Number Five's comments
An admirable aspiration for which they are eminently qualified, and which should dramatically reduce their carbon footprint. Note to RIBA, it takes considerably longer to qualify as a conservation architect than a four-day course, which might explain Robert’s comment above?!
Can they magick away the carbon emissions of their actions?
46,400 Tonnes of Carbon Dioxide is equivalent to:
– 9,851 passenger vehicles driven for one year
– 113, 447,433 miles driven by an average passenger vehicle
– 5,221,109 gallons of gasoline consumed
– 50,725,683 pounds of coal burned
– 5,556 homes' energy use for one year
– 5,916,571,569 smartphones charged
– 767,234 tree seedlings grown for 10 years to sequester
– 54,609 acres of forests in one year to sequester.
Statistics from the US Environment Protection Agency (epa.gov)
It's a shame that Simon Sturgis was sacked for speaking truth to power, as it is only on the basis of rigorous quantitive analysis that we can solve this one. Architecture is about to get a great deal more scientific and technical. Interestingly, the Bloomberg building was mentioned in an article by Steve Webb in last month's RIBAJ, claiming that design decisions about materials are damning the world to further climate change. He quantifies this in terms of a 'Range Rover Shopping Trip' (RST) to his local supermarket, which he estimates produces about 400g of CO2 each. To quote from his article directly:
"Claiming that, for example, Bloomberg London’s building is sustainable because of its systems is beyond ridiculous. The structural designers proudly state: ‘In the interests of delivering a building of visual impact as well as longevity, steel tonnages were not seen as a limiting factor.’ The fabricator boasts: ‘The project included 15,500 tonnes of steel installed – 1,000 tonnes more than used on Brooklyn Bridge and more than double the weight of the Eiffel Tower.’ Next to these figures its future energy consumption seems utterly trivial; 116 million RSTs to all involved."
I make that 116m x 400g = 46,400,000,000 grammes of CO2 (46,400 Tonnes).
Good analogy, but ACC did not do any public housing(?!), only private housing, which makes the comment above praise indeed. This award is indeed cause for great hope, that architects will once more become handmaidens of the welfare state and an essential, existential ecological agenda.
The age of contractor-led D+B procurement died with Carillion. Traditional contracts with intelligent architects and clients is a return to sanity and design quality. Post occupancy evaluation is essential and should be mandatory on all public projects (as in Scotland). POE is best conducted by independent experts for obvious reasons.
Let us hope that we have turned the corner, after decades of disastrous, and deadly, PFI procurement in the public realm. And that the revolution of the ‘uncooperative eco-crusty’ can prevail over decades of neoliberalism and the current unlawful tyranny of King Boris the Terrible Clown. My hearty congratulations to all involved. You have shown us the way forwards into the sunlit uplands of a better world.
It looks like a shocking development proposal. It seems that both Barbara and Robert have this one bang to rights. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark!
Methinks the journalist doth protest too much! Have we hit a raw nerve concerning his inept stewardship of CABE?!
Structural gymnastics is surely the last refuge of the architectural scoundrel?!
A very cool and architectonic intervention, which retains a sense of drama and intellectualism that is increasingly rare in these days of humdrum banality and lazy cliche. Possibly the last clear breath of architecture before it descends into its death rattle?