Reinterpreting Sustainable Architecture: The Place of Technology

Abstract

This paper examines the relationships between diverse technical design strategies and competing conceptions of ecological place making. It highlights the conceptual challenges involved in defining what we mean by calling a building “green” and outlines a social constructivist perspective on the development of sustainable architecture. The paper identifies six alternative logics of ecological design which have their roots in competing conceptions of environmentalism, and explores the ways in which each logic prefigures technological strategies and alternative visions of sustainable places. Finally, the paper discusses the implications of the contested nature of ecological design for architectural education, practice, and research.

How energy efficiency fails in the building industry

“…The low-tech movement is associated with the use of wooden materials, turf roofs and a style similar to traditional mountain cabins; the high-tech energy buildings with double glass facades or complicated ventilation systems and buildings where technology is thought to be more important than the shape or design. Similar approaches to sustainable buildings are identified by Guy and Farmer (2001). While low-tech sustainability seems less appreciated, there is an increasing interest among architects to promote high-tech ecological ideas (Ryghaug 2007).…”

Climate adaptive building shells: State-of-the-art and future challenges

“…Last decades, the design of low-energy buildings has diverged into two alternative directions: active technologies and passive design strategies [1][2][3]. The first approach aims at enhancing the level of sustainability in the built environment via the introduction of innovative technical devices.…”

Fluid transitions to more sustainable product service systems

“…dark and light green) and thus; develop design concepts, methods and tools which can be broadly applied (Guy, 2011). In other words, it has been difficult to pursue a positivistic research agenda that tightly defines sustainable architecture and associated best practice (Guy and Farmer, 2001). …”

“…It emphasises design in transitions and builds on Guy's earlier work rooted in interpretive social science, which suggests that there are multiple pathways toward more sustainable futures (Guy, Evans and Marvin 2005), multiple competing logics which underpin sustainable architecture (Guy and Farmer, 2001;Farmer and Guy, 2005) multiple sustainable architectures in Europe and North America which may be critically engaged in the absence of a framework that fixes environmental problems and responses (Guy and Moore, 2005). In summary, this work convincingly argues that:…”