Norris 1 C. J.

Norris Raymond 1102 English April 22, 2014 Architectural Responses to Environmental Issues The survival of mankind rest on the backs of architectural trailblazers and pioneers of today as it relate to the maintenance and control of our environment. Architects have the daunting task of seeking solutions to challenging issues such as climatic changes, depletion of the ozone layer, pollution, deforestation, and the extinction of species by tweaking/modifying former designs and creating novel designs (Bose, par. 4-8). The emergence of these issues occurred over many years of exploitation due to mans desire to improve his live for comfort and aesthetic reasons (Bose, par. 3). Every individual has a stake in responding to these issues as negative environmental factors threaten our health such as respiratory diseases and cancer. In order to explain our current architectural landscape, the paper uncovers the discoveries of architectural historians, the problems they encountered and the implications of their design. In addition, the paper will discuss two distinct theories of sustainable architecture, as they are believed to be a useful approach in our conservation endeavors. The first theoretical framework is the sociotechnical theory, which responds to the contingent and contextual nature of technological innovation and building design, (Guy 21) and the second theoretical framework is the socially- sustainable product design, which revisits Papaneks agenda for industrial design and examples (Melles, de Vere, and Misic 143). Consequently, the paper will analyze

Norris 2 sustainability challenges we currently face including the implications of a built environment, in order to propose a sustainability evaluation framework, drawing out transferable lessons learned for future development (El Demery 99). Finally, the paper will examine how the physical structures in architectural design that affect human behavior and how architecture is used as a means of controlling human behavior (Stone, par. 5). Collectively, my findings will allow the reader to understand that environmental issues calls for immediate response by various disciplines involving environmental research, cultural research, psychological research, or design research. In addition, societies at large are participants and investors. I aim to show that these two theoretical perspectives are the underpinnings of novel inventions though many critics question its usefulness. Nonetheless, every effort by architects to preserve humanity and to improve environmental conditions is worth noting. In order to understand the full meaning of the paper, the reader must understand what architecture is. Ibrahim Mostafa El Demery states, Architecture is the art and science of designing which involves the manipulation of mass, space, volume, texture, light, shadow, materials, program and other elements in order to achieve an end which is aesthetic, functional and sustainable(El Demery 99). Long ago the purpose of creating buildings consisted of two intellectually separate parts- structures . . . and . . . mechanical services. The goal was to create a viable or valuable environment . . . to facilitate circulation and communication- of persons, information and products (Banham 11). In other words, consideration was given to creating

Norris 3 habitable environments that does not necessarily depict man merely existing as a naked man armed only with hands, teeth, legs and native cunning. . . But only just; in order to flourish, rather than merely survive, mankind needs more ease and leisure . . . Banham explains that mans way for achieving environmental improvements is to erect massive and apparently permanent structures (18). The consequences are that architects, critics, historians, and everyone else concerned with environmental management in civilized countries lack a range of spatial experience and cultural responses that nomad people have always enjoyed (19). Society . . . prescribe the creation of fit environments for human activities; the architectural profession responds, reflexively, by proposing enclosed spaces framed by massive structures, because that is what architects have been taught to do, and what society has been taught to expect of architects (21). Western architecture was based on Mediterranean traditions, and incorporated European styles. Western architecture emphasized permanent structures, which generally meant making it massive to withstand storms and earthquakes, and to be less marred by fires or flood. Other advantages of thick walls are that they offer better sound installation, better thermal insulation, better heat storage capacity (that is, absorb and store heat that is being applied to it, and to return that heat to the environment after the heat source has been extinguished) (22). These factors has also benefited European architecture in two ways: (1) the mass of the masonry in a fireplace, chimney- breast and chimney stores heat of the fire during the day while the fire burns, and to return is slowly to the house during the chill of the night when the fire was burned out; and (2) in the hot climate the thick walls of the house will hold solar heat during the day, slowing down the rate at which the interior becomes hot, and then, after sunset, the radiation of that heat into the house will help to temper the sudden chill of evening. European environmental

