Forgiveness, Not Permission: Research by rca-issuu

FORGIVENESS, NOT PERMISSION

Apologetic Architecture

Joshua Parker

I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I am sorry.

ABSTRACT

Environmentally, as a species, we have committed countless offences that we must now ask to be forgiven. The proposal, “Forgiveness, Not Permission” accepts that we are collectively incapable of changing the behaviour contained within this phrase in time to mediate ecological demise. Instead, it uses this phrase as a dictum, extrapolating the acceleration of apology culture to construct an apologetic architecture that is genuine. Tension emerges between the image-based virtue signalling of technological accoutrements and carbon sequestering construction alongside actual attendance to ecological decay. It is as much a market remedy as it is an environmental one. No longer are we able to offset our offences through modal statements, creative accounting or protection schemes on the other side of the globe. Apologetic Architecture must be direct and reparative; bolt-on retrofits that upgrade the performance of an existing structure, tuning it to the ecological urgency that we face.

Apologetic architecture manifests because of the virtue that comes with an environmentally compassionate image. Market competition, much like the suburban idiom “Keeping Up Appearances,” then dictates it’s proliferation.

There are two scenarios in which Apologetic Architecture operates: apologising for itself and for others. In each case, both the embodied and operational environmental expenditure is quantified before being translated into the required technological retrofits and the consequential structure in which to accommodate them. These structures may serve multiple apologies at once, repairing and regenerating existing infrastructure for future use. The environmental apology cascades into the social domain to mirror the complexity of the problem we face.

CONTENT 01__Age of Apology 02__Apologetic Architecture 03__Four Futures 04__Keeping Up Appearances 05__Quantification 06_Forgiveness, Not Permission 07__My House is Sorry 08_Grimsby is Sorry 09__Apologetic Architecture (Thesis) 10__Additional Influences

An Apology

[a regretful acknowledgement of an offence or failure alongside a reparative gesture and the promise not to repeat it. ]

AGE OF APOLOGY 01

01__AGE OF APOLOGY

In 2022, during Prime Minister Questions, Boris Johnson apologised 34 times in 2 hours for the ‘Partygate’ scandal.

In 2010, Tony Hayward, CeO of BP oil apologised for an apology intended to address the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

Pope John Paul II has his own wikipedia page of over 100 public apologies.

Apologising is the expected social tool in which the offender offers remorse and reparation to the victim in an attempt to repair the relationship that has been broken. Patrick West, in Conspicuous Compassion, observes and critiques the increasing culture of virtue signalling amongst both individuals and collectives. Although he covers examples that range from coloured charity lapels, celebrity philanthropy, and public mourning, it is the chapter on apologies that contains the most potent behavioural malice.

The apology has become (and increasingly so) a strategic tool in which an offender may excuse problematic behaviour without genuine remorse. Public figures have taken advantage of this, particularly in politics, safe in the knowledge that it is much easier to ask for forgiveness, than permission. Not only that, but the issuing of an apology actually boosts their compassionate credibility and their public image with it. It is here a distinction must be made: between the genuine apology and the non-apology.

Melanie Klein describes the latter as manic reparation. If genuine reparation is borne from feelings of guilt and love, to cope with the anxiety of the consequences of wrongdoing, manic reparation is to absolve guilt internally without repairing the relationship externally. A distinction is madebetween the manifest and latent content of the apology. Without genuine reparation, an apology cannot be considered proper. The non-apology apology belies its genuine other.

FORGIVENESS, NOT PERMISSION

An Almost Apology

[an acknowledgement of an offence or failure without admittance]

Prince William

[ to the people of Jamaica ] 2022

AGE OF APOLOGY 01

“I want to express my profound sorrow. Slavery was abhorrent and it should never have happened.”

“Observe how children weep and cry, so that they will be pitied...the thirst for pity is a thirst for self-enjoyment, and at the expense of one’s fellow men.”

Friedrich Nietzsche

The public apology has manipulated compassion into something untrustworthy, transforming heartfelt reparation into sentimentalist hubris. Rather than acknowledge the consequences of a wrongdoing we cast token gestures to signal the appearance of the same thing.

FORGIVENESS, NOT PERMISSION

1__WILLY BRANDT Kneeling before the Memorial to the Warsaw Ghetto , 1971

A Conditional Apology

[an acknowledgement if there is an offence or failure]

“It’s too bad that something I said in jest was turned into something it’s not. But I didn’t mean anything by it and I’m sorry if I offend anybody.

If Tiger is offended by it, I apologize to him, too.”

[ to Tiger Woods ] 1997

AGE OF APOLOGY 01

Fuzzy Zoeller

FORGIVENESS, NOT PERMISSION

1__LAURA TREVELYAN: makes a documentary alongside her apology on behalf of her family estate for prospering from the Atlantic Slave Trade. 2__THE GUARDIAN: shortly after publishing an article on Laura Trevelyan’s apology, the owners of the Guardian made an apology for slavery, published on the front page.

AGE OF APOLOGY 01

1__Prince William expresses profound sorrow at the abhorrence associated with slavery, performed at the people of Jamaica, but falls short of an actual apology. 2__Boris Johnson apologises 34 times in 2 hours for the ‘Partygate’ scandal during Prime Minister Questions. 3__Tony Hayward publishes an apology video for an apology regarding the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. 4__Members of the Australian public queue to sign one of the ‘Sorry Books’ - a campaign addressing the ‘Stolen Generation.’

sorry but. I’m that. sorry that. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry if. I’m sorif. I’m sorry I’m sorsorry but.

5__Tony Blair with George Mitchell and Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern following his apology (written by his aides) for the UK’s lack of help during the potato famine.

6__Theresa May with Jamaican Prime Minister Andrew Holness after apologising for the UK’s treatment of the Windrush Generation. 7__Leila McKinnon forces Corey Worthington to apologise on live TV for hosting an out of control house party. 8__Johnny Depp and Amber Heard record an apology video for not declaring their dogs upon arrival to Australia.

A Deflective Apology

[an acknowledgement of an offence or failure with a an attempt to diffuse or deflect or excuse]

“My comments were part of a much broader conversation about diversity in Hollywood and the fundamental nature of Project Greenlight which did not make the show. I am sorry that they offended some people, but, at the very least, I am happy that they started a conversation about diversity in Hollywood.”

Matt Damon

[ to Effie Brown ] 2015

APOLOGETIC ARCHITECTURE 02

02__APOLOGETIC ARCHITECTURE

There are many ways in which a piece of architecture can concretise the words ‘I’m Sorry.’ Perhaps the most intuitive typology of built apology is the memorial. Libeskind’s Holocaust Memorial in Berlin is a recognisable example, simultaneously remembering and, on the surface, regretting the atrocities of World War II. This idea is not confined to typology. On the corner of Russell Square, the Brunei Gallery, owned by University College London, displays a plaque apologising for its own existence. The proposed Amazon Warehouse on the edge of farmland in Yorkshire is sorry for its scale, using a gradient of grey to blend the building into the sky - successful only on a cloudy day, and even then, its size is still stark. Section 106 is legislative compassion, for developers to acknowledge the detriment of their developments, providing a charitable coupon of goodwill for the local community, whilst continuing to squeeze the amount of affordable housing. Greenwashing is the latest way of softening the impact of construction. Thomas Heatherwick’s Little Island is perhaps the most ostentatious example, as token trees sit atop their concrete doppelgänger to diffuse the impact of the latter. Even the name is strategic: ‘Little’ to screen the size and ‘Island’ to conjure images of something natural.

