Now, somewhat belatedly, we have a New Zealand version of Architects Declare, an international set of guidelines that signatories pledge to follow to help prevent irreversible damage from the global heating climate crisis. Some have characterised the pledge as little more than virtue signalling, pointing to an overall dismal show on sustainable construction. Others ask what took so long, given the science about global heating was irrefutable since about 1988. The response can, in part, be attributed to the recent wake-up actions of the Global Climate Strike, the Extinction Rebellion and other largely youthful protests culminating in the unsettling speaking-truth-to-power words of 16-year-old Greta Thunberg at the UN Climate Action Summit.

Better late than whenever. Architects Declare is a beginning and it’s encouraging to see every living Gold Medal recipient taking a leadership stance. At the time of writing, some 88 New Zealand firms have given their pledges to do better. Hopefully, more will follow and, by the time readers see this, it would be great if the NZIA, which, unlike the RIBA, has yet to come out, has formally put its weight behind the initiative begun by architects Siân Taylor from Queenstown’s Team Green Architects and Duncan Sinclair of Black Pine Architects in Whanganui. 

Blame the journalist in me, but I can’t help feeling a bit cynical about just how this fine rhetoric will translate into something a bit more… concrete. Which is, of course, the material that is now hugely problematic. As the New Zealand Green Building Council (NZGBC) says in its report, A Zero Carbon Road Map for Aotearoa’s Buildings: “If cement were a country, it would be the world’s third-largest greenhouse gas emitter after China and the US”.

Likewise, steel, which also has very high embodied emissions and a manufacturing process that’s very energy intensive. Such knowledge has led to some seemingly outlandish claims. New York Mayor Bill de Blasio declared that skyscrapers made of glass and steel “have no place in our city or our earth any more”.

In this climate crisis, architects know which materials can help – that the weight of timber is roughly half sequestered carbon and that, even when processing is taken into account, it’s usually a negative emissions product. But it’s hard to imagine the servile profession making such a seismic shift in building materials selection. This is a profession wedded to the belief – now possibly fantasy – that high emissions are a worthy investment if the project will stand for decades, thereby making thousands of cubic metres of concrete ‘sustainable’.

The conventional values placed on materials that are solid, long-lasting and durable are just some of the concepts that may need to be re-examined, possibly abandoned, as the profession explores the radical tactic of using recyclable, less durable materials that require more frequent repair.

It goes without saying that building smaller, more efficient spaces is a desirable pathway for reducing the collective carbon footprint. But, for architects primarily serving wealthy clients wanting to realise their often obscenely large and unsustainable grand designs (accompanied by substantial architects’ fees), it’s easier said than done. Then there’s the alarming notion that the best way to reduce the carbon footprints of buildings is not to build them at all. That might sound like the profession’s death knell but it can also be reframed to mean the minimising of demolition and greater reuse of existing structures – taking it for granted that retrofit schemes would be well lit, insulated, airtight and sustainably heated.

Two cases in point: the proposed demolition of Wellington’s Central Library doesn’t make sense in the face of the council’s Te Atakura – First to Zero, its blueprint for “a zero-carbon capital city”. There’s also Auckland Council’s climate emergency declaration. The intention, says Mayor Phil Goff, “is to put climate change at the front and centre of our decision making”. Which surely means that the proposed demolition of Auckland’s Eden Park, in favour of a new sunken waterfront stadium, can’t possibly happen.

It’s a stretch, also, to imagine architects pulling back from their complicity in perpetuating economic growth, yet surely that’s a key aim of Architects Declare – to promote a more circular economy that nourishes our natural environment rather than GDP. Hence, Architecture Education Declares, pointing out that current education “does not give sufficient weight to the inherently ecological and political basis of architecture”.

It urges architecture schools to inform their students better about the environmental crisis and to make ecological breakdown part of the core syllabus. In short, sustainability would be integrated into the art of architecture and become as important as is design.

Architects Declare says that “buildings and construction play a major part, accounting for nearly 40 per cent of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions”. The number seems to be different here, with the NZGBC Zero Carbon Road Map quoting research that shows the built environment is culpable for approximately 20 per cent of our country’s carbon footprint. Half of these emissions were embodied in building materials (buildings and infrastructure) and half from operating our building stock. It proposes that:

• building owners start certifying their existing buildings to zero carbon in 2020 and have all their buildings zero carbon by 2030.
• building developers construct their new buildings to zero carbon, and 20 per cent less embodied carbon, by 2025.

The Road Map also calls for other targets, including updates to the Building Code and the importance of getting the numbers right indisclosing buildings’ energy bills. As a pathway to rapid decarbonisation of building and a way for Architects Declare pledges to become reality, proper measurement seems a pretty good place to start.

This article first appeared in Architecture New Zealand magazine.

Subscribe here