sustainability is the new "fetch"
My new technology focused design studio (for the next four weeks) has started out on the wrong foot, or so it seems and will continue to stumble blindly into an unknown and terribly tragic path of ambiguity. in brief the technology design outline requires and blatantly states that we are to produce 2 details of passive and active architectural details, one of them specifically on PVs (photovoltaic cells). Further inquiry from tutors in a Q&A session about the aims of the brief only proved disappointing as we were told that the 2 prong aim of the tech course was to...
1. Learn technical detailing with critical understanding of the way things work. In so doing, i'm assuming here, to derive design ideas based on structural systems or other advances in construction or building technology. And of course the tutors would then start to brighten up and say "like how you would design a roof made of solar panels? or a naturally ventilated roof?" nothing wrong with saying that but this leads me to my second point....
2. Focus on Environemental and energy saving FEATURES which you will implement in the design of your building. And then the tutors start to champion "sustainabilty" like its the new cool word for the year (which i disagree...that honour goes to Hard Gay's "say say say say!" ). The tutors then assured us that all the other two groups (the environment group and the urban group) had to factor in "sustainability" in their designs too. Suddenly every tutor wants to hug a tree! What the ?? Then whats the point of having three separate groups in the first place? This half hearted-ness in approach reminds me of something Tey Kheng Soon once said in a "emergency guest lecture" held a few months back on our architectural efforts in sustainability, that we were merely paying lip service.
The approach for sustainability seems to be the new direction for the school, yet no one openly states it, majority of guest lectures focus on "eco" themes, we hold sustainability workshops, tropical workshops, design and environment modules. We have recycling bins (this one was meant as a joke) and heck we fucking won RAG too! er....yeah RAG, the thing that was supposed to be made mainly of recycled materials that was meant to raised funds for charities, you know the one that people sacrifice their holidays for, losing sleep sticking coke cans on to a diesel powered truck? then throwing themselves several feet into the air in hopes of winning a worthless plaque? I once heard of an accident when a guy missed and left a tossed girl broken legged on the ground...one day somebody's is gonna di................eee touch wood, okay i digressed ..i apologize. (though one day i will compose my disdain for such massive worthless show of opulence and everyone of you in hall can slam me upside down)
back to studio. Technology as how one of the tech tutors described, was derived from the Greek word techne (craft), and is the ability to adapt and make use of one's environment. I totally agree with that but i would also like to add that technology has gone beyond the physical realm that it now covers a more broader and robust term. One that goes beyond the definition imposed by the Industrial revolution. Information, Medical, Quantam physics and wireless communication are so prevalent in our everyday lives, intellectual technologies such as economical and social theories are so important for the progress of society. I was rather excited about doing a tech module, hoping to get my hands dirty in scripted codes or the spatial relationship of a wireless home. The tutors did mention that what i said was interesting but that it would mean that i diverged from the brief rather than focus was on energy savings, the environment and technical details of such. I realised it was useless to do battle when they started throwing names like Calatrava and Renzo Piano (note! i love you two and i totally dig your works and they shouldn't have used your names in such travesty!)
Technology to what i could comprehend from their QnA (where A probably meant baseless Assumptions rather than the holy book of Answers) was just a glorified name for the major A&A (addition and alteration) Technical Detailing in a HDB flat in which can one can run a teevee with solar power preferably on a naturally ventilated penthouse or balcony.
The tech group's approach to sustainability is so focused on features that it almost kills off the broad aspects of the term. Earning a green mark platinum award does not save us from global warming. National Library stores books, hold plays, does exhibitions and uses 168kwh/m2 per year while Changi General Hospital 132kwh/m2 per year, it serves a large population, saves lives, hold talks, has a food court and probably has mini library on its own. Whats the point of adding ventilation roofs or double glazed CR windows when all you need is an electric fan? which probably uses less energy than the embodied energy required to manufacture a double glazed glass or stack-effect roof, and its almost guranteed to work unlike the later two?
Just like how green mark awards points for buildings with sensor triggered taps(up to 4 points for "excellent basin taps" part 2 item 1) , we archi students are graded for how many architectural features we can squeeze onto a house/heritage centre/fucking ambigous creative space. Just install photovoltaic windows with naturally ventilated corridors and earn yourself at least half a grade higher. i shit you not when i tell you that adding bicycle ramps can up your LEEDS from silver to gold (see LEEDS v2.1 New Construction and Major renovation, credit 4.2 alternative transportation: bicycle storage and changing rooms) . Even Mr Fung John Chye (and not Mr Kenn Yeo..sorry my bad mistaken identity) agrees with me on the flaws of green mark, him being on of their advisor's too. I respect the man but i could sense the uneasiness he had when he gave the weak excuse of "but thats what the layman wants. Features!" , you could tell he was rather sad at that fact one can only base their judgments on poor credit based systems and we all should feel the same too.
