Beyond the statement “the greenest building is one already built” how do we address the argument that modernism and the architecture of the recent past is “unsustainable"?

In response to this question, I would first ask, “Unsustainable compared to what?”

Certainly, modernism did come to the forefront – especially in the US – in the post-war era when energy was cheap and plentiful, air-conditioning became widely available, and the sun-drenched Sunbelt cities and states began to boom. And there were certainly a number of misguided modern designs constructed that “featured” vast expanses of single-pane, clear glazing, with much of it facing due south or west.

But, having also renovated a number of pre-modern buildings – built of masonry, timber, or light wood framing – I know that these older buildings, too, were not particularly “sustainable” when judged by today’s standards. Uninsulated walls and roofs, leaky wood windows, and dubious flashing and roofing details did not allow them to perform much better, if any, than post-war modern structures. The inherent design sustainability credited to all older, pre-war structures is, I would submit, somewhat overstated.

There are, to be sure, fine examples of traditional architecture that were well-attuned to their local climates, storing heat in massive, masonry walls, sheltering windows from hot sun below broad overhangs and trellises, or creating clever thermal chimneys to draw hot air up and out of a building.

But there are also countless fine examples of modern buildings being just as environmentally responsive to their settings. Throughout Texas (my own part of the world) in the 1950s and 60s, O’Neil Ford, Howard Meyer, and Harwell Hamilton Harris (and many others) were all aggressively pursuing modern forms and expressions, but melding them with local knowledge about building in harsh climates.

This was not unique to Texas nor to the US. Kahn was doing the same thing in Bangladesh, as were Aalto in Finland, Barragan in Mexico, and did many other architects, as the International Style and other forms of modernism made their way around the world.

So, I would propose that there are examples of greater or lesser sustainability in buildings of all periods, in all styles. Those that claim an inherently greater sustainability for older structures are oversimplifying a complex question.

I would propose an alternate question, though. Rather than focus on individual buildings, as do many in the sustainability movement, isn’t the real “sin” of post-war architecture and urban form its connection to the rise of the suburbs and edge cities, and its inherent reliance on fossil fuels, freeways and cars? When discussing sustainability, it would seem more fruitful to talk about where and how wisely buildings – new and old, historic or not – are located.

Tuesday, March 29 at 2:40pm

After practicing law for 33 years I am now a real estate broker in Boston.I am a board member and Treasurer of DocomomoUS. For 30 years we lived in a Bauhaus inspired home built in 1939 and worked on its maintenance and renovation with Henry Hoover the original architect.
From my experience with my home,among other things, I now believe that except for a few museum-like architectual icons,such as the Glass House,the buildings of the recent past will only be sustainable if they are appropriately modified,not only for energy savings,but also to adapt to current uses. This was true with my house. For instance,the steel casement windows required constant scraping and painting and were totally inefficient. A prior owner had put on some interior and some exterior storm windows but they were not very attractive or efficient. I never found an affordable substitution. The tar and gravel roof was flat and designed to hold water to cool the house. Our engineers used rigid insulation over the tar and gravel roof and use tapered insulsation where necessary to drain the roof. A rubber membrane was then installed. This system necessitated a change in the copper edge cleat which the original architect approved. When we were selling the house,most of the prospective buyers intended either to tear it down or add a major addition.One of the bedrooms was so small it would only fit a single bed and bureau.Clearly to sustain this house of the recent past significant and thoughtful modifications are required to conform to current energy issues and current homeowner uses and desires.

Tuesday, March 29 at 3:03pm

I agree with Barry Solar’s comment that by modifying modernist buildings it is possible for them to be used in a sustainable way. An excellent example of this is SOM’s Inland Steel building in Chicago. SOM has designed a program of renovations that respect the structure’s place on the National Register of Historic Places while drastically improving its performance ( http://www.archpaper.com/e-board_rev.asp?News_ID=4609). This is a great example of respecting the aims and appearance of the original while bringing it up to date both in terms of economic and energy performance.

Aside from retrofitting buildings to bring them up to current standards, it is also worth evaluating our standards and looking at the context in which some modernist buildings were built. Modernist homes in California were built to connect users to the outdoors and remove the barrier from interior and exterior. This has been forgotten thanks to the pervasiveness of air conditioning, and people now expect their environment to be the same temperature every day of the year. Frank Lloyd Wright built homes that relied on solar gain and thermal mass for heating in cold-weather climates in the first half of the 20th Century. There are many lessons within modernism that have been forgotten- it’s not all International Style skyscrapers.

Wednesday, March 30 at 1:29am

This a very challenging question but one that has to be addressed to ensure the survival of our modern historic buildings. Firstly I suggest that modernist buildings are not as unsustainable as claimed. However ‘unsustainable’ is an easy and emotive argument if a developer is determined to clear a site for new build. Undoubtedly some modernist building details and materials have, with time proven to be poor, though I am sure that we will discover this about some of our current building methods and practice. I also suspect that many modern buildings fail to meet their sustainability credentials once commissioned and occupied. So I think we must readjust the perspective regarding modernism and sustainability.

Here in the UK the SPAB has always taken a leading role in advising on the best practice regarding maintenance and use of historic buildings and the sustainability and energy conservation issues have presented some new problems to consider. The organisation has recently commissioned a survey into the energy efficiency of ancient historic buildings and found that they perform much better that had been assumed. An initial report can be found here; http://www.spab.org.uk/media-centre/press-releases/press-release/?ContentID=172

I think that it is time for similar data based research on a few of the worlds modernist buildings. May I suggest that DOCOMOMO is ideally placed to instigate this.

Friday, April 1 at 6:44am

Without any technical expertise to address your question on sustainability I’d like to approach from a slightly different angle.

Architecture is the lasting fabric of our time. Preservation of such is a balancing act between valuing that fabric and progressing toward the future. The mainstream understanding that preservation is only for “traditional” architecture, is both out of date and valued incorrectly. The evaluation should not be rooted in style, it should be of historical impact, civic benefit, landmark status, etc. We must update the common perception of preservation so that the our aging modern buildings are appreciated, and cared for as they should be.

The realities are that every building faces new challenges as it attempts to extend its relevance into another generation. More often these issues are faced by owners on matters of maintenance and upkeep. However there are time when communities are being forced to answer, do we value this and at what cost? This has happened at every point in our history.

The introduction to Perspecta 40: Monster is perhaps the most influential architectural writing that I’ve experienced.

“…Buildings lead strange, uncontrollable lives after their creators give them life. Sometimes they are accepted by the world, either immediately or after an occasionally painful adjustment period. Sometimes they run amok. Sometimes, the villagers fight back with wrecking balls and fire…” -Monster, Perspecta 40

What I took from that is an understanding, an appreciation for the misunderstood works of architecture. I began photographing aging works of brutalist modernism. Boston City Hall and the Ohio Historical Center are two of my favorite buildings that, at least to the public are hated. Are they worth saving? To me, yes, but that’s not enough.

Friday, April 1 at 12:30pm