THE IMPERMANENCE OF PERMANENCE: QUESTIONING PERMANENCE AS A CENTRAL TENANT OF SUSTAINABILITY

Melanie Panutsos mpanutso@kent.edu College of Architecture and Environmental Design Kent State University Kent, OH 44242 mpanutso@kent.edu

ABSTRACT

For architects, the aspiration to leave a legacy manifests itself through the creation of longstanding structures. As such, permanence is a central proponent of many definitions of sustainability, including those of architect William McDonough and the Congress for New Urbanism. There are, however, issues with thinking in terms of these permanent solutions. The fast-pace of technological advances coupled with the desire to rush new technology to implementation engenders two of the main issues with permanence. First, the lifespan of a building often far outlasts the relevancy of its performative systems, and second, new sustainable strategies are frequently implemented before their effectiveness can be quantified. Impermanent thinking which in architecture refers to design meant to be deployed and dismantled on a shorter timeframe offers a solution. Impermanent structures often leave minimal to no lasting site impacts, cost less, and are made of recyclable or waste materials. Their temporary nature allows the utilization of rapid prototyping techniques to test highly experimental new technologies at minimal costs. Using Eastern philosophy and economic and social theories, this paper has made an argument for abandoning this restrictive nature of permanence in favor of adopting a transient approach to sustainability more in line with impermanence. Keywords: Impermanence, sustainability, design

1. BACKGROUND
Over the past several decades, architectural design has increasingly shifted toward an expanded emphasis on sustainability. Projects like la Tour Vivante by Pierre Sartoux of Atelier SOA are awarded media attention, but even smaller, local firms have been greatly influenced by this notion of sustainability. Sustainable design has become a design paradigm which may not always directly influence, but certainly challenges almost every work of architecture in contemporary times. The implications of designing and constructing sustainably may be more apparent in commercial construction, but they are equally significant for residential design. With such a focus on sustainably, it becomes incredibly important to examine how this term is being defined and quantified, and how new, often overlooked approaches can prove more effective in reaching the end goal. This paper focuses on the dichotomy between permanent and impermanent architecture. Permanent architecture refers to projects with a long expected lifespan that are intended to stay in one location and made of durable, long-lasting materials. Impermanent architecture is classified as such based on a shorter intended lifespan, an ability to move easily between locations, and/or a use of short-term or up-cycled building materials. This paper explains the place of impermanent architecture within the realm of sustainable design. Sustainability, as a construct, is perhaps harder to define than the above terms. According to the World Commission on Environment and Developments world-famous Brundtland report Our Common Future, sustainability is defined as that which meets the needs of current generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (WCED, 1987, p. 45). This is perhaps the most widely accepted definition, but it is by no means without room for interpretation. Official goals, as in government or politics, are purposely vague and general (Kerr, 1995, p. 7). These goals can be seen as high acceptance, but low quality, as the authors must often embrace ambiguity to develop a definition that can be applied to every circumstance. A vague problem statement generally leads to multiple approaches, each with varying degrees of effectiveness, which is likely why John Drexhage and Deborah Murphy of the International Institute for Sustainable Development feel that, sustainable development has not found the political entry points to make real progress (2010). To ground this somewhat vague definition, I have turned to other organizations that have developed more specific standpoints or standards for the design of sustainable architecture. Of these, I have discussed three of the major authorities: the USGBC, the International Living Building Institute, and William McDonough. I have analyzed each of these sources for a more concrete definition of sustainability, a means of quantifying success, an insight into how they might define sustainable buildings (in terms of impermanence vs. permanence), and a level of inclusion for impermanent design. According to the USGBCs Minimum Program Requirements, all LEED projects must be designed for, constructed on, and operated on a permanent location on already existing land. LEED projects shall not consist of mobile structures, equipment, or vehicles. No building or space that is designed to move at any point in its lifetime may pursue LEED Certification (2011, p. 2). This stipulation completely disregards environmental benefits that can be achieved from impermanent or mobile projects, denying an entire realm of architectural design. The Living Building Challenge also characterizes buildings as those which are created for permanent use, but as a model it can also be applied to renovations, landscapes or infrastructures, and neighborhoods (International Living Building Institute, 2010, p. 8). Here, impermanent

