Cucuzzella, C., 2019. The normative turn in environmental architecture. Journal of Cleaner Production, 219(SI: Facilitating, envisioning and implementing sustainable development with creative approaches), pp.552-565.
Pages used 561-564 Part 5: Discussion of Analysis & Part 6: Conclusion
This paper was written by Carmela Cucuzzella from Concordia University Canada, a researcher who has contributed several papers on the environment and architecture. It was published in May 2019 to the Journal of Cleaner Production. It was chosen as it addresses the interesting and prominent topic of environmental architecture, highlighting a key issue that has led to the decline of originality.
In the pages selected Cucuzzella analyses the 4 competitions discussed in the paper. These competitions come from 4 different decades, with one in 1976, 1986, 1991 and 2009. The paper looks at both the brief and the submissions for each analysing how the lexicon used in the brief would influence the submissions received. In the first three competitions, prior to the turn of the millennium, the briefs although having a clear directive were open and encouraged experimentation and innovation. This was reciprocated in the submissions with largely experimental approaches to the brief. Many of the ideas you may see as standard practice now but at the time were considered innovative. The final competition in 2009 had a brief which attached to it had certifications and guidelines that had to be followed to meet certain requirements. This led to a very normative approach in which the guidelines were systematically ticked off. The essence of this was reflected in the submission, none of them being innovative or experimental, they all just ticked the boxes. The paper suggests that by giving a brief that is constrained by the red tape of guidelines and certifications, you are only going to constrain the imagination in the design you receive. It poses the problem that as we develop greater technical knowledge and understanding of sustainability, we impose more restrictions on how we design. Leading us to believe that this is the sole route we can take and one which will minimise risk. However as shown in the past when designers are given the opportunity and freedom to design, an alternative route could present itself. The overarching argument in this paper is that briefs are becoming progressively more normative and this is leading to progressively normative responses.
The argument made here has been based on the evidence of 4 case studies providing both qualitative and quantitative support. The writer provides wider context for the competitions to give an understanding of the importance of environmental design at the time. Much as Cucuzzella’s references of the wider contexts at the time suggests its role as a catalyst, you may suggest that the wider context at the time of the paper has also acted as a catalyst in the writing of this paper. Although published in 2019 it was written in 2018; a year in which environmentalism went from a radical niche to mainstream culture after year upon year of growth. We saw the rise of Greta Thunberg and her environmental activism, many natural disasters and David Attenborough’s Blue Planet II which was broadcast both in the UK and in Canada along with several other countries. With all of this overwhelming environmental context it may have led to the paper being written with the hint of a prior goal in an attempt to kickstart some change.
In the first part of the selected text Cucuzzella says that we will attempt to place design briefs and the winning submission on a spectrum of experimental to normative design. For the design briefs this was quantified using a wordcount of certain terms such as energy, sustainability, green, etc. On the other hand, when analysing the winning submission, this was based on opinion which brought an element of subjectivity to the analysis. Despite this the writer does acknowledges that this is not quantifiable showing an awareness of its subjective nature and increasing the quality of the paper. Although this paper has a limited number of case studies and has elements of subjectivity it does produce a strong argument. One which could certainly be taken further to gather more data from other case studies and from further afield spanning around the world rather than just in Canada. This point of limited scope is acknowledged in the paper, as it is likely trying to instigate further research from other parties to gain reputability.
The argument likely poses more questions than it answers due to its pivotal nature. The paper does present itself to be fairly objective at face value addressing problems from both sides and questioning the findings. However, the assumption being made is that the reader shares the view that experimentation is required in environmental architecture. What is to say that others believe the guidance from the accrediting bodies is there for a reason and it should be stuck to. It is clear that the paper has a direction, inferring that the certification requirements, like that of LEED, are stifling creative minds and potentially not enabling better solutions to be found. Whether this is correct or not this shows a factor of bias.
Although the content may be slightly leading, the base upon which the argument is built is in line with many other sources around environmental change. In that, what we are doing isn’t enough and we need to do more to make an impact. When placing this paper in the wider context of environmental architecture it likely gives it more validity. As an individual paper it covers such a small area of environmental design, but if it is used to support and be supported by other papers, they can provide more information to confirm the argument in this paper. Although presenting a credible and quality argument the study undertaken was of a very small sample. For the argument to be credible the work will have to be replicated by others over a larger and more diverse sample to confirm its reliability. Despite the topic itself “normative briefs in design competitions” being quite niche, the underlying argument is one that is a lot more important and a lot more applicable to wider design. Are the very guidelines that are meant to be solving the environment crisis actually hindering it by limiting our creative capacity for innovation?
Harry Castle 