Techniques to cloud the environmental horror of architecture through superficial nods of sorrow are on the ascendency. The Whole-Life Carbon Assessment (WLCA) is tipped to take over from BREEAM - the pitfalls of which allowed Foster’s Bloomberg Office to be labelled the ‘Most Sustainable Building in the World’ - to curb this compassionate fallacy by including the embodied carbon of construction and demolition into the calculation. But the WLCA is not immune to corrupted acts of apology, and already, creative carbon accounting facilitates aversion to genuine practices of reparation.

A WLCA can be passed simply by stating that your building will have an improbable life-span, as

FORGIVENESS, NOT PERMISSION

1__SOAS BRUNEI: Sorry Plaque 2__BLOOMBERG: Technological Upgrades 3__GRASS PLATEAU: Heatherwick and BIG’s Google Headquarters

A Sweeping Apology

[an apology that lacks specificity]

“We forgive and we ask forgiveness. We are asking pardon for the divisions among Christians, for the use of violence that some have committed in the service of truth, and for attitudes of mistrust and hostility assumed towards followers of other religions.”

Pope John II

[ to women, Jews, heretics, native people, travellers ]

2000

APOLOGETIC ARCHITECTURE 02

did Niall McLaughlin Architects for their Stirling Prize Magdalene College, suggested to last for 400 years. Any WLCA divisible by 400 is going to look good. Offsetting the embodied carbon is the most explicit aversion tactic. 100 Liverpool Street, another Stirling Prize Nominee, by Hopkins Architects claims ‘Net Zero’ on the WLCA by offsetting the embodied carbon in Tibet and Mexico.

In a recent movement termed facadism, architects have looked toward the virtue that the sentimental language of the retrofit is intrinsic. As part of a development in Bethnal Green, the Duke of Cambridge, a 19th Century public house that closed down in 1998, was bought by the developer to be turned into housing. The architect, Guy Holloway, proposed its retrofit and extension in an apologetic gesture toward environment and place. Externally, it follows a similar language to that of Ian Clark Architects’ project - one implies that the structure has been maintained through the retention of the facadeand yet, Holloway Studio gutted the pub entirely, leaving only the facades behind. No longer part of the structure, the retained facades exist only as an appendage to the steel and glass new-build it now sits in front of. The retention of the Duke of Cambridge pub sign as part of these façades projects an image of publicness that can only be interpreted as ironic, given its repurposing as an exterior for unaffordable private housing. In retaining the facade without the structure, the architect projects an image of care without the reparative acts that come with it. The result is a new-build disguised as a retrofit; a non-apology disguised as an apology.

FORGIVENESS, NOT PERMISSION

1__ERIC PARRY: 26 Storey green wall 2__STUDIO RHE: 100 Tree ‘Forest’ 3__HOPKINS: 100 Liverpool Street 4__NIALL MCLAUGHLIN: Magdalene College

A Wordless Apology

[an act of acknowledgement of an offence or failure]

[ to Warsaw Ghetto Uprising Memorial ]

1970

APOLOGETIC ARCHITECTURE 02

Willy Brandt

accompanies the conception of the project, the architects repeatedly stress the importance of retaining the existing to “celebrate the ‘as found’ character” of the structure. On their website it is categorised as a ‘’reuse” project and yet, contrary to their own advice, they have opted to demolish the entirety of the structure behind the existing facades, rebuild it in concrete and steel columns, and add an extension above that is more than double the height of the existing. This is a new-build office that follows the construction principles we know and acknowledge to be environmentally detrimental, but with the sentimental addition of a 1960’s shell. The embodied carbon of this project is nearly twice the LETI guidelines for a new-build, but because the architects have dressed it up as a retrofit, the guidelines are bypassed, automatically excusing its own existence. Now, it has been shortlisted for the 2023 AJ Retrofit of the Year Award, perversely promoting it as a precedent in which to dodge meaningful reparation and continue practising architecture in problematic ways.

In much the same way as Prince William’s almost apology, the language of facadism only gestures towards an architectural apology, falling short of something genuine. It is an act of sentimental hubris that makes the architect feel good without actually doing good.

FORGIVENESS, NOT PERMISSION

1-3__AHMM: The Rowe, ‘Retrofit’ 1-3__HOLLOWAY: The Duke of Cambridge, (Pub)lic

APOLOGETIC ARCHITECTURE 02

1-2__ADVERTS FOR AN APOLOGETIC ARCHITECTURE: Inspired by Tschumi’s Adverts for Architecture

A Collective Apology

[ multiple people or parties acknowledging an offence or failure at the same time. ]

Sorry Books Campaign

[ to the ‘Stolen Generations’ ] 1998

FOUR FUTURES 03

In Los Angeles Plays Itself, the film scholar, Thom Andersen, posits that “if we can appreciate documentaries for their dramatic qualities, perhaps we can appreciate fiction films for their documentary revelations.” What Andersen refers to, is the role of fictional futures as a genuine tool for both behavioural observations but also the direction in which they may deviate.

Peter Frase, in Four Futures, denotes the differences in social structures between two science fiction movies: Star Wars and Star Trek. “The former exists only for its characters and mythic narrative, while the latter wants to root its characters in a richly and logically structured social world.”30 In this way, Star Trek grounds itself in future plausibility. A world-building exercise that unbuilds the world we exist in today - periodically making fun of our obsession with money and material goods from their communist type social structure. In response to this, the project underwent a useful exercise in determining the political context of an Apologetic Architecture. To broaden the narrative for the purposes of this exercise only, the apology is expanded to compassion. Much like Frase, four futures are imagined, but these are ones of Compassionate Consumption that at once, comment on the corruption of compassion today, whilst offering alternative scenarios for the future. Each one is grounded in extrapolations of behaviour that exist today.

Four fictional models of a future societal system are imagined whereby the currency of each shifts from something monetary to something compassionate: Carbon-Communism, Carbon-Rentism, Charitism and Anarchaidism. Each future aligns to the four segments of the Political Compass. Two of the four futures, Carbon-Communism and Carbon-Rentism, centre around environmental compassion - a currency of carbon structures consumption. The other two futures, Charitism and Anarchaidism are conditioned by social compassion - a currency of goodwill that influences consumption.

FORGIVENESS, NOT PERMISSION

03__FOUR FUTURES

A disciplined society structured around environmental compassion emerges from the material scarcity that capitalism has left behind. Carbon replaces money as the currency in which this society operates and each citizen is to receive an equal share. The Universal Basic Carbon Income is distributed by the National Bank of Carbon and controlled by the World Bank of Carbon. Everything is priced according to the carbon used in the object’s production. Suddenly

an avocado is unaffordable. Compassion for the environment is no longer a choice. Sticks become the physical currency; the stick is cut a certain length depending on the cost of your shopping. Labour is rotational, each citizen can opt for a 1 month, 3 month or 6 month cycle. One month may be the work of a farmer, the next month the town mayor. Each one is paid the same hourly rate. Unlimited green energy will be the focus only once global temperatures begin to decline.

A society of continued growth emerges from the material scarcity that capitalism has left behind. Like Carbon-Communism, carbon replaces money as the currency in which this society operates. Rather than enforce economic equality, it is believed that the most compassionate of citizens deserve to prosper. Competition over compassion becomes a symptom of society. Suddenly, the type of timber your house is constructed from matters.

The price of forested land rockets. The Forestry Commission are the

most compassionate (wealthy) company in society. Renewable energy companies shift their business model from sales to rent to compete. Technologies are patented, trees are patented, rentism dominates. Social hierarchy unfolds, but the oligarchs of old find themselves at the bottom. Initially, the planet is in repair, but it is not long before the most compassionate members of society find that they can afford to live their former life of carbon intensity. Compassion becomes manic reparation once more.

