journal:

Architecture, Sustainability and Economics

By Jonathan Feaster

2008-02-19

Most architects are horrible businessmen.

It's so sad but so true yet it could be easily remedied if they would just keep their focus on the bottom line; which is to focus on taking care of their clients. If you ask them, many architects will lament that to be an architect you have to be prepared to put in a lot of hours, take on a lot of liability and be content with little pay. It's a shame but they bring it on themselves. It's true that you have to put in many hours but that's not bad if it's a labor of love. Liability? It's a lawyer's world and they actually asked for the professional liability that comes with licensing. Licensing could also account for the compensation problem too. Many architects say that licensing is good because it means "more money for architects" but they never think about how everyone would probably be much better off making more money by having more projects. They never think of how we could be producing better architecture if clients had the option of allocating more money to their projects instead of allocating it to useless governmental licensing and regulations. I guess opportunity costs are only what economists think about and, besides, most architects are too busy doing other things anyway; like being environmental crusaders through Sustainable Design.

Sustainable Design is basically the architectural wing of the Sustainable Development movement. According to Wikipedia, "Sustainable development is a socio-ecological process characterized by the fulfillment of human needs while maintaining the quality of the natural environment indefinitely."

Ever had Déjà vu?

If part of Sustainable Development involves "maintaining the quality of the natural environment indefinitely" doesn't that suggest (in Oldspeak) that if we aren't "sustainable" then we are destroying our environment? Furthermore, Sustainable Development is described as "something like 'that which meets the needs of the present without compromising the needs of the future'". Sustainable Development? Why don't they just call it by it's real name...Environmentalism? Apparently we are in for another Malthusian doomsday scenario if we don't change our ways!

With this definition of Sustainable Development (and having it's architectural brethren shoved down my throat for years in college), I think I can sum up the Sustainable Design mindset pretty easily:
"Non-sustainable" buildings hurt the environment by being unacceptable environments (despite the client's desires) and by hoarding our limited resources. Because of this, we should find ways to make them more environmentally friendly (sustainable) for present and future generations...before it's too late!

According to The American Institute of Architects, it sure seems like they're willing to do whatever it takes to save the planet's demise, even if it means using the guns of government:

"The AIA believes that governmental policies, programs, and incentives should encourage energy conservation, especially as it relates to the built environment. We believe that Congress should use its authority over federal buildings to show the way for the private sector in reducing the energy consumption footprint of the built environment." - AIA Sustainable Design Policy Resource Center

Sure, they do place emphasis on merely "showing the way for the private sector" and Sustainable policies aren't prevalent yet but, make no mistake, the ultimate goal is to force sustainability on everyone. Other such legislative atrocities that started out as voluntary practices, such as The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, have wasted resources, destroyed property rights and are even expanding out into the virtual world from the physical one through things like "Bricks vs. Clicks" suits.

When you're talking about conservation you have to be talking about the allocation of limited quantities of resources and when you're talking about the allocation of limited resources then you're talking about economics. I remember one of my professors in college who, during a "green sermon", exclaimed, "This is not about economics, it's about morality." I say that it's always about economics and if you really cared about the issue you'd take the time to learn about how economics applies. When it comes to the allocation of limited resources it comes down to the issue of supply and demand and prices. If a resource becomes dear, the price rises and when the price rises it gives the valuable signal for suppliers to produce or find more of the resource or find an alternative to the resource to satisfy demand. To complete any transaction both parties have to benefit from it. If you sell lumber for a price and I value your lumber more than I value the goods or services that your price is worth then a beneficial transaction to both parties is possible. Otherwise, I'll go somewhere else or find an alternative to the lumber. It's prices that are the key to conservation. Prices (when allowed to function properly) are exactly what keeps resources like lumber, food, and oil from disappearing. Additionally, if the price for a resource is "too high" it is exactly the price mechanism that fuels innovation. When prices are not allowed to function (i.e. by government regulation etc.) resources are squandered and innovation is stifled. The Sustainable Development advocates never seem to seriously consider the price mechanism. Maybe they're too emotionally caught up in what they believe is a moral "solution". Maybe if people understood prices then they'd exclaim, "What do we need Sustainable Development advocates for? We have prices!".

When confronted with prices, many Sustainable Development advocates would ask something like, "It's prices that make it profitable to level the forests for lumber so we need regulations to sustain the forests, don't we?" The answer to that question is that it is profitable to level forests for lumber when no one (or "everyone") owns the forests. The reason is that when there are no property rights to valuable resources then everyone abuses the use of those resources. This concept is known as the Tragedy of the Commons. When property rights exist you can't squander my resources without forceful consequences, it's in my best interests to protect my resources, conserve them and renew them (if possible). Property Rights are the key.

Not a peep from the advocates.

There are countless other economic answers for the Sustainable Development issues. If the advocates of Sustainable Development and Sustainable Design really cared about being "sustainable" then they would have an open mind about the real solutions, market-based economic solutions. If they really cared about sustainability then they wouldn't be in such a hurry to unleash the unintended consequences brought on by government force.

As for architects as global environmental crusaders for sustainability? Most of them are having enough trouble handling things on the business scale. If you want to make the world a better place to live, try satisfying your client's demands instead of forcing some recycled sophistry on them.