What Truly Defines Sustainable Design?
by Collin Dunn, Corvallis, OR, USA on 05.22.07
Over at the David Report ("the intersection of design, culture and business life with a creative and humanistic approach"), proprietor David Carlson is engaging designer Satyendra Pakhalé in a series of discussions about design; in part two of five, they tackle sustainability in design, which results in a pretty interesting read. Many of Pakhalé's conceptions of sustainability align closely with what we try to promote here at TreeHugger, so we'll pick out a few key quotes that are worth repeating.
On the topic of "what defines sustainable design", Pakhalé remarks that, "the best way to make sustainable design is to concentrate on quality, both concerning design and material. To produce better products. Mass consumption and sustainability doesn’t go very well together. I would love to see more 'design classics', the kind of products your children can inherit." When it comes to assigning "responsibility" in propagating sustainable design, Pakhalé says, "The trouble is that if sustainability becomes another buzzword, then we will loose the real meaning of it. I think that in every design project it should be somehow dealt with, without almost mentioning it."
These ideas get at a lot of the questions that get bounced around TreeHugger on a fairly regular basis: What defines "sustainability"? Is there a gradient or easy way to judge one material, one design, one concept vs. another? Is it better to use quickly renewable materials like bamboo, or invest in a design with fewer outwardly sustainable features that will last for generations? There's a lot of gray area here, and there are rarely absolutes that allow us to simply give a product, design or idea a quick "pass" based on where, how, or from what it's made. Perhaps the most important take-away from such a discussion is that, given the growing bounty of choices available to us all, it's more important than ever to simply think about our personal interactions with our stuff and where it comes from. It's not about sustainability for the sake of calling it "green"; it's about making meaningful connections with the things that surround us, and interacting with design and products accordingly. ::The David Report via ::Core77
So, what does sustainable design mean to you? Feel free to leave your ideas in the comments section, or, better yet, over in TreeHugger Forums.
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Sustainable Design Festival in Buenos Aires this Weekend
- So Many Greens: GreenBuild, Green Design Furniture, Douglas Green
- HGTV “Design on a Dime” host Creates Eco-friendly Coffee Table – Proceeds for Charity (50-Buck Home Makeover Not Included)
- Lessons in Biomimicry - Part 2 Natural Systems
An initial big investment in money and materials to create something that's going to last a long time and allow people to develop a relationship with those items is far more important than creating something with a short life span. The whole idea of planned obsolescence (both technically and stylistically) is detrimental to the idea of sustainability. It should be avoided, especially when we think about creating a sustainable environment.
Where are the days when you inherited your parents furniture? I'm sitting on a chair now thats older than myself. That, to me, is sustainability.
Just because something lasts a long time, doesn't mean it's sustainable. Everything is contextual and everything's a trade-off.
One of the keys to sustainable design can also be making a commitment to designing locally, that is, to use locally-manufactured materials in order to combat the massively unsustainable effects of cross-country and overseas shipping. As the cost of fuel increases, using materials produced around the world will become less of an option anyway, so why not learn to design locally now? I work for a printing house and we use all paper that is milled locally. It can be more expensive, but that's another tenet of sustainable design, isn't it?
I agree with Max. An example might be building a Wind Turbine. Sure longevity plays a key role, but it could be mitigated if the component that fails first is not simply a throw-away peice, but is designed to be easily repaired and limits the waste created from maintaining the turbine. Even if the component has a higher failure rate then a "throw-away" counterpart, it might become a better alternative due to simplicity and waste disposal costs.
The word "sustainable" is a word that is used way to frequently and could be considered eco-slang. This is because of the lack of a perfect definition. I do believe that William Mcdonough's definition is best. Escentially: Waste = Food. Products are sustainable only if when their life is over they become usefull somewhere else (composted or reused (not necessarily recycled))
Lifespan is not allways the driving factor for great design:
An Ice cream cone: life time is very short, but the package "cone" is consumed with the ice cream. Closed loop......no waste. Now I know that we can back out to the packaging that the cones come in, but let us just say from a "consumer" standpoint.
True. It begs the question at what point is sustaining something unsustainable compared to either re-using it or replacing it. In my mind, something that lasts a long time is better than something that is replaced if it's something we interact with or have the opportunity to have an emotional attachment to. We are much more inclined to look after something (in the broad sense) that we care about.
Sounds like "sustainable" has a meaning as clear as that of "postmodernism" (i.e., mud).
Sustainable has to mean long-term, a product that can be created, used, disposed of and made again with little negative impact. That would mean it can be sustained. Our ancestors managed this for 1000s of years, so if you think there's a link between the rise in CO2 and the industrial revolution, that's where the sustainability stopped.
The idea of making quality products that we have a long-term attachment to seems the logical way out, but it's a lost cause if the owners can afford to replace that product for a new, better one at the onset of boredom. The bonds with products are weaker when you can easily get another. People will organise their opinions and hierachies around what the next man can afford, so the transition from luxury to habit to need becomes ever quicker.
Most Injection mouldings seem to be products of an unsustainable system - optimized and styled to be fantastic at the job they do, and entice the consumer, but completely useless at any other function, and overengineered in materials that will maintain their form for multiples of the product's lifespan and popularity.
>> I'm sitting on a chair now thats older than myself. That, to me, is sustainability
In the new aesthetic, old and dented is more beautiful than shiny and new...
Ironic I guess, and not great for folks that make shiny new useless thiings, but there it is...
Burn your credit cards...
Live with what you've got...
You can design anything you like, but there's going to be strong resistance from industry and retail, because if you try to convince them that they should switch from creating/selling products that need replaced 5 times in 5 years, to once in 5 years, they're going to see nothing but design failure from the lost sales. Even if the 'better' product returns a 50% higher profit margin, they'll still be losing a huge chunk of the profit that business-as-usual was getting them.
This problem requires more than product-solve, we need system-solve.
You can design anything you like, but expect strong resistance from industry and retail, because if you try to convince them that they should switch from creating/selling products that need replaced 5 times in 5 years, to 1 time in 5 years, they'll see nothing but design failure from the lost sales. Even if the 'better' product returns a 50% higher profit margin, they'll still be losing a huge chunk of the profit that business-as-usual was getting them.
This problem requires more than product-solve, we need system-solve.