While it may seem strange for an architect to advocate not building, I feel the decision of where not to build is just as important as the decision of where to build. All buildings have a site; and in the best architecture, the building respects the land and brings out the best of the site: framing views, preserving existing trees, capitalizing on natural breezes. These considerations of where not to build drive the decision of where to site the building. Consider public parks and nature trails. These are the places we consider too important to build on, and we save them from ourselves, from the effects of construction and habitation. Deciding where to build (and perhaps more importantly where not to build) is not just about economic drivers. It’s about quality of life and respect of the land. If we make wise decisions and are purposeful about where we don’t build, the land and architecture will reinforce each other, creating a higher quality environment and ultimately, a better community.

It’s easy to consider the environmental impact a building will have when I consider the probable lifespan of a structure I work on. While energy efficiency and resource management might save a relatively nominal amount in the short term, the buildings we build are not designed as temporary constructions. These projects, be it a church or office, retail space or a government building, are meant to survive the test of time. That means those little steps we make to conserve power or water or any other resource is compounded by the years the building is expected to thrive and survive.