Visualizing Sustainability
A Study of Deeper Implications of Aesthetics
in Relation to Sustainability
Jamie Yan
February 1, 2011
Senior Research Project
Submitted in partial satisfaction of a BA in
Urban Studies and Planning
University of California, San Diego
Abstract
As the natural resources are being extensively depleted, sustainability is an issue
that needs to be addressed not only at the authoritative level, but also with the
general public as well, as it is a collaborative effort. As a result, this research
endeavors to determine effective elements to be incorporated into the design of
buildings in further hopes to further the efforts of sustainability. It aims to connect
the aesthetics of the building seen by the visible eye to the ideology of
sustainability, while encouraging developers and architects to abide by effective
guidelines in promoting this ideal through effective elements found including the
characteristics of the buildings itself along with its relationship with its
surroundings. The focus of the paper analyzes the importance of aesthetics in order
to formulate design guidelines that can be implemented in sustainable building
with hopes of contribution to the current sustainable design.
Key terms: green architecture, sustainability, effectiveness, design
Introduction:
Aesthetics as a part of our culture
The idea of green design plays an important part in contemporary architectural design
because it encompasses more than just sustainability and the main environmental issues.
1
Understanding our visual culture is important in understanding the elements that are attractive to
us, helping us realize the various functions that our culture holds in order to grasp how buildings
can serve today’s needs. By studying society’s visual culture, buildings can be designed
according to cultural appeal, thus having the power to promote sustainability.
Problems of sustainability gave birth to a more recent field involving sustainable
architecture, which focuses on environmental targets such as energy, water, and air, while
emphasizing the importance of aesthetics in affecting the human psychophysical state. While the
term “aesthetics” typically refers to the neater, creation, and appreciation of beauty, it actually
involves a broad range of mental states, such as creativity, sensation, feeling, taste, and emotion,
which have an effect on the meaning of beauty in terms of society and social relations (Gagnier
2000). The fact that the concept of aesthetics is intangible and subjective, it remains as a
qualitative property that cannot be measured in one way (Zafarmand et al. (2003), which makes
it difficult to define. On the contrary, the term “green design” describes a new wave of
architectural style and highlights the modern necessity for change, suggesting a cultural
revolution toward sustainability. This study examines the aesthetics of architectural structures
and attempt to seek deeper meanings behind the questions: can awareness be stimulated by the
use of aesthetics in sustainable design and, if so, which elements are most effective in promoting
changes in sustainability?
As certain objects are marked as sustainable or unsustainable, it creates a new social
group with a newer cultural identity that reflects attitudes toward environment, style of life, and
consumption (Gagnier 2000). Each of our identifying labels, particularly those that are more
abstract, constitute diverse and often contested sets of specific discourses comprising knowledge,
practices, norms, and beliefs that govern us to behave accordingly (Gagnier 2000). Over the last
2
few decades, there has been an increased interest in urban design and environmental concerns to
deal with urban problems in which architects and planners have adapted and developed an
approach to the improvement of society. The concept of sustainable development has its stable
place not only in the official language and documents of all organizations, but also among all
social actors, economic as well as institutional ones. The term lost its original meaning due to its
overuse in the ambience of events and situations that have little or nothing to do with its actual
meaning (Vezzoli 2008). Instead, the amalgamation of aesthetics and green architecture in our
society reflects our current social values as well as the relationship between the producer and the
perceiver of the architecture.
Steps toward sustainability
In 1987, the first concept of sustainable development was introduced at the World
(Commission for Environment and Development (WCED). Burndtland, the coordinator of the
commission, prepared a document entitled Our Common Future that defined sustainability as the
ability to “meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations
to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987). In today’s society where degradation is becoming
more apparent in our environment, it is important to start creating buildings that not only serve
its purpose to sustain the environment, but also be structured aesthetically to capture the attention
of its viewers. Sustainability involves not just those among the profession, but it involves human
beings who consume the planet’s natural resources. Beyond these environmental benefits, there
is also the potential to improve human health and social well-being. Since the planet’s natural
resources are being continually depleted and exploited, it is important that sustainable buildings
3
are modified for this modern age while integrating captivating architectural elements with
structures to promote environmental awareness.
