Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:25:31.415Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - Sustainable urbanism: Measuring long-term architectural merit

from Part I - Sustainable Development: Theories and Practices

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2021

By
Craig Langston
Edited by
Pak Sum Low
Pak Sum Low
Affiliation:
Xiamen University Malaysia
Get access

Summary

Good architecture is something that we all seek, but which is difficult to define. Sir Alexander John Gordon, in his role as president of the Royal Institute of British Architects, defined ‘good architecture’ in 1972 as buildings that exhibit ‘long life, loose fit and low energy’. These characteristics, nicknamed by Gordon as the 3 L Principle, are measurable. Furthermore, life cycle cost (LCC) provides a method for accessing the economic contribution or burden created by buildings to the society they aim to serve. Yet there is no research available to investigate the connection, if any, between 3 L and LCC. It might be hypothesized that buildings with a high 3 L index have a low LCC profile. If this is true, then LCC may be able to be used to assess ‘good architecture’. This paper uses a case study methodology to assess the durability, adaptability, and sustainability of 22 projects that have won architectural design awards. The 3 L criteria can be measured and compared with average LCC per square metre using a long time horizon. The research is significant in that it tests a process to objectively assess what is commonly intangible and to determine if LCC is a suitable predictor of ‘good architecture’.

Keywords

Sustainable development;architecture;built environment;durability;adaptability;sustainability;life cycle costing (LCC); 3 L Principle;long life;loose fit;low energy; discounted present value (DPV);obsolescence;physical life calculator;adaptSTAR;Green Star;good architecture;Australia
Type
Chapter
Information
Sustainable Development: Asia-Pacific Perspectives , pp. 42 - 51
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Atkinson, B. (1988) Urban ideals and the mechanism of renewal. In proceedings of RAIA Conference, June, Sydney.Google Scholar
Campbell, J. (1996) Is your building a candidate for adaptive reuse? Journal of Property Management, 61(1), 26–29.Google Scholar
Conejos, S. (2013) Designing for future building adaptive reuse. PhD thesis. Bond University, Gold Coast, Australia.Google Scholar
Douglas, J. (2006) Building Adaptation (2nd ed.). Oxford, Butterworth-Heinemann.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, R. (1993) The opportunities and challenges posed by refurbishment. In proceedings of the Building Science Forum of Australia, Sydney, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
GBCA (2010) What is Green Star? https://new.gbca.org.au/rate/green-star/ (accessed 25 September 2020)Google Scholar
Gordon, A. (1972) Designing for survival: The President introduces his long life/loose fit/low energy study. Royal Institute of British Architects Journal, 79(9), 374–376.Google Scholar
Gregory, R., Failing, L. and Higgins, P. (2006) Adaptive management and environmental decision making: A case study application to water use planning. Ecological Economics, 58(2), 434–447.Google Scholar
Iselin, D. G. and Lemer, A. C. (eds.) (1993) The Fourth Dimension in Building: Strategies for Minimizing Obsolescence. Committee on Facility Design to Minimize Premature Obsolescence, Building Research Board. Washington, DC, National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Jacobs, J. (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York, Random House.Google Scholar
Kincaid, D. (2000) Adaptability potentials for buildings and infrastructure in sustainable cities. Facilities, 18(3/4), 155–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kintrea, K. (2007) Housing aspirations and obsolescence: Understanding the relationship. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 22, 321–338.Google Scholar
Langston, C. (2011) Estimating the useful life of buildings. In proceedings of the AUBEA2011 Conference, Gold Coast, Australia, April, pp. 418–432.Google Scholar
Langston, C. (2013) The role of coordinate-based decision-making in the evaluation of sustainable built environments. Construction Management and Economics, 31(1), 62–77.Google Scholar
Langston, Y. L. (2006) Embodied energy modelling of individual buildings in Melbourne: The inherent energy-cost relationship. PhD thesis. Deakin University, Victoria, Australia.Google Scholar
Lemer, A. C. (1996) Infrastructure obsolescence and design service life. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 2(4), 153–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linkov, I., Satterstrom, F. K., Kiker, G., Batchelor, C., Bridges, T. and Ferguson, E. (2006) From comparative risk assessment to multi-criteria decision analysis and adaptive management: Recent developments and applications. Environment International, 32(8), 1,072–1,093.Google Scholar
Living to 100 (n.d.) Living to 100 Life Expectancy Calculator. http://livingto100.comGoogle Scholar
Luther, J. P. (1988) Site and situation: The context of adaptive reuse. In Austin, R. L. (compiled), Woodcock, D. G., Steward, W. C. and Forrester, R. A. (eds.), Adaptive Reuse: Issues and Case Studies in Building Preservation, pp. 48–60. New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
Murray, G. (2011) Stirling Prize analysis: Long life, loose fit, low energy. e-Architect Newsletter article No. 125. http://www.e-architect.co.uk/articles/persistence-of-the-absurd (accessed 20 June 2014).Google Scholar
Ness, D. and Atkinson, B. (2001) Re-use/upgrading of existing building stock. BDP Environment Design Guide. Canberra, Building Design Professions.Google Scholar
Nutt, B., Walker, B., Holliday, S. and Sears, D. (1976) Housing Obsolescence. Farnborough, Hampshire, Saxon House.Google Scholar
Pinder, J. and Wilkinson, S. J. (2000) Measuring the gap: A user based study of building obsolescence in office property. The Cutting Edge 2000 Conference, September. London, RICS Research Foundation.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, S. J., Remøy, H. and Langston, C. (2014) Sustainable Building Adaptation: Innovations in Decision-Making. Oxford, Wiley Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yudelson, J. (2010) Greening Existing Buildings. New York, McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×