Note: I wrote this academic essay within the scope of « How to Write an Essay », a course of study offered by BerkeleyX, an online learning initiative of University of California, Berkeley. For this reason, it is intentionally provocative.
1- Introduction
A- Background details
The time we are living in is described as the Anthropocene Era by scientists. This era is characterized by the significant impact of human activities on earth’s ecosystems. One of these problematic activities is also one of the main prides of humanity, namely Architecture. Indeed, according to the International Energy Agency, buildings account for 36% of global energy use. In the United States, 43% of carbon emissions and 39% of total energy use is attributed to the construction and operation of buildings. The environmental impact of architecture is even more consequential when greenhouse gas emissions are taken into account, associated with the manufacturing of building materials. So, yes, concerning the endangerment of the planet, humanity is the root of the problem. But as humans are clever beings, they can also be part of the solution.
This is where the concept of sustainability emerges. It means meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. If you observe this definition, you can compare it with the goal of Historic Preservation. Indeed, what is Historic Preservation other than meeting the needs of today’s restoration in order to allow future generations to enjoy world heritage sites? Obviously, environment and preservation should go hand in hand, in a clever way.
B- Thesis
“A 1980s house uses no less energy than a Victorian one does today. We urgently need to have a totally different philosophy, and to make the jump to buildings that use almost no energy. […] No one would accept the same level of performance from a car or airplane built today as one built 60 years ago. Yet in construction, this is seen as fine.” Said Professor David Coley of the University of Bath. Granted, humanity can do better. The past decade has seen some advance in “green” building. Yet, new construction was the main focus until now, leaving the preservation and adaptability of ancient buildings behind, and not just because reconciling sustainability and historic preservation in practice poses certain challenges.
Undoubtedly, in a world where ecology has become a central component of decision-making, decision-makers need to rethink architectural restoration to include environmental safety and sustainability as main criteria when weighing up the advantages and disadvantages of renovating historic buildings. Ecological requirements should be mandatory to help them decide which landmarks and architectural structures are worth saving and which are not, because their remodeling would generate pollution. To put it another way, not all old buildings should be saved, only the ones that could be part of a clean future.
C- Preview of supporting reasons
First, historic preservation should avoid to be tempted by the trap of modernization. Contemporary architects and students in architecture tend to favor complex and futuristic designs. Unfortunately, many remodeling projects of historic landmarks involve new materials and techniques that produce pollution and don’t respect the ecological potential of an ancient building.
Secondly, the ecological hazards of renovation are often overlooked. Indeed, many materials used by ancient builders have been recognized toxic for human beings and for nature; manipulating them again could be a threat for health and earth.
Furthermore, the renovation project should not only prove its utility to the cultural life of a city, but also calculate the impact it will have on its urbanism, including the negative effects of tourism. Humans need to understand that with climate change, preservation is a sustainable gambling. In conclusion, contemporary curators need to find a way to save art without endangering the planet, by using technology as well as their wisdom.
2- Main Body
A The Trap of Modernization
As Canadian-American activist Jane Jacobs stated, “Old ideas use new buildings; new ideas use old buildings.” Perhaps preservationists don’t need to change historic buildings, but they need to change their view on architecture. It is not an aesthetic game, but a serious part in the emergency plan to save the planet.
According to the US Energy Information Agency, buildings constructed before 1920 are more energy efficient than the ones built between 1920 and today. This is because of embodied energy. It is a measurement of energy used in the building process, from the extraction of raw materials to the final installation of the finished ones. According to a study commissioned by the federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, “About 80 billion BTUs (British Thermal Units) of energy are embodied in a 50,000 square-foot commercial building, the equivalent of about 640,000 gallons of gasoline”.
So, preservationists like M&A Architectural Preservation argue that remodeling ancient structures is better for the ecology than building new ones, which, even if built with 40% recycled materials would need about 65 years to recoup the energy lost in demolition and new construction. It is true in theory, but in practice, you see more projects annihilating the ‘green’ advantages of ancient buildings, carried away by the lure of contemporary designs. If the demolition and replacement of an old building is a waste of energy, its upgrading with a new design will also produce unnecessary carbon emissions. As an illustration, one trend can be highlighted, one that seems to ignore the previous data: building modern structures on top of an ancient one. For example, you can observe the Union of Romanian Architects of Bucharest. A contemporary structure with a glass wall has been added on top of a classical three-story building, turning it into a high-rise. If you add modern elements to the embodied energy of an old building, you add new, unwanted energy, destroying all the benefits of renovation.
