What I have learned from studying sustainability in buildings for the last 5 years

Concordia recently published a short video that features my research.

At first, I was a bit taken aback by the title, which reads Sherif Goubran: what does “sustainable building design” really mean?

While my research focuses on sustainable building design — its processes, modes of communication and design outcomes — I never thought of my work as an investigation in the real ‘meaning’ of sustainable building design.

This made me reflect quite a bit on what I do, how I do it and why I do it. So, I decided to share some of those reflections.

Technological fixes and incremental change

As an architect, I quickly realized that green building design has an overarching technical tint. So, I decided to complement my design-based education by studying building engineering. I believed that knowledge in engineering would make me a better building designer.

During my master’s, my research focused on how technology can help reduce the energy consumption of buildings, specifically energy used to heat or cool air that comes through entrance doors. This is a real-life problem that we all experience when going through the entrances of buildings in the frigid winter months of Montreal. The research outcomes I generated showed that technology can help mitigate this problem.*

In many cases, technological fixes come with some ‘terms and conditions.’ The results obtained in a laboratory setting, or through simulations, are good indicators of potential, but they don’t necessarily translate directly into performance. This is because there are many interlinked factors that affect the performance of buildings.

My engineering degree taught me a lot about energy modelling, indoor air quality, optimization of design parameters, wall compositions and the role of technology in efficiency gains. While I gained a significant amount of new knowledge and technical skills, I came out with one key question unanswered: is incremental improvement enough to solve our sustainability challenges?

When it comes to approaching sustainability in buildings, incremental improvements are a good first step, but they can only go so far. In fact, gains in efficiency — in energy, water or material use — do not always directly result in overall reductions in consumption. Actually, efficiency gains might result in increased demand — a sort of rebound effect commonly known as Jevon’s Paradox.

Are we on the verge of a paradigm shift in sustainable buildings?

Thomas S. Kuhn tells us in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions that major developments in science do not come from accumulation but rather from paradigms shifts — revolutions in thinking and radical changes of worldviews.

In sustainable design, I do not think we are there yet.

I see two key polarities across the debates around sustainable buildings. The first is the functionalist approach, which is regulatory in nature and aims to establish sustainability in the built environment as a pragmatic field guided by quantitative standards. The second is the humanist approach, which is radical in nature and aims to establish sustainability in the built environment as a non-regulatory field to generate radical change and innovation.

Of course, there are ideas and arguments scattered across this axis — not just at the two extremes.

While I hope to further explore this categorization in future publications, I can say that the first approach tends to reduce the complexity of our sustainability challenges into specific topics, while the second tends to be critical of regulation without necessarily providing concrete solutions.

As I suggested in my op-ed, when studying buildings we have to look at the broader picture — beyond the objectivity of the specific consumption or footprint figures. This requires adopting a systemic view and understanding the scale of focus since sustainability could have different manifestations, constituents and meanings at global, national or local levels.

I believe that we should not limit the role of researchers to support current building practices by proposing incremental improvements to the status quo, nor criticize them by emphasizing the failures that result from how we build today.

For me, I see potential in providing practical approaches that can support critical decision-making or fuel innovations in building projects, as well as explorations which can help broaden the working definition of sustainability in building projects beyond its current eco-efficiency driven environmental focus.

The benefits of the first line of research are self-evident. However, in many cases, individuals misinterpret the second line of research as criticisms of current practices.

But I believe that these explorations, which tend to be more theoretical in nature, have a key role to play in shaping the future model of sustainable building design. They put into question the meta-theoretical assumptions which guide the field, questioning what constitutes sustainability in building design and the process by which we could attain it.

How can research help building designers adopt a more critical approach to sustainability?

While certifications, tools and standards have their weaknesses, they also play a vital role in popularizing green buildings. It is then important to complement the existing standards and tools to help fuel critical and reflective decision-making around sustainability — especially at the early project phases.

To make things clearer, I will share some examples of my work which I consider successful in providing such support.

High-rise timber buildings
Co-authored with Masson T. & Walker T.

In recent years, high-rise buildings have gained significant attention from academics, practitioners and industry. Fueled by technical developments in engineered wood products, the wooden skyscrapers have been portrayed as the future of sustainable living. Much of the available literature in design, engineering and policy focuses on the unique environmental qualities, and the health or comfort benefits timber offers when compared to other building materials.

While the available research helps promote and develop the high-rise timber technology, it generally assumed the local availability of the raw materials and the required expertise for production and construction.

Within the Sam and Diana Scalia Sustainable Real Estate and Built Environment Program at the John Molson School of Business, we went deeper into the topic to extract 10 specific economic, technical, environmental and socio-cultural parametres regarding the use of timber. These parametres are crucial to be considered when selecting timber as a structural material to ensure its suitability, relevance and sustainability within a specific geographic location.

Integrating the SDGs in Building Projects
Co-authored with Cucuzzella C.

The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) offer a stable and expansive definition of sustainability that is complemented by international commitments. The goals offer the building sector an opportunity to overcome the multitude of definitions available for sustainable design. While available publications explore the possible links between green credits — credits from dominant green certification standards — and the SDGs, only a limited body of research aims at facilitating their integration in early phases of construction projects.

In this article, we translate each of the 17 goals into a design question and develop two analytical mapping tools. The first aims at helping designers understand the level of integration of the SDGs across the project’s architecture, engineering and operation. The second explores the design approaches to the topics of the goals on two axes relating to the character and the inspiration of the design.

The map distinguishes four quadrants:

1. History-driven, human-focused visions where traditional modes of human interactions are seen as the means for addressing a specific SDG
2. Future-driven, human-focused visions where new modes of human interaction — such as those depending on information and communication technologies — are seen as the means for addressing a specific SDG
3. History-driven, product-focused visions where vernacular modes of construction and design are seen as the means for addressing a specific SDG
4. Future-driven, product-focused visions where new technologies and products are seen as the means for addressing a specific SDG

Designers can use the outcomes of this research and the tools in the early design phases of building projects to guide decisions toward considering and integrating the topics of the SDGs. It also does not aim to replace or marginalize the importance of established rating and certification standards.

So, what does 'sustainable building design' really mean?

For me, the 'meaning' of sustainable building design is a moving target.

But what is certain is that there is a disconnect between how we define and practice sustainable building design and the larger scope of sustainable development. Moreover, and while contextual and critical design practice is advocated as the appropriate means for approaching sustainability in the built environment, we are highly dependent on quantitative, context-free and efficiency-driven standards to define the quality of sustainable buildings.

I aspire through my research to change how we perceive and evaluate sustainability in the built environment and to actively reintegrate sustainable building practices within the larger scope of sustainable development.

I do not aim at finding the meaning of sustainable building design. Rather, I seek to find meaning in sustainable building design.

* My research demonstrated some overall building energy savings when compared to current solutions.

About the author