Norris 4 management extended beyond the walls to include using glass as a filter to regulate the passage of light energy and heat energy. This was a conservative technique that was devised by Sir Joseph Paxton in 1846 in honor of the Conservative Wall at Chatsworth. Selective environmental management used glazed windows to admit light, but no rain; and overhanging roof admit reflected sunlight; but excluded direct sunlight. This approach was useful in humid and tropical climates. Traditional construction mixed these two techniques and merged regenerative environmental management of applied power (23). In the United States, humidity as well as latitude and temperature was difficult to control and has baffled many architects over the years. The invention of electric power in 1882 laid the foundation for the control of humidity which air conditioning depends on; making regenerative environmental management a forerunner of conservative and selective environmental management. On the other hand, European architecture did not share North Americas enthusiasm about massive structures (25). Life in North America by the nineteenth century was characterized by the consumption of regenerative environmental aids such as coal-gas which is purely an European development father by Phillippe Lebon in France, F. A. Winzer in Germany and England, William Murdock in England) for light and heat, and the electric light (father by Thomas Edison). The invention of regenerative aids originated from European inventors; however development into pragmatic forms is purely American. This may have resulted of the unusual problems and advantages of United States conditions. For example, the problems were lightweight structures such as wood in extreme climates, and the advantages of the lightweight culture that Americans took westward where there was abundant power (26).

Norris 5 Banham quoted Aristotle to describe the evils of technological advancement in the mid-nineteenth century; men come together in cities in order to lead the good life (29). These evils brewed from the fact that cities grew in size and density due to the Industrial Revolution; and there were a surge in the development of factories, businesses and homes. This gave rise to environmental issues such as air-pollution, traffic congestion, waste disposal and sanitation issues. Architects felt the urgency for reform, yet were baffled. Banham further explains, Sanitary and ventilating techniques had to be renovated and improved by radical inventions. The length of the working day required an unprecedented provision of artificial light (with its attendant fire risks) even in structures above ground like shops and officeblocks. Furthermore, the pollution of the external atmosphere by the waste products of industry and primitive power- generation, and the matching pollution of the indoor atmosphere by human respiration and the inefficient combustion of illuminates, both served to aggravate problems that would have been almost intolerable without them (30). The nature of heating, cooling and lighting changed in the mid-nineteenth century for delivery in inhabited space which provoked changes in building designs. Prior to that time, James Watt used steam to heat his own office; afterwards, coal, wood, boilers, chamber stoves, and furnaces were used. Each new discovery inherited new problems, may it be dealing with soot on ceilings from heating with coal in homes, or dealing with spatial issues from heating with furnaces in vertical buildings (45-50). Fan-forced ventilation flourished after 1860 due to the pressing needs of mining and shipping, industrial processing to dry tea, and the increasing size and complexity of buildings. In 1870, the Sturtevant Company patented a steam-coils-plus

Norris 6 centrifugal fan combination; however, its size and weight made its location within the building structure difficult (51-52). Artificial lighting rose sharply due to the availability of coal and gas, and the average household in Philadelphia between 1855-1895 use of illumination increased by twenty- fold (55). The invention of electric lighting by Edison stimulated a lighting industry that rapidly spread in cities and towns throughout the country. Later, the homes and offices gained control over lighting, and appliances and other machines became accessible in homes. By the nineteen hundreds, manufacture catalogs listed toasters, roasters, coffee grinders, electric cigar lighters, and much more (64). These innovations posed a different set of problems and opportunities for architecture as large building designs became more prominent in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century. The curtain wall system became popular in architectural design of modern times which was supported between columns and piers, and on girders or other support, and sustaining no weight other than its own. Curtain walls was designed to accommodate structural deflections, including those generated by wind, fire and other elements; to control environmental infiltration or leakage, and to provide long-term, low-maintenance (Kelly 16). Skyscrapers represented the iron wall in the United States due to the demands of the American Civil War. Metal was used to support the buildings structure, clay tile was used to fireproof the metal skeleton, large glass was used as an architectural expression and helped to form the exterior of the building. Examples include the Reliance Building in Chicago and the Woolworth Building in New York (17). Nonetheless, problems with heating, cooling, lighting, and aesthetics existed. European Modern Movement, which was known in the United States as the International Style was formally introduced to American architects in 1932. The style dovetailed with demands of economy,

