MAKING SENSE OF SUSTAINABILITY 1

CHAPTER 7

MAKING SENSE OF SUSTAINABILITY:

BALANCING TECHNOLOGY, USER
SATISFACTION, AND AESTHETICS
MARIE-ALICE L’HEUREUX

Introduction
Architects in the early 20th century thought they could improve the
human condition through design. By applying mass-production principles
and efficient design to city planning and housing, they hoped to overcome
urban overcrowding, the scourge of disease, and the perceived moral
lassitude among urban workers. Many cities and countries adopted these
principles in order to create (minimal) dwelling standards to house people
more efficiently and effectively (Teige 2002).
Conditions among the poorly housed did improve, especially in
industrial countries; however, the indiscriminate application of modernist
principles across the landscape created over-concentrations of poverty,
interpersonal alienation, and a lack of identity and engagement among
residents. Architects, especially in the United States’ post-WWII euphoria,
largely abandoned the social aspects of design and focused on the aesthetic
characteristics of modernism—glass facades detached from structure;
structure independent of spatial organization; the separation of function
vertically and horizontally; machine precision and repetition.
In the 1970s, provoked by OPEC’s (Organization of Petroleum
Exporting Countries’) oil embargo, and the subsequent increase in energy
prices, architects started to address energy efficiency in buildings as an
economic issue.i Prior to 1972, energy articles in architectural journals
focused on nuclear energy. In the 1970s and 1980s, economic arguments
held forth, although some architects and planners started to recognize the
need to consider the environment more carefully. In the late 20 th century,
2 CHAPTER SEVEN

architects were again challenged to address societal problems through

design, this time to mitigate the impact of the built environment on global
climate change.
Buildings account for around 41% of the primary energy consumption
in the United States; therefore, improving their efficiency could
substantially reduce their contribution to the quantity of greenhouse gases
in the atmosphere, the primary contributor to global climate change (U.S.
Department of Energy 2012). Given the legacy of past environmental
crises, the current political climate in the United States, and the long-range
and uncertain nature of potential solutions, it is very difficult to create the
national will to tackle climate change (or global warming) effectively
(Damon and Kunen 1976). Indeed, many scientists feel we have already
gone beyond the Earth’s ability to absorb the carbon we have already
produced. Major climatic disruptions are, thus, inevitable (Meadows et al.
1972; Meadows, Meadows, and Randers 1992; Meadows, Randers, and
Meadows 2004). In the view of these scientists, we should focus on
mitigating these future effects by creating more diverse and flexible
solutions (Symposium 2012). In other words, by creating a more resilient
built environment that people could embrace. Others acknowledge the
threat but see the solution in technology and design. They highlight the
amount of energy wasted in the generation, distribution, and consumption
systems as an opportunity to create technological solutions and efficiencies
at the manufacturing level that effectively by-pass the need for getting
consensus among people to change behavior.
In this chapter, I argue that architects need to address and become more
knowledgeable about global climate change and the importance of going
beyond energy standards by engaging all building users in the process.
Creative architects can design buildings that are carbon neutral and
functional, structurally rational, and beautiful as well. I review the
contribution of environment behaviorists to environmental challenges and
the goals of energy-and-sustainability standards in design. I discuss the role
of architectural education and the profession in promoting sustainability
and conclude with a number of case studies of student design-and-built
projects and the challenge of introducing sustainable principles into real-
world contexts when aesthetic decisions often trump functional ones. This
study demonstrates that aesthetics, behavior, and technology all need to be
engaged for projects to be successful from both a community and a climate
change perspective.
Since Ancient Roman times, architects have considered functionality,
structural stability, and aesthetics (represented in the Vitruvian triad of
Utilitas, Firmitas, and Venustas) (Collins 1965, 22) to be fundamental to
their mission. In recent years, however, the reward system embodied in
 MAKING SENSE OF SUSTAINABILITY 3

architectural publications and the Pritzker Prize has prioritized

dramatically beautiful and innovative buildings over functional ones.
Although buildings that “fall down” are relatively rare in the West,
buildings that do not meet the needs of its users are, unfortunately, easy to
find. Thom Mayne’s award winning San Francisco Federal Building (2007)
received the lowest user-satisfaction score (12 percent) among 22 federal
buildings studied in 2010 (Fowler et al. 2010, 65). Although the building
was built on a brownfield site and proved to be energy efficient, it only
achieved a Silver LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design)
rating because it failed to incorporate many non-energy related features and
used many “decorative” features—such as a cascading exterior metal skin
that neither shaded nor insulated the building.
LEED rated or Energy Star buildings that are ostensibly more energy
efficient than earlier buildings have not necessarily reduced the built
environments’ overall carbon footprint since LEED has focused on a broad
range of building issues that do not necessarily reduce energy use or
increase user satisfaction (Janda 2011). Architects have also received
points for innovation, indoor air quality, reusing materials, and more
recently, regional priorities—all important considerations. Yet, to achieve
carbon neutrality, architects need to go beyond LEED and solve the
Vitruvian triad by engaging building users and solving problems at the
local, neighborhood, and city scales (Gehl 2010).

Environmental psychology versus design and technology

Man can hardly even recognize the devils of his own creation
Albert Schweitzer (Carson 1962, p. 6).

In the 1970s, in the face of growing concerns about environmental

problems, a team of ecological psychologists became concerned that the
field of psychology focused too much on the impact of given environments
“on man’s behavior” while ignoring “the effect of man’s behavior on the
environment” (Maloney and Ward 1973, 584). They reasoned that the
“ecological threat” was related to overpopulation, over-consumption, and
over-pollution—in other words, to “maladaptive behaviors” (Maloney and
Ward 1973, 583; Malthus 1817). From this perspective, it is a serious
fallacy to think that technological changes alone can solve environmental
problems; rather, peoples’ thoughts and behaviors must change as well
(Schipper et al. 1989; Destatte 2010). Sociologists have to recognize how
people understand complex issues before they can find ways to encourage
4 CHAPTER SEVEN

