Why Green Architecture Hardly Ever Deserves the Name

resource: http://www.archdaily.com/396263/why-green-architecture-hardly-ever-deserves-the-name/

Something surprising has happened with many so-called “sustainable” buildings. When actually measured in post-occupancy assessments, they’ve proven far less sustainable than their proponents have claimed. In some cases they’ve actually performed worse than much older buildings, with no such claims. Widespread use of expansive curtain-wall glass assemblies and large, “deep-plan” designs that put most usable space far from exterior walls, forcing greater reliance on artificial light and ventilation systems.

One problem with many sustainability approaches is that they don’t question the underlying building type.For example, adding more efficient active energy systems tends to reduce the amount of energy used, and therefore lowers its overall cost. But, in turn, that lower cost tends to make tenants less careful with their energy use — a phenomenon known as “Jevons’ Paradox.” Increasing efficiency lowers cost, and increases demand — in turn increasing the rate of consumption, and wiping out the initial savings. The lesson is that we can’t deal with energy consumption in isolation. We have to look at the concept of energy more broadly, including embodied energy and other factors.

I think this demonstrates that “green” components need to be planned from the start and not considered add-ons to get points, and that includes a good look at the building form.  And also much of the current green trending is just that. It is too much of a short term satisfaction to have lasting effects.