1. A Future Worth Pursuing

Vapaa Collective

Iines Karkulahti, Charlotte Nyholm, Meri Wiikinkoski

Resolving climate and biodiversity crises is paramount to the survival of humankind. It is clear that our society’s actions so far are insufficient. Architecture has a part to play in the impending climate disruption as it is a major source of emissions and consumes vast amounts of natural resources. On the other hand, architecture is also impactful as an art form that depicts and shapes our societal values. The disruption has already begun.

From Incremental Changes to a Large-Scale Disruption

According to scientific estimates, limiting the global temperature rise to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels should prevent the most disastrous consequences of climate change (1). This is also what the international community committed itself to in 2015 (2). The reality of climate change was, however, acknowledged much earlier (3). 

Over the years, information and awareness have spread, but the phenomenon itself has also evolved. In the early 2000s, the emission cuts required to cap global warming at 1.5°C would have meant cutting emissions in half over thirty years and reaching net neutrality by the year 2100. A transition like this could have been feasible through policy and incremental annual improvements. Although the climate crisis has accelerated since then, the idea of achieving results through gradual steps has stayed with us. Discussing some of the most devastating consequences of global warming – human suffering, uninhabitable land, and breakdown of social order – is still often considered alarmist because in the early 2000s it was fairly unlikely that these scenarios would become reality. Those that express concern about the situation have frequently been told that moderate action without any rash decisions is the best approach. We have, however, repeated this mantra for so long that to achieve the 1.5°C goal we now need to slash emissions in half by 2030. Instead of the 1% annual reductions which would have sufficed in the early 2000s, we now need to reduce emissions by over 6% annually over the next eight years. Meanwhile, emissions have been rising, which has cut the timeframe for net neutrality from 2100 to 2050 (4).

Our procrastination has launched us from a period of moderate incremental changes directly into a moment when the biggest upheavals of humankind are likely to happen within the next decade. At the same time, every passing month makes it less likely that we are able to stop warming at 1.5°C. Unprecedented changes are no longer fanatical sci-fi, but an expected and likely future that all of society should be preparing for.

The Dual Role of Architecture

As different sectors of society are not equally complicit in the production of emissions, the changes necessitated by climate action also vary by sector. The built environment accounts for a significant part of the problem: it produces around 35% of global greenhouse gas emissions and 30% of all waste while using 50% of virgin raw materials (5). These figures alone are enough to justify the need for an overhaul of the industry. In addition, the report published in February 2022 by The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC also highlights the importance of nature conservation, protection, and restoration. It states that 30-50% of terrestrial, freshwater, coastal, and ocean ecosystems need to be protected or restored for the planetary system to stay within safe boundaries (6). This further highlights the need for a complete reevaluation not only of construction but of all land use planning. In light of all this, it is unthinkable that business-as-usual could continue in architecture.

In recent years, actors at all levels, from small-scale enterprises to international organizations have drafted strategies for reducing emissions and exploitation of natural resources. Ultimately, their impact comes down to is how well these different actors can implement their strategies in their everyday activities. Successful implementation requires not only carefully crafted strategies but a large-scale cultural shift on a societal level. Culture, however, is not remade on command. A comprehensive yet palatable societal shift cannot be achieved solely through the well-intended but ultimately insular interventions such as the development of greener technology, improved resource efficiency, and environmental regulations. This is where arts and architecture come in. The arts and architecture have historically played an important and necessary part in questioning established practices and holding up a mirror to society’s values. Artists and designers can act as catalysts for change also in this era of the climate crisis, but it requires an understanding of and willingness to challenge the current state of affairs.

From an Obsession With Newness to Redefining the “Best”

It is not just the climate that is changing. With it, a great societal transformation has been set in motion that will affect the way we work, live, travel, manufacture goods, and so on. When talking about this impending shift, architects frequently turn to modernism as an example, as did Vapaa Collective in the initial 2019 manifesto (7). The textile artist and printmaker Anni Albers, one of the leading figures of the Bauhaus movement, described the confusion designers felt when faced with an uncertain future in 1938:

“Life today is very bewildering. We have no picture of it which is all-inclusive, such as former times may have had. We have to make a choice between concepts of great diversity. And as a common ground is wanting, we are baffled by them.”(8)

The disruption brought on by industrialization and modernism is comparable in scale to what society is up against now. Thus, modernism can serve as an inspiration and reassure us that change is possible also today. Modernism flourished in the upheaval of industrialization and the World Wars. Although as a movement modernism is controversial and partly to blame for many problems in current society, the mindset of modernists is something we can learn from. At the time, the way to address an uncertain future was not unanimous or straightforward, but modernists threw themselves at the challenge. They identified a new human being, liberated from the toils of labor, and then went on to envision the world they would like to live in. The result, as we know, was world-class architecture, design, and art. Modernist visionaries understood that absolutely everything had to change.