FOUR FUTURES 03

Carbon-Rentism Carbon-Communism

Charitism

A transformed society emerges from the invention of nuclear fusion, removing the anxiety of resource scarcity. The infinitely renewable energy it promises shifts compassion from the environment to the human Individual wealth is accumulated through acts of goodwill. There is a credit-based system of morality known as Virchoo. Citizens collect Virch for acts of care to be used as currency. An apology will be worth a certain amount of Virch, which will fluctuate depending

on the Virchoo market. A welfare system relies on donations from those at the top of the Virchoo system. Compassion banks are available for those in need. Over time, this alters our characteristics to something more charitable. Hierarchy exists within this bifurcated liberalism; more Virch will allow an individual to accumulate private ownership. Wages are subject to the compassion of the labour type. A banker would earn less than a teacher.

Anarchaidism

This is a society that emerges from the collapse of capitalism. Like, charitism the invention of nuclear fusion has removed the anxiety of material scarcity.

Anarchaidists are a technologically advanced collection of communities centred around social compassion. There are no rules, there are no regulations; it is hoped that the collective belief in compassion alone will foster a community of mutual aid that governs itself.

Citizens of this system trade within an economy of goodwill. If I tend to

your vegetable patch, may I have some of your vegetables?

This is not a return to prehistoric times; acts of mutual aid and compassion drive technological progress to the point of literal resurrection - those that have died from an unfortunate accident, can be brought back, such is the drive in the collective belief of care. Each community will have nuances in culture that other cultures not only respect, but can learn from. Inter-community festivals are a common occurrence in the pursuit of compassion.

A Renewed Apology

[a repeated acknowledgement of an offence or failure]

“Yes, there are certain things which happened for which I feel personally sorry.”

Emperor Hirohito [ to a journalist ]

[whilst placing a wreath on the tomb of a US soldier ] “...that most unfortunate war which I deeply deplore.”

Emperor Hirohito [ to the US ]

“It is indeed regrettable that there was an unfortunate past between us for a period in this century and I believe that it should not be repeated again.”

Emperor Hirohito [a non-apology apology to South Korea ]

“I would like to state here that the government and people of Japan feel deep regret for this error.”

Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone [ to the UN ]

“I myself believe it was a war of aggression, a war that was wrong.”

Prime Minister Morihiro Hosokawa [ in a press conference]

“On the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II, this House offers its sincere condolences to those who fell in action and victims of wars and similar actions all over the world.”

Japanese House of Representatives [ passed a resolution ]

“...express my feelings of deep remorse and heartfelt apology for the tremendous damage and suffering of that time.”

Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto [ to Britain ]

“Our hearts are filled with deep sorrow and pain.”

Emporer Akihito [ to Britain ]

FOUR FUTURES 03

TO ONE

Rather than any of these futures becoming the context in which to design in, the decision was made for the project “Forgiveness, Not Permission,” to operate within an extrapolated context of today.

This does however, lend itself to the Carbon-Rentism future, in which we are dangerously close to. By extrapolating the behaviour of today with only subtle shifts or nuances, the project becomes both an observation and a proposition rather than a project that relies too heavily on narrative fiction.

FORGIVENESS, NOT PERMISSION Political Compass of Four Futures of Compassion author , 2022.

“Concerning the comfort women, I apologize from the bottom of my heart and feel remorse for those people who suffered indescribable hardships.”

Prime Minister Kiichi Miyazawa

[ statement regarding ‘comfort women’ used during WWII ]

[after placing a wreath at the memorial hall of the war of resistance] “I looked at the various exhibits with a feeling of heartfelt apology and condolences for those Chinese people who were victims of aggression.”

Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi

[ to China ]

“During the war, Japan caused tremendous damage and suffering to the people of many countries, particularly to those of Asian nations. On behalf of the people of Japan, I hereby renew my feelings of profound remorse as I express my sincere mourning to the victims.”

Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi

[at 58th Memorial for the War Dead ]

“Japan squarely faces these facts of history in a spirit of humility. And with feelings of deep remorse and heartfelt apology always engraved in mind, Japan has resolutely maintained, consistently since the end of World War II, never turning into a military power but an economic power, its principle of resolving all matters by peaceful means.”

Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi

[at the Asia-African Summit ]

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe stated there was no evidence to suggest Japan’s involvement in the enslavement of women for sex during the WWII (Japan had already apologised in 1993). He later apologised.

“With regard to the ‘comfort women’ issue, I am deeply pained to think of the comfort women who experienced immeasurable pain and suffering, a feeling I share equally with my predecessors.”

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe [ public statement ]

“It saddens me that so many people experienced suffering and difficulties during the war.”

Emperor Akihito [ to Canada ]

FOUR FUTURES 03

The work of Superstudio provides a particularly pertinent example of the potency in which projects that respond to extrapolations of today can actually become a reality.

Here, a collage from 1970, as part of their Continuous Monolith series, placed against The Line, a “smart city” under construction that takes on the exact same form and context.

As hard as Neom, the developers of The Line, may try to sell the project as something utopian, the tone of this “civilisation” could not be further from it. The dystopian undertones present in Superstudio’s work is deeply embedded in The Line in spite of its marketing toward sustainability and preservation.

As for “Forgiveness, Not Permission,” the work will operate in a similar manner to superstudio, but at a reduced scale and one that leans into some sort of optimism rather than dystopia.

FORGIVENESS, NOT PERMISSION

1__SUPERSTUDIO: Continuous Monument 2__NEOM: The Line

“I offer my deep, heartfelt apology for the inhuman treatment you suffered.”

Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada

[ to six US Prisoners of War ]

“I offer with profound respect my eternal condolences to the souls of all American people that were lost during World War II. Our actions brought suffering to the peoples in Asian countries. We must not avert our eyes from that.”

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe

[ speech at US Congress to American Citizens ]

“Looking back at the past, together with deep remorse over the war, I pray that this tragedy of war will not be repeated, and together with the people express my deep condolences.”

Emperor Akihito

[ statement on 70th anniversary of WWII ]

A wreath-laying ceremony at Manila’s Heroes Cemetery, where more than 44,000 Filipino soldiers from World War II are buried

Emperor Akihito

[a wordless apology upon a visit to the Philippines ]

Japan issues an apology and compensation to South Korea without public statement.

[with regards to the victims from the acts of ‘Comfort Women’ in WWII ]

“Reflecting on our past and bearing in mind the feelings of deep remorse, I earnestly hope that the ravages of war will never be repeated.”

Emperor Naruhito

[ statement on 70th anniversary of WWII ]

Leaders of Japan

[ to the victims of World War II ]

1971, 1975, 1984, 1985, 1992, 1993, 1995, 1998, 1998, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2015, 2015, 2016, 2016,

KEEPING UP APPEARANCES 04

04__KEEPING UP APPEARANCES

The 1990 British sitcom, Keeping Up Appearances, centres around the life of Hyacinth Bucket (pronounced bouquet) and her repeated efforts at proving her social superiority. She is intent on achieving the affluence and etiquette of the upper class through her belongings and behaviour. Hyacinth, however, is from a lower class background and the presence of her family threatens to dismantle the image she tries so hard to maintain. It is in her battle, between what she conceals and reveals, that the farce of our social system is exposed. Society advertises the ‘good’ citizen as a prosperous one and it is only through conspicuous acts of consumption that the simulacrum of this identity can be conjured.

Image consciousness drives human behaviour and social competitiveness emerges as the consequence.

FORGIVENESS, NOT PERMISSION

A letter for Mrs Bucket? It’s pronounced Bouquet! B-u-c-k-e-t. The accent is on the second syllable. 1__HYACINTH BUCKET (BOUQUET): Keeping up Appearances

A Repeat Apology

[a repeat acknowledgement of an offence or failure in quick succession ]

“I paid the fine immediately, and I offered the British people a full apology.”

Boris Johnson

“I take this opportunity on the first available sitting day to repeat my wholehearted apology to the House as soon as I received the notice, I acknowledge the hurt and the anger.”