Today’s obsession with glass walls and large, contemporary windows is especially detrimental to sustainability. New windows only last an average of 10-20 years. They are usually made of vinyl and aluminum, which are not biodegradable or easily recycled, and even considered toxic by ‘green’ building standards. In many preservation projects, windows are one of the first elements changed by architects, either for thermal insulation or aesthetical reasons. For instance, the remodeling of Sant Francesc Church of Santpedor, in Spain, included the addition of several windows and glass walls that were not planned in the original design, which had limited openings. As a result, this building is now producing more energy than its embodied one. I
n contrast, the rehabilitation of the Linde + Robinson Laboratory for Global Environmental Science at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena embraced the original architecture, repurposing a historic astronomical instrument using mirrors (a coelostat) to improve lighting, leading to a reduction in energy use. As Polish-American architect Daniel Libeskind said, “To provide meaningful architecture is not to parody history but to articulate it.”
Ancient architects naturally used natural daylight, ventilation and solar orientation as well as traditional, durable materials such as stone, wood, glass and metal. Properly maintained, their designs can have a much longer lifespan, so they don’t need to be modernized. In fact, if old materials and features are not fixable and require new ones to make the building usable, the project of rehabilitation is not only useless but “ignorant” of the ecological context.
B- The Ecological Hazards of Renovation
Ancient materials are the main problem of renovation. Indeed, most of them are rarifying (e.g. wood) or use highly polluting, even toxic processes. With time, scientists were able to understand their danger and have stopped and banned their use. Yet, when it comes to restoration, workers have to deal with them again. Sometimes, accidents help to realize how tricky Historic Preservation can be in our contemporary world. The fire of the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, for instance, seemed to have been provoked by a technical failure during the renovation works of its roof. This disaster not only threatened to destroy one of the most important world heritage sites and required extra costs and energy for its rescue and reconstruction, but it also created an important lead pollution in the vicinity of the landmark. Of course, this is only an accident. However, most of ancient European buildings contain lead, a heavy metal and neurotoxin which damage the nervous system.
For that reason, ‘green’ remodeling is challenged by the dust and wastes created by the removal of paintings and the cleaning of surfaces. Therefore, the handle of lead’s toxicity is often the main concern of European preservationists. It was the case during the remodeling of the Pantheon in Paris. Architects were aware of the presence of lead and they feared local pollution. It would also be inhaled by workers during the cleaning of the facades. This already happened during the restoration works of the dome of the building, as revealed by occupational medicine. Analysis in the covered scaffolding revealed the presence of lead on the facings due to the air pollution of the capital by this metal. It was therefore impossible to continue the construction site without an adaptation to this phenomenon. The non-cleaning of the stones was even considered. Finally, architects used a technique called the ‘poultice’ technique which limited the propagation of lead in the area. However, further analysis still found harmful residues in the renovation site. Despite all the precautions taken, the scaffolding itself was polluted, requiring specific cleaning.
In brief, the Pantheon’s experiment was conclusive; new techniques were developed and specialists had the occasion to take better account of the lead risk. Yet, the techniques used on this landmark are not reproducible without prior studies and tests on other sites, not without enormous costs and risks. Moreover, there is a data architects and preservationists cannot foresee; it is of course the evolution of the air pollution in cities and its impact on ancient buildings.
C- The Gambling of Preservation
American environmentalist Al Gore once said that “Pollution should not be the price of prosperity.” And yet, there is no denying that our contemporary way of life is certainly more harmful to the ecosystems than our ancestors’ way of life was. Humans have welcomed elaborated technologies in their everyday lives and the place of mass tourism has considerably increased in the habits of worldwide population. These two factors share a major responsibility in our carbon print and in climate warming. In addition of these unsustainable behaviors, the society is not only in denial of ecological emergency, but it also stubbornly sees architecture, especially the ancient one, as a token of a country’s prestige. Consequently, preservationists usually avoid making tougher choices when it comes to past’s preservation. The importance of a heritage site can be subjective, but historic preservation urgently needs to decide which is superior: its environmental value or its artistic value. Of course, a balance is ideal.
