Architects are changing the way they design in response to the challenges of the ongoing climate crisis.
At a recent lecture hosted by the Melbourne School of Design at The University of Melbourne titled ‘Bauwende: Architecture in the climatic turn’, German architect Matthias Sauerbruch discussed the effect that climatic turn has had on architecture over the past 100 years.
“I'm trying to draw a parallel between 1923 and 2023 and see how architects were trying to react to conditions at the beginning of modernity, if you like, the beginning of the 20th century, and what we are confronted with at the beginning of the 21st century, and try and speculate on how we can react to that in terms of our architectural language and strategies,” he explained.
One of the references Sauerbruch used in his presentation was a photo from a 1925 Paris exposition, which exhibited the Pavillon de l'Esprit Nouveau – a model home or maisonette designed by Swiss architect Le Corbusier, which was basically a double storey unit done in a “classic modern abstract language and fitted out with equally abstract, reduced furniture”.
Describing the design as ‘heroic modernism’, Sauerbruch said, “There was great hope or belief in progress, in optimisation of lifestyles, of technology playing a big role in industrialisation, renewing everything, including the building sector. And so generally a better, healthier, more sociable life ahead of everybody and that architecture could play a big role in achieving these targets.”
However, as the 100-year data shows, things didn’t exactly go as easily as was imagined. The mid-century post-modern movement of the 1960s and 70s sought to return to historic models based on the belief that it might help in terms of the quality of architecture and quality of urban environments, Sauerbruch explained.
Today, as we are confronted with climate change and all its consequences, necessitating change in the way we treat our environment, perhaps, in retrospect, the modern architects were trying to resolve the problems of the time and partially failed, but were also able to achieve certain things. While they could be role models, it’s obvious the whole framework will need to be reinterpreted, renewed and reviewed. “It's not a question of just repeating what's been done in that time, but it's more a question of asking ourselves, what will we do to help reduce climate change, help keep living conditions in the cities acceptable, in terms of temperatures and environmental conditions as well as social life.”
“We associate our work with the dual technical-cultural mission to improve the quality of life of prospective users and future generations in general, and so to contribute to public life and the wellbeing of the city.”
While acknowledging that architecture fulfils a purpose, be it for a residential, office, commercial, cultural or sports building, Sauerbruch says architects don’t see themselves as mere service providers who apply their expertise to create a product for their clients.
“People employ you because they have a need and they want to have nice apartments or they want to have a good workplace with good lighting, fresh air, pleasant interiors and sociable spaces. While they play a big role, we are also fully aware that whatever we do is part of the culture of our generation. It's a building that will be sitting somewhere in the city and it will be sitting there longer than we will be alive and it's a sort of inheritance that we're leaving behind.”
According to Sauerbruch, it’s about contributing to the culture of the society and the city, not necessarily in the sense of theatre and art exhibitions, but more in the way the building behaves and responds to neighbours, visitors or passers-by – for instance, how the building reacts to the public space, what its material performance is, how it evolves as it ages, or if it is nice to look at.
“Is it something that makes you curious, that stimulates your central response, or is it something that is just sitting there and kind of doing its job and otherwise doesn't really care about anything?”
However banal the project is, you are always contributing to this cultural accumulation, says Sauerbruch, and therefore, you have to be aware of that and act accordingly.
Designing for a place with history or from a blank canvas – which is easier?
“Every piece of land has its own history and if you just look at it carefully enough, you will possibly find traces of that history, which may or may not be relevant to what you do,” says Sauerbruch. By knowing how the land has been used, how it's been transformed, the natural forces, the geology, the vegetation, and the climate, architects can respond to those conditions in their design.
While there may be more conditions and contextual situations in places with history such as Paris or Berlin, Sauerbruch believes this principle applies everywhere. “You really have to try and understand the place where you are at and it may just be the climate that you're reacting to in the end, but there's also geology, there's hydrology, there's the topography of the land, and all these conditions one should develop sensitivity to.”
Carbon emissions – Architects can make a difference
The building and construction sector contributes a significant part of the overall carbon emissions, more than industry or traffic.
“What we do has obviously an impact and what we don't do as well, and how we do it really makes a big difference. If we, as a profession, start to act in a jointly conscientious way, and can convince our clients to join that spirit, I think it does make a big difference actually and we just have to remain critical and aware because there's a lot of greenwashing going on,” says Sauerbruch.
Image: Matthias Sauerbruch
