Sustainability Questioned

Sustainability is high on the agenda of public debate, but the variety of interpretations of what this term actually means is bemusing. They range from idiosyncratic definitions to “greenwashing”, or giving a veneer of sustainability to buildings, products and services that are definitely not environmentally sound.


Certification systems like LEED, BREEAM and DGNB are aimed at bringing more transparency to the business of rating sustainability. They claim to cover and assess all the aspects of sustainability that are relevant to buildings. But precisely this is what some architects are sceptical about: Once these schemes are introduced, will all those other qualities of a building be neglected – the ones that can’t be expressed in figures?

How sustainable are constructions made of timber or timber-based products? What impact is climate change having on building design? or How do you go about planning a zero-carbon city in the desert of Abu Dhabi? Are some buildings too expensive and exclusive to qualify as sustainable?

Or do such labels simply broaden the way people look at architecture?