Portland Architecture: A man struggling: Guy Battle comes to Portland

Britain's Guy Battle, director of the multi-disciplinary Battle McCarthy Consulting Engineers, has become one of the leading environmental building engineers in the world. And this Wednesday, he'll be in Portland to deliver the latest talk in the Cascadia Green Building Council's Transformational Lecture Series.

Guy Battle is not really "a man struggling," as I called him in the title of this post; more like a man succeeding with flying colors. But I had to have some fun with his name, which sounds like a description of some gladiatorial bout.

Guy Battle? Nice to meet you. I'm Fella Conflict. Have you met Dude War? The image at left was one of the first that came up when I did a Google image search on Mr. Battle's name.

Battle’s lecture is titled, “Low Energy Buildings and Sustainable Communities: Designing for the Zero Carbon Economy,” and will take place at the White Stag Block (at SW Naito and Couch) at 5:30pm with a short reception to follow.

As the press release says, "Battle has been responsible for developing a unique approach to sustainable development while still keeping an optimum balance between the environmental impact, social benefit and financial return both for his clients and the community. Battle has worked on a wide range of international projects and with many world-renowned architects including Foster and Partners, Will Aslop and Sir Richard Rogers. During the past 15 years, Battle is credited with developing an innovative approach to sustainable environmental master planning including Greenwich Peninsula and ParcBIT Sustainable Masterplan, Mallorca."

I saw a presentation at the Greenbuild conference in Chicago two years ago for the Mallorca masterplan, and it was incredible: practically an entire island running on net-zero energy usage.

Also, a few years ago Battle spoke in Portland during the 2005 Greenbuild conference and I did a Q&A with him afterward. Here is a portion of that discussion:

How did you become interested in green building?

I went to the University of Bath in England, and I was educated in architecture as much as engineering. As a result, I learned to speak architecture, to understand its language, which is very important. During that period, I also had a number of tutors who professed interest in the environment. I picked up on that, and my thesis was on intelligent buildings skins which reacted to their environment. From there, I got interested in architecture that responds to climactic conditions.

Would you advocate that there be more integration in the educational process between architecture and engineering?

There’s not nearly enough. In this country [USA] it’s amazing to me that so few architects are able to speak to engineers and vise-versa. Half the problem is the architects don’t invite engineers to the table early enough. And if they do, the engineers feel somehow restricted, unable to take up the conversation. I think that’s due again to the education of engineers. They’re not taught to be creative.

How does this compare to Europe?

There’s a big difference. There’s a wealth of European engineers who are amazingly creative, and at the moment taking over the States. You’ve got Buro Happold, you’ve got Whitby Bird, you’ve got Arup, you’ve got Tim MacFarlane, you’ve got ourselves. These are environmental structural engineers who know how to be creative with their designs.

And of course green building requires greater collaboration between architects, engineers, and the rest of the building team.

Sustainable design means a greater level of integration. As an architect you have to conduct more people into the process: the engineer, the acoustician, the landscape architect. That’s why at our practice we have structural engineers, M/E/P engineers, and landscape architects, because we believe we have to produce an integrated package that will support the architects.

And then there have also been studies linking green buildings, or specifically daylit buildings, to improved human performance.

How far along do you think we are to taking green building mainstream?

If you look at the bulk of building in the States, 75% or 80% is people who are ignoring the issues. But I think there is a trickle-down effect. Obviously, though, the most basic means of change is the code. The bottom line is that if you don’t obey the code, the building is illegal, so it’s always the barest minimum. That has to be the starting point. And then you have things like incentives, which organizations like BetterBricks are a part of. It helps architects and engineers to do analysis work. And then you’ve got the straightforward incentives to do with photovoltaics or wind turbines or whatever it might be. So I think carrots alone will not make changes. You need sticks and carrots.

You believe that within five or ten years the US will be more advanced than Europe in green building.

Yes, I passionately believe that actually. Coming here to Portland, you’ve got some architects doing amazing stuff, and engineers supporting them. I really believe that once you guys create a bit of momentum, there will be no holding back, because ultimately green building is driven by money. Once the US realizes that, it will be developing the best products and processes. And that’s why our firm is working here in this country. I’ve seen a massive sea change in attitude just in the last twelve months. It really is very exciting.

In your lecture here, you talked about a Battle McCarthy project, the Peckham Library in England, and how its architects, Alsop and Stormer, believe green building need not operate according to any particular stylistic principles. Do you agree?

There is a big debate about whether green buildings should look green, or whether they should just look like a piece of great architecture. And I think both are valid, but one thing that’s definitely true is that a green building does not have to wear its credentials on its sleeve. Alsop’s work is all about following a green agenda but very much interpreting it in a very artistic fashion. I think that’s actually very important.

Relatedly, it seems unfortunate that even though we live in an age of celebrity architects, few of them seem to have incorporated green principles into their design. There is a bit of a disconnect. I might go so far as to say there’s a new movement in architecture that’s environmentally driven, but it’s found outside the celebrity environment, although [Norman] Foster is doing some interesting stuff. If you go back to architects like Louis Kahn, Walter Gropius and even Le Corbusier, however, before air conditioning was invented much of their work took an environmental form. They were really interested in climate.

What aspect of your career gets you the most excited about getting up and going to work every day?

I enjoy the challenge of forging design with good architects. You cannot do better than to sit down with an architect and sketch for three or four hours together. You just can’t beat that feeling, because it’s the whole essence of giving birth to a design. Working with SOM, KPF, Gensler, Grimshaw, Farrel, or Foster, these are all architects who, given a set of criteria, will all do something different, and that is very interesting and challenging for an engineer, to allow that creativity to occur and enhance it. But looking at the bigger picture, sustainability is also what drives me and my practice. The ideas are rote sometimes, but they’re not easy to come by. To be able to deliver them is another sort of layer that is also very important to us.

Do engineers deserve more credit?

Yes, I think so. Engineering is the hidden hand. They have an enormous amount to contribute to architecture, but too often their contribution is gently put to one side. I think it’s something that should be celebrated. You look at someone like Peter Rice or Neil Thomas, Chris Wise, Guy Nordenson, and a host of other fantastic engineers, and they don’t really get the recognition they deserve.