‘The End of Architecture’(1) focusses on the wholesale woke takeover of all discursive institutions that had constituted the infrastructure of architecture’s reflective self-steering towards innovation.
I do not agree, sustainability when properly defined is just a technical performance criterium (like fire safety, structural stability etc) and has very little to do with architecture, and does not stand in the way for a meaningful architecture discourse. In my projects I never had a problem to meet such technical criteria, whether sustainabilty, safety or stability related.
Thanks for the article. And yes I resonate with the fact that no most beneficial design solution automaticly will be realized in the most cost-effective way from now on, with the lowest possible carbon footprint. First the architectural goals and fitting fundamental sustainable solutions is the necessary second step. No sustainabilty credo to be a replacement for the quality of architecture, or it would indeed be the end of it... But to let sustainable answers be an intentional part of the entire designprocess is something I would nonetheless encourage 🌿🦉
I'm not convinced that sustainability is the overriding concern in architecture that Patrick clearly feels dominates his own practice. This is probably a matter of context. In our own practice and that of almost all the architects I know, commercial viability / affordability remain the primary determinants of a projects success. Always has been and always will be. Seismic safety comes second, aesthetics / marketability third, everything else is a distant nice-to-have. You could replace 'sustainability' with 'commercial imperative' in this article and have a much stronger case.
I’ve written an architecture adventure story where I dream of demolishing and rebuilding half of Melbourne. If it tickles your fancy it’s on my stack under the ominous title of “The Gift”.
I do not agree, sustainability when properly defined is just a technical performance criterium (like fire safety, structural stability etc) and has very little to do with architecture, and does not stand in the way for a meaningful architecture discourse. In my projects I never had a problem to meet such technical criteria, whether sustainabilty, safety or stability related.
I agree Kas - and I suspect that this is precisely the position Patrick adopts.
Thanks for the article. And yes I resonate with the fact that no most beneficial design solution automaticly will be realized in the most cost-effective way from now on, with the lowest possible carbon footprint. First the architectural goals and fitting fundamental sustainable solutions is the necessary second step. No sustainabilty credo to be a replacement for the quality of architecture, or it would indeed be the end of it... But to let sustainable answers be an intentional part of the entire designprocess is something I would nonetheless encourage 🌿🦉
I'm not convinced that sustainability is the overriding concern in architecture that Patrick clearly feels dominates his own practice. This is probably a matter of context. In our own practice and that of almost all the architects I know, commercial viability / affordability remain the primary determinants of a projects success. Always has been and always will be. Seismic safety comes second, aesthetics / marketability third, everything else is a distant nice-to-have. You could replace 'sustainability' with 'commercial imperative' in this article and have a much stronger case.
Yes!! I concur, sir.
I’ve written an architecture adventure story where I dream of demolishing and rebuilding half of Melbourne. If it tickles your fancy it’s on my stack under the ominous title of “The Gift”.