people to change their thinking or act in line with their beliefs (Kempton
1993).
Since the 1970s, psychologists, environmental behaviorists, and
sociologists have contributed a plethora of studies on human-environment
relationships that have helped urban planners and architects make design
decisions (Stern and Gardner 1981; Winett and Geller 1981; Geller 1995;
Geller, Willett and Everett 1982; Osbaldiston and Schott 2012). An
ongoing discussion among researchers is whether individual attitudes (e.g.,
ideas about the environment, sustainability, and equity) matter more or less
than context (e.g., household type, dwelling, and location) to explain
resource consumption (such as water, energy, housing, carbon-intensive
travel, and the choice of domestic appliances) (Newton and Meyer 2012).
They also have come to realize that attitudes do not directly predict a
person’s actions. It is not sufficient to ask, Do you support public
transportation? Better to ask, Would you use public transportation to travel
to work most days? This makes the desired behavior concrete by
introducing a time and a context dimension (Jones 1996). Most studies also
focus on only one aspect of the human-environment relationship, such as
the motivation to adopt pro-environment behaviors such as recycling
(Oskamp et al. 1991), while what is needed is a more nuanced method to
understand how human characteristics and activities interact to influence
behavior (Cranz 1993; Kibert 2004; Fowler and Christakis 2010; Hards
2011; Hannigan 2014).
In contrast to the behavioral psychologists, the architect William
McDonough argues that the environmental crisis is a design problem. He
distinguishes between eco-efficient designs that simply “make the old
destructive system a bit less so” and an “eco-effective” approach that
rethinks design problems to reduce the overall ecological footprint
(McDonough and Braungart 2002, 62-63; Braungart and McDonough
2007; for more on the ecological footprint, see Wackernagel 1996).
McDonough’s ideas resonate with those of physicist Amory Lovins and
the sociology-trained lawyer L. Hunter Lovins, who launched the Rocky
Mountain Institute (RMI) in 1979 in order to promote ecological values.
Lovins and Lovins recognize that people cannot continue consuming
resources and polluting the environment as they have in the past. They also
think that resources can be used more effectively (by design) so that the
necessities and conveniences of modern life can be accommodated more
efficiently without fossil fuels. In 1999 they co-authored Natural
Capitalism with environmentalist Paul Hawken that accounted for the
value of the ecosystem. They used an economic argument noting that using
oil, which at the time was mostly imported, costs much more than investing
in alternatives to it, and they called for “radical resource productivity”
 MAKING SENSE OF SUSTAINABILITY 5

(doing more with less) from extraction to end-use and for biomimetic
production that turns waste into value (Hawken, Lovins and Lovins 1999,
10). They argue, for instance, that using high-efficiency fans and low-
friction ducts saves in construction and in operating costs. An even more
innovative approach, using computation fluid dynamics to move air silently
and passively through the building, contributes to net zero energy use
(Hawken, Lovins, and Lovins 1999, 99). The later Climate Capitalism
(Lovins and Cohen 2011) further promotes the idea that businesses and
companies, and thus the environment, will benefit from investment in
renewable energy and energy efficiency strategies in buildings and
neighborhoods. Lovins and Cohen argue, for instance, that employees in
structures that are “delightful to be in” are more productive and that
students enjoying optimally day-lighted classrooms progressed faster in
math and reading (2011, 100). If these principles are applied across the
production of goods and services from housing to agriculture, then through
efficiencies and the adoption of new fuels, we could maintain our lifestyle
while reducing the negative impact of behavior on the environment, “not
at a cost, but at a profit” (Hawken, Lovins, and Lovins 1999, 243; emphasis
in original).
Compared to Limits to Growth (Meadows et al. 1972), a study that first
sounded the alarm about the over-consumption of natural resources, the
works discussed above are infused with optimism and make very seductive
arguments. We are very wasteful of energy and other resources at the
national level. McDonough, Lovins, and the others promote new ways of
using technology, such as highly insulating glass and ultra-strong
lightweight materials to create efficient systems. They do not advocate
changing our behavior or lowering our standard of living so much as
devising new ways of thinking in order to use existing resources more
effectively—in ways that will still allow us to move from place to place
and communicate easily with one another. In the view of people motivated
by technological innovation, corporate self-interest rather than
governmental regulation will produce the necessary changes. They argue
that through design we can overcome the negative impacts generated by
burning fossil fuels and over consumption (Becerik-Gerber, Gerber, and
Ku 2011).
The Rocky Mountain Institute never considered the social and
behavioral aspects of adopting new technologies until its most recent work
Reinventing Fire (Lovins and Rocky Mountain Institute 2011), and even
then, only to a very limited extent. In RMI’s view, people will change
behavior and waste less energy if they have the right feedback (Lovins and
Rocky Mountain Institute 2011, 93-94). The Institute gives multiple
examples of successful energy-use reductions. This rosy picture is belied
6 CHAPTER SEVEN

by the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

publication that finds that the “total anthropogenic GHG [greenhouse gas]
emissions were the highest in human history from 2000 to 2010” (IPCC
2013, 5, emphasis in the original). Despite many efforts to reduce carbon
emissions and to create sustainable buildings and processes, world-wide
emissions have increased because of increasing population and economic
development. It is not possible for the world population to achieve the same
level of lifestyle that we have in North America without any adjustment to
our own lifestyles and expectations. If our lifestyles become more energy
and resource efficient, will we simply consume more? (Jevons 1866;
Khazzoom 2008). The recent (Fall 2014) drop in energy prices and the
related drop in the sale of new hybrid vehicles combined with an increase
in the purchase of new trucks and SUVs, demonstrate that Americans
would probably consume more (Glinton 2014). Unless we understand that
our incremental behaviors contribute to the environmental problem, is
change possible (Hardin 1968)?

Architectural standards of sustainability in education and

practice
But architecture is more than aesthetics…
Form must facilitate function.
Edward Feiner, GSA head, 1981-2005 (Dart 2005).

The architectural profession as a whole did not start to focus seriously

on environmental issues until 1989, when the foundation was laid to create
the Committee on the Environment (COTE) within the American Institute
of Architects (AIA) (COTE 2014). This group consists of architects and
engineers who work for private firms, national research laboratories, and
other similar organizations. COTE promotes and disseminates information
to the profession, the building industry, and the academy about creating
energy efficient, healthy, and safe environments. COTE defines “true
sustainable design” as “beautiful, humane, socially appropriate, and
restorative.” It also emphasizes the importance of multiple dimensions in
the design process:

The sustainable design process holistically and creatively connects land use
and design at the regional level and addresses community design and
mobility; site ecology and water use; place-based energy generation,
performance, and security; materials and construction; light and air;
bioclimatic design; and issues of long life and flexibility (COTENotes 2006,
12).
 MAKING SENSE OF SUSTAINABILITY 7

