Like 1980s Golf Resorts
“Why do today’s ‘sustainable cities’ look like 1980s golf resorts?” asks architect, writer, and urban theorist Jeffrey Inaba.
[Image: An "urban district above the water" in Seoul, Korea, by SCIFI and Minsuk Cho; view larger].
He adds that “projects said to be sustainable” often receive "less scrutiny" than projects not so described – which has one particularly disturbing side-effect: sustainable development becomes one of the easiest ways to produce what Inaba calls "regressive urban environments" – with the full support of people who consider themselves architecturally progressive.
A "sustainable" high-rise, for instance, and this is me talking now, can very quickly get away with being stylistically uninteresting, contextually insensitive, and nothing more than a get-rich-quick financial scheme thrown up on the horizon by billion-dollar property developers in New York, London, Dubai, Miami, and so on.
But it's "green," so no one says anything – except to hype it, pointing out that the building has a few solar panels.
I would even suggest that “sustainable architecture” has gotten to the point where nearly all it takes now to make a lifelong environmentalist cheer for and promote the offshore corporate heads of international real estate development firms is for those firms to install functionally useless ornamental wind turbines on the roofs of unnecessary Manhattan high-rises – because why ask yourself tough questions when all your jeans are made from organic cotton?
Just call yourself an optimist and build more bank towers in central London.
Capitalism has never had it so good: you’ve got hordes of environmentalists actually selling your products for you...
In any case, to explore what a “sustainable city” might look like someday, steering clear of the "1980s golf resort" typology, Inaba’s SCIFI program teamed up with the increasingly interesting architect Minsuk Cho to propose “an urban district [built] above the water” of the River Han in Seoul, Korea.
As such, the project "is a reaction against the regressive urban environments executed in the name of ecological sustainability" that we see peppering global design blogs today.
But does this project, pictured above, really achieve the goal of expanding what it might mean to be sustainable?
We report; you decide.
Meanwhile, read BLDGBLOG’s earlier interview with Jeffrey Inaba, one I think deserves more readers' attention: Of cars, dogs, golf, and bad feng shui: An Interview with Jeffrey Inaba.
[Image: An "urban district above the water" in Seoul, Korea, by SCIFI and Minsuk Cho; view larger].He adds that “projects said to be sustainable” often receive "less scrutiny" than projects not so described – which has one particularly disturbing side-effect: sustainable development becomes one of the easiest ways to produce what Inaba calls "regressive urban environments" – with the full support of people who consider themselves architecturally progressive.
A "sustainable" high-rise, for instance, and this is me talking now, can very quickly get away with being stylistically uninteresting, contextually insensitive, and nothing more than a get-rich-quick financial scheme thrown up on the horizon by billion-dollar property developers in New York, London, Dubai, Miami, and so on.
But it's "green," so no one says anything – except to hype it, pointing out that the building has a few solar panels.
I would even suggest that “sustainable architecture” has gotten to the point where nearly all it takes now to make a lifelong environmentalist cheer for and promote the offshore corporate heads of international real estate development firms is for those firms to install functionally useless ornamental wind turbines on the roofs of unnecessary Manhattan high-rises – because why ask yourself tough questions when all your jeans are made from organic cotton?
Just call yourself an optimist and build more bank towers in central London.
Capitalism has never had it so good: you’ve got hordes of environmentalists actually selling your products for you...
In any case, to explore what a “sustainable city” might look like someday, steering clear of the "1980s golf resort" typology, Inaba’s SCIFI program teamed up with the increasingly interesting architect Minsuk Cho to propose “an urban district [built] above the water” of the River Han in Seoul, Korea.
As such, the project "is a reaction against the regressive urban environments executed in the name of ecological sustainability" that we see peppering global design blogs today.
But does this project, pictured above, really achieve the goal of expanding what it might mean to be sustainable?
We report; you decide.
Meanwhile, read BLDGBLOG’s earlier interview with Jeffrey Inaba, one I think deserves more readers' attention: Of cars, dogs, golf, and bad feng shui: An Interview with Jeffrey Inaba.
html is both okay and encouraged.
For posts written more than a week ago, comments
will have to be moderated; this takes a few hours.
Thanks!
20 Comments:
Amen to that. Your peers at some other "green" blogs could use a little bit more of this healthy skepticism...
Thanks. This is a perfectly-constructed analysis of why eco-whatever, as it is currently envisioned, sucks.
amen!
While I agree that there is an offensively large amount of "greenwashing" in todays building industry, putting wind turbines on the roof of your building doesn't give you the power to call yourself sustainable.
Certified green buildings take into account everything from site selection and construction materials, to diverting construction waste from landfills and improving indoor air quality. Getting a structure or development certified green requires the involvement of all stakeholders from the beginning of the planning process. These buildings result in healthier environments for both the users of the structure and the surrounding ecosystems.
The buildings that are built as usual and then topped with an ornamental wind turbine are NOT green buildings or sustainable at all and should not be included in any discussion regarding the green building industry.
The buildings that are built as usual and then topped with an ornamental wind turbine are NOT green buildings or sustainable at all and should not be included in any discussion regarding the green building industry.
Are you implying that this post states otherwise?
And what about the local people displaced by these monstrosities that pretend to be green? As Tricia Barnett, director of Tourism Concern, said in a recent Guardian article about hypertourism:
"What the tourist will never see, though, is who might have been forcibly moved from their homes to make way for the new resorts and golf courses, how much biodiversity has been lost in their development, how local needs might be sacrificed—such as water—and the extent of the corruption."
http://intelligenttravel.typepad.com/it/2007/10/super-size-duba.html#more
But the more significant question might be, why does the "truly sustainable" solution reached by SCIFI and Minsuk Cho appear just as apt to be cleverly captioned, in this case as: "Like 1960s Metabolist Superstructure, left to mould over"
Is this any more contextually, historically appropriate than what is being bemoaned, and (perhaps more importantly) why should it be? Are we willing to admit that we just like it better?
