Friday, April 08, 2016
The Risk of Knowing What’s Actually Inside the Products You Specify
Architect Magazine: Until recently, it was possible for architects to know very little about the contents of the products they specified, but a recent push across the building-products supply chain for greater material transparency—motivated as much by incentive programs as client goodwill—is upping their accountability factor by affording access to a trove of information detailing product ingredients and their potential environmental and health impacts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
While it’s good news that manufacturers are improving transparency with their products, I think it is definitely a valid concern that this information could turn into a huge pile of almost unusable data. The problem with releasing tons of product information like this is that if it is not done in a way that is clear, organized, and easy to access the most important factors, all of the data is pretty useless.
This article is written from the architect-industry’s perspective, so I can understand their uneasiness when it comes to accepting this new-founded liability. But honestly, product specification should be and should have been the responsibilities of architects all along. If you specify for a project to use a certain material that is extremely bad for the environment, that’s on you! Now that that information is being made clear, the issue becomes legal and not just moral. I definitely agree with the quote closing the article – I hope architects and architecture firms take this opportunity to really invest themselves in knowing what products they use and what their impacts are. As for the theatre realm, hopefully scenic designers and TDs can take this as an example of how important it is to stay conscious of the impact of the products and materials you elect to use when designing and building a set.
It’s good that companies are starting to release this kind of information but I agree with Scott that there’s plenty of potential for it to just turn into an unhelpfully big pile of data. That being said this is information that architects should know or at the least have someone working for them that knows it. If you’re going to specify a certain material or product in your design you should know that it isn’t going to come with hidden environmental or health impacts. I feel like this applies to a somewhat lesser extent in theater since we’re normally working with a fairly small amount of well known resources. But ever now and then a scenic designer will ask for something new and then it would be the same situation, either that designer or the TD for the show should know what the impact of the material is going to be, beyond its aesthetic and structural purposes.
This article is really interesting and brought up a perspective that I haven’t really thought about. When we hear reports of dangerous products being used in buildings, we mostly blame the contractor, aka the person who orders the materials. But we never consider that the architect might also play a role in deciding which materials to use. It would make a lot of sense that architects specify certain products in their designs, and as such should know the risks associated with those products. I’m glad there’s more transparency in the whole exchange, because it can only lead to safer, healthier buildings. I can also see a guide like the white pages coming in very useful for scenic designers, who may also specify certain products in their designs. A guide to navigating the different options and knowledge about the health risks for products often used in theatrical designs could really make the scenic world a safer place.
I think having this information readily available is a good step forward in the world of architecture. I can see the appeal of just not knowing what exactly is going into a particular building. You don’t have to think as much. A long as it meets the structural and aesthetic requirements, it should do fine. However, the health and safety concerns of a particular material are too important to be overlooked. Having this information available forces architects to look into the health risks of materials when they are specifying them. It puts more pressure on the architects to be accountable; I think this is a beneficial change. Hopefully, this is only one of the fundamental steps in the transition to future sustainable and responsible architecture. In the article, Mike Davis explains that it is “negligent” to ignore material safety information when specifying a project. I wholeheartedly agree. It’s great that all of this helpful information is available; hopefully it is actually used for the better.
Post a Comment