Chapter 3

The Sustainable Image: Responses to Context

“The solution of every problem is contained within itself. Its plan, form, andcharacter are determined by the nature of the site, the nature of the materialsused, the nature of the system using them, and the nature of the life concerned,and the purpose of the building itself.”

—Frank Lloyd Wright

3 T H E S U S TA I N A B L E I M A G E : R E S P O N S E S T O C O N T E X T20

INTRODUCTION: WHY SUSTAINABLE DESIGN?

“Sustainability is not a new building style. Instead it represents a revolution in how wethink about, design, construct, and operatebuildings.”

—A Primer on Sustainable Buildingpublished by Rocky Mountain Institute

Green Development Services

The image of our built environment is stronglyrelated to sustainability. Sustainability growsfrom principles of conservation and stewardshipthat are integral to the identity and mission ofthe Forest Service. A sustainable builtenvironment meets the following goals:

• Minimize the use of resources.• Conserve ecosystems, the source of all

resources.• Create healthy built environments and

landscapes for present and future generations.

Our forests are the ultimate renewableresource—one that, if managed with care, willmeet the needs of people and ecosystemsindefinitely. It is our mission to demonstrate toall Americans how to conserve these resources.As the construction, maintenance, heating, andcooling of structures consume an ever-increasingportion of our country’s natural resources,sustainable design becomes more important.

We can launch our drive toward sustainability byexamining the Forest Service structures built duringthe era of the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC).The rustic design of these 1930’s structuresharmonized superbly with their natural settings.The designers accomplished this by includingnatural materials such as stone and logs.Moreover, the craftsmanship and proportionsof CCC structures were often exquisite.

But that is only a start. The rustic style ofdesign was just that: a look. A rustic structure isnot inherently any more ecological or sustainablethan any other building dressed in the clothingof the forest.

THE SUSTAINABLE IMAGE: CONTEXT AND COMMONALTIES

High mountains• Heavy snow• Steep topography• Tall trees• Steep roof pitch

FoothillsBroad valleys• Mild winter• Flat topography• Short or sparse vegetation• Flat or gentle roof pitch

Roof Pitch Varies With Climate andVerticality of Topography and Vegetation

The following figure represents the intersection ofall three contexts to form a sustainable image.By exploring these contexts, we find new answersto the questions that drive our building programs.How can we improve working conditions? Servea growing number of visitors? Present a better

Forest Service image, even while budgets growtighter? Include the structures we design andbuild as part of our stewardship of the land?Keeping these contexts in mind, we can createstructures that complement, rather thanoverwhelm, the landscape.

The future of the Forest Service’s built environmentimage lies in drawing from aspects of our rusticpast while using today’s environmentally sensitivedesign and construction techniques.

This synthesis of past and present will createvisual harmony with the landscape setting andfunctional harmony with the ecological setting.That means construction must not consumeexcessive materials and energy. It should restorerather than disturb native vegetation, wetlands,and other wildlife habitat. It should be builtto last.

How can we make sustainable design a realitywithin national forests? There is more than onepath because, by nature, sustainability varies tomeet the requirements of each individual setting.In short, sustainability responds directly to itscontext. The three most important contexts forcreating sustainable design are:

• Ecological: The natural forces that shapelandscape, including climate, geology, soils,water, elevation, and vegetation.

• Cultural: The human forces that shape anddefine landscape, including history, developmentpatterns, agriculture, and social uses.

• Economic: The budget realities andcost-saving considerations that shape thebuilt environment.

21

Economic• Life cycle cost• Energy & resources• Human health

Ecological• Landscape character• Biophysical environment• Climate

Cultural/Social• Customer desires• Architecture & art• ROS

Sustainable built environment image

Factors of Contextfor a Sustainable Image

T H E S U S TA I N A B L E I M A G E : R E S P O N S E S T O C O N T E X T 3

3 T H E S U S TA I N A B L E I M A G E : R E S P O N S E S T O C O N T E X T22

Visitors to national forests expect to seenatural-appearing landscapes. To fulfill thoseexpectations, Forest Service facilities shouldharmonize with their landscape settings.

Landscape character results from a combinationof ecological and visual factors. Design shouldgrow from the character of each site: its ecology,geology, landforms, colors, plant life, microclimate,and cultural setting. Structures and roadsshould not disturb ecological integrity. Theyshould match visual features of the landscapesuch as color, texture, form, and line. For example,design in the Southeastern United States canrespond to the slender nature of vegetation inforests by including slender structural elements.In areas with massive vegetation and geology,such as the North Pacific, designs can includemassive structural elements such as bouldersand large logs. (The relationship of landscape andarchitectural character is shown in table 3.1.)