Modernist ideals still mark our thinking, which is indicative of how successful – or impactful –  the modernist transformation was. Up until industrialization, natural resources, i.e. energy and materials, were scarce and thus valuable. Austerity defined the limits for good architecture and in cold regions, thick-walled buildings wrapped themselves around a heat source. On the verge of modernism, the fossil-fuelled harnessing of natural resources for human exploitation enabled us to forget these natural limitations (9). Modernists believed that technological development would solve all of humanity’s problems. Thus it was justified to rid oneself of all things old and worn to make space for the brave new world. An aesthetic of newness was born and with it a society to which a quest for newness is intrinsic. Simultaneously, form broke away from the long-held tradition of what was considered high-quality architecture. Thick walls gave way to large steel-framed windows as architects strived to blur the line between interior and exterior spaces. This newfound expression proudly manifested that architecture had escaped the confines of resource scarcity.

In today’s era of climate and biodiversity crises, we have awoken to the fact that innovations that conserve natural resources somewhere often accelerate their loss elsewhere. Such is the case for example with the environmentally destructive mining frenzy, which is in part driven by a need for batteries for fossil-fuel-replacing solar power units. Technology seems to have limited potential for resolving the crisis within the given timeframe. However, the aesthetic of newness, which is based on a technocentric worldview, still governs our thinking and cripples our actions. As architects, we are attempting to resolve a crisis caused by overexploitation of resources with an aesthetic and form that was created to manifest a supposed liberation from resource scarcity. How could we possibly succeed?

We must redefine what we consider the best architecture.

This redefinition requires designers to critically assess deeply rooted assumptions. None of us are free from societal structures and ideals. Most practicing architects have graduated from university having studied only the construction of new buildings. This says something about how architecture has been seen even within the profession itself: the purpose of architecture is the production of new things. The architect does not exist without an architectural artwork, and in our society, creativity and creative work have become synonymous with the production of newness. But what status can be ascribed to a building that destroys the livable planet under our feet? Can the aesthetic of newness still speak to us and create “sacred” spatial experiences, as the best kind of architecture is said to do? Is beauty beautiful, if it exemplifies our blindness to the environmental disaster that threatens our existence?

How architects can respond to the climate crisis is the most pressing question of our profession and how we answer it will shape architectural history. All of society is changing. Resolving the issue is not in the hands of only one profession, but that does not justify inaction. As the operating environment changes, power in the construction industry is redistributed and new parameters are set for what the work of designers will be in the future. It is not enough that the architecture of the future corresponds to what we today perceive to be beautiful because the criteria for “best” have changed. Beauty and hope lie in a new place, a new expression, and a new role for the profession.

Architects of Disruption

If there were a single solution for halting the environmental destruction caused by the built environment, it would hopefully already be widely implemented and the whole problem would be resolved. Unfortunately, this is not the case, as even seemingly sustainable construction is not unproblematic at this time when global warming and biodiversity loss demand a complete overhaul of our practices. Wood construction is an often-cited example of green construction, but it also requires emission-intensive foundations and cutting down trees, which could serve as carbon sinks if left to grow. We cannot stop building altogether either. Understanding the complex issue of building sustainably and addressing it requires us to consider many points of view.

For this essay collection, Vapaa Collective has invited collaborators from within the architectural profession and beyond. Each writer approaches the subject through their expertise. These essays take the environmental debate within the architecture and construction industries a step further and contribute to forging new forums for raising insights and viewpoints that are still missing from this publication.

The collection is divided into three parts, each of which zeroes in on a different aspect of the relationship between the climate and biodiversity crises and architecture. The first part examines the political nature of architecture and the inherent power dynamics within. Designers wield power also when they are seemingly just producing a solution for their clients. Architecture that does not critically examine the prevailing structures is not apolitical, but instead literally takes part in cementing the status quo. In the era of climate crisis architects must relinquish their role as seemingly neutral service providers and once again embrace their transformative power. What kind of architecture can today spark joy, provoke, or shock us? In his essay, doctoral student of political science Aleksi Lohtaja explores this political dimension of architecture. To achieve an understanding of what climate-sensitive construction should be like architects need to engage in difficult conversations. We need to understand what has led to the current compromise, which urban development and architecture inevitably always are. Architects must clearly express what we for our part have prioritized and what values we want to promote in the future. Only then can we find the right channels for making a difference. Geographer Efe Ogbeide expounds on power dynamics at play in architecture and planning using market-led urban development as an illustrative example.

