E-mail Article
Printer Friendly
Share Article
A greener Atkins diet
How is Dubai taking the issue of sustainability forward?
Dubai grabs the headlines for a lot of things but currently it is not grabbing the headlines so much for the cutting edge sustainability issues. At the moment we are going full-steam ahead with building a nation, and I think because of the speed at which this is happening, a few fundamental issues regarding the long-term effects on the environment and sustainable building, may have been pushed aside.
How is this going to change in terms of building design?
It is about going back to basics before we even try and be clever. Because the clever stuff frightens people; if you passively design a building, the benefits are huge. I am not talking wind turbines, solar photovoltaic cells or fuel cells, I'm talking about fundamentally good design.
The opportunities will shift up a gear and developers who don't engage will be left behind and theirs will be the buildings that are left vacant or half-full. And the people that have said: "I will spend 2% more on my construction costs and get 20-40% back in terms of rental from people who want to live and work in my building," will retain staff, absenteeism will go down and productivity will go up. It's difficult for people to see because it's intangible.
Bahrain World Trade Centre was conceived three years ago and that kind of building is good because it raises awareness; when you look at that building you automatically think it's sustainable, it's promoting something and it's generating power.
Whose responsibility is it to take the next step?
A lot of it has got to do with the government, which sets the rules and standards. We are much stricter in the UK in terms of building regulations, tightening up the fabric and not allowing heat out. Here, we are still two to three years behind. The problem we have at the moment is that 60-70% of all energy used is going into buildings. It's in the houses we live in, the offices we work in, the schools our children study in; that is where the majority of energy is going. And if the fabric of the building isn't good enough to cope with this sort of environment, it's all wasted, so it's a huge area that needs to be addressed.
How much are businesses doing off their own backs?
Businesses are coming round to the fact that an environmentally conscious building is beneficial - you have potential access to natural ventilation, you can open window and have plants, for example. And with cost benefits of 30-40%, firms are more willing to pay a small amount of extra money up front.
All of this is coming from the US. For example, under new regulations, New York is no longer going to have any external lighting on its buildings and each building will be allocated a set amount of energy.
What are the challenges of pursuing this agenda?
Because of the rapid development, people say: "Let's make a fast buck, build it as fast as we can, rent it and sell it." They also say: "What's that for? I don't need that, I won't be here long." So the sustainable agenda is only literally picking up momentum.
But once it gets moving it's going to be awesome and hard to resist. Dubai has got to be seen for more than just having the biggest shopping mall and the tallest tower, it has to be seen - as it sits on the world stage - in terms of how it builds the future.
With its international population, Dubai seems well placed to develop these new ideas...
You're right; we won't just create fabulous buildings, we will create fabulous buildings that are ecologically sensible and environmentally sustainable.
To me there are no icons at the moment, because they are not complete. There are great façades and interiors, but to me they are just the same as any other building you see, pumping energy in and pumping energy out, but just slightly better to look at. And I think that is a key consideration.
So will you be prouder of the zero-carbon tower than Burj Al Arab?
No, for what it did for this country, the Burj Al Arab is awesome. It stood in its own time, but now we are playing a different ball game.
I think the thing is not to think about it too much and treat the shift one step at a time. We are not trying to be NASA here, we are actually going back to basics, but putting it in a model environment.
Quick Links(Residental)
Filter by address:
Comments 1-3 of 3
Posted by romi sebastian, sharjah, u.a.e on 12 April 2007 at 21:02 UAE time
Architects have begun to possess a fixation towards convention and style. The design briefs or requirements are pointlessly overburdened with rules and unnecessary stylistic demands. Designers then want machines and equipment to make up for their neglect and lack of usage of common sense. Designers do not take the time and effort to consider the environment and climate of a place and design accordingly. This struggle is replaced by the flick of a ‘switch’ – because using lots of energy and equipment compensates the ‘folly’ in design. Technology has offered us a lot of incentives, but to add on, it also has offered us an aura of too much ‘convenience’ and ‘neglect’. Technology has lured us into getting addicted to a mechanical and artificial life. We often forget that we are a part of nature’s creation - we have forgotten to solve problems and face situations in the natural way. Architecture too today, has become machine like, unreasonably competitive and characterless.
