Expert Interview - Andrea Brennen

What does sustainable design mean to you?
I think the basic definition of 'sustainability' offered in the Brundtland Report is a helpful starting point: '...meet[ing] the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.' When I think about what this means for design, two things come to mind:
1) The redefinition of an architectural 'site': A building must be understood as situated not only in a specific territory, but also in relation to a much larger and more abstract global environmental system. For example, an architectural footprint used to mean simply the space occupied by a structure. Today, it implies a much more abstract idea of a building's impact and demand on the environment at large. 2) A systemic and opportunistic approach: The framework of 'sustainability' encourages people to look for solutions that operate environmentally, socially and economically. This can be a great excuse for architects to seek out new territories for intervention - pro-actively responding to urgencies and opportunities instead of just responding to the constraints expressed in a project brief.

How does your work uniquely contribute to this effort?
Through my work, I'm trying to inject a bit of criticality into the discussion about 'sustainable design', not because I disagree with the need to re-evaluate the way we make buildings, but because I want to make sure we're making progress…not just assuaging our guilt, while maintaining (sustaining) the status quo. I hope that by trying to separate the greening from the greenwashing, we can identify which design techniques actually produce tangible environmental results, and which are primarily being used as a marketing tool. For example, this past year I worked on a small publication called GAG: Green Architecture Guide that takes a critical look at the various camps within the Sustainable Design movement, asking a number of pointed questions to the proponents of each camp.
I'm also trying to explore how a changing environmental consciousness can be a catalyst for different modes of architectural intervention. In my opinion, one of the most exciting things about 'sustainability' is that it's becoming a sort of catch-all phrase for alternative practice. This sort of experimentation, however, requires moving beyond the moralizing tone and lack of criticality that often characterize the discussion…and stifle innovation.

When you imagine a 'sustainable future' what do you see? How do you feel?
Like other utopian visions that have driven generations of architects, I think a 'sustainable future' incorporates ideas about a clean, orderly world society where everyone has the resources they need, lives in harmony with the surrounding environment, and isn't plagued by an overriding sense of crisis (environmental, economic, or social.)
I'm skeptical that we can achieve a radical enough change to prevent the gloomy scenarios scientists are predicting -- especially if our stated goal is 'sustaining' the very unsustainable ways of life that have contributed to our energy and environmental problems in the first place. However, I also believe that if we give up striving for a better future, we have nothing left. Plus, as designers, I think it's our job to be hopelessly optimistic.

What is your first impression of the CLEAR project?
My first impression of the CLEAR project is that it has an inspiring premise - specifically its emphasis on diverse collaboration and tangible action. However, the project is in too early of a stage to judge. Hopefully it won't succumb to the combination of greenwashing and nostalgia that seems to be common amongst these types of projects.

Do any past case studies (successes or failures) come to mind that we might learn from?
I saw on the CLEAR blog that the Masdar City project was cited as a precedent. I hope that those involved with CLEAR can learn from some of Masdar's innovative and ambitious developments, but also deal with some of the issues not addressed by this project - for example, the embodied energy profile, funding structure, construction labor force, etc.

Does scale matter? Are there distinctions when designing sustainable solutions for a village vs. a city, for example?
Scale is always important. There are all sorts of environmentally-oriented design/building techniques that make sense at the scale of small house, but not at the scale of a high rise…same goes for village vs. city.

If you were leading the design of a sustainable village, what would you prioritize, and why? Who would you want working with you?
I think it's important to balance solutions and techniques that are specific to the project, with a general methodology that is systemic in approach. It's crucial that members of the design team can view the specific technologies and architectural moves employed, in light of a meta-level understanding of what the project does, how it is important/interesting, and why it is worth doing.

Is it possible to replicate the design of one village across different contexts? If so, which design elements would remain consistent no matter what? What would need to change on a case-by-case basis?
Whether or not it's possible, I don't think it's desirable to try to create one village prototype that is then replicated across contexts and cultures. Certainly there are aspects of the design approach that will remain consistent between projects - for example, a working definition of 'sustainability,' or a systemic approach to problem solving - but specific design decisions should be based on the particularities of the project, the site constraints, and the people involved.

Does culture play a part in the design of a sustainable village?
It absolutely must. Any new village, sustainable or otherwise, will be constructed in the midst of an existing culture and will have its own internal culture. Understanding these factors is crucial.

And finally, business models. Are there any you know of that could inform a more robust outcome for this initiative?
It would be interesting if those involved in the design of the project also had a financial stake in its long-term viability, perhaps through some sort of co-operative investment model where part of the designer's fee would include a percentage of the village entity. In terms of future clients/village residents, maybe investment capital can be raised in advance of construction through selling 'shares' in (or 'subscriptions' to) the community; this might include property rights, upkeep fees, or membership in a village oversight organization, etc. This model seems to work really well for the development of small urban farms; maybe it could be adapted somehow to finance the construction of a new village.

---

Andrea Brennen
Andrea Brennen is a recent graduate from the architecture department at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Her work has been exhibited at the Venice Biennale, the Rotterdam Biennale, and the Canadian Center for Architecture. She is interested in how environmental issues are changing the practice of architecture and how architects can engage in more pro-active forms of practice. After spending much of last year designing a sustainable building system for the Antarctic, she is now living in the Negev Desert, researching energy use in buildings in extreme-arid environments. She spends nearly all of her free time rock climbing.