory assessment, based like

Rees’s on employing natural capital

accounting techniques using biophysical

units, ‘Humanity’s load corresponded to 70%

of the capacity of the global biosphere in

1961, and grew to 120% in 1999.’ Likewise

the World Wide Fund for Nature’s latest

periodic update on the state of the world’s

ecosystems (Loh, 2002) depicts this human

load as having a severe effect on

biodiversity: ‘The planet is suffering such a

rapid loss of its natural resources that we are

now eating into its capital stocks of forests,

fish and fertile soil .... It is very unlikely that

the Earth will be able to run an overdraft of

this magnitude for another 50 years without

some severe ecological backlash

undermining future population and

economic growth.’ We are being warned

that our rate of plundering the planet

outstrips its regenerative capacity to support

life. This raises an urgent issue. Will the type

and level of international exchange of

information – promoted, for example, by

activities like this book – be able to generate

sufficient potential to re-align the

consumption generated by the built environ

ment to stay within the planet’s regenerative

capacity within the short timescale

identified? This seems unlikely. Instead our

ability to respond promptly and positively to

this issue will require much greater

investment in efforts to enhance our

understanding of the resources flows and

envi ronmental impacts arising from the

construction, operation and disposal of built

environments – not just locally and

nationally but at a global scale too.

Industrialisation and the conditions of

modernity From a sociological perspective,

Giddens argues in The Consequences of

Modernity that criticism of capitalism and

globalisation as the source of our problems

is misplaced: ‘The rapidly changing character

of modern social life does not derive

essentially from capitalism, but from the

energising impulse of a complex division of

labour, harnessing production to human

needs What is the Problem? 117 through the

industrial exploitation of nature. We live, not

in a capital ist, but in an industrialist order.’

Giddens, 2000, p. 11 Globalisation is simply a

prevailing condition of ‘late modernity’. For

Giddens (2000, pp. 18 and 20), the

dynamism of modernity derives pre cisely

from the ‘separation of time and space’ – the

dislocation of the global from the local that

troubles the authors in this section of the

book: ‘The advent of modernity increasingly

tears space away from place by fostering

relations between “absent” others,

locationally distant from any given situation

of face-to-face interaction .... This

phenomenon serves to open up manifold

possibilities of change by breaking free from

the restraints of local habits and practices.’

Such ‘dissembedding’ (Giddens, 2000, p. 21)

lifts social relations from local contexts of

interaction and restructures them ‘across

indefinite spans of time space’. Giddens

(2000, p. 27) identifies separation of practice

from place as occurring through

establishment of what he calls ‘expert

systems’, i.e.: ‘. . . systems of technical

accomplishment or professional expertise

that organise large areas of the material and

social environments in which we live today.’

Ironically, the first example he offers of such

a system is the construction industry: ‘I have

no particular fear in going upstairs in a

dwelling, even though I know that in

principle the structure might collapse. I know

very little about the codes of knowledge

used by the architect and the builder in the

design and construction of the home, but I

nonetheless have “faith” in what they have

done. My “faith” is not so much in them,

although I trust to their competence, as in

the authenticity of the knowledge which

they apply.’ Giddens, 2000, p. 27 Crucially, all

‘professional’ expert systems require an

attitude of trust. Trust is related to absence

in time and space (Giddens, 2000, p. 33)

since there would be no need to trust

anyone: • whose activities were continually

visible; • whose thought processes were

transparent; or • whose workings were

wholly known or understood. According to

Giddens, ‘All trust is in a certain sense blind

trust!’ Trust in expert systems, he argues,

rests upon faith in the correctness of prin

118 Buildings, Culture and Environment

ciples of which one is ignorant. Seen from

this perspective, the anxieties expressed by

the authors of the four chapters in this

section are clearly bivalent. They reside not

just in the unknown and uniqueness of the

nature of the cultural contexts to which

information and technologies for

environmentally ‘progressive’ buildings are

being transferred, but in the correctness of

the principles being applied as well.

