Returning to Earth: Analyzing and Designing Earthen Structures for Sustainable Design Amidst economic instability and building material scarcity, earthen construction presents a viable and readily available alternative to conventional building. Students and faculty at The University of Oklahoma College of Architecture and College of Engineering are evaluating Compressed Earth Block to quantify structural, thermal, acoustical, and energy consumption criteria. Mankind has been on an expedition aided by technological advancements to find and conquer new space, but economic instability and building mate- rial scarcity introduces a sustainable-laden homecoming. Sustainability Daniel Butko and environmentalism are intrinsic to the earth and the natural resources University of Oklahoma it contains, beckoning collaboration among architecture, engineering, and construction to develop regionally and globally sustainable buildings with- Kianoosh Hatami out blind faith for or dependence upon technology. While exploration fuels University of Oklahoma design prowess, revitalizing critical resourcefulness aptly results in material conservation, stewardship of the environment, and inhabitant comfort. Lisa Holliday University of Oklahoma Earthen construction, particularly the soil component found within or near most project sites, presents a viable and readily available alternate method Chris Ramseyer of residential and small-scale commercial construction. In changing climates University of Oklahoma with forecast temperature increases, the density and mass of earthen con- struction is vital to mitigate thermal transfer, allowing passive heating and Matthew Reyes cooling to efficiently provide comfortable interior spaces. Students and fac- University of Oklahoma ulty at The University of Oklahoma (OU) believes Compressed Earth Block (CEB) may prove to be an economical, efficient, and environmentally-friendly option. The collaborative team has secured funding from both the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and OU sources, coupled with a productive Cleveland County Habitat for Humanity (CCHFH) partner- ship, to evaluate the research hypothesis. Continued future development will explore differing climates, occupancies, and demographics. Material Understanding Returning to Earth 203 SUSTAINABILTY AS AMALGAMATION By some account, society is at the leading edge of the most technologi- cally advanced building materials and systems ever created by man but not without particular costs, consequences, and reasonable suspicion. Although technology often receives credit for unveiling emergent materials, assemblies, and practices; it is arguably attributable to the initial demise of indigenous and traditional environmental stewardship. Influenced by the advances and hopeful promises of technology, previous generations either did not understand future repercussions or place much ecological credibility in designing and constructing buildings with environmental or sustainable practices in mind. Retelling this story may seem redundant in today’s satu- ration of “green” initiatives, but it is necessary to question the previous and sometimes undisputed myopic view of technology during mankind’s cau- tious quest for new design and construction methods. With that in mind, sustainability existed many years before it was con- sidered necessary or trendy. The word “sustainability” is a late 20th cen- tury term associated with what was previously regional development. Sustainability is not an island nor a new concept, but rather a cooperative relationship among history, theory, and technology. The term and all the great endeavors accomplished in the name of sustainability may be mar- ginally misappropriated, causing some designers to overlook the most important factor in building design – the people that occupy the space(s). As Lopez Barnett and Browning state, “today’s buildings not only are designed without the planet in mind; they also neglect their occupants.” 1 Sustainability must focus upon and satiate the triad of people, place, and resources. Functionally competent sustainable design requires creative thinking, innovative use of local materials, and passive design schemes. Lopez Barnett and Browning take it a step further, stating: Note that sustainable design is not a new building style. Instead, it represents a revolution in how we think about, design, construct, and operate buildings. The primary goal of sustainable design is to lessen the harm poorly designed buildings cause by using the best of ancient building approaches in logical combination with the best new techno- logical advances.1 Terms such as organic, ecotecture, arcology, and off-the-grid (relationally combining ecology, geology, and architecture as depicted in Figure 1 and publicized by varied architects such as Frank Lloyd Wright, Paulo Soleri, and Michael Reynolds) introduce recent generations to a lifestyle where people are responsible for managing local resources, developing labor skills cor- related to the particular environment, and using readily available materials. The adage and motivating design mantra – Think Globally, Act Locally – has infiltrated society and matured into a global presence. Sustainable building 1 concepts teach energy conservation, recycling, and living within built envi- Figure 1: Top to bottom: Adobe building in ronments that are designed and constructed using regional and indigenous AZ; positive concrete extrusion of negative materials, including historical and modern examples of earthen design earth forming at Soleri’s Cosanti; an Earth- and construction. As Hans Poelzig states in his manifesto Fermentation in ship near Taos, NM with rammed earth tire Architecture, “we cannot do without the past in solving the architectural and bottle imbedded earth construction; problems of our own day.” 2 Architecture has the ability to span time, assimi- architect Rick Joy’s office courtyard lating past and present methods of design into hybrid assemblies for par- showing rammed earth and glass. ticular sites and functions. 204 Subtropical Cities: DESIGN INTERVENTIONS FOR CHANGING CLIMATES LESSONS FROM THE PAST Precedent and historical studies of vernacular or indigenous designs and methods of construction are lessons for modern adaptation. These exam- ples not only communicate the choice of materials or aesthetics of the completed construct, but much can be learned about the programming, cli- ents, occupancy, use, and politics. Authors Kaltenbach and Anschel state, “the first humans, among other animal species on our planet, always found shelter in the earth.” The authors then conclude, “Here, architecture devel- oped in terms of technique and scale. Over time, the resulting breadth of the knowledge base of common methods and materials forged a cultural con- nection between the land, habitat, and the people.” 3 Therefore, architecture becomes a study and result of anthropomorphic criteria. Building with or into the earth, either upward or as a carved shelter, is not a new idea. Earth is actually one of civilization’s first building materi- als and is still used extensively throughout the world. As author Paulina Wojciechowska states: Since the earliest times, people have lived in the earth, taking up resi- dence in existing structures or forming and sculpting earth around them according to their needs. In terms of growth and development, indigenous communities usually lived within the limits of their ecosys- tem. Nature, technology, and culture maintained balance.4 According to 1st century BCE Roman author, architect, and engineer Vitruvius, a good building should satisfy the three principles of firmitas, utili- tas, venustas, which translate roughly to durability, utility, and beauty. As mentioned in Ronald Rael’s book Earth Architecture, Vitruvius writes about the use of mud brick in the construction of city walls and devotes an entire chapter of De architectura (translated to Ten Books on Architecture) Book II to mud brick masonry, describing with great respect the methods for mak- ing and stacking mud bricks.5 Earth as a design material equips architects to lead an environmental revolution through historical relevancy. History has proven diverse nationalities from various climatic locations have suc- cessfully constructed earthen structures that outlast most other construc- tion types, are structurally sound, and offer passive options for physical comfort, while having minimal impact on the environment. The design pro- fession can advance by re-examining these structures, assimilating tra- ditional and modern approaches, and allowing a hybrid of technologies to emerge. Technology has aided testing to prove stabilizers such as portland cement, fly ash, cement kiln dust, and recycled paper pulp can be added to strengthen soil mixtures. A new enthusiasm for architecture, literally based upon earth, can support a return to an early and basic form of sustainability. Earthen design and construction is gaining momentum among architects, engineers, clients, contractors, and machine manufacturers. Contemporary architects such as Rick Joy, Wendell Burnette, Will Bruder, Antoine Predock, Alfred von Bachmayr, and countless others use earth as a healthy, safe, and aesthetically pleasing building material. They are also selecting the use of earth based upon both the regional and global benefits such as decreased carbon footprint, thermal efficiency, and regionalism within its context when compared to conventional construction. Recent conversations with Mr. Burnette