Dimensions, Scales, and Measures of Environmental Design

Working Paper Dimensions, Scales, and Measures of Environmental Design William W. Braham “Systems that reinforce their productive processes develop and displace those that do not.” -‐-‐H. T. Odumi Sustainability has never been a very useful measure for designers, though it has become a nearly ubiquitous design goal. The concept of “sustainable development” originated as a compromise between the growth and no-‐growth positions within the environmental movement, promising the admirable goal of growth within limits, or growth with minimal impact, though the question quickly becomes “how sustainable is sustainable Tenough”? It has proven to be a useful term for indicating a general ethic or direction, but like the addition of “green” or “smart” or “clean,” sustainable has largely come to mean AF“somewhat better than we are currently doing.” The successes and failures of the term may largely be due to its generality, but in common usage there are two deeper problems with the concept: it relies on a basic ethic of restraint and a static notion of nature. R From an ecological perspective, any form of design involves a diversion of resources from some other activity and the development of new arrangements and configurations. DEven in the most restrained forms—renovation or recycling—human design and construction use excess capacity in the pursuit of more resources. Put more directly, design is the expenditure of power in the pursuit of more (or continued) power, even when it is done with care and forethought. Power comes in many forms, and this formulation begs the more philosophical question of “power to do what,” but the common view of sustainability offers a deceptive picture of impact-‐free growth extending into the distant future. It is perhaps closest to the discredited notion of the climax forest, a perfected ecological steady-‐state of complex interdependence and industrious productivity attained in the temperate

Working Paper biomes of Europe, Asia, and North America. While those great forests are models of ecological richness, they are hardly peaceful or unchanging, either in their extents, their mix of species, or their productivity. The system ecologist, H. T. Odum, was deeply critical of the underlying assumptions of sustainable development because he saw that just as natural systems were fundamentally dynamic entities competing for resources, so too were social and cultural systems.ii Species, populations, temperatures, and markets all rise and fall in the competition for power. Observing that things ebb and flow in the competition for resources may seem commonplace, but the task for designers is to develop concepts that provide more precise Tguidance within the ever-‐changing systems into which their design are projected. Drawing AFon the work of Odum and other ecologists, two immediate challenges present themselves to designers: understanding the right scales or dimensions for environmental design decisions and developing the right measures with which to evaluate them. RScales and Dimensions D Architects are necessarily concerned with buildings and building sites, but environmental flows and effects operate at many other scales and along other dimensions, from the biochemical to the global. Herbert Simon has argued that all complex systems organize themselves into discrete, interrelated, and hierarchical sub-‐systems.iii While he uses the term “hierarchic” to describe their interrelationships, he means to include systems with different kinds of structure and order, from the rigidly hierarchical cell-‐tissue-‐organ structure of biological bodies to Deleuzian “bodies without organs” such as the weather systems that produces transient sub-‐systems like high-‐pressure zones, cold-‐fronts, and

Working Paper hurricanes.iv Simon makes the point about hierarchic systems to argue that different problems or questions belong to specific sub-‐systems. Water use and storm run-‐off in a building, for example, are questions about the capacity of the local watershed, while the environmental cost and value of building products are now thoroughly global matters, involving multiple, interconnected systems of manufacturing, transportation, installation, and disposal. The first task of environmental design, then, is identifying the sub-‐systems with which a project will interact. The marvellous thing about complex ecosystems is the number and variety of sub-‐systems involved, and the degree to which they operate at different scales, overlapping, Tinterpenetrating, and cooperating. Stationary elements like plants and trees (or buildings) AFare penetrated by mobile populations of microbes, insects, and animals, and by equally mobile flow systems of water and air, that facilitate subtle exchanges of materials and then can suddenly transport vast quantities of the same material. The challenge for architects Rhas been the degree to which the discipline is conceived formally and spatially, as an activity defined by formally visible boundaries, and whose modes of analysis and Drepresentation privilege fixed and durable elements. Through the twentieth century designers have developed and experimented with many methods for addressing the dynamic aspects of buildings (and cities), from flow charts of construction sequences to CFD analyses of temperature and air flow to parametric techniques for the description of form. But as ecologists have also learned, the method of analysis and representation depends on the question being asked and on the sub-‐systems involved or the boundaries among the systems that are being considered.

Working Paper As a starting point, it is important to consider the different scales and dimensions of the systems within which buildings and building sites operate. The most intuitive form of description for designers would be spatial scales, extending from the building footprint and its site defined by ownership to its neighborhood, landscape, watershed, city, region, biome, country, and continent, each of which involves different kinds of boundaries and elements. As Simon suggests, environmental decisions have to be situated within the relevant ecological sub-‐systems and many of these are firmly spatial. Sim Van der Ryn has also argued that these different spatial scales are maintained by critical exchanges of energy and materials between scales, so human design must consider these non-‐spatial, Tlinking systems as well.v AF The situation is already even more complex. In the list of scales above, some are defined by the sub-‐systems of ecosystems, while others are social and political entities, and the two don’t often correspond. Or more precisely, human constructions and settlements Rfrequently begin with the scales and opportunities of natural systems and then grow to exceed them. As Odum once observed, all material and energy flows are always already Ddoing some kind of work in the ecosystem, meaning there is no “free” material or energy, only resources diverted from other uses. Design “with” natural systems begins as the diversion of energy and material for human purposes, can quickly turn to over-‐use as different thresholds of disruption are reached, but can also produce new hybrid combinations of natural and human systems. The most spectacular hybrid so far has been that between human civilization and the energy of ancient photosynthesis in stored in fossil fuels. That hybridization has also produced epic disruptions in natural systems as it

