Blog 2 – Behind the ‘Green’ Facade – Draft

Behind the ‘Green’ Facade

The statement ‘we need to build more green spaces’ has been echoed by numerous people to address the current climate crisis. With sustainability, green design, net zero carbon, etc., becoming buzzwords, architecture and urban design are recognised as professions with significant influence in reducing carbon footprint. Moreover, a plethora of researches and evidences has proven the benefits and importance of green design. However, amidst the genuine efforts and right steps towards climate resilience, greenwashing is irresponsibly manifested and riding on the trend of environmental sustainability. Greenwashing, as defined by Becker-Olsen and Potucek (2013), is “the dissemination of false or deceptive information regarding an organisation’s environmental strategies, goals, motivations, and actions.” Within architecture and urban design, achieving sustainability is more than just creating a green facade or roof that looks good, yet this superficiality seems to have become the norm to identify what is means to be a ‘sustainable design’, creating a false image that ‘more green equals better’.

Indeed, the addition of greening on buildings is pleasant to look at. However, we need to look further behind the mask of ‘green façade’, asking critical questions about what is the method of construction and its embodied carbon; what is the main source of material for the building construction; what is the post-occupancy energy consumption, and many more. As Simon Sturgis, director of Targeting Zero, said, “My view is that provided the carbon cost of installing the greening does not outweigh the carbon benefit provided, then it is about health and wellbeing. My concern is that the provision of greening is about image and not content” (Ing, 2021).

Operational and embodied carbon are often overlooked. No matter how much greening is installed, it has an insignificant impact to a building constructed with mass concrete. Similarly, installing renewable energy like solar panels has minimal effect if the design is energy-inefficient with poor thermal envelop. In fact, the cost of maintenance in the long run can outweigh the initial carbon benefit. Building green is good, but building greenly is better. As designers, we must be critical of ourselves, knowing the implications of a building throughout its lifecycle – from construction to deconstruction – knowing what it truly means to achieve environmentally conscious design. Green design is not an afterthought, but should be integrated throughout the entirety of the project.

Green building certification schemes, such as BREEAM and LEED, have great intentions to promote environmentally responsible designs. However, the problem of greenwashing arises if they are used merely as a box-ticking exercise by designers, or adopted as the ultimate benchmark and standard by councils and governments without a thorough understanding.

Taking Foster + Partners Bloomberg HQ as an example, the building won the 2018 Stirling Prize for best building, and achieved a BREEAM Outstanding rating for its innovative sustainable design system to minimise operational carbon and energy consumption. However, its heavyweight construction and high embodied carbon content (Ing, 2022) conveys a misleading message to the public about what truly constitutes sustainable design. A key issue concerning the BREEAM scheme is its heavy emphasis on operational carbon, often overlooking the embodied carbon during sourcing of materials and construction (Marcus, 2021).

Perhaps the bigger issue lies in the scope and rigor of these schemes. Without a doubt, they have done well advocating for sustainability, however the contents need to be addressed and updated flexibly, such that they align appropriately with the needs to achieving climate resilience. Pessimistically, as long as ‘green’ is primarily seen as a marketing and branding strategy rather than a design-integrated procedure, greenwashing will persist.

Education within the design and construction industry, and raising public awareness about the complexities of green design are equally important components to resist greenwashing. Both are important stakeholders to identify, expose and hold irresponsible professionals and practices accountable for their false advertisement of green design. In parallel, as professionals, the industry has to maintain transparent for how we adopt sustainable measures with evidence. Ultimately, resistance to greenwashing requires a cultural and even global shift of attitude, where greening or additional of sustainable features do not necessarily equate to better designs.

References

Becker-Olsen, K., Potucek, S. (2013). Greenwashing. In: Idowu, S.O., Capaldi, N., Zu, L., Gupta, A.D. (eds) Encyclopedia of Corporate Social Responsibility. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28036-8_104

Ing, W. (2021) Is the boom in green roofs and living walls good for sustainability?, The Architects’ Journal. Available at: https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/is-the-boom-in-green-roofs-and-living-walls-good-for-sustainability

Ing, W. (2022) Architects declare co-founder: Foster’s Bloomberg HQ shows need for Regenerative Design, The Architects’ Journal. Available at: https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/architects-declare-co-founder-fosters-bloomberg-hq-shows-need-for-regenerative-design

Marcus Fairs (2021) BREEAM and LEED Green certification schemes are ‘meaningless’ says Andrew Waugh, Dezeen. Av