These dimensions, as I show below, parallel the breadth of issues

included in developing sustainable standards for architecture, but they do
not specifically mention reducing greenhouse gases or the use of fossil
fuels—the major contributors to climate change. Nor do they advocate
engaging end users in the process. Such broad definitions allow architects
to continue to work as they always have, since most architects would argue
that this “sustainable design process” (COTENotes 2006, 12) describes
their own way of working and designing regardless of global climate
change or constricted resources. Consequently, they are often satisfied with
achieving the appearance of sustainability (i.e., a LEED rating or meeting
some of the goals) rather than trying to achieve net-zero carbon in their
projects. COTE led the AIA to adopt the 2030 Challenge, created by the
architect Edward Mazria in 2002, which calls for buildings to be fossil-fuel
free and carbon neutral by the year 2030 (Mazria 2003).
A similar problem exists in schools of architecture. The five collateral
organizations that oversee the profession and education of architects (the
American Institute of Architects (AIA); American Institute of Architect
Students (AIAS); Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture
(ACSA); National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB) and the
National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB)) agree
that sustainability is a “core issue of architectural education”(Wright 2003,
102). Studies have shown, however, that students and many professionals
have a very narrow grasp of sustainability and sustainable development
(Kagawa 2007; Moe 2007). Architectural educators might promote
sustainability, but few courses are offered to support this interest (Boake
1995; Boyer and Mitgang 1996; Fleming 2002; Allen 2012). In a 2005
study of ecological design programs in the United States and Canada,
Sandra Leibowitz Earley shows that few schools of architecture have an
emphasis in sustainability according to the following criteria: more than
one person teaches in the area and more than two courses are taught in that
subject area (Earley 2005).
In a 2012 search of ACSA-Arch On-line Guide to Architecture Schools,
I found that out of 137 schools of architecture, a total of 107 schools listed
a specialization in Sustainability (89 schools) and/or
Environment/Sustainability (95 schools).ii Out of the 107 schools, I
randomly selected twenty-one (20%) and investigated online the extent to
which sustainability is emphasized in the curriculum and among the
teaching staff, using the same criteria Earley used in her study. iii In 48%
(ten) of the schools, the courses and research of the faculty supported the
claim that sustainability was a specialization; in 52% (eleven schools),
there was not enough evidence to support even a mild claim to a
8 CHAPTER SEVEN

specialization on sustainability. Many school representatives would argue

that sustainability is actively taught in the design studio and that this is not
evident in the course descriptions. Nonetheless, this is a pretty poor
showing since with little evidence of research in this area or the production
of energy efficient buildings among the design instructors, it is difficult to
understand how they would have sufficient expertise to adequately teach
sustainability. A 300-year history of architectural education, shows that
environmental issues were marginal in schools of architecture until very
recently (Leslie 2012). Professors and students still rarely evaluate designs
based on energy efficiency criteria (McLennan 2004; Brukman 2012;
Salama and Wilkinson 2007). Even professionals who are very committed
to both community interests and sustainability are not always successful in
realizing buildings that would mitigate atmospheric carbon. The 2014
(draft) version of the NAAB Conditions for Accreditation eliminated any
mention of zero-carbon strategies that existed in the NAAB’s 2009 version
(NAAB 2009, 24). The NAAB 2014, however, makes Stewardship of the
Environment one of its five perspectives and it argues for “the ethos of
sustainable practices” (NAAB 2014, 11). In the 2009 version, that
perspective was entitled “Architectural Education and the Public Good”
and states that students should “acquire the knowledge needed to address
pressing environmental, social, and economic challenges through design,
conservation, and responsible professional practice” (NAAB 2009, 11).
Researchers have suggested a number of strategies to help architects and
future architects design more sustainably. The architect Kiel Moe argues
that our definitions of sustainability limit us and that students should be
taught “technics…through the history and philosophy of technology”
(2007 p. 28). Some studies urge greater reliance on technology (Becerik-
Gerber, Gerber and Ku 2011). Others have shown that technological
solutions are favored over basic design strategies even though they are less
effective at achieving the goal of zero carbon (Fleming 2002). Architects
continue to design buildings and garner awards, but little work is done to
understand how the completed buildings actually perform environmentally
and socially.
The United Nation’s 1987 Brundtland Report (that defined
sustainability) only refers to “aesthetic reasons” in the context of a
justification for “species conservation” (Report 1987).iv Energy efficient
buildings until very recently had a reputation of being uni-dimensional and
not aesthetically appealing or “modern.” In response to this negative view
of energy-efficient buildings, COTE and the Living Building Challenge,
two other sustainability-rating organizations in addition to LEED, have
included “beauty” as a desirable characteristic—buildings should after all
uplift the spirit of residents and users (Living Building Challenge 2014).
 MAKING SENSE OF SUSTAINABILITY 9

LEED grants design innovation points for features that are exceptionally
sustainable or innovative. COTE also gives annual awards to outstanding
examples of sustainable buildings and has produced hundreds of case
studies. For many architects, the aesthetics of buildings is a necessary
component of sustainability. But they need to be more than simply
aesthetically pleasing, since, as Jacques Herzog notes, only “beautifully
made buildings” can be truly sustainable (Guy 2012, 560, emphasis mine).
In examining a substantial number of design approaches to
sustainability, Guy and Farmer identified six sustainable logics of
architecture that they characterize as competing with each other: eco-
technic, integrating global environmental concerns with “conventional
building design strategies” (Figure 7-1); eco-centric, buildings attuned to
their context with a minimal ecological footprint (Figure 7-2): eco-
aesthetic, a redefinition of aesthetics that is “nature focused,” transforms
our consciousness of nature, and is expressed as “non-linear organic;” eco-
cultural, dwelling adeptly in a given physical and cultural bioregion
(Figure 7-3 and 7-4); eco-medical, a “natural and tactile environment" that
promotes well-being for individuals; and eco-social, focused on
individuals within participatory communities (Guy and Farmer 2001, 142-
44).

Fig. 7-1. Heifer International, Little Rock, Arkansas, is LEED Platinum

certified. Guy and Farmer would designate it as eco-technic because it uses
conventional building methods to address global climate change. Source:
Author, 2014.
10 CHAPTER SEVEN

Fig. 7-2. Earthship Biotecture, near Taos, New Mexico, by Michael

Reynolds, would be classified eco-centric because of its response to context
and low ecological footprint. These buildings predate LEED and are not
certified, thus demonstrating that buildings that are not certified can be more
energy efficient than LEED buildings. Source: Author, 2010.

Fig. 7-3. This eco-cultural building responds to the architecture of

Southern Methodist University and uses a variety of landscape strategies
(wildflowers, green trellises, and landscaped berms to hide the parking) to
achieve LEED Platinum. The main entrance to George W. Bush’s
Presidential Library, Dallas, Texas. Robert A. M. Stern, Architects.
Source: Author, 2014.
 MAKING SENSE OF SUSTAINABILITY 11

Fig. 7-4. William J. Clinton Presidential Center in Little Rock, Arkansas,

initially received a LEED Silver rating that was upgraded to Platinum
through LEED Operation + Management v2.0 in 2007 with 69 of 85
points. Similar to the Heifer International building it could be considered
eco-technic. It also attempts to build on Clinton’s “Bridge to the 21st
Century” metaphor and its context on the Arkansas River so includes some
eco-cultural aspects. Designed by James Polshek. Source: Author, 2014.