The school instead of being a mere subservient entity to the local architectural field should begin to change architect's and people's mindsets on sustainability, of the false and often pretty pictures of solar cells glimmering on roof decks and wind turbines spinning gracefully on high rise apartments. Why do we preach caring for the environment when the rest of the nation continues to en-bloc, killing off the social fabric we took so long to stitch together (that staement is so MCYS xia)? building ever increasing amounts of glass buildings (these days everything is double glazed, even if they don't need to be), praise rainwater recycling and build chlorine filled swimming pools?
There is so much more than that....so much more
construction worker hard at work to push the cap scores of the architect who designed this building, for every panel he adds one gets a .01 cap score increase. bonus points for fixing up that windturbine in the storeroom on the same day.
You can forget what i wrote earlier but please read where i'm getting into next.
That sustainability at the end of it all is not just about saving energy. Your solar panels or wind turbines and zinc roofed naturally ventilated interior probably saved you from burning ten barrels of oil instead of the usual 20. But you still burned 10 you tree killing, polar bear murderer. BLDGBLOG's Architectural Sustainability article explains it better than me and probably is the best i've read so far. One should relook at our efforts to save the environment (reference The Next Industrial Revolution) and at the larger pespective, not fall into technicism. Which according to this wiki article is an over reliance or overconfidence in technology as a benefactor of society.
"der idear dere lah,
but your exerqushern not dere yet"
That's a very simple phrase in in the army meant as a consoling statement with an undertone of a suckerpunch. We used to say that to people who had the right intentions but could not work it out to accomplish what they wanted, i think the school probably needs it more than anything now.
updates: looks like uncle co seng has wrote something similar too! read it at his duper long super essay.
1. Learn technical detailing with critical understanding of the way things work. In so doing, i'm assuming here, to derive design ideas based on structural systems or other advances in construction or building technology. And of course the tutors would then start to brighten up and say "like how you would design a roof made of solar panels? or a naturally ventilated roof?" nothing wrong with saying that but this leads me to my second point....
2. Focus on Environemental and energy saving FEATURES which you will implement in the design of your building. And then the tutors start to champion "sustainabilty" like its the new cool word for the year (which i disagree...that honour goes to Hard Gay's "say say say say!" ). The tutors then assured us that all the other two groups (the environment group and the urban group) had to factor in "sustainability" in their designs too. Suddenly every tutor wants to hug a tree! What the ?? Then whats the point of having three separate groups in the first place? This half hearted-ness in approach reminds me of something Tey Kheng Soon once said in a "emergency guest lecture" held a few months back on our architectural efforts in sustainability, that we were merely paying lip service.
The approach for sustainability seems to be the new direction for the school, yet no one openly states it, majority of guest lectures focus on "eco" themes, we hold sustainability workshops, tropical workshops, design and environment modules. We have recycling bins (this one was meant as a joke) and heck we fucking won RAG too! er....yeah RAG, the thing that was supposed to be made mainly of recycled materials that was meant to raised funds for charities, you know the one that people sacrifice their holidays for, losing sleep sticking coke cans on to a diesel powered truck? then throwing themselves several feet into the air in hopes of winning a worthless plaque? I once heard of an accident when a guy missed and left a tossed girl broken legged on the ground...one day somebody's is gonna di................eee touch wood, okay i digressed ..i apologize. (though one day i will compose my disdain for such massive worthless show of opulence and everyone of you in hall can slam me upside down)
back to studio. Technology as how one of the tech tutors described, was derived from the Greek word techne (craft), and is the ability to adapt and make use of one's environment. I totally agree with that but i would also like to add that technology has gone beyond the physical realm that it now covers a more broader and robust term. One that goes beyond the definition imposed by the Industrial revolution. Information, Medical, Quantam physics and wireless communication are so prevalent in our everyday lives, intellectual technologies such as economical and social theories are so important for the progress of society. I was rather excited about doing a tech module, hoping to get my hands dirty in scripted codes or the spatial relationship of a wireless home. The tutors did mention that what i said was interesting but that it would mean that i diverged from the brief rather than focus was on energy savings, the environment and technical details of such. I realised it was useless to do battle when they started throwing names like Calatrava and Renzo Piano (note! i love you two and i totally dig your works and they shouldn't have used your names in such travesty!)
