Green building and “traditional” building: definitions compared
If we ask any search engine to give us the definition of “traditional construction”, the answer we will get is this “it is based on consolidated methods and materials such as concrete, brick, steel, wood, stone and glass, offering durability, robustness, good seismic and acoustic performance, thanks to the mass, but can have a high environmental impact (resource consumption, CO2) and less energy efficiency than modern solutions, although it can be renewed with “dry” technologies and prefabrication to improve sustainability and performancei” (from Google question: “traditional construction”).
If we also ask to define “green building” the answer we get is “a sustainable approach to the design and construction of buildings that integrates the environment and human health using natural materials (wood, straw, clay), low impact techniques and exploiting renewable energy (solar, geothermal) to create healthy, efficient spaces in harmony with the landscape, considering the entire life cycle of the building to minimize waste and pollution” (from Google question “definition of green building”).
Apart from the not strictly correct use in the meaning of the term “sustainable”, the association of modern construction with prefabrication (?) and the indication of the use of renewable energy in one case, when in reality it is today a common topic in all fields, in both definitions we find common elements and valid basic assumptions. But if we analyze in greater detail the elements that distinguish green building, we find that terms such as respect for the environment, human health, natural materials are not present in “traditional” building. In fact, these three terms lie in the great difference between the two ways of building.
Materials, environment and health: where the real difference lies
In the “traditional” one the prerequisite is to build with solidity (mass), using every possible material in order to achieve the aim of providing a home to an inhabitant or to a specific function. In green building, however, there is particular attention to respect for the environment, adopting renewable materials which at the end of their life do not have a negative impact as waste, as well as particular attention to human health and the habitat, thanks to the harmonious shape of the building, but also to the use of healthy materials, free of substances harmful to human health.
At this point it is natural to ask ourselves – if this is the big difference between the two construction methods mentioned (traditional vs green building) – how can we accept that there is a “traditional” building system, which is high-performance, but harmful to human health and which impacts the ecological footprint of the planet, compared to another which is completely the opposite? Can we accept “traditional” construction that pollutes, which at the end of the use of construction materials leads to waste that ends up dying in a landfill ad aeternum?
I believe the answer is obvious, but certainly not obvious, if we consider the low level of ecological awareness prevailing today.
If today we still feel the need to specify the prefix “bio”, it is probably because construction, in its recent development, has progressively moved away from these fundamental principles. It is as if it had become necessary to distinguish what should be normal from what unfortunately is no longer normal. But this distinction, upon closer inspection, should have no reason to exist: building while respecting man and the environment should not be an option, but rather an essential requirement.
Beyond the dichotomy: rethinking the building project
The real issue, therefore, is not choosing between two “schools of thought”, but rethinking the very concept of a building project. A building is not just a functional container, nor a mere response to regulatory or market needs, it is a complex organism that interacts with those who live in it, with the territory in which it is located and with the resources it consumes throughout its life cycle. Ignoring these relationships means building in a partial, incomplete way.
In this sense, the quality of construction can no longer be evaluated exclusively in terms of resistance, cost or speed of construction. Broader parameters must come into play: the healthiness of internal environments, the breathability of structures, the absence of harmful emissions, the possibility of maintenance, repair and disassembly of materials, all aspects that directly impact human well-being and environmental impact.
Building construction today means taking on a cultural and social responsibility, as well as a technical one, it means recognizing that every design choice has consequences that go far beyond the individual building and the individual client. Only when these principles are fully integrated into common practice, perhaps we will no longer need to talk about green building.
So do you want to know what I think? I believe that there should not be a substantial difference between construction and green building, since both should be united by a single concept: “Doing construction” and that’s it! There is only one construction industry, the one that builds houses creating healthy and comfortable accommodation, respecting the ecosystem, the living habitat and the physical and biological integrity of the inhabitant.
