ABSTRACT
In our introduction we characterised the debate about sustainable architecture as exhibiting a tension between the proliferation of ideas associated with ‘nature’ and a corresponding urge to fix and define a ‘best practice’ design approach to sustainable architecture. Where public talk about sustainable architecture is expansive there is a corresponding call by building scientists and many architectural professionals to standardise our interpretation of both the environmental problem and our strategies for creating more sustainable futures. The chapters that followed illustrated both the limitations of the standardisation approach and the power of a more dialogical perspective that connects the social and the technical. The examination of heating appliances in Sweden, the controversies associated with constructing ‘pedagogical’ college buildings in Ohio and California, and the many other cases documented herein – all tell stories of how the citizens of particular places have acted in response to a confusing array of rapidly changing global environmental and social conditions. The actors in these cases have, to varying degrees, hoped to contribute to a body of knowledge that would define the practice of ‘sustainable architecture’. Some have developed checklists, others green building codes, a few have experimented with different materials and technologies, while yet others have developed a foundation of shared environmental and social values. Our intent here, however, has not been to favour one approach over another, but to better understand how such lists, codes, practices, buildings and communities are created, contested or legitimated.