Literature Review:
Art and design are to be understood as visual ideologies. People relate their lives to the
conditions of their existence through ideologies, or beliefs and values that they hold (Barnard
2001). The architectural design, similar to paintings, has formal elements. These formal elements
may include how the different types of lines, colors, textures, style, or constant elements that are
illustrated (Barnard 2001). Designs have encoded meanings that are created and distributed
through artistic forms by producers, advertisers, and consumers according to their own cultural
codes (Bernard 2001). Cultural codes are defined as symbols and systems of meaning that are
relevant to members of a particular culture (or subculture). In order to understand the design, it is
important to consider the producer of the work as well as to understand the culture codes. These
codes can be utilized to facilitate communication among the ‘inside group’ and also to obscure
the meaning to ‘outside group’ (Hyatt et al 1999). Cultural connections include objects that may
evoke emotions just by plain sight.
Even the color of an artifact will evoke certain emotions that are affiliated with symbols
that the representing organization wants to solicit. Anat Rafaeli and Iris Vilnai-Yavetz argue
“emotion that surfaces in sense making of organizational artifacts, thus, suggested to be what
links interpretation of artifacts and attitudes toward organization (Rafaeli et al. 2004),” which
was done by an Israeli transportation company whose intent was to improve its image by
associating themselves with nature and environmentalism. They argue that organizational
artifacts are multidimensional and have influence on people’s emotions. The dimensions of an
4
artifact include: instrumentality, aesthetics, and symbolism (Rafaeli et al. 2004). They found that
emotion is linked with interpretation of the artifacts and attitudes toward the maker of the
artifact, helping us to make sense of the physical object while associating it with the
organization. In a significant article, art-educators Blandy and Hoffman (1993) sends a clear
message to their profession of their concerns about environmental devastation at the end of the
20th century and the need for an "art education of place" (Garoian, 2003). They recommend that
art educators “imagine new relations among art, community, and environment” (Garoian, 2003).
Using this “nature versus culture dichotomy,” this can be well applied to not just art educators in
institutions but also to the architects who have the opportunity to construct large-scale artifacts
such as buildings. Putting this into a more holistic approach, the building design, including the
building materials and landscape, ecological sustainability can be creatively taught in an art
form, promoting an understanding of interdependence and interconnectedness of architecture
with nature.
Lacy (1995) also acknowledges the significance of this new generation of artists whose
works are concerned with sustaining a connection with the public and the environment. Her
anthology Mapping the Terrain: New Genre Public Art, contains essays by leading artists and
critics, including one by Gablik, whose spouse continuity and responsibility through communitybased art works, collaborative practices among artists and their audiences, and the engagement of
multiple audiences through empathy that "begins with the self reaching out to another self, an
underlying dynamic of feeling that becomes the source of activism" (Garoian 2003). In a similar
vein, Jacob (1995) calls for a broader definition of audience by citing three types of new genre
public art, ranging from "the expression of identity (which itself can be a political act), to the
creation of art as social critique, to the production of art as an instrument of change" (Garoian
5
2003). These types of art can be characterized as emblematic in the community by being able to
make political statements to inspire change. She terms social critical art as "supportive," one that
feeds back to the community from which it originated. Art as an instrument of change, Jacob
describes as "participatory," one that involves community members in its production.
Making no psychological claim, it can be assumed that it is natural for us to enjoy and
derive an aesthetic pleasure out of pursuing something that is obscured, as a result, increasing its
attraction since it stimulates our imagination. In this sense, the exterior design functions as a
vehicle of communication, decoding visual objects into certain ideologies, feelings, or virtues
through specific design features. In an aestheticized world of abundance, consumers seek to
distinguish themselves from other groups or fields, and companies seek to distinguish themselves
from their competitors manifested through design. These coinciding processes propel an
increased interest in design and aesthetic consumption: both from the producers’ side as a valuecreator, and from the consumers’ side as value-holders of lifestyle and status (Gagnier 2000).
