AESTHETICS OF SUSTAINABLE ARCHITECTURE - 2ND APPROACH

In my previous blog post, I addressed the fundamental question of whether sustainable construction changes the aesthetic perception of architecture.

After further examination of philosophical and architectural theory texts, I feel vindicated on one point: architecture can be considered art if its aesthetics alter the meaning of a building. Sustainability brings a new dimension to this discourse.

TRANSFORMATION INSTEAD OF DECORATION

The discussion about the aesthetics of architecture has long focused on form, material, and proportion. Sustainable measures such as energy-efficient renovations or the reuse of materials go beyond these classic categories; they change not only the external appearance of a building, but also its meaning.

An example:

• A solar panel system on the roof is initially a technical necessity. However, when consciously integrated into the design, it can create a new aesthetic quality.

• Energy-efficient renovation of a building from the 1960s can enhance its aesthetic appeal, but it can just as easily destroy historical materials, for example, when a red brick facade disappears under a composite thermal insulation system (ETICS).

Not every renovation leads to a positive aesthetic transformation. But what happens when a building faces the decision between demolition and renovation?

THE CHANGE IN THE PERCEPTION OF EXISTING STOCK

As soon as a building is called into question—i.e., it could potentially be demolished or fundamentally renovated—it suddenly gains aesthetic significance. What was previously considered insignificant or outdated is now being discussed as worthy of preservation.

Why is that?

• Is it because people are engaging more intensively with a building as a result of the renovation debate?

• Or is it society's recognition that preserving existing buildings makes an important contribution to climate-friendly construction?

This shift in perception means that even everyday architecture from the 1960s and 1970s, i.e., buildings that were often considered unattractive, are now being reevaluated. An old ornate railing has always been considered beautiful, but a typical residential building from the 1970s? The appreciation for existing buildings is changing, and with it the definition of what is considered aesthetic.

A NEW DEFINITION OF AESTHETICS?

Classic theories on architectural aesthetics, from Vitruvius to modernism, hardly address what we are experiencing today: architecture that is gaining significance through its sustainability.

• Is a building more beautiful because it is preserved and not demolished?

• Can a facade acquire a design quality simply because we know that it has been saved by sustainable renovation?

• Does sustainable construction mean not only a functional but also an aesthetic transformation?

These questions lead me to a realization that I have not found in classical theories: we need a new definition of aesthetics.

Sustainable architecture is more than technology; it changes how we perceive cities, how we deal with space, and how we define beauty. If architecture gains a deeper level of meaning through sustainability, then that can only be to its advantage.