Ecology and style. Anatoly Belov, architect, critic

 

Anatoly Belov admits that Quinlan Terry’s article is close to his own way of thinking. In particular, Belov has a number of times noted the problem of the short-lived nature of modernist structures in his articles on www.walkingcity.ru. He recognizes the ecology of architecture to be an important problem, although he does not consider himself a specialist in this field. In Terry’s article Belov took exception to the following sentence, “Аll properly constructed traditional buildings of the sort described in the top of the table get an A rating, and with normal maintenance will last indefinitely.” Belov writes, “Why is it only properly constructed traditional buildings that can lay claim to ecological soundness? Take, for instance, Peter Zumthor’s thermal baths in the Swiss town city of Vals. All the external walls are made of quartzite slabs. In accordance with the table of the ecological soundness of different materials and constructions, Zumthor’s building in Vals falls into the category of long-lasting, although it is not traditional architecture.”

 

Taking the name of ecology in vain. Dmitry Khmelnitsky, architect, architecture historian

 

According to Dmitry Khmelnitsky, the article by Quinlan Terry published in www.ec-a.ru in February 2009 “only at first sight deals with ecological issues in construction. In actual fact, Terry is campaigning not so much for ecology as for historical stylization – and against modern architecture that makes no attempt to stylize.”

 

Subsequently, Dmitry makes a detailed analysis of Terry’s arguments. It is worth quoting several extracts:

 

<…> Where did the figures of 20-40 years for the life of modern structures come from? These figures have nothing to do with the real service life of modern buildings.

 

 <…> Terry writes that buildings of steel, reinforced concrete, and plastic are less long-lasting than stone buildings due to the large coefficient of expansion, which necessitates the fitting of compensatory seams filled with a sealer that quickly disintegrates. This statement is also strange. I’d really like to have some examples of buildings that are so short-lived.

 

<…> I am not at all sure that production of clay-based brick, which Terry considers a ‘traditional material’, involves less expenditure of energy than the manufacture of concrete artificial stone.

 

<…> I would like to know how the materials used in ‘traditional buildings’ can be recycled without needing to be taken to the rubbish heap. Does this mean taking apart the bricks of a brick wall one by one, cleaning them of cement, and forming them into new walls?

 

<…> I don’t understand why, for instance, aluminium windows are judged not fit for ‘recycling’ (‘C’ rating) while wooden windows are judged to be fit (‘A’ rating). Metal can be melted down, whereas an old wooden window frame can only be burnt. Terry’s statement about five-year guarantees for double-glazing units is also strange. Obviously, what he means is the manufacturer’s guarantee and not their actual service life.

 

P.S. Lara Kopylova, editor-in-chief, www.ec-a.ru

It’s necessary to supply arguments which Terry for some reason omitted from his article, although he has used them repeatedly in other articles. The standard glass skyscraper is an ecological catastrophe because it cannot exist without air-conditioning and consequently consumes a great deal of electricity. The skyscraper’s windows cannot be opened, which leads to sick-building syndrome. The traditional brick building which Terry favours can exist very well without air-conditioning, and this not only saves energy but results in a healthier environment.