Why the belittling article mocking the faceless masses? Do you think anyone really believes that all new green developments are perfect? One simply hopes that new developments start to carve out an environmentally-aware niche, into which we hope the rest of the economy will follow. Shifts this massive take time. Remember how Whole Foods couldn't get all the organic produce its consumer base demanded, so they had to start funding farms to do more? The real estate equivalent of that is some so-so building that needs solar panels for its greenwashing. It helps expand the market for solar panels and drives down the cost for everybody in the long run. It's a pretty positive step.
It's a lot harder to change the course of a giant moving ship than to stand on the dock and yell at it for not turning fast enough. It's helpful to critique a specific building on how it could better live up to its sustainable marketing, but a blanket inditement seems a little like...oh I don't know like a san franciscan!
Touché - but cheering on international property developers simply because they throw a few wind turbines up onto the roofs of what are otherwise the world's tackiest buildings doesn't strike me as a morally impressive next step for global environmentalism.
It's also important to point out that I'm not arguing against the use of wind turbines, I'm arguing against the celebration of real estate development firms simply because they use them.
Why should I be in favor of building bad postmodern throw-backs to the late-80s simply because 1) those buildings are in Dubai, and 2) they have solar panels? Who cares?
Is this what they call a Straw Man argument?
What exactly is the link between sustainability and bad architectural taste? Perhaps asking for some cases in point is too much. Bldgblog is a fun and inspiring read but he doesn't do logic very well.
Maybe you've mistaken your local council for environmentalists. Trust me - environmentalists rarely cheer on anything - particularly not property developers.
What exactly is the link between sustainability and bad architectural taste?
There isn't one, and this post doesn't claim that there is. But you can pretend that it says that and then insult me.
Awesome!
This post says, rather, that increasingly often a building with almost no redeeming qualities - including what you call "architectural taste" - can escape criticism simply by claiming to be sustainable.
In fact, I think it says that quite clearly:
[Inaba] adds that “projects said to be sustainable” often receive "less scrutiny" than projects not so described – which has one particularly disturbing side-effect: sustainable development becomes one of the easiest ways to produce what Inaba calls "regressive urban environments" – with the full support of people who consider themselves architecturally progressive.
That doesn't say sustainability = bad architectural taste. Oh well!
You also say, "Maybe you've mistaken your local council for environmentalists."
Yeah, and maybe I haven't.
Marisa said...
It's a lot harder to change the course of a giant moving ship than to stand on the dock and yell at it for not turning fast enough. It's helpful to critique a specific building on how it could better live up to its sustainable marketing, but a blanket inditement seems a little like...oh I don't know like a san franciscan!
To quote R. Buckminster Fuller - 'Call me trimtab'. :)
Trimtab, that's very cute.
I fear that I, too, might get yelled at, but I felt like you were a bit harsh with acll23, even given his/her unhelpful tone.
A "sustainable" high-rise, for instance, and this is me talking now, can very quickly get away with being stylistically uninteresting, contextually insensitive, and nothing more than a get-rich-quick financial scheme thrown up on the horizon by billion-dollar property developers in New York, London, Dubai, Miami, and so on. . . .
Why should I be in favor of building bad postmodern throw-backs to the late-80s simply because 1) those buildings are in Dubai, and 2) they have solar panels? Who cares?
Perhaps the problem is that some readers did not follow your attempt to distinguish between "faux sustainability" and "true sustainability" and did not quite get that you disdain large development firms plowing forward with ugly (and "contextually insensitive" "get-rich-quick" projects) with the fig leaf of some token solar panels or turbines. But whatever.
Perhaps my response to acl123 was too harsh, but having my ability to "do logic" denigrated because he or she misread my post strikes me (even now) as both offensive and absurd.
Of course, maybe I misread acl123's comment - in which case I'll just personally insult him or her, and then we'll be even.
Meanwhile, I apologize to everyone here if I've come across as an asshole.
Sorry, one more comment and then I'll shut up.
The tone of my reply to acl123 (whose original comment still strikes me as much harsher than my later response) might also reveal that I'm increasingly annoyed by the fact that we live in an era of black and white thinking. In other words, it seems relatively clear - though perhaps I'm wrong - that acl123 saw a post on BLDGBLOG that wasn't screaming for more unnecessary high rises in Dubai, and so he or she thought: "You're with us or you're against us!"
In fact, this post - as the secretary, above, very succinctly sums up - strikes me as extremely clear. Its point, to me, seems very accessibly made. But then maybe I've lost the ability to edit my own writing. However, if you actually read the words in this post, you'll see that is not an attack on sustainability or a claim that sustainability inherently results in ugly buildings.
It says that we should not uncritically promote the activities of property developers in cities like Dubai simply because those developers use wind turbines.
I just feel like a person can make the statement that sustainability is not blanket permission to construct bad buildings without being accused of illogic, or even of anti-environmentalist thinking.
But you're with us or you're against us, right?
You're in thrall to the plans of London high rise developers or you have no proper grasp on logical thinking.
When will government get involved enough to allow GBC credits, that are meant to better our world, be denied because of code violations.
My favorite example here in Toronto is a temporary Condominium sales centre that has been LEED certified and is being largely applauded.
Not to mention the building they've proposed:
www.m5vlife.com
Skepticism is a very healthy idea indeed. As a "green" lighting designer, I find it funny when I hear that a building is sustainable because it makes use of some solar and wind. Then look inside and you see A-lamps and MR16's burning throughout. Good green design takes consumption as much into account as energy sources.
I think the building pictured looks amazing, very aesthetically pleasing.
Post a Comment