Technology to what i could comprehend from their QnA (where A probably meant baseless Assumptions rather than the holy book of Answers) was just a glorified name for the major A&A (addition and alteration) Technical Detailing in a HDB flat in which can one can run a teevee with solar power preferably on a naturally ventilated penthouse or balcony.
The tech group's approach to sustainability is so focused on features that it almost kills off the broad aspects of the term. Earning a green mark platinum award does not save us from global warming. National Library stores books, hold plays, does exhibitions and uses 168kwh/m2 per year while Changi General Hospital 132kwh/m2 per year, it serves a large population, saves lives, hold talks, has a food court and probably has mini library on its own. Whats the point of adding ventilation roofs or double glazed CR windows when all you need is an electric fan? which probably uses less energy than the embodied energy required to manufacture a double glazed glass or stack-effect roof, and its almost guranteed to work unlike the later two?
Just like how green mark awards points for buildings with sensor triggered taps(up to 4 points for "excellent basin taps" part 2 item 1) , we archi students are graded for how many architectural features we can squeeze onto a house/heritage centre/fucking ambigous creative space. Just install photovoltaic windows with naturally ventilated corridors and earn yourself at least half a grade higher. i shit you not when i tell you that adding bicycle ramps can up your LEEDS from silver to gold (see LEEDS v2.1 New Construction and Major renovation, credit 4.2 alternative transportation: bicycle storage and changing rooms) . Even Mr Fung John Chye (and not Mr Kenn Yeo..sorry my bad mistaken identity) agrees with me on the flaws of green mark, him being on of their advisor's too. I respect the man but i could sense the uneasiness he had when he gave the weak excuse of "but thats what the layman wants. Features!" , you could tell he was rather sad at that fact one can only base their judgments on poor credit based systems and we all should feel the same too.
The school instead of being a mere subservient entity to the local architectural field should begin to change architect's and people's mindsets on sustainability, of the false and often pretty pictures of solar cells glimmering on roof decks and wind turbines spinning gracefully on high rise apartments. Why do we preach caring for the environment when the rest of the nation continues to en-bloc, killing off the social fabric we took so long to stitch together (that staement is so MCYS xia)? building ever increasing amounts of glass buildings (these days everything is double glazed, even if they don't need to be), praise rainwater recycling and build chlorine filled swimming pools?
There is so much more than that....so much more
construction worker hard at work to push the cap scores of the architect who designed this building, for every panel he adds one gets a .01 cap score increase. bonus points for fixing up that windturbine in the storeroom on the same day.You can forget what i wrote earlier but please read where i'm getting into next.
That sustainability at the end of it all is not just about saving energy. Your solar panels or wind turbines and zinc roofed naturally ventilated interior probably saved you from burning ten barrels of oil instead of the usual 20. But you still burned 10 you tree killing, polar bear murderer. BLDGBLOG's Architectural Sustainability article explains it better than me and probably is the best i've read so far. One should relook at our efforts to save the environment (reference The Next Industrial Revolution) and at the larger pespective, not fall into technicism. Which according to this wiki article is an over reliance or overconfidence in technology as a benefactor of society.
"der idear dere lah,
but your exerqushern not dere yet"
That's a very simple phrase in in the army meant as a consoling statement with an undertone of a suckerpunch. We used to say that to people who had the right intentions but could not work it out to accomplish what they wanted, i think the school probably needs it more than anything now.
updates: looks like uncle co seng has wrote something similar too! read it at his duper long super essay.
posted by Jon at 11:13 PM
2 Comments:
I totally agree. Sustainabiltiy has become as mask that hides what lie beneath and worst still to beautify the nonexistence acclaimation. blah.. i hope my tech core wouldn't be anything like how your brief currently puts through the focus.
ha, i feel the same way about RAG, never understood what this tradition was really about, really.
I think it's interesting when you start to question & examine technology (& sustainability) with a bigger frame in mind, in the context of NUS- got me thinking... . Tech never meant more than the technicalities & detailing in school, probably as a result of having to meet the requirements for RIBA comfortably I think.
thought-provoking.
Post a Comment
<< Home