ABSTRACT
Within contemporary architectural discourse and practice there seems to exist a wide consensus on the urgent need to promote environmental innovation in building design. It is rare to find a book about sustainable architecture that does not highlight the contribution of buildings to various forms of environmental degradation. Edwards and Hyett, for example, point out that ‘50% of all resources consumed across the planet are used in construction, making it the least sustainable industry in the world’ (Edwards and Hyett 2001: 1). Deyan Sudjic has suggested that, as a result, ‘for any architect not to profess passionate commitment to “green” buildings is professional suicide’ (Sudjic 1996: 7). However, beyond an apparent consensus of concern for the environment, it is often less clear what factors might define or constitute a green building. You only have to look
through the numerous books on green or sustainable architecture and the myriad of building reviews in architectural periodicals and journals to identify a bewildering array of contrasting types or styles of green building, each emphasising different aspects of the sustainability agenda. For example, in an edition of the Architectural Review entitled ‘Greening Architecture’ we can find articles and building reviews, amongst others, on the environmental relevance of vernacular architecture; a hotel constructed of local building materials; a school based on organic forms; an energy-efficient visitor centre buried underground, and a high-tech skyscraper swathed in plants (Architectural Review 1999). Clearly, if we are to progress towards a more sustainable built environment, policymakers, researchers and designers have to begin to make sense of the conceptual challenges raised by an apparent variety of pathways towards sustainable design.
