Green Guilt
The cover story of this month's
Metropolis talks about Ed Mazria's claim that architects are responsible for about half of America's energy consumption and about half of its greenhouse gas emissions. He figures that if you recombine traditional assessments of US energy consumption so that buildings are considered one category, it's buildings and not "industry" that should take the blame. He has a formula for flattening out the energy-use and greenhouse gas growth curves through sustainable building practices (siting, materials, etc.). He says, "When I tell groups of architects that so much responsibility lies on their shoulders, it's a little bit of disbelief. Shock even." I'd say.
Kinda reckless to be blaming architects for a worldwide socio-economic phenomenon involving oil, policy, and human behavior. Pay architects to make more efficient buildings, and they'll do it. Keep paying them to be urban decorators, and they won't. But the motivation, as Mazria sees it, will come from idealism: "Because of the way design has always been taught in schools, I think architects tend to have a pretty highly tuned moral sense. And if architects understand the weight that's on their shoulders, they'll rally to do what they have to do." Architects rallying. Good one.
I say it simply takes money. Energy-efficiency saves clients money. If the savings are big enough in the long run, they'll pay an up-front premium for an architect to give it to them. Take, for example, Norman Foster. By the way, I just read on a discussion board that he took home £9 million last year (that's separate from his company's profits). Hoo.
* Ray, 9/28/2003 12:57:35 AM
