Tough question for all you architects & engineers. Who are you ultimately responsible to? The public or your clients? If our primary responsibility to the public it means: - Telling our clients what carbon limits should be met - Requiring minimum energy performance for buildings - Publishing carbon statistics for new buildings Do we have this the wrong way? What do you think? _______________________ If you like my content give me a follow and hit the bell. I post Monday - Saturday @ 6:15am PST. #architecture #carbon #engineering #design
This is indeed a thought-provoking question that challenges the core principles of architecture and engineering. While clients are essential in driving projects, the ultimate responsibility of professionals lies in serving the public interest. Balancing the needs of clients with ethical considerations, such as carbon limits and energy performance, is crucial for creating sustainable and socially responsible designs. It's important to engage in a meaningful dialogue to find a harmonious approach that benefits both clients and the wider community.
You’re responsible for both but in different terms. The client you hold a fiduciary responsibility to, you must ensure an excellent return on investment through the highest performance building. While the public you hold a community economic development approach promise to. Progress the neighborhoods, ensure and uplift the public realm. Provide a high quality of space, etc. So, these questions can also be business related. - Telling our clients what carbon limits should be met. (This is marketing insights for the client) - Requiring minimum energy performance for buildings. (This just makes operational aspect of the building more efficient which should yield a higher cash flow) - Publishing carbon statistics for new buildings (What tax credits can the owner recieve, what does this do for the brand of the building and its resale value?) Point is none is the is mutually exclusive it’s all a balance of design and value.
Project Architect at KSS Architects
1yThese are good questions, and I tend to default to back to the typical considerations of balancing health, safety, and welfare. Historically this has largely referred to fire safety and protection of property (which benefit both the client and the public). I think ultimately carbon considerations are reshaping what health/safety/welfare can fundamentally mean within architecture and engineering. I think of it more as an evolution of these disciplines rather than a pivot or departure.