Why do you think architecture is important?

What obstacles do you think sustainable architecture is facing?

• USGBC once set two goals in 2007: 100,000 LEED-certified buildings and 1 million LEED-certified homes by the end of 2010. While according to the data it announced in 2011, the number of homes with LEED certification has reached to 10,000 across the US. Yet, no matter whether the previous 1 million goal was produced through sophisticated calculation or basically just a number with hope, when comparing our hope with the reality in these years development of sustainable architecture, what are the real obstacles or problems in your opinion that hinder a greater booming of sustainable architecture?

• Answer:

  Greenwashing, bad design, and money. Greenwashing is when companies are more concerned about appearing 'green' than actually implementing sustainable, environmentally-friendly practices. Other corporate sectors (oil, energy, automotive, etc.) are usually far more guilty of this than the world of architects, but it exists nonetheless. Take LEED. Several architects I've discussed this with agree that LEED is a fundamentally flawed designation in that it recognizes green design, but not green performance. In other words, if it looks good on paper, it gets an award...and once you have that shiny LEED plaque on your building, it makes for a pretty sweet marketing bullet point! While LEED definitely has its merits, and does incentivize some good sustainable practices, there are many better alternatives to LEED. One I just learned about recently is the http://living-future.org/lbc, which awards designations after at least one year of testing. And they've certified some pretty brilliant buildings. Bad design is bad for everyone - the architect, the client, the user. But sometimes things just look so good on paper you can't tell it's not going to work 'till it's done and 50 million dollars have already been spent. There's a number of examples of 'green' building designs that had some very sexy features that ended up not working, malfunctioning, or just being a pain in the ass for the occupant. Examples include the passive HVAC in Morphosis' Federal Building in SF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Federal_Building#Criticism), and the aperture sun-shading system (awesome, but so mechanically complex that it continually breaks down) in Jean Nouvel's Institute du Monde Arabe. Every time this happens, it instills distrust in the public about green design, giving the idea that sustainability and functionality are at odds with each other. Finally, money. This one's simple, and easily the biggest obstacle that green design faces. Solar panels are expensive. Sustainably-sourced timber is expensive. Breathable building skins, green roofs, high-performance windows, water treatment and recycling...you guessed it, all expensive. And for most building projects happening today, architecture is a massive exercise in value engineering. "We could cover the roof in solar panels and local plants, but that puts us five million dollars over budget." So until sustainable technologies become significantly cheaper (or subsidized, or otherwise incentivized), most of these sustainable design elements will continue to make it only into the high-profile, high-budget projects that make up a tiny portion of the new construction being built today.