Working Paper converts that stored energy, so environmental design has sought to both understand and ameliorate those disruptions and to develop new hybrids of equal power. [INSERT FIGURE 1] An equally critical set of scales, which emerged from studies of commercial office buildings, are the temporal dimensions of buildings and their elementsvi (see Fig. 1). The initial diagrams of office buildings prepared by Francis Duffy distinguished four “layers of longevity” of commercial construction by the rate of their replacement, from the longer-‐lasting building shell to the more frequently altered furnishings. That description acknowledged real differences in duration, and helped formalize distinctions that exist Tamong the groups that design different elements, the depreciation periods written in tax AFcodes, and the kinds of buildings and design practices that develop in response. The “core-‐and-‐shell” building, for example, and the tenant “fit-‐out” are different temporal dimensions of the same building. Distinguishing them facilitates the changing of higher velocity layers Rwithout disturbing the slower, more expensive ones. Subsequent studies further divided those four layers into six, and then seven, layers, each distinguishing different kinds of Dchange in buildings. One of the conclusions reached by many environmentally minded designers is that the separation of such temporal layers improves the resource efficiency of buildings, allowing for easier, less disruptive adaptations and more efficient recycling.vii In effect this has involved the translation of commercial building practices to other types of construction, with core-‐and-‐shell residential construction and the development of residential fittings and appliances that move with the resident. But there is some limit to this tactic when we recognize the other dimensions, or sub-‐systems, into which these

Working Paper temporal layers can be divided. Elements of the same layer, the furniture and equipment of an office for example, may be selected or purchased by different groups, have different rates of technological obsolescence, or even be elements of different cultural fashions. The Aeron desk chair, which became a characteristic element of the dot.com office is purchased and used differently than the filing cabinet it sits next to or the carpet on which it rolls. [INSERT FIGURE 2] These examples add the even more complex questions of human use, display, and meaning to natural and technological systems, further linking them to cultural, social, and institutional sub-‐systems. The value of fresh water or of an expensive chair is negotiated Twithin a rich system of exchange in which scarcity values of all kinds are magnified and AFenhanced. What is the built environment but the display of human wealth and power, not merely as cultural symbols, but in the most precise terms of design? The decision about the appropriateness of an Aeron chair for a particular setting is a matter of taste, fashion, and Rbudget, but a budget that reflects the total situation and resources of the individual or institution for which it is intended. The value of the chair in this example derives from a Dcombination of the underlying scarcity of the “natural” energies and human labor required for its production and the particular social and institutional niche for which is intended. Human design has probably exceeded simple survival or shelter needs from the very start, but the question about appropriate scale arises with the recognition of ecological connections. [INSERT FIGURE 3] As the environmental movement has argued since the 1970s, the ultimate scale for design is the biosphere (see Figure 3), but it is a biosphere of many sub-‐systems that are

Working Paper largely and messily hybridized with human systems. The object of architectural design is an entity of many scales and dimensions that focuses local and global systems to produce and support a building for some period of time. Environmental design operates in both directions, tracking all those scales and dimensions in their many connections and evaluating the discrete projects that they enable. The first tool of environmental design may be the ecological boundary diagram drawn around a project to track the various exchanges and flows in natural, technological, and human systems. That boundary provides a site for making visible the spatial, temporal, and institutional systems specific to the project. But environmental design is not merely a question of the scarcity or efficiency of Tthe many flows across the project boundary, of simply using fewer resources. Any real AFmeasure for environmental design has to take account of the accumulation of wealth and the uses of power. RMeasures The opposition between scarcity and excess, or between efficiency and luxury, is Dcommon to debates about sustainability, which are frequently framed in moral terms and lead to the condemnation of waste and the lauding of frugality. The apparent paradox is that natural systems exhibit no such restraint, growing to the limits of available resources and increasing in complexity as they grow. I don’t mean to reduce environmental design to a narrowly competitive, survivalist ethic. Natural systems typically grow through a variety of forms of cooperative interactions whose interdependencies only increase as eco-‐systems develop, so the challenge is to understand other forms of growth. The difference lies in the scale of the explanation. George Bataille argued that while individuals and their economies