Norris 7 efficiency, and the elimination of decorative features on the facade (18). This style is noted in the McGraw Hill Building and in the New York Baily News (18). The colonial house was developed originally by the American colonists and their progeny to function in a particular to way that was indigenous with eighteenth century life in the new world (Forum 149). However, the half- timber houses had exposed framing was not suitable for western climatic changes. The house was slowly developed into a frame covered in shingles and interior walls covered in lath and plaster. The house had low ceilings, small rooms and windows to preserve heat; and no plumbing, heating, or electricity. Todays modifications of the eighteenth century form included central heating, electric wiring with its attendant outlets, and the picture window. It is a perfect rectangle, divided in three or four rooms on the first floor and two or three rooms and a bath on the second floor. Windows and doors in every other room were used to control the weather; however daylight, the blazing sun, or excessive brightness entered randomly. If the shades were drawn, then the breeze was cut off causing problems with the heat. Windows were placed so high that one had to imagine what was outside view was like. The entrance was in the center and kept small to conserve space in the living room, the stairway went straight up from the hall and there were no space for storage of coats, hats, or boots. The dining room basically served no function since it was used hardly, yet it took approximately one-fourth of the living space on the first floor. The kitchen was uncomfortable because it barely has preparation space, and the bedrooms were uncomfortable because they had slanted ceilings which accounted for the many knots and bruises on the head (149). American architecture up until the twentieth century focus was on manipulating the natural environment- heating, cooling and ventilating, artificial illumination, acoustics and electronic

Norris 8 communications. Thus, environmental issues were not considered. James Fitch documented in his books preface, American Building: Environmental Forces that Shape It, Despite its visual novelty and purported modernity, our architecture is on the whole as formalistic in its main configurations- and hence as unsatisfactory in its overall performance- as it was half a century ago, before the appearance of the Bauhaus and the International Style (Fitch, par. 1). He broadens this concept by condemning architects for their failures in the design of modern buildings and for not taking advantage of technology. In addition, he claims that ecologists, environmentalists, anthropologists, physiologists and psychologists benefited from the advancements in technology and created the conceptual basis for a wholly new approach to the design of human settlements (Fitch, 1). It is true that the Industrial Revolution played a significant part in our environmental problems and todays architects are confronted with the spoils of such. For example, the five most pressing environmental issues are climatic changes such as global warming, depletion of the ozone layer, pollution, deforestation, and extinction of species (Bose ). Global warming refers to the increase temperatures of the earth due to release of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane from industries and vehicles. This causes glaciers and polar ice caps to melt. Environmentalists predicts that if the Gangotri glacier continues to melt, then the Ganges River will dry up; and the constant melting of ice caps will increase the sea level and pose the threat of drowning in areas such as Bangladesh, London, and New York. Both of these issues threaten the survival of mankind. Man-made chemicals such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) break through the ozone layers of the atmosphere causing the Earth to receive excessive ultraviolet rays from the sun. This is harmful to humans because it causes

Norris 9 cancer, and is harmful to trees and plants for which humans and animals depend on. Pollution from industries releasing toxic gases in the air causes respiratory diseases in humans, and from industries dumping gallons of liquid waste into the seas and rivers causes extinction of aquatic animals. Intensive agriculture and excessive use of fertilizers and pesticides destroys the natural land which drives animals away. Deforestation due to increased population, industrialization, and the need for land development to expand cities accounts for animals being driven out of their natural habitat and for the destruction of trees. During the period between nineteen- ninety and two thousand itself, the yearly loss of natural forests was sixteen million hectares. Mans relentless hunting accounts for the extinction of many species and recent studies have shown that in North American, thirty- seven animal species have become extinct in the last fifty years (Bose, par. 8). In order to grasp the connection between architectural design and environment we must take a closer look at look at what an environment consist of, and the Merriam-Webster dictionary offers the following definitions: the conditions that surround someone or something; the conditions and influences that affect the growth, health, progress, etc., of someone or something, the complex of physical, chemical, and biotic factors (as climate, soil, and living things) that act upon an organism or an ecological community and ultimately determine its form and survival; and the aggregate of social and cultural conditions that influence the life of an individual or community (Merriam). All of these definitions amalgamate with the panorama of our environment. As mentioned earlier, the backlash of mans brutal interactions against the environment, in hindsight; has forced mother nature to expose herself with a vengeance. Fitch suggests that . . . man acts upon his environment as well as being acted upon it; . . . it is

