Owning bigger houses, yards, closets, cars -- bigger everything -- has long been en vogue. Garages are bigger than average homes were in the 1950s. Mass-produced products are so inexpensive that we can buy more than we could ever need. We purchase more, work more, and go further into debt. "Enormity" has developed an unfortunate but perceptible cache.

Is all this consumption building a great culture? Are people happier? Plenty of research and anecdotal experience says we aren't. Things are more easily acquired than gotten rid of, wrote Thoreau.

According to a 2004 report by global conservation organization WWF, people are consuming Earth's resources 20% faster than its ability to support renewal. The amount of natural resources we use compared to what nature can support has increased 2.5 times over the past 40 years--seven times that of the average Asian or African and twice that of the average European.

Our rampant "bigger is better" consumerism has set a terrible example for developing nations. It is indisputable that if China and other developing nations were to emulate America's resource consumption and wasteful lifestyle, the world would plunge into a tremendous economic and environmental crisis.


The built environment accounts for up to half the world's energy use, material consumption, and toxic emissions. If necessity is the mother of invention, it's time for us (U.S. planners and designers) to take a cue from Thomas Edison and devise some solutions. Part of the answer is to create simpler, smaller and more responsible building structures.

Just as technology can enable farmers to harvest more crops from less land or help cars achieve better gas mileage, we can use planning and architecture to mitigate resource use. It all starts with using less land. Though it’s not easy because of our free culture society, some communities have made progress. A city like Portland has successfully implemented a development boundary around the city and required more infill projects. There is an encouraging movement in our country toward new urbanism.

Most Americans don’t want their freedoms restricted in any way. But restrictions on budget, site, time, and resources are part of everyday life for planners and architects. Faced by these limitations, our clients’ project teams often fight for more land or a higher budget. What if we willingly accepted these limitations? What if we looked at being required to design buildings more efficiently as a benefit that could inspire truly creative design? What if tight budgets went hand-in-glove with sustainability?

Earlier this year, a Wall Street Journal article noted a 10.5% increase in the cost of erecting a new building in the past year alone. Much of this is due to the rising costs of materials such as cement, iron, and steel.

I’m challenging our profession to approach these higher material prices as a positive, a catalyst that forces us to think carefully about using less while improving quality of life. Do airports need gigantic ticketing halls? Do hotels need lofty atriums? Do corporate projects need to be monuments? Developing smaller buildings without all the unnecessary "statement" space is the first step toward saving land. We should invest money into quality instead of size. Let’s design "what’s needed" projects.

Years ago there was a wonderful U.S. design ethic that helped create memorable buildings. Many of our most revered structures, such as old U.S. courthouses, were unbelievably simple. Compared to some of the unimportant, wasteful courthouses designed in the 1960s and 1970s with excesses slathered on in the name of architecture, that character since has created great value for these buildings.

Walk into a typical Fortune 500 office on any afternoon, and I bet you’ll find it’s less than two-thirds full. People are working on the road, in their homes, on the beach -- everywhere you can imagine.

The critical portions of today’s workplaces are not individuals’ offices or workstations. What’s far more important are the common areas - the team spaces, conference rooms, coffee bars, and dining areas where people meet and exchange ideas. An increase of community spaces almost always leads to a net reduction of total space. There is evidence that it usually has a positive overall impact on employee productivity and satisfaction.

If we’re honest, I’d bet that every architect and planner can point to many examples of how innovative solutions have emerged from being forced to plan smaller, tighter, less expensive buildings.

Designing smaller can have profound economic and environmental advantages. Using less space means using less infrastructure and fewer resources. It’s a chain reaction.

As creators of places, our profession has a responsibility to prove that simplicity can coexist with a high standard of living. Let’s make buildings better, not bigger. Instead of adding to the clutter, let’s improve lives.

------
Bill Valentine, FAIA, is chairman of HOK, a global architectural design and services firm.