Over the years that I have been part of judging panels, the responsibility to consider the sustainability credentials of each project in greater and greater detail has grown, even if that aspect was not a critical criterion of the entry. Tackling the climate crisis is no longer a tick-box exercise; it sits at the core of our deliberations.
Every project, regardless of its purpose or prestige, must shoulder its responsibility to be as sustainable as possible and I don’t think this will happen while we have special climate-based awards categories. Why applaud what should be an inherent duty? Having specific categories for sustainability does reward those who do the job well – but what about the others? Are we letting them off the hook?
Before you dismiss this as lunacy or reach for your phones to admonish me on social media, consider my reasoning. Delivering buildings that fully respond to the climate emergency and the requirements of things like whole-life carbon and biodiversity should not be an optional extra but a mandatory requirement. Sustainability should be considered in the same way we consider a building’s safety. We don’t reward buildings for being safe; we expect them to be safe, and the same should be true of sustainability.
Last year, I wrote a column on the subject of the RIBA Stirling Prize, in which I said that, while we need to do better in improving the sustainability of our buildings, we should also celebrate architecture. I finished the article by saying, ‘We must do better tomorrow, but we can still celebrate today.’
My fellow judges have been some of the most important voices in the industry, and our conversations over long train journeys have been entertaining, enthralling and (I’m not too proud to admit) an education. It is one of the perks of my job and, as I am guided around these splendid buildings by the architects who envisioned and then created them, I am constantly reminded of the importance of their work – indeed, of the work of all architects.
My thoughts, however, have evolved since. After another 12 months of sitting on judging panels I feel the need to ask: should we simply remove sustainability categories from all awards?
Sustainability should be considered in the same way we consider a building’s safety
For years it has been my privilege to be part of numerous architecture judging panels and events. I have criss-crossed the country, evaluating some of the country’s best examples of architecture.
Responding to climate change is no longer just an aspect of architecture; it’s becoming its backbone as we seek to reduce the built environment’s huge contribution to global warming. Sustainability is not a mere ‘nice-to-have’ these days—it’s imperative. By embedding sustainability as a non-negotiable standard across all awards, we can in the future refocus on evaluating buildings on their architectural merit. I think that would be quite nice.
This was not an easy conversation, not least because of the entry criteria of the category. Not every award asks specific-enough questions on sustainability, while some entrants give detailed sustainability information and others do not. This makes it very difficult to judge entrants and provide much weight to this aspect of their project. This is particularly true in non-sustainability categories.
On one journey back home, we discussed the project’s climate credentials at length. It had not entered a ‘sustainability’ category but, as judges with an environmental conscience, we did wonder whether it was right to reward a project that had high embodied carbon and dared to burn gas.
Kunle Barker is a property expert, journalist and broadcaster
I would prefer to see (in the same way as we do for safety) a standardised and minimum level of sustainability that a project must meet to be considered for any award, a standard that increases every year, encouraging us to continually improve. Perhaps the forthcoming Net Zero Carbon Buildings Standard could be the template.
تحریریه اخبار معماری آریانا