Working Paper are necessarily governed by scarcity (and efficiency), that “living matter in general” is governed by the steady and luxurious flow of energy from the sun, which must be expended either in growth or in some form of “luxury”.viii With the term “luxury” Bataille meant expenditure without immediate “return,” but that is itself a perspective of the individual. Luxury is partly a question of which scale or system is considered and what kinds of returns are accounted for. The prosperity and fecundity of eco-‐systems are what matters, but that fecundity can be experienced as luxury by its individual parts. The fundamental point made by Odum, which he had developed from Lotka’s work linking energy use and evolution in the early twentieth century, was that natural systems Tdon’t compete to minimize their use of energy, but to maximize their power, their ability to AFaccomplish useful work.ix In seems as if that should be the same thing, as if a more efficient use of energy would yield more power, but sustained maximum power only occurs at a medium rate of efficiency and leads to a quite different ethic of design. In natural systems it Rdevelops into a whole cascade of cooperative uses and feedback interactions that maximize the total power flowing through the system. D During the energy supply crises of the 1970s, Odum used to scandalize his students by saying it was folly for America to voluntarily renounce its use of oil, since it would just be used by other countries to make themselves stronger. The point is twofold. The obvious point is that resources will be used, so the critical decisions are how to use them well. The more subtle point is that the systems which prevail over time are those that “reinforce their productive processes,” meaning that they not only obtain more power, but enhance the systems and processes that support them. From some perspectives the expenditures involved in reinforcing productive processes may look charitable, wasteful, or luxurious.

Working Paper William McDonough often cites the seemingly excessive number of blossoms and fruit on a cherry tree as an expenditure that looks wasteful if measured according to the efficiency of the tree itself, but whose waste serves as food, compost, shelter and supports other aspects of the eco-‐system that supports it. Those luxurious display by the tree reduces its efficiency, but increases the power and prosperity of the whole eco-‐system. It is, or course, difficult to measure prosperity, especially when we remember the dynamic ebb-‐and-‐flow nature of any complex system. As marketing specialists know well, the luxuries of one generation become the needs of the next, and that cycle easily and quickly reverses itself when conditions change. Odum’s measure of prosperity combined This argument about useful power with the system diagram of the whole biosphere, enabling AFhim to start with original environmental energies—solar, tidal, and geologic—and trace the sequence of energy transformations through which they pass. He coined a new term, “emergy,” to describe the cumulative memory or embodiment of energy involved in the Rcascade of transformations, with “solar emergy” as the common unit, so all comparisons or measurements were in similar units. He developed that emergy approach into an elegant Daccounting system, though it involves many approximations, and together with the total system diagram, captures much of what we seek when we ask about sustainability.x Systems prosper that manage to maximize their flow of solar empower. [INSERT FIGURE 4 HERE] The vital aspect of Odum’s accounting is the emergy diagram itself, which uses systems language to describe the cascade of energy transformation, feedback, and recycling required in a complex eco-‐system. It is the richness of interaction that “reinforces productive processes,” and for which environmental design needs some measure or tool for

Working Paper evaluation. Ulanowicz has used information theory to calculate the amount of order in a system, which he combined with the total flow of resources to develop a simple numerical measure of system prosperity, but it seems to be the emergy diagramming that offers the most potential as a design tool.xi The potential of these diagrams for design have barely been tapped, and can reveal the kinds of interconnection and recycling opportunities that designers turn to instinctively, but whose evaluation has been limited to their role in single processes. The levels of complexity developed in natural systems can be difficult to understand, or design, when the scale of analysis is too modest. Diagramming the spatial and temporal dimensions described above can also extend the potential of the diagrams in Tdesign projects, identifying new sites for innovation. Odum’s law of maximum empower AFoffers an antidote to the paradoxes of sustainability, acknowledging the pursuit of power necessary to all forms of growth, while providing a model of the cooperative prosperity that sustainable design has sought. R i Howard T.Odum, Environment, Power, and Society for the Twenty-First Century: The Hierarchy of Energy (NewYork: Columbia University Press, 2007). p. .ii Howard T.Odum and Elisabeth C. Odum, A Prosperous Way Down: Principles and Policies (Boulder: University DPress of Colorado, 2001), p. .iii Herbert Simon, The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd ed. (The MIT Press, 1996).iv Manuel DeLanda, A Thousand Years of Non-Linear History (New York: Swerve Editions, 1997).v Sim Van der Ryn and Stuart Cowen. Ecological Design (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2005), p. 51.vi Francis Duffy, The Changing Workplace (London: Phaidon Press, 1992).vii Ed van Hinte et al. Smart Architecture (Rotterdam: 010 Publishers, 2003), p. .viii Georges Bataille, The Accursed Share: An Essay on General Economy (New York: Zone Books, 1991).ix Howard T. Odum, Systems Ecology: An Introduction (New York: Wiley, 1983).xx Howard T. Odum, Environmental Accounting: EMERGY and Environmental Decision Making (New York:Wiley, 1996).xixi Robert E. Ulanowicz, Ecology: The Ascendent Perspective (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997).

Working Paper 29. Dimensions, Scales, and Measures of Environmental Design William W. Braham Figures T AF R Figure 1. Temporal layers of building design D Figure 2. Herman Miller Aeron Chair

Working Paper T Figure 3. Emergy diagram of the biosphere AF R D Figure 4. Emergy diagram of a university campus

Dimensions, Scales, and Measures of Environmental Design

by Penn Institute for Urban Research

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

Statistics

Dimensions, Scales, and Measures of Environmental Design Document Transcript