Confronting the complexity Expressed

simply, the anxieties given voice by the

authors in this section have multiple,

complex causes. They arise from the

intertwining of a range of factors, shown in

Fig. 7.1: • globalisation, with its attendant

democratic deficits • growing urbanisation

and industrialisation • the continuing

internationalisation of both production and

consump tion • the overstretched

regenerative capacity of the Earth • the

dislocation of the global from the local as a

condition of ‘late modernity’ in industrialised

societies. Fig. 7.1 Factors giving rise to the

dislocation of the global from the local What

is the Problem? 119 A clear understanding of

these factors is required if we are to

construct a robust framework for taking

appropriate actions when transferring infor

mation and technologies between cultures.

Without this understanding, we risk acting

blindly. If we do, our actions are likely to

have unintended consequences. What,

beyond tinkering at the margins, can

environmentally ‘progressive’ buildings

achieve in developed countries if they are

inserted into intrin sically unsustainable

contexts and circumstances? Worse still,

what will they achieve if they are imported

into inappropriate regions and act as local

portals through which flow production and

consumption practices grounded in

unsustainable Western patterns of

industrialisation and urbanisation? The

opening section of the book raises rather

than answers such questions. It spawns

many more. 1. What is the continuing impact

of globalisation on architecture (A) and the

construction industry (C)? 2. What are the

current roles of A and C in the complexly

intertwined processes of industrialisation,

urbanisation, globalisation and

modernisation? 3. Are A and C agents for or,

at least potentially, anchors on the

exportation of unsustainable patterns of

industrialisation and urbanisation? 4. Are A

and C being dragged along behind (willingly

or unwillingly) as essential support services –

necessary to providing productive and

profitable settings in which advanced

capitalist forms of production and

consumption can operate? 5. Or are A and C

being sent on ahead to put in place

globalised build ings and settings that act as

symbolic landing craft or concrete bridge

heads for further industrialisation and

urbanisation? 6. What space (room for

manoeuvre) remains for the creation of

environmentally ‘responsive’ buildings and

sustainable development to operate in? 7.

Where, when and how will the impact of

climate change, over shooting the planet’s

regenerative capacity, or loss of bio- and

cultural diversity intervene in the current

trajectory of global indus trialisation and

urbanisation? 8. Will the predominant

architectural and construction practices

serve to accelerate or delay, to amplify or

diminish, the consequences of this

intervention? 120 Buildings, Culture and

Environment 9. What capabilities will

architects, constructors and clients need to

reverse this? What capabilities will civil

society need to scrutinise how effectively the

built environment is being delivered or

managed on its behalf? 10. What aspects of

governance need to change to

accommodate such a reversal? To be able to

answer such questions, we need conceptual

frameworks and decision-support systems

capable of simultaneously focusing our atten

tion both broadly and in depth on: • the

political economy of the production and

consumption of the built environment in

both developed and developing countries,

especially as this relates to urbanisation and

industrialisation; • its relationship to the

engines and trajectory of globalisation; and •

its local and global contributions to the

outstripping of the earth’s regenerative

capacity. Critical regionalism revisited –

towards an architecture of resistance? The

questions posed above also require a

specifically architectural response.

Fortunately the issues they address are by no

means new to architectural discourse. In

1961, Paul Ricoeur wrote: ‘The phenomenon

of universalization, while being an

advancement of mankind, at the same time

constitutes a sort of subtle destruction, not

only of traditional cultures . . . but also what

I shall call . . . the creative nucleus of great

cultures. . . . We have the feeling that single

world civilization at the same time exerts a

sort of attrition or wearing away at the

expense of the cultural resources which have

made the great civilizations of the past.’ For

Ricoeur, this phenomenon was a double-

edged sword involving both the eradication

of local cultures and the erosion of great

cultures by universalisation: ‘It seems as if

mankind, by approaching en masse a basic

consumer culture, were also stopped en

masse at a subcultural level. Thus we come

to the crucial problem confronting nations

just arising from What is the Problem? 121

underdevelopment. In order to get towards

modernization, is it neces sary to jettison the

old cultural past which has been the raison

d’être of a nation? . . . There is the paradox:

how to become modern and to return to

sources; how to revive an old dormant

civilization and take part in universal

civilization.’ In 1983, Frampton (2002, pp.