Architects who want to design in ways that reduce the carbon footprint
of their buildings and occupants thus encounter an array of standards
created by a variety of actors—from the private sector and non-government
associations to local, state, and federal governments (Moore and Engstrom
2005). Several categories of programs differ in their approaches to
sustainability, depending on the goals of the regulating organization. Some
advocate for and support the creation of a carbon-neutral built environment
(e.g., 2030 Challenge, Zero Carbon Building (ZCB); and
Passivhaus/Passive House); others focus narrowly on energy conservation
(Energy Star); some are certificate-based programs that define
sustainability or ‘green’ much more broadly (LEED, Green Globes, and the
Living Building Challenge); and others are traditional building codes and
standards such as IECC (International Energy Conservation Code),
ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating & Air
Conditioning Engineers) 90.1 (the current minimum standard); ASHRAE
189.1 (for High Performance Buildings), and California’s Title 24 Energy
Code, to name only a few.
The advocates of each of these standards promote the idea that
following their guidelines will result in buildings that are healthy and
sustainable. But they do not necessarily mitigate the worst effects of global
climate change—especially if we consider population growth, urban
12 CHAPTER SEVEN

expansion, and development in the Third World. Most of these are

comparative standards that claim to reduce the consumption of energy by
a percentage compared to “building as usual” or by exceeding the minimum
standard by a certain percentage (Energy Star). But these claims are hard
to support unless the entire life cycle of the building and its operations
(including the embodied energy in materials used to construct and equip it)
are taken into account (McDonough and Braungart 2002, K. Fowler et al.
2010). Very few post-occupancy evaluations (POEs) compare base-line
values with modeled values and actual consumption data (K. Fowler et al.
2010).
Many of the building rating systems also rely solely on technological
aspects of resource use and do not account for the variable human-behavior
aspects of consumption. Any given building varies greatly in energy
performance depending on the behavior and context of its inhabitants
(Sonderegger 1978). Many of the promoters of these programs have
agendas other than reducing the consumption of fossil fuels and the
production of greenhouse gases. Architects also interpret these standards
differently. As I showed earlier, Heifer International in Little Rock,
Arkansas, (by Polk Stanley Rowland Curzon Porter Architects, Ltd.)
(Figure 7-1) and Earthship near Taos, New Mexico (Figure 7-2) are both
recognized as sustainable yet represent completely different approaches to
sustainability. The former is an office building with expansive glazing,
sophisticated heating and cooling systems, high-tech materials (such as
permeable concrete), and a LEED platinum rating NC 2.2 with 52 points.
The latter is partially buried, passively heated and cooled, built with
recycled materials (such as used tires), equipped with a water-recycling
center, and is not LEED rated. The housing units are also smaller than
average homes, ranging from 900-1500 square feet compared to the 2010
national average of 2169 square feet.
The concepts of sustainability and unsustainability are socially
constructed based on the values ascribed to global climate change, nature,
technology, development, and equity. The range of solutions that architects
are developing to create “green” or “sustainable” buildings is a testimony
to the multiple ways that architects understand and translate these ideas into
built form. These multiple interpretations and understandings of the
meaning of sustainability, the role of technology, and attitudes about nature
translate into significantly different solutions, most of which actually
increase the carbon footprint, since all new buildings regardless of their
performance are net carbon producers compared to not building anything
at all. This creates a wicked problem for architects that is almost insoluble
but, nonetheless, needs to be addressed.
 MAKING SENSE OF SUSTAINABILITY 13

Aiming for beauty and energy efficiency in a design-build

studio
Anyone who has researched sustainability and the myriad issues
surrounding it understands that there are no easy answers. Nonetheless, as
architects, if we believe that global climate change is an ethical and social
justice issue we should do our utmost to mitigate the impact of our work
on the environment. Educating and training architects to design buildings
that satisfy the Vitruvian triad of firmitas, utilitas, and venustas in a
sustainable way is a challenge. As Tom Spector notes in The Ethical
Architect, Vitruvius treats the triad as irreducible and does not
acknowledge the possibility of conflicts among the three ideals (2003, 36).
As any architect who has practiced knows, however, the conflicts among
them are not easily resolved.
In this final section, I use a number of award-winning projects created
by the design-build course, known as Studio 804, at the University of
Kansas to link theoretical ideas about sustainability with the reality of
trying to create sustainable buildings. Studio 804, according to its
publication, is “a student led process that creates prefabricated architecture
that thoughtfully responds to global problems of density and sustainability”
(Schemata XVII 2008, n. d.). Dan Rockhill is the powerhouse behind the
studio and the projects reflect his design vision and commitment to train
students to build innovative projects using new processes and incorporating
recycled and donated materials. Although some university-based design-
build programs, such as Yale’s (which dates from 1967) are based in the
first year of the graduate program, Studio 804 is the culmination of the
degree.v
These examples illustrate the difficulty of realizing “sustainability” by
simply paying lip service to it or following guidelines without verifying
outcomes or involving the client to establish what is needed. The
imperatives of teaching and the desire among both professors and students
to explore innovative and expressive design ideas seem to prioritize
venustas over utilitas although an appropriately focused course on
affordable and sustainable housing could be effective. Structural stability
is a given, but detailing for energy performance, maintenance,
functionality, and user satisfaction are often sacrificed to “delight.” As
studio 804 has moved from affordable housing to university buildings, the
functional, maintenance, and cost issues have become less detrimental to
the client, but making beautiful buildings seems to still be prioritized over
function rather than allowing them to be balanced and reinforce each other.
14 CHAPTER SEVEN