Boris Johnson

“I repeat that was my mistake, and I apologise for it unreservedly.

Boris Johnson

“I apologise once again, profusely to John Robinson, and to all those who lost loved ones, particularly those who suffered during the pandemic.”

Boris Johnson

“I renew my apologies, I renew my apologies to John Robinson, to families up and down the land.”

Boris Johnson

“I am heartily sorry for my mistake.”

Boris Johnson

“I apologise profusely for my mistake and for what I have got wrong and I repeat that.”

Boris Johnson

“I repeat my apologies, my contrition.”

Boris Johnson

“I made a serious mistake and I apologise for it very sincerely.”

Boris Johnson

“I bitterly regret the event in Downing Street, as I’ve said, but I do believe that it is the job of this Government to get on with the priorities of the British people and that is what we’re going to do.”

Boris Johnson

“I repeat my apology to the House and to the country.”

Boris Johnson

KEEPING UP APPEARANCES 04

THE LAWN

A lawn must be no taller than 3.81cm. The grass must be uniform, in type, height and colour. Weeds are the enemy. Edges must remain sharp.

There are two distinct eras in the history of the lawn: one of utility and one of symbol. The lawn before symbolism (utility) was that of the village green. A common land, originally on the outskirts of settlements, in which a farmers herd could temporarily inhabit. The grass was kept uniform by the grazing animal. Here, the lawn is an indirect result of another intention.

17th Century aristocracy shifted the lawn toward something symbolic. First introduced to the country estate, of which The Gardens of Versailles are the paragon, the image of the lawn became synonymous with socioeconomic status of success and conspicuous surplus. Alongside the growth of the aristocratic lawn was the application of the scythe: a tool used to facilitate the upkeep of a lawn. For the first time, it is the human hand that maintains the lawn, with it, presenting the relentless efforts required.

Pioneered by William Kent and perfected by ‘Capability’ Brown, the 18th Century English Landscape Garden cemented the lawns entanglement with the superfluous space of nobility, as vast swathes of grass flowed between follies, hillocks, groves and man-made lakes.

1830 marked the invention of the first lawnmower, drastically reducing the time and labour spent on lawn-care. Here, the lawn began to permeate the middle sections of social hierarchy, a new metric for class to be measured. The first suburb is attested to Frederick Law Olmsted’s 1868 design for Riverside, Illinois which featured houses set back 30ft from the street. In-between, a strip of uninterrupted lawn bound the row of residents together and introduced the communal front lawn, it’s upkeep to be shared amongst neighbours in an act of middle-class collectivism.

The suburban lawn surged with the Atco 16” - the first mass produced mower, alongside the sprawl

FORGIVENESS, NOT PERMISSION

1__UPKEEP: Maintaining an image regardless 2__NEIGHBOURS: Competition in the suburbs

“I apologise profusely again particularly to all those who lost loved ones, and I know how painful it has been.”

Boris Johnson

“I renew my apologies.”

Boris Johnson

“All I can say is that I apologise for what I got wrong.”

Boris Johnson

“I am heartily sorry as I have said.”

Boris Johnson

“I wish it had not happened.”

Boris Johnson

“And I wish, I wish that things had been totally different. What I have already done, as the House will know, is taken steps to change the way we do things in Number 10.”

Boris Johnson

“But that in itself is, is, not enough. I accept full responsibility for myself and for my actions.”

Boris Johnson

“I apologise again to, not just to Jason, but to the families of all those who lost loved ones during Covid.”

Boris Johnson

“I apologise for the fine I received, but I can’t comment about any hypothetical situations.”

Boris Johnson

“I understand the frustration and the anger of his constituents in Sedgefield and I understand perfectly how they are feeling. I renew my apologies to them.”

Boris Johnson

“I apologise very sincerely.”

Boris Johnson

“I apologise heartily for what I got wrong.”

Boris Johnson

“I’m very sorry for her loss and for the loss to all the pupils that she mentioned.”

Boris Johnson

AGE OF APOLOGY 01

of suburban developments. Levittown, a racially segregative suburban ideal of the American Dream, grew to 17,000 standardised homes each with their own front lawn. The residents of these homes were reminded of the importance of maintaining their patch of grass as contingent to the opinions formed by visitor’s. The lawn welcomes the guest. It is here that the image of the lawn gains nuance, synonymous not only with social well-being, but with the cleanliness of one’s home. The pressure of the perfectly mown lawn creates with it, the negative image of the unmown lawn.

In 1962, Rachel Carson published Silent Spring, where she offers resistance to the sentiment of the lawn, outlining the ecological problem of its preservation. Despite the rigour and knowledge behind this text, it has done little to deter the ideology and popularity of the lawn since. In 2022 the Great Salt Lake dried up during an extended period of drought. Rather than ration water to complete necessities, the residents of Salt Lake City continued to prioritise the survival of their lawns, increasing their water consumption. After recognising the ridiculousness of this battle, one resident turned off his sprinkler’s for good, only to be pressured and bullied by neighbours on the state of his lawn.

The image of the lawn has changed little since 17th Century aristocracy - the upkeep of the lawn directly corresponding to the upkeep of one’s well-being. However, the preciousness of the lawn, and the extent to which we preserve its appearance, in spite of the ecological crisis, has become nothing short of absurd. To what lengths will we go to upkeep a particular appearance?

FORGIVENESS, NOT PERMISSION

1-3__KEEPING UP APPEARANCES: Midjourney Collaborations

KEEPING UP APPEARANCES 04

FORGIVENESS, NOT PERMISSION

1-2__PRESERVATION: Midjourney Collaborations

KEEPING UP APPEARANCES 04

FORGIVENESS, NOT PERMISSION

1-2__XAVIER DELAROY: Windowless House 1 and 2

“I repeat my apology.”

Boris Johnson

““I in no way minimise the importance of the fine I have received and I apologise wholeheartedly.”

Boris Johnson

“I want to repeat what I said earlier on, which is I think that there couldn’t be a clearer expression of the robustness of our democracy that all of us must be held to account.”

Boris Johnson

“I’ve been held to account and I apologise very sincerely.”

Boris Johnson

“I apologise and I thank the public very much for what they did.”

Boris Johnson

“I apologise.”

Boris Johnson

“I repeat what I’ve said earlier on, I apologise and I direct the honourable gentleman to my earlier statement.”

Boris Johnson

“Let me repeat my apologies for what I got wrong and what went wrong in Downing Street. And also my explanation for why I have spoken as I have in this house.”

Boris Johnson

“I understand the pain that they must feel, the anger that they must feel. And I repeat my apologies.”

Boris Johnson

“All I can do is renew and repeat the apologies that I’ve given to her constituents, whether they accept them or not.”

Boris Johnson

[addressing MP’s in Parliament regarding ‘PartyGate’ ]

2022

34 apologies in 2 hours

AGE OF APOLOGY 01

The film, Mow Pressure, takes place in a suburban development on the edges of Lincoln, a city in the Midlands, UK. It follows a faceless protagonist engaging in the benign act of mowing the lawn. The mowing is interrupted in increasingly intense increments by the ‘Neighbourhood Watch’ who peer over the fence in a condemnatory manner. Unease from the protagonist is palpable as the mowing becomes more erratic. It is only once the mowing finishes that the issue is understood - the lawn has been mown on May 1st, the beginning of ‘No Mow Way.’ The Neighbourhood Watch are captious because the lawn has been mown during a month of supposed compassion. In a frantic attempt to undo the deed, the protagonist erratically sprays fertiliser at the patch of grass to accelerate its subsequent growth back to the original state. This seems to appease the neighbours, for it is the image of the unmown lawn that counts, not the environmental compassion used to achieve it. The aim of the film is to acknowledge and critique the conspicuous ways in which we project a particular image.

