a troubling issue

something that is troubling at the back of my mind as i surf architecture websites are the type of projects that are truly sustainable in terms of energy, materials and waste. these are invariably small projects. i believe it has to do with scale and complexity.

in a small project, there is most likely only 1 client, with very few stakeholders. in addition, the intimacy of the project allows for the architect to be able to overlook most of the areas of the design from the very big to the smallest of details. as such, it's far simpler to achieve the goal of a sustainable project.

contrast it to a huge building like an office tower and it gets so much more complicated. i'm very sure nature didn't really planned for us to go 100 stories high. it's an abomination. the only way we can do that is through technology and the input of energy. energy in terms of extra materials. and because of that, we also have to expend energy to do all the seemingly simple things that we do at ground level. this includes ventilation systems, which are the prime energy guzzlers in any high rise commercial building. so where are we heading in the sustainability game?

not very far i suspect. i posted earlier on efficiency vs effectiveness. i question the effectiveness of the high rise. are we trying to do something that is fundamentally alien to our natural world, and trying to solve a gordian knot. are we kidding ourselves that high rises have a truly sustainable future? i doubt so. but i believe in cities. in recent times, there have been movements that push for "ruralization" and the idea of the groundscraper. i don't think they will work for human civilization reaches the peak only in cities. we need a certain density to achieve that spark. ruralization is just a pretty term for urban sprawl.

so how do we resolve all the conflicting ideas? i have no idea.