By Daniele Menichini
In the last 80 years of urban and territorial development, humanity has prioritised personal egos and car-centric models, often driven by the desire to satisfy wants that surpass genuine needs. This self-serving focus has led to a disregard for the evaluation of actions and their impact on the environment, energy, and planetary resources. Over the last two decades, the situation has deteriorated significantly, symbolised by the increasing awareness of “overshoot day,” which marks the point at which humanity’s consumption exceeds the Earth’s capacity to regenerate resources in a given year.
This stark reality has initiated a gradual awakening, with civil society over the past five years sharpening its understanding of climate change and its profound consequences. Humanity has been thrust into dual roles: both the architects of urban, suburban, and territorial development and the unintended victims of economic exploitation. This process has radically reshaped the planet’s social structure. In response, nature has begun to assert itself, reacting against human disruption through geological and hydro-geological disasters triggered by climate change.
In this complex interplay between humans and the planet, there remains only the option of fostering a resilient society—one capable of adapting to environmental changes. Climate change must transcend its status as a new term in our lexicon; it requires eco-responsible actions from both institutions and civil society. Shifting paradigms to implement solutions and strategies against the adverse transformations caused by monetary greed is imperative. Individuals and communities must develop resilience, adapting urban and territorial structures to mitigate the risk of environmental and societal collapse. Like flora and fauna, humanity faces the risk of decline unless it actively redefines its role, embracing ecological stewardship to avert an impending apocalypse.
The Architect as a Catalyst for Transformation
Architects, as pivotal agents in shaping urban and territorial spaces, cannot absolve themselves of responsibility. They have, in many cases, contributed to the planet’s instability and resource exploitation by prioritising quantitative outcomes over qualitative considerations. Architectural decisions driven by these dynamics have often proven detrimental to human health and well-being. At its core, the act of design is inextricably linked to the quality of human life. Architects must now embrace an ecological ethos, influencing cultural shifts without diminishing quality of life or restricting individual choice in favour of ego-driven ideals.
Architecture must serve the communities inhabiting cities and territories. It need not assert itself as a dominating presence in human life at all costs. Architects, entrusted with enhancing citizens’ quality of life, must reassess their design processes. This involves adopting approaches that minimise environmental impact and rigorously evaluate the sustainability of each project. As a collective, we must align with climate change, harnessing its challenges to regenerate urban and territorial spaces. By leveraging natural resources and bioclimatic principles responsibly, we can enhance the quality of life while minimising ecological harm.
The Path Forward
This transition is undeniably complex but essential. Careful monitoring and understanding of the United Nations’ 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is critical. How many of us truly grasp their significance? Perhaps only those who comprehend the concept of resilience and are committed to implementing eco-responsible architectural practices fully appreciate the depth of this challenge. Eco-responsible design is no longer synonymous with austerity or compromise; rather, it requires nuanced and sophisticated management.
The poetic foundation of eco-responsible projects lies in five essential elements: air, energy, nature, water, and recycling. These elements influence every stage of a project, from its earliest conceptual sketches to its construction, use, and eventual decommissioning. Each choice within the project’s lifecycle—design, materials, construction methods, and maintenance—has measurable impacts, notably on carbon dioxide emissions and environmental sustainability. Buildings, much like humans, have life cycles: they are conceived, born, grow, breathe, and ultimately die. At the end of their lifecycle, buildings must be capable of generating resources to support future projects, mirroring the regenerative potential inherent in natural systems.
Redefining Sustainable Architecture
In the past, merely “painting” architecture green was often considered sufficient to claim sustainability. Today, it is the responsibility of architects to place eco-responsibility at the forefront, communicating its importance to clients and stakeholders alike. Architects must educate clients about the deeper aspects of sustainable living spaces, transcending superficial aesthetics to highlight the hidden, critical facets of eco-conscious design.
By fostering this dialogue, architects can illuminate the unseen—beyond the building’s exterior—while ensuring the culture of sustainability becomes integral to contemporary architectural practice.
Keywords: eco-responsibility, climate change, resilience, adaptation, regeneration
Daniele Menichini is a member of the UIA 17 UN SDGs Commission