Tenants to homeowners

When Studio 804 celebrates its 20th anniversary in 2015, it will have
built 20 projects. Three of these are houses for Tenants to Homeowners
(TTH) in Lawrence, Kansas: 216 Alabama (2000), 1603 Random Road
(2001), and 1718 Atherton Court (2003). At the time, the Studio 804/TTH
partnership seemed a perfect match, since TTH itself embraces innovative
ideas to create affordable, accessible, and energy efficient housing and
Studio 804 has a desire to build energy efficient projects for the
community, reusing local materials, and experimenting while educating
students. Each of these projects won some kind of design, affordability,
and/or sustainability award. Indeed, 216 Alabama garnered seven awards
including First Place in the ACSA Hollow Steel Tube competition; Best
Practices in Affordable Housing from the City Design Center at the
University of Illinois, Chicago; and a Y2K Roadmap to Green Buildings
from the Mid-America Regional Council (MARC). Another building type,
the 5-4-7 Arts Center (listed as “Sustainable Prototype” in the LEED
database) memorializes the date that the town of Greensburg, Kansas, was
destroyed by an F5 tornado (May 4, 2007) (Figure 7-6). It was the first
LEED Platinum building in Kansas and the 13th project created by Studio
804 (Figure 7-7).
The ideal client for many architects is one that gives them the program,
and then allows them to resolve it without interference. The client for
Studio 804’s EcoHawk project, completed in 2013, had this attitude and is
delighted with the results.vi Creating housing for low-income residents,
however, requires attention to the fine-grained features of daily life and the
maintenance and utility costs. Alan Bowes, the Director of Tenants to
Homeowners when Studio 804 built the first house in 2000 was interested
in creating more contemporary design solutions for their affordable
housing. Generally, low-income projects cannot afford quality design
services—so the prospect was enticing. Since much of the materials and
labor would be donated, this allowed the projects to also be more
affordable. Donated materials, however, create many challenges, and do
not necessarily meet energy standards. Although TTH provided Studio 804
with a program of spatial needs and the accessible and energy-efficient
requirements, one student admitted that, “The most difficult aspect is you
don’t know your [specific] client….[you] end up designing for a concept.”
Another student added that “without specific clients…you lose a sense of
a particular [design] direction.”vii Ultimately, the students did not achieve
TTH’s goal of allowing the residents to become homeowners, since each
 MAKING SENSE OF SUSTAINABILITY 15

of the three houses had major utility cost, maintenance and livability issues
and TTH ultimately reclaimed ownership to complete the repairs. viii
At 216 Alabama, students sided the buildings with Okoume panels, a
strong lightweight wood from Gabon, Africa, usually used as marine
plywood. It is very susceptible to rot, but boat hulls are monolithic with no
exposed joints and coated in epoxy, so it works well in that application.
Students I interviews said that it was a controversial choice because the
class wanted to be sure that Okoume was sustainably harvested. The 4’-0”
x 8’-0” sheets were cut into 2’-0”x8’-0” horizontal strips for the house and
left at 4’-0” horizontal strips on the garage. Although the students sealed
the joints, used flashing, and double-and-triple-coated both sides of the
panels, they were unable to prevent moisture from entering the joints and
the richly red-gold panels soon rotted. TTH had to replace them in a few
years with Hardie board siding (Figure 7.5).
Issues of privacy were also a concern in the houses because of the
placement and arrangement of windows. In the 216 Alabama house, the
link between the house and the garage was designed as a transparent glass
entry with sliding glass doors facing east and west, which was visible from
the street—an appealing modernist solution. In the Random Road house,
the bathroom was enclosed in translucent panels which, when lit from
inside, made residents visible and understandably uncomfortable. Student
builders admitted that “we did not really design a house that people would
live in…it had a neat effect, made good pictures.” Another said, “We were
designing for ourselves…trying to do something for ourselves.”

Fig 7.5. Looking east at 216 Alabama built in 2000. The Okoume marine
plywood was replaced with Hardie board when the original material
rotted. The original sliding glass doors in the entry between the house
and garage have been replaced the conventional solid door and panel for
privacy reasons. Source: Author, 2012.
16 CHAPTER SEVEN

The 1718 Atherton Court house incorporated many passive solar

features and used recycled materials, such as “industrial steel windows,” as
much as possible. It also had many maintenance and heating and cooling
issues from the start. TTH spent $15,000 in repairs in the first 4 months of
occupancy since the recycled steel-frame windows did not provide
adequate insulation, the HVAC system was not properly sized, the 20+
glass water-filled tubes along the south wall (about 1’-0” diameter and 42”
high that were to store heat in the day and release it in the evening) “leaked”
and were removed. They were not only ineffective but consumed valuable
space in the living room.
Tenants to Homeowners provided the architectural studio with feedback
about the projects every year, but the suggestions were not systematically
implemented. At the time TTH did not grasp that innovation and creativity
comes at a cost and that Studio 804 students needed more guidance.
Although the two groups had overlapping needs and could have developed
a fruitful partnership, the requirement for affordability and low
maintenance actually conflicted with the students’ desire to use recycled
material and to create innovative beautiful homes that they themselves
would be proud to own. Consequently, this was the last TTH house that
Studio 804 built and TTH has been building Energy Star but
conventionally-designed projects since then.

5-4-7 Arts Center

Dan Rockhill approached Greensburg, Kansas, officials soon after the
F5 tornado demolished the town. He was interested in having Studio 804
contribute to the rebuilding and appreciated the emerging emphasis on
energy-efficient standards. The decision to build every public building to
LEED Platinum standards, however, did not translate very well into the
private sector. The Arts Center Director and artist, Stacy Barnes had limited
input into the design of the building and its features because of the nature
of Studio 804’s design-build process and Rockhill’s feeling that user-or-
community input unnecessarily slows down the process, which is very tight
given the academic calendar. City leaders also argued that involving the
public in design decisions would be “tedious and inordinately time-
consuming for the public” (Hoxie, Berkebile and Todd 2012, 73).
Consequently, some decisions made in Greensburg were not approved by
the general public and did not involve community consensus.
The 5-4-7 Arts Center (Figure 7-6) was designed and built in sections
in Lawrence, and transported 325 miles to Greensburg—a feat that took a
week to negotiate. Students then completed the construction on-site over
 MAKING SENSE OF SUSTAINABILITY 17

the next three months. The Arts Center, inaugurated on the first anniversary
of the May 2007 tornado, is architecturally striking with its double skin of
tempered glass that extends from just above grade to above the roofline.
The glass panels are suspended a few inches from a layer of reclaimed
yellow pine from the Sunflower Army Ammunition Plant near Lawrence.
The three (600 kWH) wind turbines express the 5-4-7 Arts Center’s
sustainability, while its glass façade and narrow elongated shape celebrate
its 21st-century design sensibilities. It received an Honorable Mention in
the Life Cycle Building Challenge and an AIA Education Honor Award.
Although Director Barnes appreciates the Arts Center’s innovative
qualities and recognizes the incredible labor of love the students poured
into the project, she told me that she would have made different trade-offs
in the $150,000 building if she had been asked. For instance, the shower
and changing room that had to be provided to earn the LEED point for the
bicycle rack consume valuable space, are never used, cost resources to
purchase and install, and cause confusion for users: people using the
combined toilet and sink area have accidently turned on the shower. Barnes
would have preferred that that LEED point had been achieved by mitigating
light pollution with the selection of more appropriate lighting. The exterior
lights are light-weight metal plates, one of which blew off in the first strong
wind. Greensburg is an ideal place for night-sky viewing and is the home
of the famous Brenham Pallasite Meteorite that was found nearby in 1949
and is housed in the Big Well Museum, the other major Greensburg
attraction that lies directly south of the Arts Center.