FORGIVENESS, NOT PERMISSION

1-2__MOW PRESSURE: Film stills from film by author

KEEPING UP APPEARANCES 04

1__NEIGHBOURHOOD

WATCH: Film still from film by author

FORGIVENESS, NOT PERMISSION

An Over-Apology

[an excessive acknowledgement of an offence or failure that renders acknowledgement disingenuous. ]

[ 0:00 - 2:30 ]

“I’m so sorry. I’m so sorry to you guys. I’m so sorry for disappointing you. It hurts me so bad...I was so stupid and ignorant. I’m only to here to say that I’m so sorry...I love you guys so much. I’m so sorry for anyone that has been hurt in this. Anyone...and I am so sorry. There is no excuse. I am just so sorry that I did that 6 years ago...Let this be about me. This is my sorry. ”

Laura Lee

[ Youtuber, Laura Lee, excessively using the adverb ‘so’ along with crocodile tears to act out an apology. ]

2018

AGE OF APOLOGY 01

IMAGE-BASED COMPETITION

Fundamentally, it is the very same upkeep of appearances inherent to the suburban stereotype that drives corporate image. Both are the result of imaged-based competition. The desire to appear a particular way drives certain behaviours, decisions, actions.

Image based competition drives apologetic architecture. As long as there are token green walls or gestural PV Panels bolted onto roofs or offsets halfway round the world, architects can operate as usual without fundamentally changing existing methods of construction. All this whilst ridding individual guilt and boosting the ego of the architect involved. For as long as they seem like they care, these architects will be the face of a sustainable future, no matter the ineffectiveness of their token band aids.

FORGIVENESS, NOT PERMISSION

1__IMAGE IS A VIRTUE: Norman Foster at the UN Climate Conference

A Recursive Apology

[an acknowledgement of an offence or failure that was an apology; an apology for an apology]

“I’m sorry. We’re sorry for the massive disruption it’s caused their lives. There’s no one who wants this over more than I do. I’d like my life back.

Apology

“I made a hurtful and thoughtless comment on Sunday when I said that ‘I wanted my life back.’ When I read that recently, I was appalled. I apologize, especially to the families of the 11 men who lost their lives in this tragic accident.”

Apology for Apology

Tony Hayward

[an apology for an apology advert for the Gulf of Mexico oil spills ] 2010

QUANTIFICATION 05

”

The system that dictates apologetic architecture is one of quantifiable ‘rigour’. Both BREEAM and WLCA can only be achieved through complex carbon calculations. There are, however, creative ways in which a carbon assessment can be manipulated in the favour of the architect and/ or building as opposed to the future care of the environment.

In the case of Hopkins’ 100 Liverpool Street, they were awarded BREEAM Outstanding status, winning several sustainability awards along with a nomination for the Stirling Prize. A closer look at their carbon assessment highlights the absolute dependency on carbon credits. In buying enough carbon credits Hopkins were able to entirely offset the embodied carbon involved in the large scale construction.

The credits were purchased under forest protection schemes in Tibet and Mexico. Whilst the protection of existing forests is incredibly important, the land and trees are already there. They have already sequestered most of their lifetime carbon capacity, long before Hopkins even conceived of their project. Yet, the carbon sequestering capabilities of these trees are quantified and directly accounted for in Hopkins carbon calculations without Hopkins having to do anything other than spend money.

The Guardian investigated these protection schemes, verified by a company called Verra. The calculations by the company of the carbon sequestration of a certain area of land are reliant on probabilities and predictions that the very owner of the prediction model has stated cannot be used for this purpose. Not only that, in 80% of cases, the area of forest is eventually deforested anyway.

And yet, Hopkins can continue to operate as usual, in exactly the same construction methods, justified by creative carbon accounts.

FORGIVENESS, NOT PERMISSION

05__CREATIVE CARBON

ACCOUNTING

A Baseless Apology

[an acknowledgement of an offence or failure that has nothing to do with you or the people you represent ]

The Crusades

1096-1291

Church of England founded

1534

Church of England plans a public apology acknowledging their regret over ‘The Crusades’

1999

Despite their plans, the Church of England decides not to apologize.

1999

400 Church of England Penitents arrive in Jerusalem for a self-proclaimed “Pilgrimage of Apology” on the 900th anniversary of the city’s sacking by Crusaders .

1999

400 Church of England Penitents

[ to the victims of the Crusades ]

1999

FORGIVENESS, NOT PERMISSION 06

The proposal uses the aforementioned ideas - upkeep of appearances, image-based competition, extrapolations of today, quantifiable rigour, conspicuous compassion - to generate an Apologetic Architecture that is genuine.

The proposal accepts that we are incapable of drastically changing this behaviour, instead, extrapolating it to the point where competition to keep up the most apologetic appearance has resulted in an architecture that is both virtue signalling and genuinely virtuous.

In other words, the conspicuous construction of retrofitted technological remedies (PV Panels, Wind Turbines, etc) has reached a point where the architecture genuinely apologises and genuinely has an effect on the environment. But rather than being driven by ecological compassion, it emerges out of market based and image based remedies.

Competition to become the most apologetic becomes the accidental solution the environmental crisis.

No longer can we offset halfway across the world to forest protection schemes predicated upon inaccurate modelling, or ones that will get cut down anyway. Instead, offsets are directly bolted onto the architecture, conspicuously signalling how apologetic the architect is. Numbers are quantified accurately as opposed to creatively, the more PV Panels that are visible, the better for your appearance.

The proposal consists of two strands: architecture apologising for itself (explored through my home and my place of work) and for others (the environmental crimes of Grimsby).

FORGIVENESS, NOT PERMISSION

06__FORGIVENESS, NOT PERMISSION

1__UPGRADES: Technological accoutrements for an Apologetic Architecture

A Posthumous Apology

[an acknowledgement of an offence or failure after the death of the recipient ]

“Charles Darwin: 200 years from your birth, the Church of England owes you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still.”

Malcolm Brown (on behalf of the Church of England)

[ to Charles Darwin ] 2008

AGE OF APOLOGY 01

This apology addresses everyday domestic consumption. The context of the film, Mow Pressure, returns, a new-build suburban estate on the northern edge of Lincoln. The apologies are direct and quantifiable. A new build 3 bedroom suburban house in the UK would need 61 PV Panels to apologise for its construction and operation by 2050. It would need two rainwater funnels 3.5m in diameter to collect enough rainwater to counter what is used. If the house were to apologise by 2030, it would 154 PV Panels.

The Apology has first been quantified, based on the carbon footprint of my house, before directly translating into accoutrements.

The responsibility of 24 of the PV Panels would be that of Persimmon homes, the company that constructed the home, to address the embodied carbon expenditure. The rest are the responsibility of the consumer, to address the operational carbon.

FORGIVENESS, NOT PERMISSION

07__MY

HOUSE IS SORRY

1__MY HOUSE IS SORRY: By 2050 2__MY HOUSE IS SORRY: By 2030

KEEPING UP APPEARANCES 04

1__SUBURBAN DREAM: Upgrades in Grimsby

1__MY HOUSE: Retrofitted Apologies

2__MY HOUSE: Retrofitted Apologies

3__MY HOUSE: Retrofitted Apologies

4__MY HOUSE: Retrofitted Apologies

FORGIVENESS, NOT PERMISSION

KEEPING UP APPEARANCES 04 1__PV-TV

FORGIVENESS, NOT PERMISSION

2__RAINWATER FUNNEL 3__RAINWATER FUNNEL

KEEPING UP APPEARANCES 04

1__PV-Bench 1__PV-Lampost

FORGIVENESS, NOT PERMISSION

3-4__PV-TV: Operational when the suns out

I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sor ry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but. I’m sorry if. I’m sorry that. I’m sorry but.