The power of promoting sustainable values can be shifted into the ideals of the creator or artists
since an erected structure affects the community, including but not limited to zoning, landscape,
design, and open space.
MacDonald implies that aesthetics is part of the structural design and puts it into two
categories: ornamentation of structure and structure as the ornament. Ornamentation of structure
is less of a design process and rather more of the structural arrangement for technical use, while
structure as the ornament is the design process driven by visual rather than technical
considerations, which has been more of the twentieth-century phenomenon (MacDonald 2001).
He sees this more as a design process rather than technical, but still considers it as a part of
structural design.
6
Commercialization of our culture
From the economic point of view, commercialization of art and design are driving forces
of consumerism by the market, constantly stimulating individuals to desire more. Consumption is
assumed to be part of humanity’s technological relationship to the environment Luke (2000),
consequently causing detrimental effects in nature. It is in human nature to manipulate the
environment to create certain forms of objects to satisfy innate needs for material goods and
services. The artifacts produced are sign values of aestheticized consumption that are internally
branded with social values reflecting the buyer’s values. Commercial art and commercialized
artists are simply one of the professional-technical expressions of the aestheticized commerce
that rests at the core of late capitalism, and that liberates new wants and mobilizes fresh desires
in order to justify corporate capitalism's wasteful consumption of natural resources (Luke 2000).
By linking artistic practices with a general cultural awakening to the critical importance of
ecological values and by embracing values of ecological sustainability, designers and artists can
help to begin to revolutionize the present system from within the artifacts.
While Gagnier (2000) argues that the sustainability measure is more of an economic
incentive, Vezzoli (2008) argues that sustainable design promotes the recent environmental
policies and raises awareness in the market. Consumers within the market will then gain the
knowledge and use the knowledge in their abilities to make choices. Whether or not the
alternatives are more effective, diverse and aesthetically pleasing designs do promote sustainable
architectural awareness.
Once we establish that unique designs increase awareness, we can turn to MacDonald’s
argument. He indicates that people can derive meanings from physical structures including the
aesthetic qualities of the shape, texture, color, and elegance that are all possible generators of
7
“delight” (referring to Vitruvius’, founder of the Roman Empire, third basic component of
architecture) (MacDonald 2001). MacDonald suggests that the aesthetic design (color, shape,
texture, etc) serves as a “delight” for viewers while Vezzoli indicates that this promotes
sustainable awareness.
Research Design
Surveys
I have approached this topic with perspective and knowledge of over a three-year
experience as an Urban Studies major with a Communication major approach. To conduct this
study, research relied heavily on the collection of student data in the forms of electronic and
online surveys with students within my networks, mostly those attending universities in
California. Quantitative data comes from grouping similar responses of closed ended questions
together to figure how students share similar aspects of architecture design. The sample of
students comes from those who I have contacted and willing to provide their email addresses for
participation. I sent out my survey through a website, SurveyMonkey, where the participants
were able to freely take the survey in their own time. No compensations were offered or given,
possibly creating a bit of bias in the results by factoring out the less pro-active people or those
who do not have or prefer to have access to the Internet.
SurveyMonkey was a limiting factor because the survey allowed only certain number of
questions to be surveyed without adding additional costs to upgrade the application. The subjects
who were willing to take the survey are around the ages of 19-29, who have access to social
media outlets, specifically Facebook, which was the main channel in which I used to distribute
the survey. The sample size chosen may not be representative of students since students are
8
located everywhere. Overall, there was a varied age group of students in different years in
college, providing for a more accurate representation of the student body and more diversity in
their responses, but at the same time biased due to the age population.