Fig. 7-6. Memorial in Greensburg, Kansas, with the remnants of the Big
Well Museum and the Pallasite Meteorite sign, five months after an F5
tornado devastated the town. Source: Author, 2007.
18 CHAPTER SEVEN

The pivoting front façade that creates a canopy and opens the interior
exhibition space to the exterior is never used except to impress visitors.
Barnes would have preferred better access to the lower level since art
classes are held there and supplies and exhibition materials often need to
be carried up and down the single narrow stair. There is also no stair or
ladder access to the roof, which is a “green roof” planted with sedum and
equipped with solar panels. This lack of access makes maintenance
unnecessarily difficult.

Building Square Yr. data KWH kBtu Bldg. Water use

footage (SF) collected /sf/ type gallons/
and source of yr average year
information. EUI CBECS according
EUI to owner
Greensburg 4700 NREL 2012 51680 41 49 36,000
City Hall 2008-12
4700 owner 2013 56620 45 52.16 8,000
5-4-7 Art 1672 owner 2008-11 8580 17.5 69.8 3,020
Center 1670 NREL 2008-12 13.6
Table 7-1. Current and projected LEED/NREL ratings based on projected
and actual energy consumption. Arts Center data for the Energy Use
Intensities (EUI=kBtu/sf/yr) are from the client for the period spanning
from May 28, 2008 to April 29, 2011. The actual consumption data
provided by the client differs from the energy use reported by NREL. Also,
it is unclear what Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey
(CBECS) data for typical buildings was used.

The building is not as energy efficient as expected. The solar panels,

geothermal system and three 600-watt wind turbines were supposed to
provide 44 percent of the on-site renewable energy, but the actual amount
of energy that the Arts Center has returned to the grid is only 15 percent of
the overall usage (2.6kBTU/sf/Year) according to NREL reports in the 5-
year energy consumption figures for the Greensburg projects (National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 2012, 2). However, according to
the detailed energy data from 2008-2011 that Barnes gave me, the average
electric usage during that period is 8580 kWH/year (29,276 kBTU/year),
which translates to 17.5kBTU/SF/year as compared to NREL’s calculation
of 13.6kBTU/sf/year (Table 7-1).ix It is still less than the average for the
building type (24.2 kBTU/sf/year). The numbers would probably be better
if the calculations used the entire building area of approximately 3300
square feet and if the environmental system had been commissioned and
balanced. The original design and LEED submissions do not include the
lower-storage area, about half the building area, so neither LEED nor
NREL counts this space.
 MAKING SENSE OF SUSTAINABILITY 19

Fig. 7-7. The 5-4-7 Art Center, Greensburg, Kansas, designed and built
by Studio 804 of the University of Kansas was completed in May 2008
and is LEED Platinum. View looking north. The door on the right (east
side) was often mistaken for the entrance since it is the closest to the
street. The sign of white letters is visible on the western end of the south
façade was added by the owner ion 2013. The six exterior lights and
three 600-watt wind turbines are also shown. The (horizontal) header of
the pivoting façade is on the right side of the south facade. Source:
Author, 2014.

Conclusion
Many architects have adopted the language of sustainability and will
design to LEED standards if the owner, time, and budget allow. But the
need is so much greater as the Living Building and 2030 Challenge
developers recognize. The world’s entire ecosystem is in dire need of
focused, concerted action—a veritable sea change in thinking and action
must take place on every front. Political antagonisms have made reasoned
discussion on global climate change impossible. Individuals and groups
representing every effected field must face the seriousness of this challenge
and seek genuine rather than ersatz solutions.
20 CHAPTER SEVEN

Training students of architecture to design and build in a sustainable

way needs to include meeting the needs of the people who will use those
environments. Although some of the features of sustainability may conflict
with each other, such as reusing and recycling local materials and using
energy efficient products, students also need to be trained to make the right
ethical design decisions. Beauty is a necessary component of architecture,
but simply the desire to create innovative or fanciful forms does not relieve
the architect of the responsibility of making a building that is functional
and affordable for its users and energy efficient and sustainable for the
environment.
 MAKING SENSE OF SUSTAINABILITY 21

Bibliography
Allen, Stan. 2012. “1990-2012: The Future Is Now.” In Architecture
School: Three Centuries of Educating Architects in North
America, edited by Joan Ockman and Rebecca Williamson, 202-
229. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Becerik-Gerber, Burcin, David J. Gerber, and Kihong Ku. 2011. “The Pace
of Technological Innovation in Architecture, Engineering, and
Construction Education: Integrating Recent Trends into the
Curricula.” Journal of Information Technology in Construction
(ITcon) 16: 411-432. http://www.itcon.org/2011/24.
Boake, Terri Meyer. 1996. “A Survey of Sustainability and Passive Design
Curriculum Development in Schools of Architecture” in Judith
Kinnard & Kenneth Schwartz, ed. 84th ACSA Annual Meeting and
Technology Conference Proceedings. Washington, DC:
Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture.
Boyer, Ernest L., and Lee D. Mitgang. 2007. Building Community: A New
Future for Architecture Education and Practice. Princeton, NJ:
The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1996.
Braungart, Michael, William McDonough, and Andrew Bollinger. “Cradle-
to-Cradle Design: Creating Healthy Emissions: A Strategy for
Eco-Effective Product and System Design.” Journal of Cleaner
Production (15) 13: 1337-1348. doi:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.08.003.
Brukman, Eden. “Drawing From Nature: Envisioning a World of Living
Sites, Buildings and Communities.” Paper presented at the Making
It Real, Green Energy Conference, International Living Future
Institute, Kansas City, Missouri, May 10, 2012.
Carson, Rachel. 1962. Silent Spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.
Collins, Peter. 1965. Changing Ideals in Modern Architecture 1750-1950.
Montreal: McGill University.
COTE. 2014. http://network.aia.org/CommitteeontheEnvironment/Home/.
COTENotes. 2006. “A Sustainability Strategy Takes Shape.” Newsletter of
the Committee on the Environment. (Fall): 73-78.
www.aia.org/aiaucmp/groups/aia/documents/pdf/aiab091249.pdf.
Cranz, Galen. 1993. “Environmental Power in Human Transitions:
Sustainable Development and Environmental Design Research,”
in Power by Design edited by Roberta Feldman, Graham Hardie,
and David Saille, 27-31. Chicago, IL: EDRA 24 Proceedings.
Damon, Paul E., and Steven M. Kunen. 1976. “Global Cooling?” Science
193 no. 4252 (August 6): 447-453. doi:10.1126/science.193.42
52.447.
22 CHAPTER SEVEN