KEEPING UP APPEARANCES 04

FORGIVENESS, NOT PERMISSION

A Forced Apology

[an acknowledgement of an offence or failure following external pressure to do so]

“Why don’t you make a grown-up decision now and accept responsibility, take off those glasses, and apologise.”

“I’ll apologise, but I’m not taking off my glasses.”

Corey Worthington

[on Live TV to Leila McKinnon, acknowledging a large house party]

2010

AGE OF APOLOGY 01

Leila McKinnon

Corey Worthington

To apologise for my place of work, the RCA building in Kensington, the annual operational carbon expenditure of the building (publicly available on the government website) was translated into a metric that relies on itself.

FORGIVENESS, NOT PERMISSION

07__THE RCA

IS SORRY

A Rescinded Apology

[ taking back an initial acknowledgement of an offence or failure]

“I don’t have one regret. If anyone’s reading this waiting for some type of full-on, flat apology for anything, they should just stop reading right now. I have, as a human being, fallen to peer pressure.”

Kanye West

[ taking back an apology to Taylor Swift ] 2013

AGE OF APOLOGY 01

IS SORRY

This time, the architecture is being used as an apology for the environmental crimes of other industries. In exactly the same way as before, but on an entirely different scale, the environmental crimes are quantified genuinely, before translating into the infrastructure required to accommodate the accoutrements. There are two simultaneous apologies in play for Grimsby - both because of their environmental significance.

The first is an apology for the carbon emissions of VPI Immingham CHP, part of the Humber Industrial Area that contributes 40% of the UK’s total industrial carbon emissions. This particular power station is one of many, but would require 6.9 million PV Panels in order to apologise by 2050 for its historical operational emissions since being commissioned. The infrastructure that this requires is monumental and will completely transform the existing infrastructure of Grimsby in order for them to be accommodated. The apologetic infrastructure will be one of virtue signalling, timber frames and exaggerated bolton remedies.

The second apology is for the (over)fishing industry that once made Grimsby the largest fishing port in the world. Having sieved through every Grimsby fishing annual since records begin, there were 1.7 billion fish that were fished. To apologise, the red lights that lure fish to trawlers are being used on the jetties of Grimsby to lure the fish back to the safe waters that surround and away from fisherman.

FORGIVENESS, NOT PERMISSION

07__GRIMSBY

1__INDUSTRY: Immingham Industrial Area

KEEPING UP APPEARANCES 04

1__APOLOGY FOR INDUSTRY: 6.9 Million PV Panels

FORGIVENESS, NOT PERMISSION

2-4__APOLOGY FOR INDUSTRY: Animation Stills 5__APOLOGY FOR INDUSTRY: 6.9 Million PV Panels

KEEPING UP APPEARANCES 04

1__APOLOGETIC ARCHITECTURE: Master Plan for the Environmental Reparation of Grimsby

FORGIVENESS, NOT PERMISSION

KEEPING UP APPEARANCES 04

FORGIVENESS, NOT PERMISSION

1__APOLOGETIC ARCHITECTURE: Film stills from the Kasbah Street with Bolt-On Remedies

KEEPING UP APPEARANCES 04

1__RED LIGHTS OF THE ATLANTIC: Seen from space, the red glow of trawler lights 2__RED LURES: Trawler Lights to lure fish

FORGIVENESS, NOT PERMISSION

3__GRIMSBY DOCKS APOLOGY 4__GRIMSBY DOCKS APOLOGY

KEEPING UP APPEARANCES 04

1__GRIMSBY APOLOGY: Elevation of the Kasbah with retrofitted apologies

FORGIVENESS, NOT PERMISSION

1. Willy Brandt kneeling before the Monument to the Ghetto Heroes.

ARCHITECTURE (Thesis)

AGE OF APOLOGY

In 1970, Willy Brandt, German Chancellor at the time, knelt before the Monument to the Ghetto Heroes, erected to honour the Victims of the Holocaust. This was the first time an act of reconciliation between Germans and Jews had been attempted and although no words were uttered, it is remembered as a symbolic and influential example of a public apology. Such was the potency of this gesture, other nation states immediately followed suit, recognising the power of publicly performed morality.1 The phenomenon of the apology was born.

Since 1970, the leaders of Japan have collectively apologised 19 times for the atrocities their nation committed during World War II. 2 hours into Prime Minister Questions on April 19 2022, Boris Johnson had already apologised 34 times for his refusal to follow the social restrictions he subjected to the entire nation during the coronavirus pandemic. Pope John Paul II has his own Wikipedia page of public apologies, of which there are over 100.

<?> Danielle Celemajer, “The Apology in Australia: Re-Covenanting the National Imaginary,” in Taking Wrongs Seriously: Apologies and Reconciliation, ed. Elazar Barkan and Alexander Karn (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2006), 16.

<?> Aaron Lazare, On Apology, New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 4.

<?> Aaron Lazare, On Apology, 5.

There is a growing appetite in contemporary culture for figures, institutions and whole nations to apologise for wrongdoings that have been committed. Demand for reparation has reached a point where the apology is now a commodity - China has several apology companies where staff are employed to write letters, send gifts and offer explanations on behalf of an offender.2 The rise of the apology may seem like a positive trend, and yet the frequency in which they are now used has created doubt over their authenticity.3 The virtue contained within the act of apologising has become a strategy in which gesture alone has enabled the offender to excuse behaviour without meaningful reparation. Non-apology apologies have risen alongside the apology, transforming the saying ‘it is easier to ask for forgiveness than permission’ into a dictum. Trusting the sincerity of the offender is increasingly difficult and the integrity of the apology is in

09__APOLOGETIC

<?> Aaron Lazare, On Apology, 5.

<?> Aaron Lazare, On Apology, 21.

<?> Nick Smith, “The Categorical Apology,” The Journal of Social Philosophy 36, no.4 (2005): 473.

a fragile moment.

In spite of their assumed simplicity, apologies are often complicated; the words ‘I’m sorry’ alone are not enough. A successful apology hinges upon the timing, delivery and context, and may require a physical or material act of reparation. The actions of Willy Brandt offer a scenario in which the apology does not even require words. In what was received as a potent performance of remorse, the act of kneeling was enough. Today, a new type of apology is emerging, also wordless, and just as performative.

The architectural apology has materialised in response to the impact of the construction industry. Buildings are showing remorse for their own existence, setting out a new architectural language of apology. Architectural apologies are appearing in several ways. There are nature-based apologies, time-based apologies and sentimental apologies that collectively contribute to the rise of what I shall categorise as an Apologetic Architecture. But are these apologies heartfelt or are they simply an excuse, an offset that justifies the continuation of fundamentally problematic practice?

ARCHITECTURE OF AN APOLOGY

An apology should represent an act of reparation, to acknowledge responsibility for a mistake and attempt to mend the relationship that had been broken. It is then up to the victim(s) to legitimise the apology through a display of forgiveness, releasing the offender from guilt and shame.4 At a glance, an effective apology may appear simple, but it is a paradoxically complex process.5 Nick Smith suggests, in an attempt to protect the integrity of the apology, a set of variables that facilitate the maximally meaningful apology. 6 Although he refers specifically to the

2. 2. Former Prime Minister Boris Johnson apologising for ‘partygate’ in the House of Commons.

<?> “Zoeller Apologises for Woods Comments,” New York Times, May 24, 2023, https://www.nytimes. com/1997/04/22/sports/zoellerapologizes-for-woods-comments.html

<?> Aaron Lazare, On Apology, 6.