Norris 10 imperative for architects to understand the essential nature of this relationship, since building is the most important instrument used to modify it (Fitch 4). Not only does design have profound effects on the physical health of humans, they also have a devastating effect on their psychological health. For example, the article, Psychological Musing, describes how physical structures affect human behavior because architecture is perceived as purely functional or an expression of cultural pride, societal passion, or national esteem. Ayers reports in their 2007 study that, Research supports the idea that architectural design and the structure of space, the number and spacing of windows, and lighting affect people. . . architecture design has strong but modifiable effects on social behavior and users mood and productivity and to, some extent, design features also affect health and wellbeing (Stone, par. 3). Space determines whether someone feels isolated or crowded, whether they have a sense of control or is susceptible to anxiety, or engage in interactions. This is indicative in homes, schools, hospitals, and industrial settings. Other critical components such as lighting, color, texture, and doorways may have a positive or negative effect on the psyche of individuals (par. 4-7). Another article featured in the Architectural Record, tells the story of an urban entrepreneur who into his dream house and was later diagnosed with a serious clinical depression because he left a sunny high- rise apartment to a luxurious home at the bottom of a dim canyon. The man had seasonal affective disorder (SAD) due to decreased sunlight and cold temperatures. This article was written in 1999, and revealed that six percent of residents in the metropolitan areas of New York suffered from SAD. Today, the incidence of SAD occurs in one percent to ten percent of adults, and primarily in women (Gallagher, par. 3).

Norris 11 After carefully researching this subject, efforts are being made in the architectural field to promote sustainability in building design. There are many theories circulating with promising solutions, yet critics are skeptical about its usefulness and practicality. Two such theories, sociotechnical and socially sustainable product design, was synthesized and examined in hopes of rendering effective innovations. The responsive and sustainable product design theory is based on Papaneks idea of industrial design while inspecting practicing approaches and design programs. The paper highlights eight important standards of socially sustainable product design, and purports that Papaneks original concept for socially responsible and sustainable design has been partially attained, and needed to be developed further. Papanek states that designers and other creative professionals is responsible for creating positive changes in the design world since there has been an emergence of new fields of design during the late twentieth century and early twenty-first century. For example, there are interactive designs that engage the tangibles as well as the intangibles such as cellphones. Papanek emphasized three things that designers should consider: carefully select products that are ecological, design according to the needs of clients rather than their wants, and to be responsible for the choices that they make in their design process. Those who argue against Papaneks theory explain that other factors must be considered and weakens his supposition. For example, Julier (2008) argues that certain aspects of technology does not impact social responsibility and sustainability as the design culture fails to link objects, spaces, and images to designing, production and consumption must take responsibility for their decisions to help diminish issues such as depleting resources and climate stability. Stegall (2006) further explains product sustainability does not address the disposal of

Norris 12 products, therefore extensive strategies must be implemented to heighten intellectual and practice engagement from industrial and product design (Melles et al. 143-144). Hacking and Guthrie (2008) site another issue in Papaneks theory related to the triple bottom line or 3BL is coined by sustainability guru John Elkington. 3BL is the cost-analysis of sustainable practice whereas clarification is required (145). The responsive and sustainable product design theory has been further critique by Brown and Wyatt (2010) and emphasis is given to the designer actually participation in the research design by observing and improvising experiences of businesses, schoolchildren, or healthcare workers, therefore they will gain firsthand knowledge and understand the lives of the people they are designing for. The IDEO is a user-center approach to this concept, and Liz Sanders proposed a five- stage design thinking process which revealed current movements in design research and practice. They are critical design, design and emotion, generative design research, user-centered design and participatory design. The participatory design is geared towards the socially responsible design and shifts the expert authority of the designer. Role changes is suggested for a where a systematic approach to product design can be examined (146-148). The eight important standards mentioned earlier pertaining to socially responsible design are need, suitability, relative affordability, advancement, local control, usability, empowerment and dependency (149). It is suggested that designers must relinquish basic values of a marketdriven society in order to produce socially responsible products while embracing these eight attributes (150).