Landscape Attribute Influence Resulting Architectural CharacterClimate

Low precipitation (3–18") roof slope flat roofsClear bright sky wall material and mass thick walls for insulation and heat retentionHot summer temperatures shading bright intense colorsMild, clear winters colors recessed windows & doors

wall openings shade overhangs, arborssolar design commonplace

VegetationSparse building materials wood used sparinglyOpen pine, juniper forests structure massing wood logs, poles for roofSmall-leaved shrubs roof structure xeric, sparse landscapingGround cover water conserving

Surface Geology/RockSedimentary building materials thick, adobe block walls Sandstones structure massing plaster finish wallsShales wall thickness sandstone light colors, tans

wall finishes wall texture of surrounding soil

Table 3.1 Effect of Ecological Context on Architectural Character

THE ECOLOGICAL CONTEXT AND LANDSCAPE CHARACTER

23T H E S U S TA I N A B L E I M A G E : R E S P O N S E S T O C O N T E X T 3

Each ecological setting should be analyzed todetermine suitable materials, colors, textures,and forms. Elements to analyze include:

• Vegetation: Type, canopy coverage, patterns.• Climate: Prevailing winds, precipitation,

temperature, freeze-thaw cycles, seasonalvariations, heating and cooling loads.

• Color: Degree of lightness or darkness;tones based on local plant life, geology,soils, water, quality of light, and sky.

• Solar: Orientation, aspect,intensity, and available days.

• Surface geology and soils: Type, texture,size, color, scale, construction capacity,or limitations.

• Hydrology: Runoff, drainage patterns,subsurface conditions, and aestheticqualities of lakes and streams.

Massive vegetation suggestsmassive structural elements

Slender vegetation suggestsslender structural elements

3 T H E S U S TA I N A B L E I M A G E : R E S P O N S E S T O C O N T E X T24

Careful consideration of the following questionswill help illustrate how landscape factors influencearchitectural character and materials:

• Will the design visually complement thelandscape?

• Does the design respond to the area’secological influences?

• Does it use colors and shapes found withinthe forest?

• Are important views created or blocked?• Does the design respond to climate?

• Does the design require regrading or clearingof vegetation?

• Must new utilities be extended to the site?• Are the building materials locally produced,

recycled, or recyclable?• Can the structures be made energy efficient?• Can they take advantage of energy sources

such as solar, wind, or water power?• Will the project have an adverse effect on

wildlife habitat?• Will it increase runoff and erosion?

Materials respond to the scale of the setting—Large mountains, rocks, or trees suggest a larger scale of materials

Materials respond to the scale of the setting—Grasslands suggests a finer scale of materials

25T H E S U S TA I N A B L E I M A G E : R E S P O N S E S T O C O N T E X T 3

Climate-responsivebuilding characteristicsHot, humid climate:insulate and ventilateto reduce solar gain• Ridge venting• Reflective roofing

color and material• Windows positioned

to promotecross-ventilation

• Under floor ventilation

Climate-responsive building characteristicsCold, dry climate: promote solar gain• Clerestory window• South-facing window to promote solar gain• Berm toward the north• Thermal mass

The design, construction, ormodification of buildings andfacilities must reflect thearchitectural character of theregion. Architectural charactergrows from the following factors:

• Landscape setting and physicalcharacteristics.

• Traditions of indigenous cultures,including early European settlersand subsequent development.

• National and regionalarchitectural styles.

European settlers imported theirbuilding traditions. For example,New England’s early Englishsettlers imported the use of splitboards for siding (a response tothe shortage of timber in England)to New England. In the mid-Atlantic region, German settlerswho favored square-log houseconstruction in central Europe(which had large forests tosupport this construction)continued to build with logsin the new land.

3 T H E S U S TA I N A B L E I M A G E : R E S P O N S E S T O C O N T E X T26

New England responseNew England historical context

North Pacific historical context North Pacific response

THE CULTURAL CONTEXT

27T H E S U S TA I N A B L E I M A G E : R E S P O N S E S T O C O N T E X T 3

Other settlers adapted to new conditions. In theSouthwest, the Spanish colonists combined theirarchitectural traditions with the adobe Puebloarchitecture that adapted so well to the desert.In rainy Florida, the Spaniards developed awaterproofing material called tabby, made froma ground-up mix of lime and oyster shells.

Lacking such modern technologies as airconditioning or earth-moving equipment, earlierbuilders learned to work with the constraints ofeach site. The results of their labors providevaluable lessons for sustainability. For example,they knew how to minimize site disturbance andhow to maximize natural heating and cooling.

The early built environments of the Forest Servicefit squarely within these cultural traditions.When sited in remote locations, Forest Service

buildings were by necessity made from localmaterials using local skills. As a result, log cabinswere erected in the mountains and adobestructures in the Southwest.