<?> Nick Smith, “The Categorical Apology,” 484.,

public apology, the effectiveness of an apology is contingent upon the timing, delivery and context, whilst the reparative acts aimed to rebuild the relationship between offender and victim must be clearly contained within. But how can the victim recognise the authenticity of an apology when it’s predicated upon a trust that has been broken? Is the apology actually for the victim(s) or is it for the offender(s)?

I didn’t mean anything by it and I’m sorry if I offended anybody. If Tiger is offended by it, I apologise to him too.7

On 21 April, 1997 Fuzzy Zoeller published an apology to Tiger Woods in the New York Times following derogatory, racist remarks made at the Augusta National Masters golfing tournament, over a week earlier on April 13. A cursory assessment of the language to this apology would suffice; the words ‘I’m sorry’ and ‘I apologise’ are evidence enough to suggest the recognition of guilt as a step toward reparation. However, these words do not exist in isolation, their meaning altered by the conjunction, ‘if’. This not only conditions the content of the apology, but, with the words that follow - ‘(if) Tiger is offended’suggests that the reason for apologising is only because of the sensitivity of the victim.8 Lexically, the apology is insincere, which prompts questions surrounding the motive behind it. Is Zoeller genuinely sorry, or is he simply attempting to repair his tarnished image? The delivery of an apology is also important.9 Zoeller’s apology was contained within a published media article which implies a refusal to directly account for the broken relationship. Both the language and delivery of this apology has shifted its meaning, from something heartfelt to something backhanded - a non-apology apology.

The conditional apology analysed here is just one technique used to disguise a non-apology as an apology. There are renewed apologies - most of the Leaders of Japan since 1970 have issued a public apology that responds to the crimes com

3. Fuzzy Zoeller and Tiger Woods during the Augusta National Masters.

<?> Amelia Gentleman, May WolfeRobinson and Kate Chappell, “Prince William speaks of profound ‘sorrow’ for slavery in address to Jamaican PM,” The Guardian, May 21, 2023, https:// www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/ mar/23/jamaicas-pm-tells-kate-andwilliam-his-country-is-moving-on

<?> Melanie Klein, Love, Guilt and Reparation and Other Works 1921-1945, (New York: The Free Press, 1975): 311312.

<?> Patrick West, Conspicuous Compassion, (New South Wales: Centre for Independent Studies, 2004): 64.

mitted in World War II - that become a formality to cast morality rather than heartfelt remorse. There are repeated apologies - the 34 apologies of Boris Johnson in 2 hours during Prime Minister Questions - that, through repetition, weaken the meaning and purpose of the apology. There are almost apologies - when Prince William expressed his “profound sorrow” for the atrocities of slavery whilst on a visit to Jamaica in 202210 - that use words synonymous with regret, but fall short of the word “sorry” to avoid the responsibility of reparative repercussions. There are deflective apologies - actor, Matt Damon, used his public apology to express his happiness in starting a conversation about diversity in Hollywood, after he cut off Effie Brown in an interview - that spin an apology into a positive or to change topic entirely in an attempt to diffuse the severity of the offence. And when the first apology is deemed to be hollow, there are recursive apologies - in 2010, BP Oil CEO Tony Hayward apologised for an apology video that had insufficiently addressed his, and his companies responsibility in the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

At first glance, each apology may appear earnest, and yet, in each scenario they fall short of genuine remorse. Rather than quash or repair a broken relationship, they conjure doubt and strengthen the mistrust created by the offence. Who are these apologies actually for? Are they for the offender or the victim? Will they prevent repeat offences? Melanie Klein categorises these types of apologies as manic reparation; the offender is absolved from individual guilt, without the difficulty of reconciliation.11 The apologies of Prince William and the Leaders of Japan manifest as sentimental hubris, whilst those of Boris Johnson, Matt Damon and Tony Hayward signify desperate attempts to move on from controversy and mend their image. In each case, the intent is fundamentally narcissistic, a carefully constructed apology that makes the offender feel good rather than actually do good.12 It is the disparity between the surface (projected motive) and latent (actual motive) content of these gestures

that renders them performative and ultimately ineffective. The rise of the apology has birthed it’s disingenuous other and we must recognise their nuances if we are to re-assume it’s integrity.

4. Prince William expressing his ‘sorrow’ for the atrocities of slavery during a visit to Jamaica.

5. SOAS Brunei Gallery, London - A plaque apologises for the buildings own existence (above a Civic Trust Award).

<?> UK Green Building Council, Net Zero Whole Life Carbon Roadmap (London: UKGBC, 2021), 6.

<?> Garry Fuller, “Building Works

Responsible for 18% of UK Large Particle Pollution,” The Guardian, October 21, 2022, https://www. theguardian.com/environment/2022/ oct/21/building-works-responsible-for18-of-uk-large-particle-pollution

<?> Oliver Wainwright, “Fatcat developers created our housing crisis. Here’s how to stop them,” The Guardian, April 30, 2020, https://www. theguardian.com/artanddesign/2020/ apr/30/fatcat-developers-created-ourhousing-crisis-heres-how-to-stop-them

<?> “The Tory 100: captains of industry, party donors (and a few tax avoiders),” The Guardian, April 1, 2015, https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ ng-interactive/2015/apr/01/tory-100industry-captains-party-donors-taxavoiders

APOLOGETIC ARCHITECTURE

Architecture, as part of the construction industry, has a lot to apologise for. There are significant environmental, social and political offences, almost always interconnected. In 2018 it was responsible for 42% of UK greenhouse gas emissions13 and 18% of large particle pollutants (over 30% in London) from construction sites, raising the risk of respiratory diseases for those living nearby.14 In spite of all the construction that causes these emissions, the UK is in a housing crisis, short of 4 million homes. Berkeley Group, one of the top 10 UK builders were responsible for 3,537 homes in 2017 and yet the average price of these homes was £715,000.15 1.2 million people remain on the council housing waiting list. The group have won the Queen’s Award for Sustainable Development and not only did its chairman, Tony Pidgley, receive a CBE from David Cameron, the Prime Minister at the time, but a place on the Michael Heseltine’s Estate Regeneration Advisory Panel, advising the government for the disposal of public land. Tony Pidgley is a Conservative Party donor.16 Although these offences are easily attributable to the systemic issues of capitalism, we are in a climate emergency and architecture’s contribution cannot be excused.

Be it public pressure, increased transparency, or heartfelt responsibility, architects are beginning to address these problems through their practice, acknowledging the need for architecture to apologise. This has produced a new type of architectural language, one that expresses sympathy toward the impact of construction. Collectively, I shall term the outcome of this movement as an apologetic architecture. But are these apologies genuine, or are they expressions of manic reparation, an architectural equivalent of the non-apology apology? In the majority of cases, architectural apologies are directed towards the environment; formal, technological or calculated gestures that offer remorse over the damage we subject it to. For clarity and concision, the apologetic architecture that follows

<?> Will Ing, “Is the boom in green roofs and green walls good for sustainability?” The Architects’ Journal, no. 1 (October 2021): 13.

<?> Will Ing, “Green roofs and green walls,” 4.

assesses only these examples.

One of the more conspicuous accounts of apology in architecture, and one that is accelerating, is the introduction of plants either directly to the structure of the building, or the landscaping that surrounds its base, to soften its impact both visually and environmentally.