architecture would likely fall under the category of landscape or infrastructures, but at least in this regard it could still be considered for its environmental benefits. The Congress for the New Urbanism in their Canons of Sustainable Architecture and Urbanism has this to say on impermanence: Human interventions in the built environment tend to be long lived and have long-term impacts; therefore, design and financing must recognize long life and permanence rather than transience (Moule, Dittmar, & Polyzoides, 2011, p. 2). This principle argues for permanence on the basis that interventions tend to be permanent. It neglects to ask the most important question: should the interventions be permanent? Maintaining permanence as a tenet of sustainability only because it has been viewed that way in the past is a stagnant approach which has no place in an ever-evolving architectural field. Lastly, architect William McDonough, author of Cradle to Cradle, does not have a concrete framework for assessing the sustainable qualities of a building, which perhaps is to his benefit. He speaks instead of the wasted value of products sitting in landfills, the linear, oneway cradle-to-grave model (McDonough, 2002, p. 27). For McDonough, the current design process, or attack of the one-size-fits-all results in boring, uninspiring buildings, the monotonous repetition of which creates a de-evolution (McDonough, 2002, p. 119). If the current state of architectural design is decimating all forms of life around it, then perhaps a less permanent construct which could work with the environment is more appropriate.

2. THE ROLE OF ARCHITECTURE WITHIN THE SUSTAINABLE DESIGN PARADIGM

Merging these varying standpoints, sustainable design becomes that which works to reduce impact on the land or give back to the system. Unfortunately, this definition, like the others, is somehow simultaneously vague and limiting. Architecture has always been seen primarily as permanent construction whose primary objective was to leave a lasting impression, but that thinking is no longer prudent. That kind of architecture may still have its place, but there is room for impermanent architecture as well. The need for well designed, modular, temporary residential constructs to shelter families during disaster relief efforts has perhaps underscored this new opportunity to design with a set life span. In order to make this argument, I have analyzed architectures place within the goal of sustainability. 2.1 Logics of Sustainability Despite the progression of the green movement, the fact that sustainability does not have any set intrinsic meaning is often overlooked (Warner & DeCrosse, 2009). To sustain simply means to keep up or prolong, and that is just one of eight definitions given by Merriam Webster (2012). To say that the purpose of or means of achieving sustainability is permanence is to use the literal definition without regard for its applicability. Humans are born, live for a period, and ultimately die; architecture must do the same. Eternal life, for individuals or buildings, is by no means possible or sustainable, as it would lead to overpopulation and a decimation of natural resources. Authors Simon Guy and Graham Farmer suggest that a more appropriate way to understand this strategic diversity lies in abandoning the search for a true or incontestable definition of sustainable buildings, and instead treating the concept in a relative rather than absolute sense (2001, p. 140; quoting Cook and Golton, 1994, p. 684). They

separate the distinct modes of sustainable thinking in architecture into six different logics (Table 1).

(Table 1, Guy & Farmer, p.141) Of these six, the first three become vital to the debate between permanent and impermanent architecture. Permanent design can most appropriately be seen as a combination of the eco-technic and eco-aesthetic logics. The current approach to sustainable development is through the use of high-technology embedded in permanent buildings to maximize efficiency. The argument for this lies in the belief that it is possible to, overcome the environmental crisis without leaving the path of modernization (Spaargaren & Mol, 1992, p. 334). This eco-technic approach is often faulty, and where it stumbles, it couples with the eco-aesthetic logic, a sort of fake it till you make it method to sustainable development which looks to the architecture as an iconic expression of societal values which should act to inspire and convey an increasing identification with nature rather than actually working to solve the issue (Guy & Farmer, 2001, p. 143). This is essentially the architectural equivalent of cancer awareness car magnets. As the logic that best applies itself to impermanent architecture, the eco-centric logic calls for a radical approach to rethinking building design and production (Guy & Farmer, 2001, p. 143). This logic sees the land not as a commodity to be bought and sold, but rather as a community of which humans are an integral part (Leopold, 1949, p. 223-224). Buildings are unnatural and disruptive consumption hogs. According to Steve Curwell and Ian Cooper, authors of The Implications of Urban Sustainability, each building is an act against nature which acts as a parasite rendering part of earth sterile (1998, p 17-27). This current condition of architectural design is by no means sustainable. 2.2 Phases of Sustainability When thinking of the different phases of a buildings lifecycle, the costs and opportunities of sustainability can be considered at each step (Fig 1). Jong-Jin Kim and Brenda Rigdon divide sustainable considerations during the building process into six components: lifespan, durability, maintenance requirements, reusability, recyclability, and biodegradability. The study was limited to conventional materials but could easily be applied to impermanent construction.

