Sustainable Design, the role of the architect, and a question of ethics

Lucien Le Grange, director of the School of Architecture at the University of Cape Town, writes: "The proponents of sustainability for housing or built environments often limit their agenda to building technologies, energy efficiency and environment within a framework of economic feasibility, and completely disregard urban or social feasibility…Urban and social sustainability are of great concern because they have been virtually ignored in current programmes to reimagine the 'sustainable' South African city."

Talking about the sustainable re-development of a place like District Six - a contested area of Cape Town from which 60,000 former residents were forcibly removed - inevitably involves confronting a range of social issues. It is impossible to suggest a sustainable alternative that does not address issues of race, class, poverty, community identity, and heritage.

For example, to discuss the rebuilding effort in terms that are purely related to the Green Building dual priorities of energy efficiency and environmental impact would seem, in many ways, to miss the point. Here is a case where socio-political agendas and spatio-economic concerns are so in-your-face that downplaying them - even in order to emphasize other "sustainable design" initiatives - seems irresponsible.

However, the role of the architect in this debate is complicated. Typically an architect enters into a project after a number of the "big picture" issues have been…well…if not solved, then at least decided. The architect is given a project brief that specifies the extent of the project - the size, scope, and function of the building [program]. He or she can, of course, decide whether or not to take the project, but for the most part, larger social issues are beyond the scope of the architectural design scheme.

On the other hand, technical issues such as energy efficiency, material usage, and environmental impact are aspects of the project which can be, at least to some degree, controlled by the architect.

For example, the way that a window frame is detailed [something that the architect decides] has a direct impact on the energy efficiency of a building. It does not, however, do much in the way of solving homelessness, or fostering inclusiveness, or building community, or ending poverty, or….

You get the idea.

If you're thinking to yourself that this is a cop-out argument for architects, you wouldn't be the first. Just the other day, in fact, I had a conversation with an activist and history professor at the University of the Western Cape, who makes a very convincing argument about architects' lack of professional ethics. On one hand I agree with him, but on the other…I wonder if he doesn't have an inflated sense of what architects actually do.

For me, one of the most interesting aspects of sustainable design is the way that it forces design professionals to take a position vis a vis the notion of "ethical practice."

As an architect you could take the position that social concerns are not solved by architectural means.

Alternatively, you could try to engage in a practice that makes use of the design tools available to you in such a way that does address larger concerns - environmental and energy-related, or even socio-political.

You could also try to position yourself in such a way that you do have a greater agency, and therefore room for ethical positioning in the projects you do. This might require, however, overstepping the traditional boundaries of architectural practice - operating as architect and developer or applying architectural to non-architectural projects - but then again, what are boundaries for, if not overstepping?