Let’s not play the blame game with the Stirling Prize shortlist

For longer than I care to remember, I have been vocal about my hatred of greenwashing by commercial powerbrokers who hijack a very real issue to benefit their egos and, even worse, profits. I dislike the environmental and climate change rhetoric spouted by the unscrupulous to fool us (lesser-witted mortals) into thinking that they care more about the climate crisis than their deeds suggest.

I have sat through countless meetings as developers, hotel operators and, sometimes, architects spout utter nonsense. Phrases such as ‘life cycle net zero’ buzz around the room; by the time I figure out what that means in terms of actual interventions to reduce the carbon impact of the building, they have moved on to yet another phrase from the ever-increasing greenwash lexicon.

So you might imagine that my stance on the six schemes in the running to win the RIBA Stirling Prize is relatively straightforward. I’ve read many pieces about the buildings and the RIBA’s response to criticism of greenwashing and promoting projects that damage the world. I have read the scathing Architects’ Climate Action Network (ACAN) blog post, which firmly and very clearly calls out the RIBA, pointing out problems with demolishing existing buildings, offsetting and the undersupply of social homes.

ACAN is correct on all points. However, I’m not sure its criticism has been levelled at the right party.

Firstly, there is the issue of context. While the environmental impact of a scheme should and must be considered, we have to remember that the Stirling Prize is ostensibly an architecture competition and not a sustainability one. I know this view will be unpopular but I think that context is important. Now, does this need to change? Yes, perhaps, but until it does, the harsh criticism of the RIBA and the architects whose projects have been shortlisted is unfair.

I believe the world’s climate crisis is the most pressing challenge for humanity and that we all have a part to play in helping to solve the problem and reduce the world’s CO₂ emissions. However, we can’t rewrite history; it is impractical and unrealistic to suddenly expect all buildings to be meet net-zero targets, be that in terms of their operation, life cycles or embodied carbon.

For the sake of clarity, I think we should aim for all buildings to be as sustainable as possible. But we have to be realistic. Expecting architects to design buildings that may have been conceived a decade ago to current sustainability standards requires more than great architecture; it requires architects to be Time Lords.

I agree with RIBA president Simon Allford when he says there are many elements of these schemes that should be celebrated. The shortlist in my opinion represents some of the best architecture in recent years – architecture that creates spaces that we need, that demonstrates sound thinking on sustainable materials and the re-use of existing materials.

Do these shortlisted projects represent perfection in terms of their sustainability? Of course not. But they were not meant to; yet they represent a huge step in the right direction.

Meaningful change takes time and patience, especially in a sector where the landscape is constantly changing. Our evolving expectations for the sustainability of our buildings are voraciously fast-paced – and need to be – but architecture must be given time to catch up. Vilifying architects and institutions will not help the cause.

True innovation will only occur if we are realistic about goals while simultaneously setting ambitious future targets. ACAN is right to call out the issues relating to the Stirling Prize shortlist.

But, instead of carbon-shaming the RIBA, they should work with them to set improved sustainability guidelines for future competitions. We must all do better regarding sustainability – the RIBA, architects, developers and the government – so let’s work together to do that. We can still celebrate the incredible architecture and the significant strides forward that the industry is making now. We must do better tomorrow, but we can still celebrate today.

The unpalatable truth is that it will take decades to fully fix the carbon problem that the built environment has imposed on our world. Greenwashing exists primarily to avoid criticism, and so does a disservice if it tempts us to take our eye off the ball. Allowing our fear to lead us into the blame game will only create warring factions at exactly the time we need to be working together.

Kunle Barker is a property expert, journalist and broadcaster