The second part looks more broadly at the exploitation of natural resources instead of just emissions, thus illuminating the complexity of the problems of contemporary construction: emissions, but also waste, and pollution as well as extinction and loss of biological diversity and species. We architects have a duty to change our approach to design to minimize the negative impact we have on the state of the planet. In this section, four writers shine a light on the current state of architecture’s green transition. Which perspectives are particularly meaningful and what tools do we need? Professor of Architecture Kimmo Lylykangas ponders the ramifications of judging entries to architectural competitions not only on architectural quality but also quantifiably on emissions. Researcher and nature conservation NGO-founder Jere Nieminen reveals the kind of active relationship that can be fostered between urban nature and citizens when the concept of design is expanded to consider also non-human species. Architect and doctoral student Ninni Westerholm illustrates the steps required for circular economy practices to become mainstream in architecture. Architect Mira Kyllönen considers what repair of buildings actually is and what it should be at this critical time.

The third part discusses the meaningfulness of design work and what is means to be an architect during the climate crisis. According to one definition, the primary purpose of architecture is to protect humans from nature (10). Increasingly extreme weather conditions make us more vulnerable to nature. But the more fervently we try to build ourselves out of this predicament the more we accelerate the phenomenon. Perhaps, then, the answer is not furious barricading against nature, but rather turning the premise around. Architecture that protects nature from humans may be the only way to save ourselves in the end. Instead of spending massive amounts of energy, money, and effort on cleaning up after ourselves, we need to learn to inflict less damage. In his essay, MA and doctoral student Antti Majava of the research group BIOS analyzes the relevance of technocentricity for resolving environmental problems and envisions a new role for architects as the generalists of ecological reconstruction art. Assistant Professor of History of Architecture and Architectural Conservation Panu Savolainen reflects on the myth of the architect as a creative genius individual and the heroic deeds our time now calls for. Finally, architect and doctoral student Maiju Suomi discusses the need for beauty in architecture and the potential of architecture to reconnect nature and humans.

Editing this essay has made us at Vapaa Collective even more acutely aware of how complex and continuously undermined the problems of global warming and biodiversity loss still are within the field of architecture. At this time when crises seem to roll in one after another, it is tempting to succumb to depression over the state of the world. Amid these immediate threats, the climate crisis is easily overlooked. Yet it is precisely the climate crisis that is at the root of much of the turmoil facing the world today. Giving in to paralysis or indifference isn’t conducive to change-making. To cull increasingly severe turmoil we must also in this state of uncertainty be able to actively seek new solutions and find a way to reach beyond this black wave. These essays do just that. The writers do not deny the severity of the current situation, but instead of despair, they seize the imminent disruption as an opportunity to envision alternative futures worth pursuing. There are alternatives to our current way of doing things, which are far more inspiring than business-as-usual.

references

1 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC:n, 1.5-degree report: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ (Accessed March 19th, 2022)

2 Finnish Ministry of Environment, Pariisin ilmastosopimus [Paris climate agreement] https://ym.fi/pariisin-ilmastosopimus (Accessed March 19th, 2022)

3 United Nations, Conferences - Environment and sustainable development, United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 1992: https://www.un.org/en/conferences/environment/rio1992 (Accessed March 19th, 2022)

4 For exact figures, please see Our World in Data, CO₂ reductions needed to keep global temperature rise below 1.5°C: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co2-mitigation-15c 

5 Finnish Ministry of Environment, Rakentamisen kiertotalous [Circular economy of the built environment] https://ym.fi/rakentamisen-kiertotalous (Accessed March 19th, 2022)

6 Frilander, J. 2022 Jättiraportti: Peruuttamaton muutos maapallon järjestelmissä on jo käynnissä – "vaarallista ja laaja-alaista sekasortoa luonnossa", IPCC sanoo. [Enormous report: Irreversible change of the planet’s systems is already ongoing – "dangerous and widespread chaos in nature”, IPCC says] Finnish national Broadcasting Company news site:  https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-12336074 (Accessed February 28th, 2022)

7 Vapaa Collective. 2019. Architects and Climate. Vapaa Collective. Helsinki: https://www.vapaacollective.fi/ (Accessed March 28th, 2022)

8 Albers, Anni. 1938. Work With Material. The Joseph & Anni Albers Foundation https://albersfoundation.org/artists/selected-writings/anni-albers/ (Accessed March 20th, 2022)

9 Calder, B. 2021. Architecture From Prehistory to Climate Emergency. Penguin Random House UK. Great Britain.

10 Laugier, M. A. 1755. An Essay on Architecture. T. Osbourne and Shipton. London.