Dart, Bob. 2005. “Top Federal Architect Refined U.S. Landscape; Before
His Retirement, Feiner Shifted Design of Public Buildings from
Dull to Dramatic.” Austin American-Statesman (February 27):
A17.
Destatte, Philippe. 2010. “Foresight: A Major Tool in Tackling Sustainable
Development.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change
(77)9:1575-1587. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2010.07.005.
Earley, Sandra Leibowitz. 2005. Ecological Design and Building Schools:
Green Guide to Educational Opportunities in the United States
and Canada. Oakland, CA: New Village Press.
Fleming, Rob. 2002. “Survivor Studio@Philadelphia University:
Promoting Sustainability in the design studio through
collaborative game playing.” International Journal of
Sustainability in Higher Education (3)2: 146-54.
Fowler, James H., and Nicholas A. Christakis. 2010. “Cooperative
Behavior Cascades in Human Social networks.” Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences (107)12: 5334-5338. doi:
10.1073/pnas.0913149107.
Fowler, Kim M., Emily M. Rauch, Jordan W. Henderson, and Angela R.
Kora. 2010. Re-assessing Green Building Performance: A Post
Occupancy Evaluation of 22 GSA Buildings. PNNL-19369.
Richland, WA: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
Gehl, Jan. 2010. Cities for People. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Geller, E. Scott. 1995. “Integrating Behaviorism and Humanism for
Environmental Protection.” Journal of Social Issues 51: 179-95.
Geller, E. Scott Richard Willett, and Peter B. Everett. 1982. Preserving the
Environment: New Strategies for Behavior Change. New York:
Pergamon Press.
Glinton, Sonari. “As Gas Prices Drop, Hybrid Sales Shift Into Low Gear,”
All Things Considered, National Public Radio, October 17, 2014.
http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&i
slist=false&id=356949485&m=357004650
Guy, Simon. 2012. “Introduction: Whither ‘Earthly’ Architectures:
Constructing Sustainability.” In Sage Handbook of Architectural
Theory, edited by C. Greig Crysler, Stephen Cairns and Hilde
Heynen, 555-572. London: Sage Publications.
Guy, Simon, and Graham Farmer. 2001. “Reinterpreting Sustainable
Architecture: The Place of Technology.” Journal of Architectural
Education (54)3: 140-148.
Hannigan, John. 2014. Environmental Sociology. 3rd ed. Abingdon, Oxon:
Routledge.
 MAKING SENSE OF SUSTAINABILITY 23

Hardin, Garrett. 1968. “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Science: New

Series (162)3859 (Dec. 13): 1243-1248.
Hards, Sarah. 2011. “Social Practice and the Evolution of Personal
Environmental Values.” Environmental Values 20: 23-42.
Hawken, Paul, Amory B Lovins, and L. Hunter Lovins. 1999. Natural
Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution. Boston:
Little, Brown & Co.
Hayes, Richard W. 2007. The Yale Building Project: The First 40 Years.
New Haven, Yale University Press.
Hoxie, Christina, Robert Berkebile, and Joel Ann Todd. 2012. “Stimulating
Regenerative Development through Community Dialogue.”
Building Research and Information (40)1: 65-80.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2013. “Summary for
Policymakers.” In Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science
Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited
by Thomas F. Stocker, Dahe Qin, Gian-Kasper Plattner, M.
Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and
P.M. Midgley. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
http://report.mitigation2014.org/spm/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-
for-policymakers_approved.pdf.
Janda, Kathryn B. 2011. “Buildings Don’t Use Energy: People Do.”
Architectural Science Review (54)1: 15-22.
Jevons, William Stanley. 1866. The Coal Question; An Inquiry Concerning
the Progress of the Nation, and the Probable Exhaustion of Our
Coal Mines. Second ed. rev. London: Macmillan.
Jones, Alice. 1996. “The Psychology of Sustainability: What Planners Can
Learn from Attitude Research.” Journal of Planning Education
and Research (16)1 (Fall): 56-65.
Kagawa, Fumiyo. 2007. “Dissonance in Students’ Perceptions of
Sustainable Development and Sustainability: Implications for
Curriculum Change.” International Journal of Sustainability in
Higher Education (8)3: 317-338. doi:
10.1108/14676370710817174
Kempton, Willett. 1993. “Will Public Environmental Concern Lead to
Action on Global Warming?” Annual Review Energy Environment
18: 217-45.
Khazzoom, J. Daniel. 2008. “Economic Implications of Mandated
Efficiency Standards for Household Appliances.” The Energy
Journal (1)4: 21–40. doi:10.5547/issn0195-6574-ej-vol1-no4-2.
Kibert, Charles J. 2004. “Green Buildings: An Overview of Progress.”
Journal of Land Use & Environmental Law (19)2: 491-502.
24 CHAPTER SEVEN

Leslie, Thomas. 2012. “Environmental Technology, Sustainability.” In

Architecture School: Three Centuries of Educating Architects in
North America, edited by Joan Ockman and Rebecca Williamson,
306-12. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Living Building Challenge. 2014. http://living-future.org/lbc
Lovins, Armory B. and Rocky Mountain Institute. 2011. Reinventing Fire:
Bold Business Solutions for the New Energy Era. White River
Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.
Lovins, L. Hunter and Boyd Cohen. 2011. Climate Capitalism: Capitalism
in the Age of Climate Change. New York: Hill and Wang.
Maloney, Michael P., and Michael P. Ward. 1973. “Ecology: Let’s Hear
from the People: An Objective Scale for the Measurement of
Ecological Attitudes and Knowledge.” American Psychologist 7:
583-86. Doi: 10.1037/h0034936.
Malthus, Thomas Robert. 1817. An Essay on the Principle of Population;
or, A View of Its Past and Present Effects on Human Happiness
with an Inquiry into our Prospects Respecting the Future Removal
or Migration of the Evils Which it Occasions. Fifth ed. London.
Mazria, Edward. 2003. “It’s the Architecture, Stupid.” World and I.
May/June: 48-51.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/235839746?accountid=1455
6.
McDonough, William and Michael Braungart. 2002. Cradle to Cradle:
Remaking the Way We Make Things. New York: North Point
Press.
McLennan, Jason F. 2004. The Philosophy of Sustainable Design: the
Future of Architecture. Kansas City, MO: Ecotone.
Meadows, Donella H., Dennis L. Meadows, Jørgen Randers, and William
W. Behrens III. The Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club of
Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind. New York:
Universe Books, 1972.
Meadows, Donella H., Dennis L. Meadows, and Jørgen Randers. 1992.
Beyond the Limits: Confronting Global Collapse, Envisioning a
Sustainable Future. Post Mills, VT: Chelsea Green Pub. Co.
Meadows, Donella H., Jørgen Randers, and Dennis L. Meadows. 2004. The
Limits to Growth: The 30-year Update. White River Junction, VT:
Chelsea Green Pub. Co.
Moe, Kiel. 2007. “Compelling Yet Unreliable Theories of Sustainability.”
Journal of Architectural Education: 24–30. doi:10.1111/j.1531-
314X.2007.00105.x
Moore, Steven A. and Engstrom, Nathan. 2005. “The Social Construction
of ‘Green Building’ Codes: Competing Models by Industry,
 MAKING SENSE OF SUSTAINABILITY 25

