Teaching a New Environmental Culture

Twenty years ago, since sustainable architecture had not been included in conventional academic curricula, it was considered by most non-academics as a fad.  Academics themselves looked upon it partly as a novelty, although most certainly a worthy cause.  Nowadays, when sustainability appears firmly in a large number of academic institutions, believers consider it a must although cynics may still regard it as merely fashionable.  One thing is certain, future generations, regardless of their philosophical persuasion, will most definitely consider it a necessity. 

Slowness, whether of living or of design, is an intriguing concept whose elusive nature encourages creative thought and sets numerous sceptical filters benefitting good design.  Identifying, observing and evaluating slow life raises issues of perception on time and accountability to nature in ways that are intrinsic to sustainable design.       

In the year 2009, the Department of Architecture of the University of Nicosia initiated a unique direction for its fourth-year students.  Instead of a conventional thesis preparatory year of full academic studies followed by the fifth year where the thesis project is to be generated, the faculty created two Study Units from which the students entering their fourth year would have to choose from.  Each Study Unit has a distinct area of concentration expressed within the framework of its related studio.  The Studio is a two-year commitment on behalf of both students and faculty.  By their fifth-year, students are expected to have developed, expanded or isolated their fourth-year studio studies and promote themselves to a successful thesis. The Studio offered within the Sustainable Architecture Unit is titled “Exploring Dimensions of Slow Life Filtered through Sustainable Design”.  The Unit is comprised of the Studio course and two associated supplementary courses.  These two courses are History and Theory of Sustainable Architecture and Sustainable Design Practices. 

Is slow life a virtue that can be identified within western lifestyle?  Does it need to be juxtaposed to fast life for it to have a discernable meaning?  How does sustainable living compare to slow and to fast living?  Does architecture have a measurable speed? Can we identify slow and fast paces in our built environment? These thoughts and many more, expressed in an almost stream of consciousness style, act as springboards for the foundation of the Studio’s philosophy.  In turn, these questions become the impetus for an entire set of other issues requiring students to investigate interpretations of slow life and fast life within the context of sustainable architecture.  However, in order to progress successfully to this level of investigation, each student is first encouraged to develop his or her own idea of what sustainability means.   

On a more tangible level, the mission of the Sustainable Architecture Studio is to elevate architecture and design to a coexistence of a harmonious and productive synergy of man, nature and the spirit of place.  At the end of the studio journey, the students should be in a position to face their architectural identity in such a way where sustainable design will not represent an attachment or a supplement to their design principles, but both entities operate as an integrated process. 

Sustainability is expressed not only as a healthy building technique but as a deep socio-political issue that transcends generations, race and social class.  The Studio projects themselves aim to explore the interdependency of issues of environmental, social and economic sustainability where students are prompted to develop individual, critical positions with regards to the broad concept of sustainability and to extend and explore those positions through their architectural design process. 

If the degree of success of the Sustainable Architecture Studio is measured by students’ enthusiasm, then the Studio was surely a triumph.  During the course of the year, the students gradually became committed to the Studio’s culture, as evidenced by the quality of their finished product, the degree of collaboration inspired among the group and the close bond fostered between the students and the two instructors. The students were not only able to produce mature projects touching on all basic issues proclaimed by the Studio agenda, but most of them were able to greatly improve on their overall ability to solve complex architectural spaces and successfully present them in professional drawings and impressive computer renderings.  This was partly the result of the instructors’ perseverance and insistence that students be handled as adults who are but a heartbeat away from professional employment.