(Fig. 1, Jong-Jin & Rigdon) The reuse of durable, low maintenance materials is a relatively common component of impermanent projects, especially those which could later biodegrade or be recycled. Even in more permanent projects, these types of building materials have huge benefits. Consider the Hidden Villa in Los Altos Hills, California which uses straw bales to create walls and partitions that insulate from the elements. These bales are a locally sourced by-product of farming and would otherwise go to waste (Sassi, 2006, p. 172). Another benefit of impermanent construction is that it does not have to weigh the costs/benefits of purchasing longer-lasting materials. These materials are purchased in an effort to save money/energy in replacement costs, but often outlive the buildings lifespan or are replaced before necessary simply for aesthetic purposes. Materials like these are even less appropriate for temporary residential shelters, although without an open discourse on impermanent design, these default materials are likely the only ones that will be considered. 2.3 A Culture of Sustainability Awareness of and attitudes toward impermanence are greatly dependent on culture. While Western cultures tend to see impermanence as a function of improvisation and convenience, a making-do until there is time or money (Chaplin, 2005, p. 79), the view of impermanence by those in the East, particularly in Japanese culture, is grounded in Buddhist doctrine (Steineck, 2007, p.34) and has a much more positive connotation. Impermanence is a central tenet of Buddhism, known in Japanese as mujokan, which permeates the Japanese approach to design and construction. For those in the East, there is an embedded uncertainty in the act of construction itself, where things are never fully designed, but are always in a state of being designed (Chaplin, 2005, p. 79). Kisho Kurokawa, Japanese architect and founder of the Metabolist movement, argues for impermanence, saying, The ideal that human beings must strive for is not to conquer nature but to live as a part of nature, in accord with its rules (Belfiore, 2011). This stands in stark contrast to permanent construction. Examples of Buddhist impermanence in practice are far-reaching and include everything from Japanese urban development to the ritualistic reconstruction of the Shinto temple at Ise, which emphases the sanctity of the earth over the built form (Chaplin, 2005, p. 80). For Buddhists, even the permanent is impermanent. The Japanese city, haphazard yet efficient and quick to adapt, is an excellent example of this preference, and this idea of impermanence speaks to the mindset needed to advance sustainable practice. We must learn to accept that, like us, works of architecture are not immortal, and also like us, the land we build on is not invincible. This will enable us to refocus on preservation of natural resources and reduced impact on the land rather than preservation of design. Because everything is fleeting to the East, there is almost no emphasis on durability. In many ways this is a more sustainable practice, since a buildings collective lifetime cannot surpass the smallest lifespan of any of its components (Banaag, 2001, p. 3). Under this logic,

valuable resources are not being wasted in making a material more durable than necessary. Arata Isozaki mirrors this sentiment in an interview from 1999, saying, Architecture is always growing or decaying and if the lives of buildings move in the same direction that peoples do, they will surely encounter change and eventually their end (Isozaki, 1999, p. 112). Architect Sarah Chaplin expands on this, questioning, Why make something to last, when it simply will not when a more powerful means of expression can be obtained from its impermanence? (2005, p. 81) An example of such expression can be seen in Frei Otto and Sigeru Bans Japan Pavilion, an impermanent structure of recycled paper which would be again recycled after the expo. The design process, executed with minimal technology, included joints supported with tape (Fig 2.).