Norris 13 The second theory, sociotechnical theory, involved exploring how environmental problems are identified, defined, translated, valued and then embodied in built forms through diverse design and development pathways (Guy 21). Tracing the interactions of competitive environmental values and practices involves logistical design options of green building environments and exploring debates and mapping practices of sustainable architecture. This article suggests that researchers must amend the focus and scope of debates and reconnect issues of appropriate technological change, while encouraging a range of context-specific responses. Debates are not novel to sustainable architecture. According to Guy politicians and social interest groups are usually at the forefront rallying for their own causes, therefore environmental problems continue to exist. He also argues that the sociotechnical theory responds to debates as it views the environment as a contested terrain and fit cities are based on presented environmental issues. Long and Long (1992) explains that sustainable cities . . . are characterized by an interpretive flexibility and rather than looking at one perspective, researchers must acknowledge numerous debates and understand that it is a continuous dynamic process (22). Educators and students are encouraged to act as moral citizens by openly debating critical issues. There are numerous projects and initiatives exploring sustainable building ideas, practices, and standards. One example is the International Council for Research and Innovation in building and Construction Conference of 2004-2005 and the focus was a search for consistent knowledge of sustainability (22). Standardization for sustainability is not an idea written in stone by all researchers (Williamson et al., 2003) and viewed by all researchers and there are some who welcomes

Norris 14 pluralism arguing that there is no single form of sustainable architecture which will guarantee success. Several forms of pluralistic sustainability have evolved such as Scott Campbell triangular model (Campbell, 1996) and Tanzer and Longorias ecology, equity, and ecology model (2007). The triangular model views architecture as cultural product coming from multiple origins and perspectives where emphasis is placed on integrating social, economic and environmental sustainability. The triple-layer model of equity, economy, and ecology conflicts between property, development and resources. This goal of this model is to resolve issues between competing priorities and its theme is coexistence. The theme of Tanzer and Longorias model emphasize a three-fold role which does not coincide with any approach or strategy, but it attempts to break the old way of thinking, addictive quality of modernity, to reviving a sensuous relationship to nature. The terminology is similar to Williamsons triple-layer model, however has different meanings. The first is aesthetic standards for design must not focus on appearance that reduces human or ecological ugliness, the second is to teach the ultimate object of design is human minds, and third is should incorporate health, healing, and spirituality (23). The theorys ultimate goal is to explore diversity in design and to encourage communication that is not one-sided. After synthesizing and examining the two sociological theories on sustainable architecture, they related to the topic because achieving sustainable environments is a social issue and not purely an issue that architects should tackle. Architects roles are more complex and diverse, and require a systematic approach. Society is an organized system that works together for a common interest and depend on each other for the good of the whole; just as the

Norris 15 human body is an organized system that is interconnected, interrelated, interdependent. The human body cannot function properly if it had a missing organ such the brain, and sustainable architecture cannot survive with only the knowledge of architects. It is a global problem requiring a network of disciplines such as ecologists, sociologists, and engineers, Likewise, it is impossible to alleviate environmental concerns with only one player (the architect) and this is why the sociological theories relate to this paper. Environmental issues are complex and occurred over several hundreds of years, and the finding a solution will not be simple. This does not disqualify the paper opening statement, The survival of mankind rest on the backs of architectural trailblazers and pioneers of today as it relate to the maintenance and control of our environment. Yes, it is true that architects are burden by this tragedy, so are other trailblazers and pioneers. In fact, everyone one living should respond and with urgency to issues such as global warming, floods, volcanos, diseases, lack of vegetation and plant life, and the list goes on and on. The two sociological theories offers partial solutions, however, is narrow in scope because they does not necessarily balance the scale of sustainable architecture. There are so many angles. twists, and turns at which there may be multiple solutions. For example, architects over past decades has modified their strategies and changed their roles. In doing so, in 2007 the American Institute of Architects released an excerpt that summarized ten factors that influence architectural design: client and architects relationship; a program which identifies the clients aspirations, requirements, and limitations; adjusting designs to address community concerns and to gain support; meeting building codes and regulations in an effort to regulate design and construction; site requirements such as size, topography, drainage, wildlife, and ecological

