T&Sustainability

16 - cropped
Menu
/ Global Issues, Sustainability / By

Climate Change and the UK Building Industry

how does the role of the architect need to change to address the climate crisis?

By Hannah Brookes

September 18, 2021

At the moment as an industry we are failing to sufficiently respond to the climate crisis. We need to be asking questions about how the whole construction industry will need to evolve in order to address the challenges of today, and what the place of the architect will be within this change. As the climate and ecological emergency becomes more and more urgent, this is not something that we can afford to delay any longer.

Historically, contractors have been the ‘doers’ and architects the ‘thinkers’. They perform two completely different roles; the architect interprets the brief, and proposes an unbiased, holistic solution, whilst the contractors deal with the reality of bringing these ideas to fruition within time and budgetary constraints. Although both roles are valuable and necessary, in the face of the climate crisis and all the other major challenges the world and the construction industry are facing, moving into the future we are going to need big thinkers and innovators more than ever. Contractors have cost and time as their key drivers, and work within the existing system repeating known solutions to get the job done. But right now it arguably isn’t enough to merely repeat what has been done before. We need to rethink and reassess the whole system, to address the accelerating changing requirements of the world we are living in. For example, should we even be allowing building on greenfield sites in this country? How does the transportation system need to be redesigned to become more sustainable? In the digital world do we even need most of the buildings or transport infrastructure we are still building? Are our building regulations addressing the environmental factors properly? These are the big questions being asked, and surely architects are the people who should have the understanding, holistic outlook, and innovative thinking skills to be able to propose new solutions. I believe we need to think our way out of this situation before we try to build our way out of it.

THE CURRENT SITUATION

The construction industry is responsible for 39% of global carbon emissions. 28% of this is from operational emissions and the remaining 11% comes from the embodied carbon associated with the manufacture and transportation of materials before and during the construction process.[1] This is, and has been for at least the last decade, a massive proportion of our emissions, which is largely ignored in discussions on sustainable building. Without regulation, market forces have prevented these issues from being properly considered for the majority of building projects, and consequently the situation has hardly improved, despite us knowing the figures for decades.

Architects should be the people who are looking at these statistics and challenging them, because if not architects then who? Architects are arguably the people best equipped to drive change and propose new solutions, but according to the RIBA, architects are only involved in 6% of new homes in the UK[2]. How can we help solve these crucial issues, if as a profession we have been marginalised so significantly that we are not even involved in the majority of building projects?

HOW DID WE GET HERE?

How did we get into this situation, where buildings aren’t designed for the longer term, to such a poor level, and have minimal regard for the real environmental impact? This is a complex, interconnected story which can be distilled in a number of different ways. As I see it, the roots of the problem lie in our consumerist society, the prioritisation of quantity over quality, reactive rather than proactive building legislation, and a failure to keep pace with the digital revolution.

We live in a consumerist society. This has partly stemmed from the industrial revolution, which allowed us to mass produce everything, and the technological advancements that followed World War II. Consumers were eager and able to buy more new products, and this coincided with a rising population, which only increased our overall consumption. Products that would have previously been individually made and bespoke became mass produced and cheaply available, resulting in a decline in value, and giving rise to an attitude of disposal. We have lost the ‘make do and mend’ attitude and substituted it with a ‘buy more and replace’ attitude. We have moved away from hand crafted and unique products, and towards mass produced and disposable products. This attitude encompasses all aspects of our lives, not just clothing, products, and food, but also extending to how we now view buildings, houses, and space. Our society is predicated on the notion of growth.

This has led to a complete prioritisation of quantity over quality in our building industry. Buildings are valued mostly on their square footage, and the number of bedrooms, rather than the quality of spaces, environmental load, or longevity. This is amplified by the fact that so few buildings have an architect involved at any stage, and therefore no one who will ensure building quality. The only exception to this are ’iconic’ landmark projects, that tend to be designed as object buildings rather than spaces and often have little regard for the environment or context that they sit within.

Historically architects were building for their gods or their rulers, and so quality and elegance was more important than size and cost. Beauty was the ultimate goal. Perhaps this is when architects began to be perceived as unnecessary prettifies or artists of buildings, rather than strategic problem solvers. When people built their own houses, they would be building them with their families in mind, not to make money, but to create a home for themselves and their loved ones into the future. Therefore, longevity and building quality would have been the most important consideration.