(Fig. 2, Design Boom, courtesy Princeton Architectural Press) 2.4 Western Adaptations in Eastern Culture Western economist E.F. Schumacher adapted much of these Eastern philosophies to create an economic theory known as Buddhist economics. While he is known for saying, the central concept of wisdom is permanence, Schumacher is not speaking of material products, but rather the permanence of our environment as a whole (Fullerton, 2008). In fact, much of his economic theory stems from his study of Gandhi and his objections to mans craze for machinery (Weber 1999). While Schumachers initial emphasis was on job loss through automation, his ideas can easily be applied to sustainable architecture. In this vein, founder and president of the sustainable economic collaborative Capital Institute quotes Einsteins famous warning: We cant solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created the problems. Relying on technology solutions alone to solve our sustainability challenges, which are largely the product of technological advances, is not wise. We must think differently (Fullerton, 2008). Perhaps Schumacher is right in saying that any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex (Schumacher 1973); we should focus our attention on making things better, and this will most likely require a paradigm shift in our most fundamental ideas of how to design sustainably. Because evolutionary growth will never stop or be complete, permanence is effectively an unattainable goal, yet designs continue to attempt a counterintuitive

degree of permanence. Moving forward, impermanence is the mechanism by which we can secure the permanence of our existence. When asked if he felt that the ideas of Buddhist economics could work in the Western world, Schumacher poignantly replied, The West is just as much capable of common sense as anybody else we cant go on building buildings like this (Fullerton 1977). We should abandon a culture of permanence in favor of a culture of growth.

3. AN IMPERMANENT FUTURE
Despite the pervading influence of permanence thinking, the field of architecture is on the cusp of change. The increasingly important goals of sustainability require a new design paradigm that can better foster and enable sustainable strategies. This desperately needed new paradigm has its basis in the way of impermanence. This is not to say that there is no longer a place for any permanent design, but rather that a place must be made for impermanent thinking, as it is much better able to adapt to societys changing needs, rapid technological advances, and scarce resources. Impermanent thinking challenges design to embrace and be influenced by an unalienable truth that individuals, especially those in the Western world, have a hard time accepting: nothing is permanent. Continuing on a path of strictly permanent thinking would lead to the continued wasting of resources and a lost opportunity to truly improve the state of our environment. This paper sheds light on the impermanence of permanent thinking and the importance of impermanent thinking. As such, it opens the floor for further discourse, research, and design development in the realm of impermanent design in both residential and commercial sectors.

4. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Id like to acknowledge Adil Sharag-Eldin for his continued guidance, review, and support, and Marcie Panutsos for her tireless editing and assistance.

5. REFERENCES
Arieff, A. (2011, December 19). Its time to rethink temporary. Opinionator. Retrieved from: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/19/its-time-to-rethink-temporary/ Banaag, F.F. (2011, February). Temporality in architecture and the arts. Retrieved from: http://www.scribd.com/doc/48928618/Temporality-in-Architecture-and-the-Arts Belfiore, M. (2011, May 3). Living Architecture Office: An architecture report from Gunma. Domus, 947. Retrieved from: www.domusweb.it/en/architecture/living-architecture Blaxell, V. (2010, July 19). Preparing Okinawa for reversion to Japan. The Asia-Pacific Journal, 29, 2-10.

