Green Smokers
How would you react if you’re seated in a fancy hotel with a proudly proclaimed LEED rating and the man of the moment says that all this ‘hoohaa’ about ‘green’ is just hogwash? Predictably, the audience burst out in peals of laughter after a momentary pause. Was the pause an introspective moment or not, is not for me to comment on. All I can say is that it was a reaffirmation of what I always thought of LEED. That aside, I was there to hear what Christopher Charles Benninger had to say on the topic of the moment, ‘Sustainable Living’.
It turned out to be a session full of humour and characteristic sharp wit coming from one of the most respected architects in the world. Accustomed to hearing long speeches at such events, it was a refreshing change to listen to someone who not only practices what he preaches but preaches in a manner which makes the listener at once attentive and receptive. The presentation started with CCB putting across a simple fact – one cannot go green unless one first understands what it means. How can you call a building ‘green’ if you are importing materials from all over the globe? What about the carbon footprint of transportation and the embedded energy that goes into the material? Like he said, choosing to ignore that fundamental fact and focussing on checking items on the LEED list makes life simpler for everyone involved – the Client, the Architect, the Green Auditor and of course, the Vendor!
CCB used a simple yet effective example to bring about this point through the ‘Case of the Green Smoker’. First we smoked bidis. Then someone said that’s harmful for health so we introduced a filter and started smoking cigarettes. That was not good enough so we moved to low tar cigarettes. In all this, we never looked at the fact that smoking itself is the core issue. If there was no cigarette, there would be no need to think about going ‘green’ with it. The core issue is not that we need to design green, it is – why design something that needs ‘greening’ in the first place? It is similar to the story of the stone in the middle of the road. Most people tripped on it, got up, cursed and walked on. Nobody thought of moving the stone which was the root cause of all the misery. Similarly, all we need to do is to look within and ask ourselves why we build monstrosities first and then think of how we can reduce its impact on the environment. That, I believe, is the lacunae with our green building certifications.
If we use materials and passive design features which are sensitive to the context in which the building is going to stand, we wouldn’t need to worry about whether it complies with a regulation or not. Acknowledging the fact that we live and work in a system which might not really agree to this, CCB’s projects, the Suzlon Headquarters and his Home + Office, both in Pune, are remarkable in the way they achieve his vision of a green, sensitive architecture while retaining the needs and ambitions of his client. He uses all the conventional materials yet incorporates details and locally available resources, where possible. The end product is a building which is green in its soul and not just in the clothes it wears.
To reiterate the essence of the evening’s discourse – ‘green’ is a delusion in which we like to keep ourselves so that we do not have to answer to our inner self. If you want to truly go ‘green’, look not at the chart someone has made for you rather look back to your own heritage and reinterpret it in a manner which is honest yet contemporary.
It turned out to be a session full of humour and characteristic sharp wit coming from one of the most respected architects in the world. Accustomed to hearing long speeches at such events, it was a refreshing change to listen to someone who not only practices what he preaches but preaches in a manner which makes the listener at once attentive and receptive. The presentation started with CCB putting across a simple fact – one cannot go green unless one first understands what it means. How can you call a building ‘green’ if you are importing materials from all over the globe? What about the carbon footprint of transportation and the embedded energy that goes into the material? Like he said, choosing to ignore that fundamental fact and focussing on checking items on the LEED list makes life simpler for everyone involved – the Client, the Architect, the Green Auditor and of course, the Vendor!
CCB used a simple yet effective example to bring about this point through the ‘Case of the Green Smoker’. First we smoked bidis. Then someone said that’s harmful for health so we introduced a filter and started smoking cigarettes. That was not good enough so we moved to low tar cigarettes. In all this, we never looked at the fact that smoking itself is the core issue. If there was no cigarette, there would be no need to think about going ‘green’ with it. The core issue is not that we need to design green, it is – why design something that needs ‘greening’ in the first place? It is similar to the story of the stone in the middle of the road. Most people tripped on it, got up, cursed and walked on. Nobody thought of moving the stone which was the root cause of all the misery. Similarly, all we need to do is to look within and ask ourselves why we build monstrosities first and then think of how we can reduce its impact on the environment. That, I believe, is the lacunae with our green building certifications.
If we use materials and passive design features which are sensitive to the context in which the building is going to stand, we wouldn’t need to worry about whether it complies with a regulation or not. Acknowledging the fact that we live and work in a system which might not really agree to this, CCB’s projects, the Suzlon Headquarters and his Home + Office, both in Pune, are remarkable in the way they achieve his vision of a green, sensitive architecture while retaining the needs and ambitions of his client. He uses all the conventional materials yet incorporates details and locally available resources, where possible. The end product is a building which is green in its soul and not just in the clothes it wears.
To reiterate the essence of the evening’s discourse – ‘green’ is a delusion in which we like to keep ourselves so that we do not have to answer to our inner self. If you want to truly go ‘green’, look not at the chart someone has made for you rather look back to your own heritage and reinterpret it in a manner which is honest yet contemporary.
Comments