In contrast, our main priority now seems to be to build as much as we can, as quickly and cheaply as we can, with little consideration for the quality of the resulting developments. Building projects are mostly governed and driven by financial constraints, and the incessant need to make a profit. This is exacerbated by the obligation to be ‘competitive’ at tender. This could be because we are building to fuel the demand of the ‘property-owning’ culture, whereby we view houses as investments and commodities, rather than to address a necessity for new homes. The result is that we now view more building as the biggest indicator of development. This is illustrated in Boris Johnson’s 2020 ‘Build Build Build’ scheme, which is completely focused on building as much as we can to boost the economy, with seemingly no regard to the quality of the resulting projects.[3] Surely ‘Think Think Build’ or ‘Think Repair Build’ would be better? Our capitalist, consumer society is dependent on the need to grow, but this is not sustainable, and cannot be the way that we continue to approach the development of our built environment.

The industrial revolution in the 18th and 19th centuries and the technological advancements it brought allowed faster, easier building. This coincided with a massive increase in the population, and together this triggered a huge surge in building activity, which was barely regulated and so resulted in crowded, polluted and unsanitary living conditions. The majority of the population lived in poorly built, back-to-back terraced houses, often without gardens, windows, ventilation, or running water. As a result of these poor living conditions, there was a severe lack of sanitation, leading to the increasing and uncontrollable spread of diseases such as cholera.[4] This prompted the introduction of the first Public Health Act in 1848, which recognised that the health of the labouring population was largely determined by the state of the physical environment in which they lived and worked.[5] After this there were a series of updated health acts, each with more details about the quality and details of the required built environment. Then the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947 nationalised development rights, meaning land-owners lost the right to be solely in control of developing their land. This was the biggest shift in power in British history; from the landowning interest to the ordinary citizen,[6] and is the basis of the system that is currently in place today. Building Regulations followed the Public Health Act of 1961, enforcing minimum standards for the design and construction of buildings, to ensure the health and safety of all people, including the disabled, in and around buildings.[7]

Consequently, the current building regulations and planning acts have arisen from a long and complicated history that originated with concerns about public health and safety, rather than being based on the challenges we are facing today. The system is reactive, responding to events such as the great fire of London and the spread of cholera, rather than being proactive and predicting issues before they arise. The current system is woefully inadequate in addressing the sustainability challenges that we are facing today. Where sustainability is mentioned, it has been tacked onto the existing regulations, as opposed to this situation igniting an entire rethink of the system, which is what I believe should be happening. As previously stated, the construction industry is responsible for 39% of global carbon emissions.[8] Clearly it is now necessary for us to properly consider the carbon load of our construction industry and the sustainability of all new developments. In the current regulations there is also no accounting for the embodied energy of building materials, or their locality and transport miles. There is no regulation for the ‘whole’ life cycle of buildings despite the RIBA (Royal Institute of British Architects) recognising the need for this in their 2013 plan of works.[9]

The final factor which I feel has helped lead us to this situation, is our lack of response to the digital revolution. The internet brought the potential to completely reform the way we live our lives. However, we have not really adapted to these changes or capitalised on them within the construction industry. We are still building shopping centres despite the fact most people now shop online. We are still developing new transportation systems for commuters despite the fact most people have the possibility to work from home. We are still building supermarkets even though you can now get all your food delivered. We are still building office blocks despite the fact we now have zoom and Microsoft teams. The digital age has not yet fully imprinted on the way we think about design and building, and as such the construction industry functions in pretty much exactly the same way as it did before. Maybe the fallout of Covid19 will change everything about the way we live, work, and travel, and will have unforeseen implications on the building industry, but to date the industry has been slow to react to the huge changes that are taking place in the world around us.

The digital revolution, and the wealth of accessible information it has given us, has also somewhat diminished the significance of a professional qualification. When there is so much knowledge available to everyone, the perceived value of a highly educated professional is reduced, and people turn to the internet for free information instead. Therefore it seems that architects are only contributing to the design and visual appearance of a building. However, even the value of ‘design’ is much misunderstood and extremely difficult to evaluate, because when it is well done it is almost invisible. The public is not generally design literate, illustrated by the fact that there is no increase in the financial value of a well-designed ordinary house. The rise of the internet and the growing volume of free information available has contributed to a further lack of understanding of what good design is, and a lack of appreciation of what an architect has to offer. All of these factors mean that only 6% of current construction projects have an architect involved. Architects are viewed as an expensive luxury, and there is no time in the financial constraints of a developer-led project to allow for good design that will not increase the value of the property. This has therefore limited the impact and influence that it is possible for an architect to have in the climate of the housing industry in this country.