Tested by time and proven to be utilitarian,traditional designs continue to be suitable andsustainable models for Forest Service structures.The best traditional designs:

• Use locally available building materials.• Respond to the climate.• Work sensitively within the landscape setting,

taking advantage of solar orientation, shadetrees, prevailing breezes, and topography.

• Reflect the region’s culture.

Issues to consider:

• What are the traditional building styles ofthe region? Of the forest?

• What materials, colors, and buildingtechniques were traditionally used?

• Can these be adapted using modern buildingtechniques and materials?

• Does the design fit within the image, history,and culture of the Forest Service?

• Where does the site fit into the RecreationOpportunity Spectrum?

North Pacific responseNorth Pacific historical context

3 T H E S U S TA I N A B L E I M A G E : R E S P O N S E S T O C O N T E X T28

“Excellent design is not the same as elaborateor expensive design. Some excellent design mayin fact compensate for smaller square feetand less expensive materials. A poorly designedproject cuts the chance of success andincreases the risk. It is also very expensive togo back and correct design problems later.”

—Eleanor White, Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency

More than any other factor, economics drivedecisions related to the design and constructionof Forest Service facilities. Decisions are oftenbased upon the short term, such as the lowestinitial costs. While this sometimes leads tothe wrong decision, there is no denying thateconomic pressures are real.

Project-cost analysis must recognize the long-termvalue represented by greater durability, improvedfunction, and lower energy and maintenancecosts. We need to replace our short-termeconomic decisions with best value analysis.

Best value analysis represents the economicequivalent of design solutions that respond toecology and other contexts. Best value analysisexamines effects in two areas that influencedesign: short term and long term. Table 3.2explains the differences between short-termand long-term considerations.

The most successful projects are built withlong-term considerations in mind. For example,it may seem to make sense to select on-gridelectrical power for a campground simplywhen the source is locally available and has alower initial cost versus an alternative energysource. But what about long-term costs?What is the cost to future generations becausepower was generated from a nonrenewablesource of fossil fuels or from dam constructionrequired to generate additional power? Does

the least-cost alternative create a positivemessage about Forest Service stewardshipof resources?

Another example might involve the selectionof low-cost paint and floor coverings for anadministrative office. Does the low cost of thefinish compensate for such potential problemsas poor indoor air quality, potential employeehealth problems, and a short life for thematerials before they wind up in a landfill?

Short-Term Long-Term

Initial investment Project budgets are what percent of overall cost of the facility?

Immediate need for space Life Cycle Costs

Potential for future adjustments in facility use

Quantifiable environmental impacts within the Attention to long-term environmental impacts immediate area of the project and those which occur off-site

Known measurable potential human health impacts Emphasis on human health (present and future generations)

Short-term or current year maintenance needs Emphasis on long-term maintenance and ease of upgrade

Response to regional or national trends

Table 3.2 Short- and Long-Term Considerations

THE ECONOMIC CONTEXT

29T H E S U S TA I N A B L E I M A G E : R E S P O N S E S T O C O N T E X T 3

Type of facility: What will the facility be used for?Will it be highly visible to the public? Will it be foradministrative or utilitarian use? The cost toconstruct a visitor center or office differs greatlyfrom the cost of a warehouse or utilitarianstructure.

Planning budget: How much money is availableto scope out the project? When might theproject be funded? Are there alternatives to newconstruction, such as remodeling or adaptiveuse of an existing structure?

Design budget: How much is available to completethe design and contract package? Is there anurgent timeline to use available funds? Are fundsavailable to research alternative building systemsand materials?

Construction budget: Are sufficient fundsavailable to build the facility? Besides buildingsquare footage, what other values are importantto assess? How will siting and design contributeto image and function?

Maintenance budget: What is the currentannual maintenance budget? Will the budgetfor maintenance and staff sustain the designobjectives? Are sufficient funds available toprovide for the quality of maintenance staffneeded to sustain design objectives?

Operation budget: How much is available tooperate the facility? What are projected utilitycosts? Is the facility expected to last 10, 30,or 100 years?

User impacts: How will the facility affect thepublic and Forest Service employees? Will itcreate a productive work area and a healthybuilt environment? Can recycling be incorporatedinto building design? Is it vandal resistant?

Owner perspective: Is the owner the ForestService or a private individual or organization?What kind of economic return does the privateowner expect? How might this affect design,materials, and construction?

Facility reuse or “deconstruction”: Will thefacility be demolished or reused at the endof its life? Can it be remodeled or renovatedto meet changing needs?

These questions suggest considerations toinclude in a best value analysis.

Issues to consider: