When Malaysian architect Kenneth Yeang began working in the 1970s, the skyscraper was seen as a closed air-conditioned box. Yeang helped reimagine that model with elements like natural ventilation and lighting, sky terraces, and vegetation, as part of what he calls ‘bioclimatic’ skyscrapers. Today, Yeang is seen as a pioneer of green design, with more than 200 projects worldwide, a dozen books, and multiple international honours. Yeang, who first visited India as a child in 1952, and was an admirer of Charles Correa, will be speaking at Godrej Design Lab’s Conscious Collective festival Sunday in Mumbai. Excerpts from an interview:
Q: You’ve been working on green buildings since the 1970s. How have things changed?
A: In the early years, we found it difficult to persuade people to do green buildings. The only way I could get people to agree was to do what are called climate responsive or bioclimatic buildings, which are low-energy or passive mode. Everybody can accept low-energy buildings because they save money. For example, we try to design buildings which harvest rainwater, so it reduces consumption of water. It wasn’t until the ‘90s that people suddenly jump and say, ‘Hey, we have to address the environmental crisis’. Then engineers also got into green design. That made it easier for architects to design green buildings. From the ’90s, the demand for (green buildings) has been increasing. But in my opinion, we’re still not doing enough.
Q: You’ve talked about ‘eco-mimicry‘. Can a building really imitate nature?
A: Because of the way cities are planned, we cannot escape building high-rises. So, if you must build high-rises, they should be low-energy and ecological. The objective of ecological design is to achieve a nature-to-nature interface between the built environment and nature. Right now, the relationship is between artefact and nature. The two don’t integrate —the built artefact affects and destroys nature. But if we redesign our buildings to be part of nature, to be what I call a constructed ecosystem, a human-made ecosystem, then the built environment and nature (can be) integrated. That is the challenge of design.
Q: Is this possible in low-cost or mass housing?
A: It’s even more difficult because you don’t have money to play with. With low-cost housing the best place to start is to make them bioclimatic, to make them low-energy, and use material that can be recycled. Many architects are good at reusing existing materials to make new buildings, and these can be very beautiful.
Q: Has the climate crisis changed the approach of architects?
A: What is clear to me is that we cannot design and build in the same way anymore. We have to build in response to the locality—and every locality has a different ecology. The trouble is very few architects see this, and very few understand ecology properly. Most architects approach green design based on certification systems like LEED. But if you look at these certification systems, they are technology driven. Ecology is an afterthought. To save the planet, we have to start with ecology, because that is the ultimate baseline for all impacts. But how many architects are trained in ecology? Not even 1%. Schools of architecture don’t teach ecology. They’re not teaching how to enhance biodiversity; how to reduce pollution; how to reduce use of water; waste. A large portion of landfill in most cities are from building construction.
…(Having said that) filling a city with green buildings will never make the city green. To make the city green, you have to start with infrastructure—the energy, the water, the sewage, the IT systems, the refuse collection, the mobility systems. If the infrastructure is not green, no matter how many green buildings you have, the city will never be green.
Q: Has any city done this well?
A: Some have done bits and pieces well. For instance, Singapore has a very committed programme of vegetation. But the infrastructure—the energy, the water supply, the waste systems—are not yet green. In a lot of Scandinavian cities, the mobility systems are green. People are encouraged to bicycle and walk. Certain cities encourage green lifestyles.
Q: Do traditional buildings have a role to play in sustainable design?
A: Of course. We should do more adaptive reuse of existing buildings. Instead of demolishing them, we should try reusing them to reduce wastage.
Q: Have you designed any buildings in India?
A: We did a green building in Gurgaon. The owner stopped construction because he ran out of money. We’ve done other plans—a master plan for a university in Bangalore, some apartments in Mumbai.
When Malaysian architect Kenneth Yeang began working in the 1970s, the skyscraper was seen as a closed air-conditioned box. Yeang helped reimagine that model with elements like natural ventilation and lighting, sky terraces, and vegetation, as part of what he calls ‘bioclimatic’ skyscrapers. Today, Yeang is seen as a pioneer of green design, with more than 200 projects worldwide, a dozen books, and multiple international honours. Yeang, who first visited India as a child in 1952, and was an admirer of Charles Correa, will be speaking at Godrej Design Lab’s Conscious Collective festival Sunday in Mumbai. Excerpts from an interview:
Q: You’ve been working on green buildings since the 1970s. How have things changed?
A: In the early years, we found it difficult to persuade people to do green buildings. The only way I could get people to agree was to do what are called climate responsive or bioclimatic buildings, which are low-energy or passive mode. Everybody can accept low-energy buildings because they save money. For example, we try to design buildings which harvest rainwater, so it reduces consumption of water. It wasn’t until the ‘90s that people suddenly jump and say, ‘Hey, we have to address the environmental crisis’. Then engineers also got into green design. That made it easier for architects to design green buildings. From the ’90s, the demand for (green buildings) has been increasing. But in my opinion, we’re still not doing enough.
Q: You’ve talked about ‘eco-mimicry’. Can a building really imitate nature?
A: Because of the way cities are planned, we cannot escape building high-rises. So, if you must build high-rises, they should be low-energy and ecological. The objective of ecological design is to achieve a nature-to-nature interface between the built environment and nature. Right now, the relationship is between artefact and nature. The two don’t integrate —the built artefact affects and destroys nature. But if we redesign our buildings to be part of nature, to be what I call a constructed ecosystem, a human-made ecosystem, then the built environment and nature (can be) integrated. That is the challenge of design.
Q: Is this possible in low-cost or mass housing?
A: It’s even more difficult because you don’t have money to play with. With low-cost housing the best place to start is to make them bioclimatic, to make them low-energy, and use material that can be recycled. Many architects are good at reusing existing materials to make new buildings, and these can be very beautiful.
Q: Has the climate crisis changed the approach of architects?
A: What is clear to me is that we cannot design and build in the same way anymore. We have to build in response to the locality—and every locality has a different ecology. The trouble is very few architects see this, and very few understand ecology properly. Most architects approach green design based on certification systems like LEED. But if you look at these certification systems, they are technology driven. Ecology is an afterthought. To save the planet, we have to start with ecology, because that is the ultimate baseline for all impacts. But how many architects are trained in ecology? Not even 1%. Schools of architecture don’t teach ecology. They’re not teaching how to enhance biodiversity; how to reduce pollution; how to reduce use of water; waste. A large portion of landfill in most cities are from building construction.
…(Having said that) filling a city with green buildings will never make the city green. To make the city green, you have to start with infrastructure—the energy, the water, the sewage, the IT systems, the refuse collection, the mobility systems. If the infrastructure is not green, no matter how many green buildings you have, the city will never be green.
Q: Has any city done this well?
A: Some have done bits and pieces well. For instance, Singapore has a very committed programme of vegetation. But the infrastructure—the energy, the water supply, the waste systems—are not yet green. In a lot of Scandinavian cities, the mobility systems are green. People are encouraged to bicycle and walk. Certain cities encourage green lifestyles.
Q: Do traditional buildings have a role to play in sustainable design?
A: Of course. We should do more adaptive reuse of existing buildings. Instead of demolishing them, we should try reusing them to reduce wastage.
Q: Have you designed any buildings in India?
A: We did a green building in Gurgaon. The owner stopped construction because he ran out of money. We’ve done other plans—a master plan for a university in Bangalore, some apartments in Mumbai.
