Numbers and interpretations

Numbers and interpretations 

Some numbers trouble me, for example official statistics stating that building activity or use is responsible for this much of waste production in a country or that much of global energy consumption. They tend to be hefty percentages that automatically suggest that we should take action: buildings have to change in the way they are designed, constructed, maintained, used, demolished etc. 

The potential seems undeniable but are the specific actions justified? First of all, why do we assume that there are inefficiencies? It may be so that the large numbers relating to the built environment are inevitable, given our needs or habits. It's inconceivable that we stop heating our homes or workplaces but that's not all. Airconditioning, for example, used to be a luxury, even in cars, and nowadays it's more of a necessity. Do we know what the minima or maxima are, even if they exist? 

Secondly, who's going to change things and how? Existing disciplines are keen to take charge and innovate but at the same time they are the ones who perpetuated all the existing ills. Would we expect witch doctors to develop MRI scanning? Would we even train witch doctors to operate MRI scanners? 

Thirdly, is the change feasible? People are not stupid, so if there was something better to be done, they'd have done it some time ago. If the built environment is inefficient in some respects, this may be due to greater efficiencies in other aspects. 

In conclusion, let's dig deeper to find the real problems instead of jumping into arbitrary, unwarranted action. I have no doubt that we can improve the built environment but what is depicted as promise and progress does not always convince me in justification and hence also in potential. 

Getting away with it

Getting away with it: privileges of eminent architects 

Reasonable doubts do not seem to occur to eminent architects - or apply to them. When they make designs more complex than apparently feasible, many assume that they know what they're doing, that they have done the necessary investigations to ensure that what they propose can be made. Somehow people expect eminent architects to achieve innovation relatively easily, not just because of their presumed capacities, experience and resources but also because of their status. If anyone can do something, its surely the ones we all know and admire. So, when they fail, people are mystified: how is this possible? Some start having doubts, others develop schadenfreude, yet others remember how weak the profession can be, how opinionated and self-indulgent. When something goes wrong, there's always someone else to blame. And don't forget that even bad publicity is publicity, after all. Once one has reached a high status, not even disgrace can remove them from the public eye and, quite often, public sympathy. So, it's possible that eminent architects never fail; it's just their buildings (including clients, users, contractors etc.) that fail them.