On the AIA and green architecture

As I mentioned a couple weeks back, I’m once again a member of the American Institute of Architects. Today in my work inbox was the usual weekly update from the AIA, and its major point of emphasis was a webcast tomorrow called “The 2010 Imperative: Global Emergency Teach-In.” Needless to say, I think I’ll pass. But I looked into the “2010 Imperative” and here’s one key point for educators at the college level:

Beginning in 2007, add to all design studio problems that “the design engage the environment in a way that dramatically reduces or eliminates the need for fossil fuel.”

But wait, there’s more…

By 2010, achieve a carbon-neutral design school campus by:

  • implementing sustainable design strategies (optional – LEED Platinum / 2010 rating)
  • generating on-site renewable power
  • purchasing green renewable energy and/or certified renewable energy credits (REC’s, Green Tags), 20% maximum.

The impetus behind this webcast is a group called Architecture 2030, headed by New Mexico architect Edward Mazria. With his doomsday scenario of claiming the built environment is a key cause of global warming, Mazria has convinced the AIA (among others) to adopt what’s called the 2030 Challenge, where “all new buildings, developments, and major renovation projects be designed to use half the fossil fuel energy they would typically consume. Then, the fossil fuel reduction standard for all new buildings should be increased to 60 percent in 2010, 70 percent in 2015, 80 percent in 2020, 90 percent in 2025, and carbon-neutral by 2030.”

But it doesn’t stop there. Why am I not surprised?

“To support this effort, (Mazria) suggests the establishment of a mandatory, full-year, studio-based program in architecture schools to promote problem-solving ideas based on understanding the relationship between nature and design. He also states that major reductions in the emissions can result from using low-embodied energy materials, technologies, and processes. Mazria encourages that architects, designers, and planners accept the challenge and responsibility of carbon-neutral architecture and building construction.”

Let me say right here that I’m a huge skeptic about the theory the global warming is manmade. The people who are making these wild estimates of global sea levels rising 20 feet are the same bunch who predicted all those hurricanes last summer. But…no hurricanes hit the U.S. in 2006. And these same Chicken Little arguments have been made for the past 20 years or so, foretelling doom if we don’t act by a certain date. And when that date comes and goes, they still predict the same dire results, just 20 years hence. (I can just see the comment fellow MBA member Jeremy at The Voltage Gate has about all of this.)

One weapon the AIA has in enforcing its beliefs onto the membership at large is their requirement for continuing education. They began the trend and have convinced most states (including Ohio, where I’m currently licensed; and Maryland, to which I’ve applied) to compel architects to take a certain number of hours of continuing education yearly in order to maintain their good standing with both the AIA and the state(s) they’re registered in. And a heavy dose of their coursework works into the AIA pet theory that only green architecture can save Planet Earth.

Now don’t get me wrong, I really don’t have a problem with looking for energy efficiency and using sustainable materials when it’s possible. But, let’s face it, in order to comply with all of these pie-in-the-sky mandates they wish for, it’s going to cost clients a boatload of money. And this is the reason the AIA is also heavily into lobbying the federal government to force owners and developers into these high-dollar items by mandating their usage, like the steps that would need to be taken for carbon-neutrality.

If you ever pick up and read an architecture magazine, you’ll see that most projects in them won’t talk about the budget that the architect fortunate enough to have his or her work featured “labored” under. Generally, these designers are lucky enough to have clients with deep pockets. And those clients will have the money to spend on making these buildings carbon-neutral. But most of us toil with developers who want to squeeze the maximum amount of profit from a project with minimum cost to them. They, in turn, have contractors who have a certain way of doing things that they’ve always done and hate change. And both these groups already look at the architect as a necessary evil, who they need solely to get the drawings sealed and the building permit secured.

Personally, I’d rather the AIA look less at green architecture and more at quality architecture and design. Spend more time lobbying for a renewal of good craftsmanship so that even an “average” job is done in a way that will last more than a decade. Let’s talk about real-world problems like liability and tort reform, shortening the statute of repose period, or reducing the amount of red tape the average architect has to go through to get permits because of excessive government regulation. I’ll accept all the lobbying you’ve done for continuing education (grudgingly) if you lobby for someone like me who would like to practice in three states and feels he should be able to seamlessly – after all, I passed the identical test people in those states did to get registered.

On a more personal level, I didn’t see it as an important enough subject for its own chapter in my 50 year plan, but I’d love to see a return to quality and craftsmanship being a factor in people’s everyday consumer choices rather than just the lowest price. Unfortunately, society today has almost every possible price point available to it for a particular good but in most cases high quality is difficult to find. It’s almost like we’ve accepted that our cordless phone will not work in three years or our TV in six. Or we figure that the car’s going to be recalled someplace along the line.

This feeling of mine probably comes about because I’m sort of a perfectionist. While I’m certainly not the smartest architect out there or the greatest designer, I still hate making mistakes and when I’m told I’ve made a drawing set or a spec book that’s damn near bulletproof, that makes my day. So I wish the AIA would quit making the mistake of believing these people who claim the sky is about to fall (or maybe better put, the ocean’s about to engulf half of our coastline) and place emphasis on what should be their number one task – helping us practitioners succeed.

Author: Michael

It's me from my laptop computer.

One thought on “On the AIA and green architecture”

  1. Yes, some people were wrong in their hurricaine predictions for 2006, but that doesn’t mean that global warming isn’t manmade. Have you read Sir Nicholas Stern’s report? Do you even know who Sir Nicholas Stern is? Or that the report’s most outspoken critics work for a think tank which recieves millions of dollars in funding from ExxonMobil? The rest of his critics acknowledge that global warming is manmade, and only disagree with his proposed response to it. Here in Britain, even the ultra-conservative Tory party acknowledges that global warming is manmade and that the problem needs to be addressed. And no, the sky isn’t about to fall any time soon. But the more time we spend denying that global warming is a manmade phenomenon, the closer we get to reaching a point where we will not be able to reverse the consequences. Here in Europe, everyone acknowledges that global warming is manmade and disagreements only concern the way we should respond to it. Yes, you are right that there is a BIG problem with some members of the left making a number of wild predictions with no basis on fact or scientific consensus. But this is because they are worried about an issue which does draw consensus, and they are so panicky about it that they go a bit crazy. In order to convince everyone that there is a problem, they magnify the immediate consequences to attract popular support for their cause (and their own political power).

    Still, their errors and exaggerations should not undermine the truth of global warming. The true issue at stake here is the fact that accepting the truth that global warming is manmade implies an acceptance that our way of life in America is wrong. We depend on the conveniences of modern life more than religious faith and traditional values. As Gore said in his film (which, by the way, I was disappointed with for its politicization of the issue – a much better analysis was provided in a BBC program hosted by the naturalist Sir David Attenborough), it is an ‘inconvenient truth’ to accept.

    Besides, what have we Americans (yes, I am a proud and patriotic Marylander myself) to lose by cutting down on pollution? A big problem we have is our inability to admit that we’re wrong about anything. The French were right about Iraq, but the American animosity towards France which began in 2002/2003 is still very much alive today. Sure, we could bicker and kick and scream and say that “Old Europe” knows nothing about the real world and that we don’t need their help anyway, but considering our recent record with identifying the fallacies of European foreign policy, that probably isn’t a very good idea.

Comments are closed.