Monday, July 30, 2012

Sustainability is like Teenage Sex...


A recent tweet I saw made me laugh: "Sustainability is like teenage sex. Everyone says they're doing it. Most aren't. And those that are, are doing it badly." But then I stopped laughing and did a bit of introspection on the darker side of my industry.

Sure, most businesses who are reporting on sustainability metrics try to make themselves look better than they are. Disclosure is rewarded more than performance and many companies include 'sustainability' as a core value, with little executive buy-in or understanding of what it means.

However in many cases, corporate sustainability is far more insidious than securing bragging rights; it is often a front for the corporations whose very existence is founded on extracting value from human and natural systems to give their existence a green sheen. The green sheen of pond scum on a dead river perhaps?

The other morning I read the proud claims that the first McDonalds restaurant had been certified with a bespoke Green Star rating in Australia. That's right folks, McDonalds. And they led with the tag line "Would you like sustainability with that?"

So, by sponsoring a bespoke green building tool, installing some efficient building services, a company can effectively erase in the minds of its customers, the fact that it nearly single-handedly shifted an entire agricultural industry towards intensive, beef-led agri-business (ok, there were other big players, but please forgive me for being dramatic).

The fast food behemoth appears to imagine that targeting the 'Topsoil Preservation' credit on a restaurant could undo countless millions of tons of topsoil destroyed by extractive agriculture. It's as though they believe that by increasing the fresh air rates in their restaurant they would counter the atmospheric impact of cleared forests for beef production – the very lungs of our planet.

The ecological and health impacts of the corporation are so huge – the fast-food-fueled obesity epidemic afflicting western cultures among others – yet our attention is focused on the small steps in restaurant design that green buildings offer them.

It's a bit like mining houses claiming 'sustainability' credentials for their green buildings (e.g. The 6 star Rio Tinto Tower in Brisbane)... Does including recycled steel in your building say anything about the strip-mined forests of conflict-ridden West Papua?

Or banks - will the superior economic performance of green buildings fill the hole left in the actual savings of real people when the bubble finally bursts for good, and the house of cards comes crashing down?

For many corporates, it is not just a case of green-washing - making themselves appear greener than they are - but rather Orwellian doublespeak. Peace is war, truth is lies, 'green' fast food is healthy (in the words of my wife) and extractive mining is the panacea to the development of our communities.

And it is not that green buildings are bad, quite the opposite. The built environment is a huge contributor to humanity's resource consumption - and addressing their impact through design is critical.

I'm glad McDonalds built a green restaurant and that they pioneered the use of bespoke Green Star tools, I'm glad that Rio Tinto have helped increase demand for green buildings. But I cannot stomach the self-congratulatory attitude as though these decisions of theirs outweigh their deeper, darker impacts.

Tuesday, July 10, 2012

Brief Thoughts on Cape Town Stadium


The City of Cape Town has a problem - a nearly new, barely used, international quality stadium slap bang in the centre of a precinct screaming to be developed into an urban node. The business case for the stadium hinged on attracting the local rugby union team Western Province (or The Stormers when playing in the Super Rugby tournament) as anchor tenants as the stadium is too big and inconveniently located for the two professional soccer teams based in the city. The costs of maintaining the stadium require 16 full house events (55,000 bums on seats) annually (noted by Guy Lundy, Twitter), which can only realistically be achieved if it hosts regular rugby games.

However, the Western Province Rugby Football Union (WPRFU) own their current stadium, Newlands, and are loathe to forego the benefits of being owners of an old stadium for the benefits of being tenants at a new one. And understandably so - the WPRFU are in a strong negotiating position to get a good deal from the City, so a move that makes financial sense to the City is looking less and less likely.

Compounding this issue for City is a vocal, NIMBY, residents association covering the new stadium precinct, which viciously opposes any alternative uses of the stadium precinct for restaurants, clubs and other night-life venues.

This seemingly intractable situation has led to a few alarming, or at least surprising suggestions... The most extreme is to 'simply' demolish the new stadium - although I don't know if the proponents of that path have given any thoughts how to use the land better... In my humble opinion, demolishing R4.5 billion of nearly new infrastructure, no matter how misplaced the spending may have been is an indication of a severe lack of imagination.

Not lacking in imagination, but perhaps in practicality is the plan to turn the stadium into low-cost housing. I'm not sure how this would work architecturally, but the first thing to spring to mind is that low-cost housing should probably be low-cost (which the stadium certainly isn't). The other is that the modifications necessary to change a stadium into apartments are likely to cost more than demolishing and then building genuine low-cost housing in its place... So we're back to the point above.

Further to that, new urban models show the need for mixed income housing along with other space uses to create liveable urban spaces. Putting high density housing where the stadium would have to be thoroughly tested on urban design grounds before taking any steps in that direction.

I'd like to throw another thought into the mix... If the key issue is land ownership of Newlands (for WPRFU) and the operating costs of the new stadium (for the City), why not just exchange assets?

The City could swap the new stadium in Greenpoint for the old one in Newlands. WPRFU would get a brand new, world class stadium instead of an old one, without having to give up the land ownership of their stadium. The City would get an albatross off from around their necks and secure a prime piece of land for place-making in Newlands.

The fact that there is already a project underway for creating a public zone adjacent to Newlands strengthens the case further...

If I have overlooked something here, please comment...