Sustainability – that multi faceted, meaningful yet meaningless word that is at the forefront of architecture. I have problems with very many aspects of it but mostly due to prevalent “green-washing” by designers to give a green sheen to very non-green projects. I also have a deep problem with the construction methods being touted by the passivehaus institutes and BRE amongst others. Architecture has had a fairly torrid century when it comes to pioneering new methods of construction. Almost all of these problems have arisen from designers forgetting the immutable constants of designing buildings for normal people to inhabit that are capable of withstanding our climate .
Every time I see a beautifully photographed, untreated timber clad house in the south of England I have to remind myself what a ten year old timber clad house looks like in the west of Scotland – it ain’t pretty. In fact there is no easy way of putting this – the current construction methods of the residential housing sector are not built to last beyond the standard 10 year warranty period. Surely the very first guiding principle of sustainability is to build something that will still be used for human habitation in 200 years time. Modern timber frame houses are constructed from very low grade timbers and particle boards, unproven over time. They are wholly unsuitable to future layout changes and even extensions are difficult. Dealing with internal moisture is nigh on impossible over the long term and the rate of decline of a modern timber frame building once the weathering skin is breached is remarkable. But they are cheap, easily meet the building regulations regarding the conservation of heat and power and keep the NHBC warranty verifiers happy.
Look around the west of Scotland , northern England and Northern Ireland – what are the old buildings made of? The reason they have lasted so long is their extremely robust materiality ; brick, stone, slate, concrete. My own apartment is a basement of an 1886 built sandstone tenement. It has been refurbished a few times in its 126 years and I have just added to that. I think it’s safe to assume that it will still be occupied and modified to other’s needs in another 126 years whereas the 7 year old Glasgow Harbour development on the Clyde is looking very tatty already. Its acres of North facing Powerwall/Sto render on Metsec metal stud walling is lauded as being "sustainable" but its looking baggy, saggy, mouldy and very very shoddy. Any bets on it being here in 26 years never mind 126. This applies to most of the "BlairBoxes" built in the recent housing boom.
We live in a disposable society; we’ve known that for a long time. Most things have obsolescence built into their design – otherwise how can a company such as Apple survive unless we buy a new device every 18 months. An original I Pod would be 11 years old now and if the battery had been easily replaceable there’s no reason to assume it wouldn’t be doing exactly what it was designed to do for another 11 years.
Buildings aren’t ipods – they are much more complicated; they have to fulfil technical, societal and spiritual needs. They need to last and current “sustainable” construction methods won’t last. I have just finished a brick and concrete house; it is constructed to full current building regulations for conservation of heat and power – however it has a hewn-from-solid feel that makes me suspect it will still be housing a family and serving their needs long after my grandchildren are grandparents. Not something I can confidently say of a modern timber frame house – no matter how well you build it.
No comments:
Post a Comment