This empire of demolition shows how little care there is when designing and building hotels, shopping centres, and infrastructure in general. And the world is filling with them if it is not already filled by them. Thus, having a lousy and poor performance in terms of consumption of said concepts. On the contrary, a building whose energy and materials were placed in a structure which would be demolished only 50 years or much less is a waste of energy, raw material, and resources. A piece of architecture that is able to extend the life of the potential energy embedded in its materials, constructions, and use, for the largest period of time is certain to have the best consumption of such energy and resources.
Thus, the best and most sustainable architecture is and will be the one that is able to exist for thousands of years without any maintenance.Ī building’s longevity determines its sustainability.
And whilst that may be true, that meticulous and imperative care will waste large sums of resources, both natural and financial, making the destruction of such infrastructure a more viable alternative, however unsustainable it may be. Would all those new buildings rising in Shanghai, the seas and oceans of highrises in São Paulo, or the mix-used hyper-tech skyscrapers in London even be there by the time they hit an age of half a century? Even more so, could we even fathom any of the architecture erected throughout the 20th and 21st Centuries to still be standing by the time we get to the 22nd? I sure most will be inclined to address such claims with disregards for with proper care, every building can last for long.
0 kommentar(er)
