Alison Brooks says that outstanding buildings like the Bird’s Nest can adapt to future long-term use, while Paul Hyett argues that sustainability should be a key element of award criteria
'Yes'

Member of Lubetkin Prize jury
The Beijing stadium has been criticised for using excessive construction material, having a high carbon footprint and no clear legacy use. But that steel and concrete is recyclable! Like Piazza Navona, a re-inhabitation of Domitian’s Stadium, the Bird’s Nest can adapt to future uses we can’t imagine — housing, a university, a small town. For the moment it is a tourist destination on a par (30,000 footfalls a day) with the Pyramids or the Taj Mahal.
A poetic architecture of allusion and metaphor that communicates with a global audience cannot be driven by economy of means. The stadium may not be the most structurally efficient building in the world, but does efficiency strike joy and wonder into people’s hearts? Can efficiency redefine a nation’s identity on the world stage, creating great art? The Eiffel Tower represents the most advanced engineering of its time. It’s a greatly loved symbol of France and a huge economic driver, but there’s a fair amount of redundancy in the structure.
The Beijing stadium expresses an idea — the bird’s nest as lattice structure and sculpture, its permeability allowing both natural ventilation and free movement.
It is the product of the latest digital technology, and the labour of thousands of workers. It is both a global collaboration and a powerful national monument.
The stadium is the finest architectural achievement of its time, with lessons for us all. It is more than worthy of the world’s most valued architectural prizes.
'No'

Ex-chair of Carbon Trust research programme
This is a no-brainer. Unsustainable buildings shouldn’t win any architectural awards. No apologies here — none.
Let’s not waste time rehearsing the arguments. The “inconvenient truth” is plain to see — global warming is a reality. And we all know that buildings — whether through cooling, heating, or embodied energy — account for well over 40% of all CO2 emissions. As city dwellers swell beyond 50% of the world’s population, architecture’s social responsibility intensifies.
Safe cities have always been a challenge — fire and plague being obvious examples of threat. Our current building regulations have their origins in the public health acts of the 19th century.
Building, at its simplest, is about shelter and safety — from storm and foe. So when buildings contribute significantly to the ruination of our host environment, and to our planet’s incapacity to support life, they fail catastrophically.
Sustainable architecture is not necessarily good architecture. But, as the first generation knowingly to wreak havoc on our world, we can no longer define architecture as good unless it is also sustainable. Awards are a powerful influence. They must be used effectively. I know we can argue for ever about what is and isn’t sustainable and we surely will, but the dissidents’ case looks increasingly absurd. We are over the “tipping point” in this argument and for architects it is now all to be done.
What do you think?
1 Readers' comment