A Sustainable Economy

'One million climate jobs' - that's the target set by the Campaign against Climate Change trade union group. A collective working together with academics and activists to convince the government to have the political will to embrace change to address the global economic and environmental crises together, not in isolation. Are they mutually beneficial, or is it inevitable that in the face of public spending cuts the environmental performance targets set at a host of international government gatherings will be sacrificed?

The trade union movement recently organised a lecture at the TUC building in Great Russell Street to discuss the ‘Spirit Level’, a book examining why more equal societies always do better. It was an opportunity to understand a broader social definition of sustainability and experience an enduring and democratic building not taken up by many architects, given the make up of the audience. The premise of the research, which is published on the equalitytrust.org.uk web site, is that continued growth does not bring benefits to rich countries. A series of independently gathered statistics covering subjects such as broad as violence, trust, obesity and global warming indicate that countries with greater equality, rather than relative wealth, perform better in terms of standard of living. Japan and Sweden far outperform the less equal societies of the UK and USA when the simple statistic of percentage of recycled waste is examined. In Japan equality is derived through parity of wage, whilst Sweden achieves similar results through taxation.

Returning to the theme of 'One million climate jobs', could greater equality benefit the environment we inhabit, or will the current financial crisis overshadow the need for change that the built environment requires, but is not yet addressed with conviction by the architectural profession. The Campaign against Climate Change highlight that whilst our national debt is currently at 75% of GDP, this is comparable to Japan's where public works programmes have historically benefited society and the environment. During our own industrial revolution the figure was consistently above current levels and hit 150% of GDP in the post war building boom period – a time when Harold Macmillan was Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Stern Review indicated that a 2% expenditure of GDP would be required to stabilise the effects of global warming, an equivalent sum recently made immediately available to stabilise the banking sector.

The Campaign against Climate Change suggests that 40% of 22 million tonnes of CO2 emissions can be cut from non-domestic buildings within the next 5 years by undertaking a programme of retrofitting to standards beyond our current regulations and then enforcing them. An estimated 200,000 would be employed in this task alone. Alternatively new build would accelerate the process and allow a new responsive architecture to emerge. It clearly needs collective action. Are the TUC more radical than the RIBA? As Will Self recently said of the politicians - what's the plan guys??

Are we there yet…? Book Review - Towards a New Architecture. Le Corbusier

Le Corbusier's Villa Savoye

We’ve probably heard of his theories, and some may have even read the book (or pretended to…) but for those who haven’t - a trip into Le Corbusier’s “Towards a New Architecture” is an intriguing view into the mind of one of the icons of the modern movement. 90 years ago, he wrote of the inability of architecture to provide a suitable habitat for the changing way we were beginning to live and work, which left me wondering, are his words just as relevant today?

Whilst his arguments (or translation of) can sometimes come across as arrogant or patronising, the basic point is very well made. Why, compared to engineering and other design industries, had architecture remained so slow to develop to meet the needs of the people? Early Greek architecture was refined to perfection over the centuries, culminating in the Acropolis in Athens, from which point it was slowly masked with unnecessary decoration and extravagance and in turn distracted the designer from creating a successful building.

Le Corbusier's Chaise Lounge - simple regulating lines.

Take automotive and aeronautical design, which have, through necessity, economics or competition, motivated designers to achieve a higher level of innovation and break away from traditional mindsets. He cites as a classic example, the progression of engineering during the industrial revolution, where design was governed by mathematics and economics rather than by tradition, resulting in “regulating lines” that created a simple, clean aesthetic, stripped of decoration.

Le Corbusier clearly believes that decoration only distracts from order and form. His statement “The House is a Machine for Living” reinforces the idea that the house is primarily a place to live and not a monument to the past – it should be devoid of unnecessary decoration and free from the constraints of tradition. After seeing other engineering design industries evolve into something new and revolutionary, we have for too long been too concerned about how a building looks without having the same regard for how a building works.


At the turn of the last century we were in the middle of an industrial revolution, where technology provided the ability to build bigger, faster and more economically. The culture was one of infinite resources. If a house was too dark it could be flooded with electric light. Too cold or hot, it could be heated or air-conditioned. Today we are still developing at an exponential rate but are seeing the consequences of the past with pollution, dwindling resources, and as an effect, escalating material costs.

Corbusier's Weissenhof Siedlung.

If we are provided with the fundamentals for shelter; adequate daylight, fresh air and warmth, we are comfortable. We need to recognise we should allow the natural architecture itself to provide these necessities rather than by artificial means. A dwelling should be located and designed to maximise daylight and warmth or shade, insulated and adequately ventilated.

So we are at a similar point that Le Corbusier found himself looking at 90 years ago. His arguments could be seen as want for a brutal, utilitarian style of architecture but I believe they were meant as a wake-up call to force a fresh way of thinking about architecture and how it was meant to meet the needs of a changing society rather than rely on fashion. The only difference being that this original motivation is now coupled with the needs of a changing environment.