@romi_sebastian
Romi Sebastian
62 w
The misconstrued view of Sustainability and its Certification It has been around 2 decades now since the idea of sustainability and building ‘green’ has strongly emerged at a global level. In the current times, it is quite evident to me that the term ‘green’ is certainly misused and misconstrued by most of the architectural and engineering domain. It is slowly turning into one of those transient trends set up to support marketing of related fields of construction activity. In my view, many of the current green building rating systems (such as LEED (US), Greenstar (AUST), BREEAM etc) are predominantly structured to support solutions that are in majority additive in nature and encourage consumption over conservation. This is simply because the rating systems in my view are initially conceived to have set of sections for sustainability; that are then packed with technologies and products to achieve it. Architects and engineers now depend much on these intelligent products/service systems to make up for their neglect in basic building design. It is regrettable that rating systems have converted Architecture and engineering into a statistical or accounting exercise. This practice has completely digressed from what could have been a healthy exercise in coming out with sustainable architecture based on simple logic and common-sense. We are allowing these statistical procedures to dominate our logical thinking and creativity. The potential benefits of solely achieving a certification should not be the primary motive of the initial design/creative process. There is no point in accommodating ample green ideas and techniques and ultimately land up with a building that’s not comfortable to live or work in. If achieving genuine sustainability is the primary aim, simplicity and common sense (which is uncommon) is the key. My suggestion is that handbooks for rating systems are not to be used as the encyclopedias for Green and Sustainable designing. The requirement for architecture to contribute to the social and environmental sustainability now charges architects with a responsibility that goes beyond a simple design brief. Architects cannot free themselves from being responsible for basic environmental design. Designers cannot simply consider product suppliers/specialist engineers to assume responsibility for maintaining the internal conditions desired for habitation, while basic design aspects of a building envelope/skin are ignored, for instance. Architects and Engineers must possess prior basic knowledge on analyzing climatic data and geography, human comfort, passive design techniques, careful use of materials/resources and efficient building services. These basic principles should drive our primary design process. Green rating systems can serve as an ultimate ‘check list’ to our evolving design concepts but nothing more. The world needs green buildings a lot more than green buildings need green certification. If certifications/sustainability ratings continue to cost too much money, time and effort – we will not stop building green projects; we may just stop certifying them. https://www.constructionweekonline.com/business/insights/op-ed-the-need-for-sustainability-vs-the-need-for-certification
Write or agree to climate reviews to make businesses and world leaders act. It’s easy and it works.
Certified accounts actively looking for your opinion on their climate impact.
One tree is planted for every climate review written to an organization that is Open for Climate Dialogue™.