In so far, as one of the hats I wear, yesterday I had a meeting to discuss collaborations that would provide a visual art experience capable of focusing on a concept of sustainability. I was hanging out and chatting to some of the folks at our Fine Arts department to see if there are any cool ideas where an event or activity could be launched, that had the added of effect of folks talking about things of a sustainable nature.
Most important, of course, was the idea that this event could somehow reach out to the "non-converted." That is somehow appeal to a broader audience, and not the usual gang of environmentally conscious folk. To put it more bluntly, we were wondering whether the element of a visual experience could act as (for lack of a better word) bait.
Anyway, it wouldn't be prudent for me to discuss the details arising from this meeting, but I'm using it to lead into a point of discussion that came up that I found really interesting. Apparently, there is a conflict between achieving aesthetic beauty versus functional elegance, when one speaks of sustainable design, and especially in sustainable architecture.
This came up, because UBC is actually pretty well known for its sustainable building practices with a number of high profile buildings, recently built, or being built that conform to these ideals. Right now, the one that stands out the most is our Choi building which is just so awesome that I'm going to have to devote a post to it at the later date. For now, maybe this link will suffice.
And an even more ambitious building is currently in progress - this one is known as the CIRS building, which (on paper anyway) looks remarkable. And I believe when finished will represent one of the top two or three sustainable buildings in North America. IT's important to note that CIRS is also interested in the interplay being art and sustainability.
So I guess here is the debate:
In principle, by building one of these things, you are by its very nature affecting its natural footprint. And taken further, you are, in some respects, also taking away the inherent beauty of the site, which happens to be tantamount, or at the very least, representive of why society chooses to move in a sustainable fashion in the first place. i.e. Nature is pretty.
But you build anyway, although in doing so, you take enormous measures to use the latest and most comprehensive technology available to minimize that footprint. This is where the Choi and the CIRS building are outstanding feats of engineering - the design features are amazing, such that energy is produced within the building from renewable resourses, energy use is minimized so that there is no net need for outside input, water is fully recycled from rainfall sources, sewage treatment is in house, etc, etc, etc - the list goes on, right down to the construction material used being recycled from existing buildings slated for demolition. (Here's another nuance - fights over number of parking spaces can arise ).
However, a designer's or an architect's ideal of beauty is very different from the visual artist, and maybe more importantly, usually different from the general public. So what you get are these things being built which are really elegant in design, but are unfortunately not necessarily pretty to look at. Not like a meadow anyway. Not pretty like nature.
And I guess, I find this really interesting, because it makes you wonder whether the buildings being designed the way they are, are missing out on some serious PR opportunity. The whole purpose being that they want to shout out, "LOOK HOW GREAT IT IS TO BE SUSTAINABLE," and yet fall short on the one attribute that is perhaps the most powerful conveyor of that message - are they missing out on the "LOOK HOW GREAT I LOOK" aspect.
(Man, am I philosophizing now? Ben? Does that count? I have got to get back to the bench to do some ligations or something...)
- Log in to post comments