WHAT IS THE FUTURE OF ARCHITECTURE AND THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY, AND HOW DO WE GO ABOUT RESOLVING THE CURRENT SITUATION?

So where do I see the future of the architectural profession and the industry as a whole moving in the future? Firstly, I think we desperately need more top-down clarity, policy, and leadership. Of course, individual people can make a difference, but if we are serious about tackling the climate crisis we cannot simply leave this in the hands of individuals. National and international collaboration is essential to creating lasting and significant change. Yes, we have building regulations and planning, but as soon as a development has met those standards, there is no greater power deciding what is and is not sensible to build, nor any greater obligations to be fulfilled. Building regulations and planning are the only regulators of what can be constructed in this country, and neither of these are fit for purpose in terms of making sure buildings are truly sustainable, beautifully designed, or will have a long, efficient life span. I believe that we need better overall governance, and more vision for the overall development of the country, and that this should be part of the job of an architect. As far as I know, there are currently no members of parliament with an Architectural background in the UK, despite architects being trained to be holistic, strategic thinkers. Why is this? Surely if we had more architects in government then we could be making more sensible decisions about the overall future development of this country? What would happen for example, if we had governmental laws, decided by architects working with the government, whereby every building had to be designed to perform efficiently for at least 50 years? Or where the design team held the responsibility of organising the maintenance and continued efficient performance of the building for its whole lifespan? Or if all buildings had to be designed so that every component could be recycled at its end of life? Or if you had to produce a detailed report illustrating how a project would integrate into its community and context? Not only could obligations like these improve the quality of building projects, it would also encourage the employment of architects on building projects, in order to gain the expertise needed to meet all the requirements, which may not be within the capability of the contractor or developer.

There are already multiple examples of extremely sustainable, efficient and community focused cities and countries who have had architects for mayors or leaders. For example Curitiba, which is an extremely sustainable and happy Brazilian city, famous for its sustainable public transportation, innovative recycling system and green spaces, and known as the green city of Brazil.[10] Curitiba’s previous mayor, Jaime Lerner, was an architect who understood the social, environmental, and economic workings of the city, and used his holistic outlook to make great improvements to the city during his time as mayor.[11]

Copenhagen is one of the happiest cities in the world according to the world happiness report.[12] This is due partly to the redesign of its transport system and streets in order to favour bikes over cars. The precedent for this change was set out in the studies of Jan Gehl, an architect who devoted a significant portion of his life to observing the way people behave in cities, and how the urban environment can be better designed accordingly.[13] By working with Gehl, the Danish government significantly improved the sustainability of its capital city, as well as the happiness of its citizens.

Essentially, I think that it would be beneficial to all if we had more stringent regulations, and if architects had a role in the design of those regulations. Not only would this increase the value of architects by promoting them to higher power positions, it would also mean that on most projects an architect would be a necessity in order to meet these regulations. Currently architects are still perceived as prettifiers, concerned mostly with aesthetics. This is not only a view of the public, but also partly the way young architects view themselves, perhaps because there are so few well known examples of qualified architects who have also been town mayors, or members of parliament, or policy makers. Perhaps if there were more role models of this kind then we would strive to have more impact and influence as architects, as leaders and forward thinkers rather than purely aesthetic designers.

Finally, I think we need to be thinking about the future much more. Our building regulations are pitifully inadequate and are purely reactive rather than proactive. Standards that are just not going to be good enough moving forward. Our buildings are not designed to last, and no one is responsible for their continued efficient performance. We are continuing to build on greenfield sites, with minimal consideration for the fact we have limited space and resources, and no master plan as to what we will do in the future when these considerations reach a boiling point.