Case Study: EDITT Tower
The EDITT Tower, located in Singapore, explicitly incorporates ecologically sustainable
technologies with a unique design. EDITT stands for “Ecological Design In The Tropics,” and is
designed by TR Hamzah and Ken Yeang who won the design competition in 1998 (Kaji-O’grady
2007). The project integrates green space to human-use area in the ratio of 1:2, with organic
spaces rising up from the street level to the top of the building, effectively integrating 26 stories
into the surface landscape (Kaji-O’grady 2007). Not only is it remarkable in form, but also is
also self-sufficient with water and energy. The architecture of this building effectively and
clearly promotes the idea of sustainability, with its pronounced vegetation wrapping around the
whole tower itself. The greenery of the EDITT tower markets out to the public that buildings can
be monumental and sustainable at the same time. The green vegetation integrated in this tower is
a blatant symbol of sustainability, which is produced by the designers. It characterizes both of
MacDonald’s categories of structural design – ornamentation of structure and structure as the
ornament. Not only does the structure co-exist in harmony with architectural expression, it
renders cultural codes that are associated with environmentalism.
Interviews
During the interview process, it was important to acknowledge the potential biases each
individual may have held in favor of their ideals and projects as well to create questions that did
not lead the interviewee for a certain answer. Interviews provided a more personal insight with
9
much more detail.
Findings & Analysis
From transcribing the survey results, the general outcome of the participants favored
buildings according to their size, non-geometric shape, details, colors, and those with open space.
Analyzing the survey from the sample pool, the majority of respondents considered color, shape,
size, and landscape are all attributes that catch their eyes at first sight of an artifact. Out of 166
respondents, 41% said the size was the first thing they noticed, followed by a 29% the shape,
20% the color, and 10% the landscape, respectively. Vibrant colors were also considered a factor
in importance of noticing a built structure, with 83% agreeing that it added more visual appeal.
Green, for example, is a color that best represents ecological sustainability because it is
correlated with our society’s culture. From the survey, 99% associated the color green with
recycling, apples, the environment, or trees and 0 respondents related it with cars. A picture of
the EDITT building was also included in the survey as an approach to understand how the green
building is representative of sustainability. 69.6% noticed the greenery first, followed by 14.1%
who initially noticed the design.
Color and Greenery
Although shape and design are integral elements for promoting sustainability, having
greenery or the color green is the more important factor toward promoting sustainability. In
further analysis, almost all the respondents agreed that they were more likely to walk toward an
establishment with open space and also one with signs. This can not only be interpreted into
comfort levels, but also can be analyzed into rediscovering sustainable design as the social,
environmental, and technical values of pedestrian, and mix-use communities that evoke indooroutdoor relationships. This suggests that sustainable design does not pertain only to the built
10
structure, but rather it is about the spatial relationships between the artifact itself and the
surroundings in relation to pedestrians. Using the determined methodology and research plan,
this study determines some principle guidelines that can effectively outline architectural
elements that would be most beneficial to sustainability that will hopefully encourage individuals
to be more attentive to the environment.
Townscape
From the analysis of the survey questions, aesthetics can be established as an essential
factor to establish an appeal in building design and interest. Not only is it the visual appearance,
but it also encompasses certain principles of planning, such as townscape. Townscape should
embrace the visual relationship of a building to its context and to the public spaces of the built
environment, buildings, and their settings. Establishing a relationship between the built
environment and the setting helps define boundaries while keeping a pleasant view, connecting
the building to the public space.
Materials of the building reflect the moral virtues and the ideals of the architect; thus,
using sustainable material draws attention to the detail and the intentions of the designer. As
Saito suggests, the design in a sense is suggested by the qualities of the material itself, which can
be used to promote sustainability. Connectivity or public routes, surveillance, safety, and lighting
are all important integrations to make streets and spaces easy to use and see, according to 92.9%
of the respondents who felt they were more comfortable when signs were visible and present.
Although many of the participants were of the younger generation, this is applicable to those
who are of the older or disabled population.
Landscape
11
Landscape has also become a concern for professionals in terms of environmental
quality. 94.9% of respondents felt they were more likely to walk into and feel more comfortable
in an establishment with open space. The greening of the urban environment has clearly become
a fundamental design element of the urban populace, giving landscaping a positive role to play in
urban design in scales of all sizes. While landscape analysis is becoming an essential part of the
site appraisal, it also determines the levels of environmental quality, health and sustainability as
it is becoming more important since the 1990s (Punter 1997).