Norris 16 features; characteristics of contextual (the natural and built environments) and climatic factors (solar radiation, temperatures, humidity, wind, and precipitation; improving building technology to promote cost efficiency in order to meet structural and mechanical requirements; addressing sustainability issues; making cost adjustments to fit the needs of the client; and schedule demands and constraints (AIA, par. 1-11). Ironically, in an effort to preserve the planets ecological health, architects are using the very thing that created the problem- technology. For example, tea- pavilions that blends with nature; edge monkeys allows architects to robots in the environment; eco pods that act as temporary algae bio-reactor in a vertical way, houses with green roof projects which combines elements of design and aesthetics with sustainability and ecology: ecological houses covered with earth and protected from the rain, low temperatures, wind and natural abrasion; and Google headquarters in China synthesizes aesthetics and sustainability (Calderone, par. 1-6). In conclusion, architectural responses to environmental issues have many implications that existed for many centuries. The paper highlighted the time period between the eighteenth century and the twenty-first century. Many factors influenced our eco-system such as the Industrial Revolution, the Civil War, World War one and two, and mans need to survive on Earth, and to live in comfort and convenience. As a result, Pandoras Box was opened exposing all living things to harmful and tragic circumstances. As previously stated, architects is responsible for sustaining our environment by working as a system. The paper outlined how architecture designs relate to our environment, how the challenges of the past has influenced architects future decisions, and how architecture design

Norris 17 have affected human behavior. The paper synthesized two sociological theoretical approaches to attaining sustainable environments whereas they both had valid propositions; however, I believe they serve as a jumpstart to resolving some a few issues. Minimizing the effects of environmental problems is truly a collaborative effort and doing something that should be common or second-nature such as recycling helps. Man has the ability to predict the future (may he be right or wrong), however the future of mankind is more important. Our past architecture historians did not phantom the world being in such a horrific state, nor did architects of today phantom trying to work through these momentous problems. Future researchers must learn from the past in order to and be open to new ideas and act on them in an intelligible manner without causing more harm.

Norris18 Works Cited Banham, Reyner. The Architecture of the Well-tempered Environment. London: The Architectural Press, 1969. Print. Bose, Debopriya. How do Humans Affect the Environment. Buzzle. 2000. Web. 28 Feb. 2012. Brown, David, Mindy Fox, and Mary Pelletier. Sustainable Architecture: White Papers. New Jersey: Greg Barber Co., 2000. Print. Calderone, Len. How Architects Help the Environment and Save Energy. The Alternative Energy eMagazine. Web. Aug. 2013. El Demery, Ibrahim Mostafa. Sustainable Architectural Design: Revivng Traditional Design And Modern Solutions. Archnet- IJAR 4.1 (2010): 99-110. Art and Architecture Complete. Web. 13 April. 2014. Environment. Meriam-Webster.com. Web. 21 April 14. Fitch, James. American Building: The Environmental Forces That Shape It. 2nd ed. New York: Schocken Books, 1975. Print.

Norris 19 Gallagher, Winifred. How Places Affect People. Architectural Record 187.2 (1999): 72-214 Art & Architecture Complete. Wed. 13 Apr. 2014. Guy, Simon. Pragmatic Ecologies: Situating Sustainable Building. Architectural Science Review. March 2010; 53 (1): 21-28. Houses. UNCC Architecture Database. Web. 7 March 2014: 149-154. Kelly, Stephen K. An Image of Modernity: An American History of the Curtain Wall. Docomomo Journal (1996): 16-21. Art & Architecture Complete. Web. 13 Apr. 2014. Melles, Gavin, Ian de Vere, and Vanja Misic. Socially Responsible Design: Thinking Beyond the Triple Bottom Line to Socially Responsive and Sustainable Product Design. Codesign 7.3/4 (2011); 143-154. Art & Architecture Complete. Web. 13 Apr. 2014. Stone, Deborah. Psychological Musings: Architecture and the Environment. Email to edu. Users. Web. 7 Aug. 2011. Ten Key Factors that Affect Any Design. The Architects Handbook of Professional Practice, 13th ed. Feb. 2007