TO CONCLUDE

There is a scenario where we continue to do ‘shopping trolley design’, where the role of the architect is to specify pre-manufactured products for Lego block designs, what I would call ‘copy and paste’ architecture. If we continue like that, without really thinking about the bigger picture of what we are doing, then there will be no point in having architects in simple projects, meaning contractors could become the architects of the future. And maybe yes, architects as purely designers of spaces and object buildings may become more obsolete. However, given the increasing challenge presented by climate change, what we need now is a new generation of creative and innovative thinkers, and to realise that architects will become ever more essential as we push forwards in reshaping our reality in response to the climate crisis.

In the last few decades there have been three major global developments; the development of new building technologies, the invention and accessibility of the internet, and the awareness of the climate emergency. These changing factors should have completely reformed the way the whole construction industry works, and yet we are still using the same procurement routes and building regulations that we have been using for the last half century. It is essential that we adapt and improve our ways now, whilst we still have time to make a lasting and significant impact. Covid19 has shown us that the world is capable of drastic change in a short period of time, and that is what is required now in the construction industry. This is the time for a paradigm shift, and I think it is the task of this generation of architects, engineers, designers, contractors, planners, developers and leaders, to define what that new future looks like.

FOOTNOTES

  1. World Green Building Council, ‘New report: the building and construction sector can reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050’, 2019, accessed 27 December 2020, https://www.worldgbc.org/news-media/WorldGBC-embodied-carbon-report-published#:~:text=Together%2C%20building%20and%20construction%20are,buildings)%20accounting%20for%2028%25.

  2. Finn Williams, ‘We Need Architects to Work on Ordinary Briefs, for Ordinary People’, Dezeen, 2017, accessed 22 December 2020, https://www.dezeen.com/2017/12/04/finn-williams-opinion-public-practice-opportunities-architects-ordinary-briefs-ordinary-people/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20RIBA%2C%20only,the%20input%20of%20an%20architect

  3. GOV.UK, ‘‘Build build build’: Prime Minister announces New Deal for Britain’, 2020, accessed 22 December 2020, https://www.gov.uk/government/news/build-build-build-prime-minister-announces-new-deal-for-britain

  4. History Crunch Writers, ‘Living Conditions in the Industrial Revolution’, History Crunch, 2016, accessed 27 December 2020, https://www.historycrunch.com/living-conditions-in-industrial-towns.html#/

  5. Jean Manco, ‘Researching Historic Buildings in the British Isles’, 2009, accessed 27 December 2020, http://www.buildinghistory.org/regulations.shtml
  6. Hugh Ellis, ‘The Rise and Fall of the 1947 Planning System’, Historic England, accessed 27 December 2020, https://historicengland.org.uk/whats-new/debate/recent/town-and-country-planning-act-70th-anniversary/rise-and-fall-of-1947-planning-system/
  7. BSRIA, ‘Building Regulations’, 2019, accessed 27 December 2020, https://www.bsria.com/uk/information-training/information-centre/legislation/building-regulations/
  8. World Green Building Council, ‘New report: the building and construction sector can reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050’, 2019, accessed 27 December 2020, https://www.worldgbc.org/news-media/WorldGBC-embodied-carbon-report-published#:~:text=Together%2C%20building%20and%20construction%20are,buildings)%20accounting%20for%2028%25.
  9. Royal Institute of British Architects, Plan of Work 2013 (RIBA: 2013)
  10. Anil Mundra, ‘Curitiba – Sustainable City’, GPM, 2012, accessed 26 December 2020, https://www.greenplanetmonitor.net/urban/curitiba-sustainable-city/#:~:text=Brazil’s%20Green%20City&text=The%20city%20of%20Curitiba%2C%20in,in%20a%201980s%20advertising%20campaign.
  11. Global Site Plans, ‘The Vision of Jaime Lerner for Curitiba, Brazil’, Smart Cities Dive, accessed 22 December 2020, https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/ex/sustainablecitiescollective/vision-jaime-lerner-curitiba-brazil/253266/
  12. Christian Krekel, and Jan-Emmanuel De Neve, ‘Cities and Happiness: A Global Ranking and Analysis’, World Happiness Report, 2020, accessed 27 December 2020, https://worldhappiness.report/ed/2020/cities-and-happiness-a-global-ranking-and-analysis/
  13. Gehl, ‘Our Story’, 2020, accessed 27 December 2020, https://gehlpeople.com/story/

Share