Conclusion
Sustainable design emphasizes the needs of infrastructure as a collective process whereby
the built environment achieves ecologic balance in new and retrofit construction toward the longterm viability and human interaction with architecture. This study endeavors to determine
effective elements that are used in sustainable design through the lens of aesthetics in our
prevalent culture. By researching the aesthetic elements that appeal to us, it proactively promotes
sustainability. It is demonstrated how and why these strategies are effective, and also how they
can contribute to the design of buildings by connecting the research with sustainability and
aesthetics to further the idea of sustainability and that is to find a balance between consumption
and depletion of the planet’s natural resources. Finding elements that appeal to the dominant
culture allows both professionals and individuals to partake in this movement to protect the
ecological system as well as future generations. It should help controllers develop a more
consistent, positive and profound approach to design matters, and it should allow architects to
better practice their craft. Finally, it should provide those planning authorities who wish to
pursue a more locally sensitive and more sustainable form of development with the statutory
tools that will help with the challenge of sustainability.
12
Bibliography
Adan, O., Hakkinen, B., Loftness, V., Nevalainen, A. 2007. Elements That Contribute to Healthy
Building Design. Environmental Health Perspectives.115. (6): 965-970
Barnard, Malcom. 1998. Approaches to Understanding Visual Culture. New York: Palgrave.
Carmona, M. and Punter, J. 1997. Design Policies in Local Plans: Recommendations for Good
Practice. The Town Planning Review. 68. (2):165-193
Gagnier, Regenia. The Insatiability of Human Wants: Economics and Aesthetics in Market
Society. 2000. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Garoian, Charles R. 2003. Art Education and the Aesthetics of Land Use in the Age of Ecology.
Studies in Art Education. 39, (3): 244-261.
Gunder, Michael. 2006. Sustainability: Planning’s Saving Grace or Road to Perdition? Journal of
Planning Education and Research. (26): 208-221
Hyatt, Jenny and Simons, Helen. 1999. Cultural Codes – Who Holds the Key?: The Concept and
Conduct of Evaluation in Central and Eastern Europe. Evaluation. (5): 23-41.
Kaji-O’grady, Sandra. 2007. The Dramatisation of ‘Eco-Technologies’ In Recent High Rise
Towers. University of Technology of Sydney: 2007 Association of Architecture Schools
Australasia.
Luke, Timothy W. 2000. Art and the Environmental Crisis: From Commodity Aesthetics to
Ecology Aesthetics. Art Journal. 51, (2): 72-76.
MacDonald, Angus J. 2001. Structure and Architecture. Lanham, MD: AltaMira. 60-111.
Our Common Future. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development,
1987. Annex to General Assembly document A/42/427, Development and International
Co-operation: Environment. 1987.
Rafael, Anat and Iris Vilnai-Yavetz. 2004. Emotion as a Connection of Physical Artifacts and
Organizations. Organization Science. 15, (6): 671-686.
Saito, Yuriko. 1999. Japanese Aesthetics of Packaging. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art
Criticism. 57 (2): 257-265Aesthetics and Popular Culture (Spring, 1999), pp. 257-265
Vezzoli, Carlo and Ezio Manzini. 2008. Design for Environmental Sustainability. London:
Springer. 4-68.
Zafarmand, S., Sugiyama, K., and Watanabe, M. 2003. Aesthetics and Sustainability: The
Aesthetic attributes Promoting Product Sustainability. The Journal of Sustainable
Product Design. 173-186.
13
Appendix A
1. Imagine you are driving in your car. You come to a stop light and you see a building in
front of you. What do you notice first?
2. What does the color green remind you of?
3. [EDITT picture] What do you notice first?
4. From the previous picture, please rate from 1-5, 5 being most interested in the building.
(interesting as in you would like to know more about the location)
5. [Building 2 picture] What do you notice first?
6. From the previous picture (Building 2), please rate from 1-5, 5 being most interested in
the building.
7. What appeals to you more? Geometric shapes? Or non-geometric?
Please answer the following (Y/N):
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
I notice buildings according to their size
I pay attention to details rather than the structure
Vibrant colors are more appealing to me.
I am more likely to walk into an establishment with open space.
I am more comfortable when there are signs around.
14