UnEarth Magazine.

Opinion, Past Issues, Vol 4, Issue 1 – 2023/4, Who makes the rules?

Aesthetics of harm in Sustainable Architecture.

Words by Ali Quirk, Art by Clodagh Earl.

UnEarth Magazine

November 21, 2023

3–5 minutes

Words by Ali Quirk, Art by Clodagh Earl.

We are all guilty of falling for clever marketing, often betraying our common sense to buy into a trend which promises to improve our lives. Like most human behavior of today, these habits are rooted in the pervasive histories of capitalism and colonialism which have undoubtedly served as the most powerful marketing instruments of all time: advertising ‘modernity’ as a justification for the exploitation of the people and natural resources on Earth. While the intersection of sustainability, capitalism, and colonialism is perhaps most notorious as it pertains to our consumerist tendencies, it certainly extends to the greenwashing practices of architecture as well. Insincere efforts toward sustainability work to reproduce physical and social harm, particularly when ‘sustainable’ buildings pop up in gentrified neighborhoods or on land seized from indigenous people. However, architecture equally has the potential to usher in a new era of sustainability which prioritizes attentive design and earnest communication over green aesthetics and profitability. This would be an essential step in breaking the tenacious bonds between capitalism, colonialism, and sustainability.

First, let’s address how the rampant greenwashing of today is hindering our efforts toward sustainability. Some architects prey upon humanity’s appetite for all things ‘modern’, a craving adopted from a lifetime in a capitalist society. By exploiting our gullibility to create profitable buildings designed to fit the ‘sustainable aesthetic’ (think natural materials, clean lines, and a plethora of greenery), these architects can avoid taking the necessary steps to truly reduce the environmental footprint of the structure. This is greenwashing. These architects often correctly assume that if all the aesthetic boxes are checked, the average person will not consider the mechanics behind the climate control systems, or the emissions produced during construction, for example. Greenwashing can occur more passively too, specifically if these mechanical considerations do not cross the mind of the architect during the design process, resulting in an incongruous design which ends up working against the sustainable initiatives that modern architecture seeks to champion.

Ulrike Heine, a professor of Architecture at Clemson University, hopes to break this habit in young architects by teaching the power of integrated design techniques. As opposed to conventional building design strategies which prioritize spatial design over the efficiency of the structure, integrated design looks to accomplish a harmony between the scientific goals and artistic initiatives of architecture. Greenwashing stands opposite to both design practices yet is becoming increasingly commonplace as corners are cut to get the green label without the expensive price tag. This price tag, though, ignores the tremendous environmental and social costs that accompany unsustainable construction. As follows, environmental costs must not only include emissions once the building is in operation, but must also consider embodied carbon, encompassing emissions for the construction process, such as logging, shipping, and installation. These embodied carbon emissions also carry a social burden, as potential human exploitation occurs at each step. Fred Bernstein, in his work teaching about embodied carbon, makes the important point that buildings whose operation have lower emissions tend to have greater emissions from construction. As such, even a building which fits all the external requirements for the sustainable aesthetic will have significant underlying costs through its true social and environmental damage, particularly in its displacement of low-income residents, known as green gentrification.

Thus, as Phineas Harper argues, “simply making the status quo more efficient, rather than shifting to a fundamentally different paradigm, is a doomed strategy.” Current architectural goals of sustainability are stuck in cycles of greenwashing. The solution requires an upheaval in the discipline that eliminates the discourses of ‘modernity’ which endorse the physical and social harm of marginalized communities. Instead, the field of architecture must be reconstructed with greater accessibility, inclusivity, and a robust culture of communication that works to repair the damage caused by dispossession and gentrification under colonialism and capitalism. Jefa Greenaway, an indigenous architect in Victoria, Australia, advocates for a people-first process which centers collaboration, consultation and participation, specifically when it comes to indigenous housing design. This people-first approach is not limited to conversations between architects and clients. If everyone reconsiders their relationships to sustainable architecture and what it means to be ‘green’, we can work to make a real impact in saving the environment and healing social harm. Toward that effort, the following articles by indigenous architects and scholars are great reads to learn about how a future architectural paradigm can avoid falling into the aesthetic traps of sustainability and bring about true change.