Posted by romi sebastian, sharjah, u.a.e on 12 April 2007 at 21:00 UAE time
Apart from the general lack of norms and regulations, one reason why buildings are poorly adapted to the climate is due to the lack of knowledge and sensitivity among the architects, engineers and planners. General concepts about solar orientation, appropriate building materials, natural ventilation and day lighting are often misunderstood and accidentally applied or never applied at all.
There seems to be awareness that modern architecture is not environmental friendly but nothing concrete has been done about it. In the recent times, the expression ‘Green Building’ has been introduced into the architectural fraternity. The concept of having Green buildings is a good sign and a blessing, but this word is slowly beginning to be misused and is often used as a marketing strategy by hardcore commercial designers. Some claim that it is a new movement in architecture. Well arguably speaking, designing environmentally friendly buildings have been done traditionally in the past, so its not a new movement, its just that its was forgotten and neglected - now we just need to breathe life into it.
People have to be aware of what Green buildings are. They have little to do with landscaping. Trying to dye the walls green, tossing in some plants and bushes or trying to convert a building into a tree house does not make it ‘green’. Designing ‘green’ is simply referring to sensible environmental design, which caters to issues like respecting the presence of the ‘environment’ in a location, energy efficiency in buildings, using natural strategies for building functioning, designing spaces according to the climate and site characteristics, using safer & appropriate materials, designing for occupant comfort etc. Traditional architecture was ‘green’ as it was fairly adapted to the climate and depended less on additional equipments and services to achieve comfortable indoors conditions. Architects have not translated that useful knowledge from tradition, to the architecture they are designing today. When one observes traditional buildings from place to place in the world, one can notice that each building follows a certain character suited well to the climate of that particular place. All traditional buildings look different and also function differently from place to place. This is because the spaces were built based on simple stable principles and with consideration to the varying climatic conditions of the location.
But, nowadays we find similar variety of buildings all over the world. If one just ponders over this issue for a while, it is very funny to note that the same sort of tall glass buildings built in the Western world are being used in parts of Middle East today. Getting inspired from an faulty origin is a risky approach, especially in the field of architecture. How can a building that is built to serve the needs and climate of the Western world , serve as an example or an inspiration for the buildings in an area like the Middle East? There is no counter argument on this issue, as one has to just pass by any of the busy commercial streets of Sharjah or Dubai and witness what is said here. One can witness an array of glass-clad buildings, heavily air-conditioned and all of them seem to be in some competition with each other, especially in terms of pointless aesthetics and height. A photo of the Dubai skyline could also serve as a replica of the skyline of Singapore or even any developed western city, as there is no character or unique identity to it.
We have to create environmental friendly spaces in order for the spaces to be human friendly (Because we humans are a part of the natural environment. Please keep reminding yourselves if you have thought otherwise)
Posted by romi sebastian, sharjah, u.a.e on 12 April 2007 at 20:50 UAE time
i completely agree with the fact that the environmental effects of buiding footprint and its functioning is never taken into account. why cant humans observe animals?.. do their nests and homes destroy or degrade the environment? they have learnt their lessons through evolution and come up with the most efficient, functionable and enviornmentally friendly designs for spaces to house their activities...then why is it that we cant we build such spaces? a buidling should act as a filter between the conditions outside, to the conditions needed for a particluar building acitvity or human purpose. extra energy shouldnt be put in to cope with the transition between the inside and the outside, the building itself should act and behave as a filter. it should be resposive to the climatic conditions and intelligent in itself and most importantly simple in design. it is time that we pick our socks up and do soemthing collectvely. i wouldnt want to be a witness to seeing architecture going completely against the environment. because ultimately- we shape our buildings and inturn, buildings shape our lives. if we want to live better. lets design our spaces in a better fashion. being the tallest and the largest or longest is not the key.