On top of adhering to current urban codes, seismic safety standards and ADA requirements, rehabilitation projects have trouble meeting the needs of modern-day users, which are responsible for 50% of carbon emissions (server rooms, air conditioning, etc.). To avoid this, architects could use post occupancy evaluation, in other words, to check if the building operates as it was meant to, with all the constraints of the modern world taken into account in the prediction of energy efficiency. But evaluations are often underestimated and evolving measures are forcing preservationists to reconsider whether it is wise to adapt historic buildings to our modern world. In prosperous countries such as France, huge renovation works are greenlighted for ruins or unknown landmarks. These projects end up creating unnecessary new buildings with ridiculous energy costs and generating useless tourism. Their impact on cities, countries and their populations is merely negative on an ecological standpoint and, let’s be honest, worthless on an artistic standpoint. Then, historic preservation has something of gambling, which is both irresponsible for the future and disrespectful for art.
Besides, if art historians need to ask themselves if our heritage could hurt the environment, they should also ask if pollution could hurt our heritage. Let’s take the century-old city of Cracow in Poland, one of the most polluted cities in the world, as an illustration. During numerous restauration works, local conservators drew attention to the fact that recently discovered, valuable polychromes were exposed to the harmful effects of the city’s pollution, condemning them to rapid degradation and generating serious issues for the future use of the renovated buildings. That is to say that the extent of Cracow’s pollution is limiting its whole remodeling process.
Of course, some conservators argue that new restoration techniques could balance degradations, but this idealistic view of Historic Conservation neglects the accumulation of preexisting technical and financial difficulties in the work in progress and the fact that pollution can turn into a synergistic process. Without a drastic improvement of Cracow’s air, all the preservation work will not be effective and institutions cannot afford to lose time and energy. To put it another way, scientists cannot genuinely predict how the climate will evolve and how the pollution generated by today’s urban activities will impact cities. So, humanity needs to sacrifice the past in order to ensure a future.
3- Conclusion
Having and sharing a heritage is important. But merging green design with restoration is not a fad. Architects and art historians need to keep their feet firmly on the ground when renovating. This is not just about respecting the artistic and energetic integrity of historic buildings. In fact, this is about giving up selfishness. Humanity presently enjoy both superb natural landscapes and incredible manmade landmarks and shouldn’t prevent future generations to enjoy them too. Yes, because if institutions don’t realize that sustainability and historic preservation are sharing the same goal, they are going to jeopardize all these treasures. In an ideal world, they would be able to keep every architectural construction people find aesthetically pleasing or culturally important. But the current conditions are far from ideal, and they need to face the reality. Humanity’s actions can destroy its resources or, if it is wise, they can help to save the most valuable ones.
The best approach is to determine which ancient buildings are meeting the cultural needs of both our contemporaries and our descendants. Then strategies can be devised to minimize the ecological impact of remodeling by verifying the building’s inherent green qualities.
First, decision-makers should develop new building codes to integrate preservation with energy efficiency based on performance rather than prescriptive requirements. Secondly, a better collaboration is required between preservationists, government officials and ecologists to avoid problematic projects and ensure successful results. And, by all means, architects need to do more research on sustainability before taking the decision to repair and maintain a structure. Restoration should be motivated by reason rather than emotion, now more than ever.
Without doubt, historic preservation has a lower climate impact than new construction. So, we need to grant more importance to this part of our activity. It could be the key to sustainable development, and even give a new lease on life to our vision of contemporary and future architecture.
Bibliography:
M&A Architectural Preservation Lawrence, MA (2018). “Sustainability and Historic Preservation”. M&A Architectural Preservation Website. Online.
Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (2011). “Sustainability and Historic Preservation; Sustainability Report.” DHAP.Wa.Gov. Online.
Sedovic, Walter and Gotthelf, Jill (2005). “What Replacement Windows Can’t Replace: The Real Cost of Removing Historic Windows”. APT Bulletin: Journal Of Preservation Technology. Vol. 36 No. 4. Online.
Cooper, Deborah (2010). “Reconciling Preservation and Sustainability”. The Journal of the American Institute of Architects. Online.
Lefèvre, Daniel and Caillault, Pierre-Yves (2017). « Le Plomb dans l’édifice : protéger les hommes et conserver les monuments ; Conclusions de la Journée technique organisée par ICOMOS France, le Laboratoire de recherche des monuments historiques (LRMH) et la Compagnie des architectes en chef des monuments ». Bibliothèque Numérique d’Icomos France. Online.
Sowa, Kazimierz (2007). « Dégradation et restauration d’un patrimoine culturel : Cracovie ». Strates. Online.
Jen Ripper Gori 