‘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'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 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’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'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 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 🌿🦉
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”.