77–8) used Ricoeur’s paradox as the starting

point for his own call for an ‘architecture of

resistance’ to be practised not by an avant-

garde but an arrière-garde (p. 81): ‘. . . which

distances itself equally from the

Enlightenment myth of progress and from a

reactionary, unrealistic impulse to return to

the architectonic forms of the pre-industrial

past. A critical arrière-garde has to remove

itself from both the optimisation of

advanced technol ogy and the ever-present

tendency to regress into nostalgic

historicism or the glibly decorative.’

Frampton contended that only an arrière-

garde has the capacity to culti vate a

resistant, identity-giving culture while at the

same time giving recourse to universal

technique. To label this movement he

appropriated the term ‘critical regionalism’

from Tzonis and Lefaivre (1981): ‘The

fundamental strategy of Critical Regionalism

is to mediate the impact of universal

civilisation with elements derived indirectly

from the peculiarities of place. It is clear that

Critical Regionalism depends on maintaining

a high level of critical self-consciousness. It

may find its governing inspiration in such

things as the range and quality of local light,

or in a tectonic derived from a peculiar

structural mode, or in the typography of a

given site.’ Frampton saw this ‘architecture

of resistance’, through its emphasis on

reaction to place, as waging a guerrilla war

(Irace, 1985, p. 7) against ‘the ubiquitous,

space-endlessness of the consumerist

Megalopolis’ by addressing itself to

‘bounded domains’ rather than ‘free

standing objects’. Frampton (1985) hoped

that the resultant architecture would be able

to resist ‘. . . being totally absorbed by the

global imperatives of production and

consumption’. Krause (1990) criticised

Frampton’s critical regionalism as resting on

the seemingly innocent (and hence naïve?)

assumption that: ‘. . . for a given region there

are appropriate architectural forms. [And

that] These place forms will resist the

universalising tendencies of modernism.’

122 Buildings, Culture and Environment

Conversely, Herr (1996, pp. 17–18) identified

what she saw as the ‘provoca tive potential’

of Frampton’s region-specific analysis: ‘This

critique can be enormously useful in the

pursuit of a more sensi tive, environmentally

attentive, dialectical, historically challenging,

hegemony-resistant [approach] . . . Above

all, critical regionalism refers less to a

specific kind of building than it does to the

resistances that architecture can offer to a

totalising environment.’ Critical regionalism

shares its focus on place and on resistance

with what, in human geography, McGinnis et

al. (1999, p. 211) have called ‘bio regional

restoration’. The goal of this is to: ‘. . . re-

immerse the practices of human

communities within the bio regions that

provide their material support. . . .

Bioregional restoration can be a therapeutic

strategy to expose ourselves viscerally to

local ecosystem processes, to foster

identification with other life forms and to

rebuild community within place, as the

insights and local informa tion that emerge

from restoration activities affect the cultural

and eco nomic practices of the human

population.’ And, like critical regionalism,

bioregionalism is focused on combining

‘grounded, place-based knowledge’ with

scientific understanding (Gold stein, 1999, p.

163) – i.e., on re-integrating the local with

the universal or global. The positions

outlined by critical regionalism and

bioregional restoration can thus be called

upon to give a name and a mode of attack to

the con cerns expressed in the early chapters

of this book. A re-articulation of crit ical

regionalism, drawing on more recent

developments in bioregionalism, could begin

to provide the possibility of an ‘architecture

of resistance’ that is sustainably aware. Such

an approach could directly embrace Cole’s

desire for an architecture that reconciles

technological change with both the local

environment and occupants’ values and

world views. It could also directly confront

Kohler’s desire for a regional architecture

based on a sound (but not unreflective)

knowledge of local culture and heritage. It

could also begin to address Gann’s complaint

against designers and devel opers who work

outside the limits of the bioregion in which

their knowl edge and experience has been

acquired. And indeed, if successful, a

‘critical’ regional architecture could even, in

Shields’ terms, not just act as a portal for the

flow of information between localities, but

simultane ously operate as a bastion for the

defence of significantly important local

economic, environmental and cultural

differences.

Students also viewed