The Modernist aesthetic and the idea of a low-carbon, sustainable architecture are fundamentally incompatible.
There are several principal reasons for this:
• the methodologies by which architectural form has been determined in twentieth and twenty-first century Modernsim, in all its forms, have been dominated by visual considerations. Technical functions and knowledge of sensible building practice have been accorded a much lower priority.
• the body of ideas (theory) on which the visual vocabulary of Modern architecture was based was intended to express the belief that humans were separate from and could dominate Nature. The resulting abstract visual vocabulary of Modernism is incompatible with the idea of accommodating the realities of the natural world.
• the materials metal, glass and reinforced concrete, which form the basis of the Modernist aesthetic, are extravagant in every respect and involve high levels of all forms of embodied energy.
Sustainable architecture will not come about through minor tinkering with the Modernist methodology, such as the attachment of solar panels, smart walls or the recycling of waste water and heat.
A complete change of approach will be required.
There is no aspect of the methodology of architectural design that will not have to be comprehensively re-considered.
From the early twentieth century architectural design has been driven by notions of appearance. All other considerations in the making of a building have been accorded a much lower priority in the design process.
From an environmental viewpoint the result has been disastrous, because adherence to the Modernist aesthetic has produced buildings that are environmentally damaging, wasteful of energy and materials and detrimental to the wellbeing of humans and all other creatures that inhabit planet Earth.
Fundamental to the remedy of this disastrous situation will be a reconsideration of what is regarded as aesthetically satisfying.
Architectural forms that are wasteful of energy and materials must in future be considered ugly. Those that respect the environment and human wellbeing are beautiful.
Beauty is not simply a matter of appearance.
Ugly forms are ugly in every sense.
This is ugly.
There are several aspects to its ugliness:
• it is wasteful of materials and effort because it:
– has a structural configuration that is inefficient
– is unnecessarily composed of high-energy materials
– is complicated to build requiring specialist skills such as welding
• it does not fulfill its basic functions:
– as a dwelling house
– as a modifier of the environment
– as a weather-tight envelope
– as a durable enclosure
• the motivations of its designer were ugly and included:
– a desire for fame
– the satisfaction of ego
• the behaviour of its designer was ugly:
– especially towards his client
• the basis of its aesthetic was ugly consisting as it did of
the denial of the relationship between humans and Nature.
This is beautiful.
• it is not wasteful of materials or effort because it:
– has a structural configuration that is appropriate for its span
– is composed of recycled low-energy materials
– is simple to build using unskilled labour
• it fulfils its basic functions well:
– as an elementary school
– as a modifier of the environment
– as a weather-tight envelope
– as a durable enclosure
• the motivations of its designer were beautiful and included:
– a desire to help people following an earthquake
– the education of student designers
• the behaviour of its designer was beautiful:
– he was fully engaged with the client and builders
• the basis of its aesthetic was beautiful consisting as it did of
the simple expression of function, materials and low environmental impact
Reference:
https://angusjmacdonaldstructure.uk/architecture-design-capitalocene/, Steel Architecture, Chapter 7.