Government and NGOS” in Sustainable Architectures: Cultures

and Natures in Europe and North America, edited by Simon Guy
and Steven A. Moore, 51-70. New York: Spon Press.
NAAB (National Architectural Accrediting Board). 2009. 2009 Conditions
for Accreditation. Washington, DC.
NAAB (National Architectural Accrediting Board). 2013. 2014 Conditions
for Accreditation First Draft. Washington, DC. August 29.
Newton, Peter, and Denny Meyer. 2012. “The Determinants of Urban
Resource Consumption.” Environment and Behavior (44)2: 107-
35. doi:10.1177/0013916510390494.
Osbaldiston, Richard and John Paul Schott. 2012. “Environmental
Sustainability and Behavioral Science: Meta-Analysis of
Proenvironmental Behavior Experiments.” Environment and
Behavior (44)2: 257-99. doi:10.1177/0013916511402673.
Oskamp, Stuart, Maura J. Harrington, Todd C. Edwards, Deborah L.
Sherwood, Shawn M. Okuda, and Deborah C. Swanson. 1991.
“Factors Influencing Household Recycling Behavior.”
Environment and Behavior 23: 494-519.
doi:10.1177/0013916591234005.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). 2012. Rebuilding It
Better: Greensburg, Kansas, High Performance Buildings
Meeting Energy Savings Goals. US Department of Energy:
Golden, CO.. www1.eere.energy.gov/office_eere/pdfs/53539.pdf
Salama, Ashraf M. A., and Nicholas Wilkinson. 2007. Design Studio
Pedagogy: Horizons for the Future. Gateshead, UK: Urban
International Press.
Schemata XVII Studio 804_8. 2008. Lawrence, KS.: School of Architecture
Design and Planning, University of Kansas.
Schipper, Lee, Sarita Bartlett, Dianne Hawk, and Edward Vine. 1989.
“Linking Life Styles and Energy Use: A Matter of Time?” Annual
Review of Energy 14: 273-320. doi:
10.1146/annurev.eg.14.110189.001421
Sonderegger, Robert C. 1978. “Movers and Stayers: the Resident’s
Contribution to Variation across Houses in Energy Consumption
for Space Heating.” Energy and Buildings (1)3: 313-324. doi:
10.1016/0378-7788(78)90011-7.
Spector, Tom. 2001. The Ethical Architect: The Dilemma of Contemporary
Practice. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
Stern, Paul C., and Gerald T. Gardner. 1981. “Psychological Research and
Energy Policy.” American Psychologist (36)4: 329-342.
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.36.4.329.
26 CHAPTER SEVEN

Symposium. 2012. “Perspectives on Limits to Growth: Challenges to

Building a Sustainable Planet,” Co-sponsored by the Club of
Rome and the Smithsonian Institution’s Consortium for
Understanding and Sustaining a Biodiverse Planet presented in the
Rasmuson Theater, National Museum of the American Indian at
the Smithsonian Institution on March 1.
www.si.edu/consortia/limitstogrowth2012.
Teige, Karel. 2002. The Minimum Dwelling: The Housing Crisis, Housing.
Trans. Eric Dluhosch. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
U.S. Department of Energy. 2012. 2011 Buildings Energy Data Book.
Buildings Technologies Program Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy by D&R International, Ltd. March.
http://buildingsdatabook.eren.doe.gov/docs%5CDataBooks%5C2
011_BEDB.pdf.
Wackernagel, Mathis. 1996. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human
Impact on the Earth. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society
Publishers.
Winett, Richard A. and E. Scott Geller. 1981. “Comment on Psychological
Research and Energy Policy.” American Psychologist (36)4: 425-
426. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.36.4.425
Wright, James. 2003. Introducing Sustainability into the Architecture
Curriculum in the United States. Journal of Sustainability in
Higher Education 4, no. 2 (2003): 100-105.
doi:10.1108/14676370310467131.

i For instance, the entire April 1980 issue of Progressive Architecture was
dedicated to "Energy Conscious Design,'.
ii http://apps.acsa-arch.org/guide_search/ consulted July 28, 2012.
iii I listed the schools is alphabetical order and selected school ranks that ended in

0 or 7 (so 7, 10, 17, etc.)

iv According to the Report, "The diversity of species is necessary for the normal

functioning of ecosystems and the biosphere as a whole. The genetic material in

wild species contributes billions of dollars yearly to the world economy in the
form of improved crop species, new drugs and medicines, and raw materials for
industry. But utility aside, there are also moral, ethical, cultural, aesthetic, and
purely scientific reasons for conserving wild beings." (Report 1987, 20).
v In 2013-14, Studio 804 undertook the design and construction of The Forum, a

new gathering and education space for the School of Architecture, Design, and
Planning at the University of Kansas which extended into a third semester.
vi From a meeting with Dr. Christopher Depcik on September 22, 2014.
vii
Phone interviews of 1-1.5 hours, were conducted with 4 students from each of
the three projects in August 2012.
 MAKING SENSE OF SUSTAINABILITY 27

viiiSee http://studio804.com/projects/projectsPage.html for images and plans of the

projects. This is not unusual, especially for new student-led design-build
programs, many of Yale's early design-build projects have been demolished
(Hayes 2007, 36). All of Studio 804's housing projects still exist…their third
project, Marvin Yard Canopy (1997) was dismantled to build the 2013-14 Forum.
ix I thank Stacy Barnes for giving me this data, in the form of printouts of the bills

from May 2007 through our meeting in 2011. As an independent researcher, I

have found this data very difficult to get. I also thank Greensburg's current Mayor,
Bob Dixson, who authorized the City Administrator, Ed Truelove, to give me the
consumption data for City Hall and the Public Works Building—which he did as
yearly totals for energy and water for 2012 and 2013. Unless the data for particular
buildings can be studied, it is impossible to know if modeled energy and water
consumption is achieved or not. This feed-back loop is critical to improving the
sustainability of buildings and should be part of the public record.