Integrated Design--A Path to Utopia?

Within the arena of sustainability, the term “integrated design” is now being bandied about like the term “green” has been. If everyone is green and integrated, as an increasing number of businesses and products claim to be, we should be in Utopia by now. Are we there yet?

Not quite.

So, what do these terms really mean and what do we seek to achieve by striving to integrate the design of our products and places to be green? It is really a self preservationist point of view. The well known definition of sustainability is “…meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

Historically, human development has occurred by exercising our dominion over nature. People were few and nature was abundant. The pace of life was slower. Now, in the frenzy of a technological explosion and an expanding and increasingly affluent population whose consumption rate is growing; the loss of natural lands, increased scarcity of resources, degradation of our water supplies and changes in our climate are pressing our collective comfort zone. That is to say that these impacts are affecting the daily lives of people all over the planet. Many, worldwide, seek to live within a smaller environmental footprint to preserve a quality of life for future generations and, some would say, the planet itself.

We increasingly sense the interdependency of our actions. What we purchase and consume, where we live, what we throw away, our national security, our public health and, not least of all, the quality of our environment are all linked. While more than 50% of the world’s population now lives in cities, we seek to live increasingly “in harmony with nature” without knowing exactly what that means. Ironically, indigenous people who have lived in harmony with nature for centuries are considered “uncivilized.”

So, here we are, civilized people seeking to design our environments and products in a manner more integrated with nature, more holistic, more “green.” The term “integrated design” requires an understanding that the thing we are making is part of an interdependent system. If it is a product, there are material and energy flows in every aspect of its material acquisition, manufacturing, advertising, packaging, distribution, sales, obsolescence and recycling. In the case of architecture, the building or development engages its place environmentally, socially and economically.

Even city blocks that are fully developed from property line to property line are part of a watershed and, possibly, a migratory path. It has water and energy income and out flows. Though it may not function as it once did as a natural environment, we have to ask ourselves whether it could be restored to do so. How do I take advantage of the climatic cycles? What is the potential energy income? What do I do with rainwater that falls here? What do I do with the waste streams that are created by this development? What would nature do?

How will this project function economically, not only individually but in relation to its community? How does it support the social network of the community within which it resides? Addressing these issues integratively is a new challenge to architects and planners. Integrating a design is not only about integrating building systems but it is also about understanding and integrating the building with its place.

Designing a project that addresses these questions is very different than designing a project that seeks to achieve aesthetic, economic and compliance goals. The integrated approach is much richer, more rewarding, more “green”.