Brownell, B. (2011, December). A bridge made of waste plastic. Architect: The Magazine of the American Institute of Architects. Burak, A. (2010, January 25). The impermanent icon. AA Diploma Unit 9, 2009/2010. Retrieved from: http://www.aadip9.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-search.cgi Chaplin, S. (2005, August). Makeshift: Some reflections of Japanese design sensibility. Architectural Design: Design through Making, 75, 4, 78-85. Coldham & Hartman Architects. (n.d.) Design principles for sustainability: Whitepaper. Retrieved from: http://www.coldhamandhartman.com/upload/documents/ Curwell, S. & Cooper, I. (1998). The implications of urban sustainability. Building Research and Information, 267/1, 17-27. Drexhage, J. & Murphy, D. (2012, September). Sustainable development: From Brundtland to Rio 2012. International Institute for Sustainable Development: United Nations. Retrieved from: http://www.un.org/wcm/webdav/site/climatechange/shared/gsp/docs/ Feleppa, R. (2009). Project Muse: Zen, Emotion, and Social Engagement. Philosophy East and West, 59, 3, 263-293. Fullerton, J. (2008). The relevance of E.F. Schumacher in the 21st century. New Economics Institute. Retrieved from: http://neweconomicsinstitute.org/publications/essays/fullerton/ Guy, S., & Farmer, G. (2001, February). Reinterpreting sustainable architecture: The place of technology. Journal of Architectural Education, 54, 3, 140-148. Hincha-Ownby, M. (2011, January 10). LEED woes continue. Mother Nature Network. Retrieved from: http://www.mnn.com/money/green-workplace/blogs/leed-woes-continue Ikerd, J. (2007, April 21). Principle-based planning for sustainable communities. Planning for Municipal Sustainability; An Integrated Approach to Long-range Planning in Saskatchewan. Retrieved from: http://web.missouri.edu/~ikerdj/papers/Saskatchewan International Living Building Institute. (2010, April). Living building challenge 2.0. Retrieved from: http://www.ilbi.org/lbc/LBC%20Documents/LBC2-0.pdf Isozaki, A. (1999). Interview in Shaking the Foundations: Japanese Architects in Dialogue. Christophe Knabe & Joerg Rainer Noennig (eds). Prestel, Munich, 112. Jong-Jin, K., & Rigdon, B. (n.d.). Sustainable architecture module: Qualities, use, and examples of sustainable building materials. National Pollution Prevention Center for Higher Education. Retrieved from The University of Michigan: www.umich.edu/~nppcpub/

Kerr, S. (1995, February). On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. The Academy of Management Executive (1993-2005), 9, 1, 7-14. Retrieved from: jstor.org/stable/4165235 Leopold, A. A Sand County Almanack. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. McDonough, W., & Braungart, M. (2002). Cradle to Cradle. New York, NY: North Point Press. McKeever, M. (2010, December 3). Four takes on impermanence. Tricycle. Retrieved from http://www.tricycle.com/blog/four-takes-impermanence-0 Moule, E., Dittmar, H., & Polyzoides, S. (2011). Canons of sustainable architecture and urbanism. Congress for New Urbansim. Retrieved from: http://www.cnu.org/canons Nitschke, G. (2002, June). Transience and renewal in Japanese form. KYOTO Journal 50: Perspectives on Asia. Retrieved from: east-asia-architecture.org/ieaau2/rockflower.html Sassi, P. (2006). Strategies for sustainable architecture. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Inc. Schumacher, E.F. (1973). Small is beautiful. The Radical Humanist, 37. Schumacher, E.F. (1977, March 19). E.F. Schumacher on Buddhist economics in the West: Q & A panel at the Great Circle Center. Peter Gillingham Collection, E.F. Schumacher Library Archives. Retrieved from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RebfgHCfrmw Schumacher, E.F. (1968, January-February). Buddhist Economics. Resurgence, 1, 11. Schwiontek, E. (2008, October). Urban laboratory: Temporary architecture. Goethe Institute: City of the Future. Retrieved from: goethe.de/kue/arc/dos/dos/sls/sdz/en3802817.htm Spaargaren, G. & Mol, A.P.J. (1992). Sociology, environment and modernity: Ecological modernization as a theory of social change. Society and Natural Resources 5, 323-344. Steineck, C. (2007, April). Time is not fleeting: Thoughts of a medieval zen Buddhist. KronoScope, 7, 1, 33-47. Sustain. (2012). In Merriam-Webster.com. Retreived March 21, 2012, from: www.merriamwebster.com United Nations. (1987). Our common future. Report of the World Commission on Our Environment and Development. Retrieved January 23, 2012, from: un-documents.net U.S. Green Building Council. (2011, January). Minimum Program Requirements. Washington, DC. Retrieved from: http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=6715

Warner, K.D., & DeCosse, D. (2009, May). Lesson four: The ethical dimension of sustainability. A Short Course in Environmental Ethics. Retrieved from Santa Clara University Web Site, http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/focusareas/environmental_ethics/lesson4.html Weber, T. (1999, May). Ghadi, deep ecology, peace research, and Buddhist economics. Journal of Peace Research, 36, 3, 349-361. Retrieved from: mkgandhi.org/articles/Buddhist Xue, C.Q.L., Sun, L.L., & Tsai, L. (2011). The architectural legacies of Kisho Kurokawa in China. The Journal of Architecture, 16:3, 415-442.