The Paradigms of Climate Change

To aid in the fight against climate change, the architecture profession must help resolve three paradigms of modern-day society. The paradigms I will discuss are the ones that the architecture profession can influence directly and can aid in solving the climate crisis. These paradigms deal with issues directly involving architecture, urban fabrics, and urban planning.

First, is the paradigm of technological advancement. This paradigm, I believe, is the one that architects can influence immediately: it stems from the fallacy that the architectural solution to the climate crisis stems from advanced technology. Yes, it is true that to achieve sustainable energy, the solution lies in advanced technology; however, the architectural solution to the sustainability issue does not.

For example, a skyscraper can be designed to consume less energy and utilities without the need for advanced technology. To achieve this, one must focus on maximizing two things in the design, sunlight, and recyclability. In this regard, two architects come to mind with these considerations: Alejandro Aravena and Ken Yeang. Ken Yeang has long since been a vocal champion of bioclimatism, an architectural movement that focuses on ‘blending with the surroundings’ and designing buildings and structures within the context of the local environment and climate. In the case of our first paradigm, Ken Yeang’s advocacy of bioclimatic architecture works well as a starting point for solving the climate crisis.

In the example of Alejandro Aravena, his firm’s (Elemental) work with the Innovation Center of the Universidad Católica de Chile is the perfect antithesis of the typical office skyscraper. Instead of a typical core located at the center of the structure, he designed a building that maximizes the sunlight and the subsequent vistas and creates an antithetical core at the center: an atrium that breathes fresh air into the building and helps cool the building. These two architects and their work are firm examples of the answer to the first paradigm. We often fail to see that we have been given all the theoretical architecture knowledge to solve the individual power/energy consumption question that will in turn aid in solving the climate crisis. The architecture profession, unfortunately, spends too much time waiting for advancements in solar smart glass and piezoelectric tiles and technologies of the like, but the reality is, that everything we currently need to create more efficient houses and structures is already around us.

We must simply accept additional responsibility to design with these kinds of philosophies and that the responsibility to influence the trend falls upon architects and designers alike.

The second is the paradigm of the urban fabric. This paradigm focuses on a more macroscopic solution to the issue, as opposed to a structure-to-structure or building-to-building approach: it stems from the layman’s misconception that the urban fabric is unimportant as an aid to the climate crisis.

For example, to the uninitiated, the urban fabric of the city or country they live in is irrelevant to the lives they live; of course, to the initiated that can’t be further from the truth. I use this as an example because entire cities and countries have dedicated the better part of the 20th century and the 21st to creating urban fabrics around the world that have almost immediately become obsolete. It isn’t that the fabrics themselves were an issue, but they weren’t designed to handle the evolution of society properly. Modern-day society values a very ironic sense of individualism (often represented in cars and suburban houses) balanced with an equally ironic sense of community (an irrevocable need to have people we can rely on). This delicate and somewhat ironic balance personifies itself in cities (and to an extent, countries) as a focus on commodities and transportation. Essentially, this starts the debate of need vs. want, luxury vs. practicality, the many vs. the one. In the context of the second paradigm, this personifies itself in the question of public transportation and public infrastructure. Even simpler put, it’s a personification of the saying, "A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It’s where the rich use public transportation.”

The second paradigm we must resolve is to create urban fabrics that do two things, a., cater to everyone in cities, and b., an improvement of urban efficiency in concrete daily things like public transportation. Point A simply refers to the consumption of resources (more importantly, energy) and how higher efficacy of the way cities are designed means less use of resources. Furthermore, progressive urban fabrics pave the way for less consumption of resources and more alternative channels to replenish said resources. Unfortunately, due to the way modern society is built, the efficacy and replenishment of resources aren’t a priority, but if the urban fabrics of cities and countries were geared toward this goal, society should follow suit. In the case of Point B, a big chunk of energy consumption (in fossil fuel and alternative means) goes to transportation. More to the point, as the saying suggests, cities and countries worldwide must focus on improving public transportation infrastructure so it can progress as society progresses. At the same time, the more efficient use of energy in matters of public transportation means fewer greenhouse gasses. The promoted use of bikes and alternative means of transportation should be implemented worldwide as a firm and viable solution to the climate issue. In summary, it’s a focus on the quality of all people, not just a select few or those economically privileged.

Finally, the paradigm of the energy and transport infrastructure. This paradigm, in my opinion, has the best macroscopic solution to the issue and can greatly further the awareness of the importance of urban planning and design (essentially hitting two birds with one stone).

As an expansion of the second paradigm, the third paradigm focuses on the urban plans of cities worldwide. These urban plans were not designed for adaptability or growth, they were designed for the needs and the context of the eras they were designed in. Let’s say for argument’s sake that cities 10, 20, or 50 years into the future would require solar farms to better combat the world energy issue, how would a city like Manhattan comply with such a requirement? As an expansion of the second paradigm, the third paradigm deals directly with country-wide urban plans that interconnect major cities (and to an extent, countries) to one another. Indeed, cities the world over are all different in their way, and finding adaptable urban plans that cater to climate solutions should be contextualized to each city. The interconnection I mentioned is a call to better transportation and energy infrastructure the world over. It’s no secret that overreliance on fossil fuels is detrimental to the fight against climate change. Furthermore, Mega-highways plus combined with gasses produced by cars are even more counterproductive to the climate crisis and present a perennial threat if not addressed properly. In the same way, the energy infrastructure of countries needs to be improved ever so slowly to ensure reduced reliance on harmful sources of energy (i.e. fossil fuels). So the answer to the question of how will the city of Manhattan accommodate solar farms is two-fold. It can’t support solar farms in the traditional sense, but alternative energy is always a viable option and should now be a constant consideration for urban planners. The focus now is on contextual renewable energy sources and how they can be implemented worldwide. This brings the whole consideration of contextual solutions to a whole new level, one that improves upon the theories of urban planning and design, as well as helps solve the climate crisis (the proverbial ‘two birds with one stone’ approach).

In conclusion, architects must first accept the reality that our profession alone can’t fix the problem of climate change. It’s true that we build the built environment and can therefore help spur change, but with anything worth doing, it needs a mindful approach and an enlightened intent. We must first unlearn the methods of the past and understand the needs and context of today.  As I’ve laid out, there are many ways that our profession can help solve the issue but it will only be achieved if the architecture profession moves forward to address the issue with a singular will and a singular vision: the improved and climate-safe built environment.