Heatherwick Studio and BIG have promised a grass-laden ‘plateau’, two ‘tree walkways’, a ‘garden’ and even a ‘headland’ on the roof of their proposal for the new Google Headquarters, currently being constructed. Eric Parry has proposed a 26-storey green wall that will bolt on to his most recent skyscraper, whilst the extension to Blackfriars Crown Court by Studio RHE will feature a 100 tree ‘forest’ that rests upon the roof.17

The phenomena of greening acknowledges the impact architecture has on the environment; the verdant building asks for forgiveness by introducing a quota of plants that signify, at least superficially, an architect’s sympathy toward a sustainable solution. Published reports by the WWF, RSPB and the Climate Change Committee provide evidence for the positives of this trend - increasing biodiversity along with improved temperature and flood management within urban areas. As such, there is now a push on planning policies directed toward the inclusion of green elements within the built environment.18 These benefits are certainly a good thing and you’d be forgiven for thinking that the architectural apology of greening is something genuine, a heartfelt show of remorse to lessen the impact of architecture on the environment. Yet, it is the manner in which these nature-based solutions are applied that exposes their latent content, often shifting the conversation to the carbon capturing capabilities of flora. Clive Nicol, chief executive of the Blackfriars Crown Court extension provides an example:

Rooftop forests have a greater positive

6. A ‘Grass-laden Plateau’ - Heatherwick and BIG’s Google Headquarters.

<?> Will Ing, “Green roofs and green walls,” 14.

<?> Will Ing, “Green roofs and green walls,” 15.

impact on air quality and carbon capture than living walls, due to their size, scale, far greater longevity and impact.19

Marketed as sustainable solutions, they often hinge upon the knowledge that vegetation will sequester carbon, projecting an idea that the greenery applied to a building will eventually balance out the carbon emitted by that building, or more generally, the construction industry. But the numbers don’t add up. Simon Sturgis, director or Targeting Zero, highlights the insignificance of greening:

It takes roughly 17 mature trees 10 years to absorb one tonne of CO2. Big new commercial buildings will cost tens of thousands of tonnes of CO2 emissions to build, let alone use, so you can see that the amount of greening shown [on some recent proposals] will make barely any impact.20

Greening is a token gesture that signals a sustainable solution without actually committing to it. Architects are using vegetation to construct an apology that maintains an image of care to offset the actual impact of construction. In exactly the same way as Boris Johnson’s repeat apology or Matt Damon’s deflective apology, greening absolves the offender - the architect, or more broadly, the construction industry - of guilt without actually engaging in meaningful reconciliation. It is an act of sentimental hubris and what Melanie Klein would categorise as manic reparation, used to excuse and justify the continuation of problematic practice in architecture. These apologetic architectural accoutrements are not heartfelt and as such, are not the nature-based sustainable solutions they disguise themselves to be.

Against the carbon expenditure incurred in the demolition of decaying structures, retrofitting is widely promoted as the more environmentally considerate alternative. The LETI Climate Emer

7. 26 Storey Green Wall - Eric Parry Architects. 8. 100 Tree ‘Forest’ - Studio RHE.

<?> LETI, Climate Emergency

Retrofit Guide (London: LETI, 2022) 10.

<?> Ian Clark Architects, “Chart Street Studios,” accessed May 24, 2023, https://www.ianchalkarchitects.

com/chartstreetstudio

<?> The Gentle Author, “Outrage: future generations will laugh in horror and derision at the folly of facadism,” The Architectural Review 1447, no. 1 (January 2018) 98.

gency Retrofit Guide is just one of many resources available to architects that explain and prove that in the majority of cases, the carbon savings associated with the retention of an existing structure is the most apologetic thing an architect can do in response to the environmental offences of the construction industry.21 As such, the retrofit movement, like greening, is increasing in prevalence as architects appear to be showing their sentiment for existing structures.

Ian Chalk Architects retrofitted a 1930’s furniture warehouse in Hackney for their Chart Street Studios project, retaining 86% of the existing structure before the addition of Glulam supports and CLT panels to extend the inhabitable space. Visually, the distinction between what is old and what is new has been expressed through a change in the facade’s materiality, and whilst the cynic may lament this approach as clunky chimaera, the carbon calculations certainly back it up, outperforming the RIBA and LETI carbon targets both at present and in 2050.22 This particular retrofit then is certainly interpretable as a heartfelt and apologetic response to the environment and yet, it is genuinely reparative projects like these that have also paved the way for corrupted clones.

In a recent movement termed facadism, architects have looked toward the virtue that the sentimental language of the retrofit is intrinsic.23 As part of a development in Bethnal Green, the Duke

9. Duke of Cambridge - Holloway Architects.

<?> The Gentle Author, “Folly of Facadism,” 99.

<?> AHMM, The Rowe: Information Pack (London: AHMM, 2022) 14.

of Cambridge, a 19th Century public house that closed down in 1998, was bought by the developer to be turned into housing. The architect, Guy Holloway, proposed its retrofit and extension in an apologetic gesture toward environment and place.24 Externally, it follows a similar language to that of Ian Clark Architects’ project - one implies that the structure has been maintained through the retention of the facade - and yet, Holloway Studio gutted the pub entirely, leaving only the facades behind. No longer part of the structure, the retained facades exist only as an appendage to the steel and glass new-build it now sits in front of. The retention of the Duke of Cambridge pub sign as part of these façades projects an image of publicness that can only be interpreted as ironic, given its repurposing as an exterior for unaffordable private housing. In retaining the facade without the structure, the architect projects an image of care without the reparative acts that come with it. The result is a new-build disguised as a retrofit; a non-apology disguised as an apology.

Retrofitted non-apologies are becoming increasingly more audacious and more explicit in their attempts to justify an architectural proposition. The Rowe, by AHMM architects, is a proposal for the ‘retrofit’ of the former London Metropolitan School of Art, Architecture and Design into an office-space. In the narrative that accompanies the conception of the project, the architects repeatedly stress the importance of retaining the existing to “celebrate the ‘as found’ character” of the structure.25 On their website it is categorised as a ‘’reuse” project and yet, contrary to their own advice, they have opted to demolish the entirety of the structure behind the existing facades, rebuild it in concrete and steel columns, and add an extension above that is more than double the height of the existing. This is a new-build office that follows the construction principles we know and acknowledge to be environmentally detrimental, but with the sentimental addition of a 1960’s shell. The embodied carbon of this project is nearly twice the LETI guidelines for a new-

build, but because the architects have dressed it up as a retrofit, the guidelines are bypassed, automatically excusing its own existence. Now, it has been shortlisted for the 2023 AJ Retrofit of the Year Award, perversely promoting it as a precedent in which to dodge meaningful reparation and continue practising architecture in problematic ways.

Apologetic architecture is not always so conspicuous. Alongside the visual culture of greening or facadism exists a numerical approach to environmental regret that offers creative ways to account for the carbon emissions of an architecture. There are two standard measures that architects use in which to validate the carbon generated by a building: Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) and Whole Life Carbon Assessments (WLCA). The former, and more common practice, measures the operational carbon of a project, awarding a sustainability rating out of 100 based upon the efficiency of a building’s performance. The latter, a relatively recent practice that is increasing in prevalence, assesses a building’s environmental performance over its lifetime, accounting for the embodied carbon in its construction, the operational carbon when in use, and the carbon emitted as a result of its

12. Between - Gutting the Insides, leaving behind the facade. 11. After - The Rowe, AHMM. 10. Before - The London Metropolitan School of Art, Architecture and Design.

<?> Foster and Partners, “Bloomberg’s new headquarters rated world’s most sustainable,” accessed May19, 2023, https:// www.fosterandpartners.com/news/ archive/2017/10/bloomberg-s-neweuropean-headquarters-rated-world-smost-sustainable-office-building/

<?> George Kafka, “Money Talks: Bloomberg London, UK, by Foster and Partners,” The Architectural Review 1458, no.2 (February 2018), 88.

<?> Foster and Partners, “Bloomberg Most Sustainable.”

<?> Oliver Wainwright, “Bloomberg HQ: a £1 billion building that looks like a regional department store,” The Guardian, October 25, 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/ artanddesign/2017/oct/25/bloomberglondon-hq-norman-foster-architecturereview

<?> AKT II, “Bloomberg European HQ,” accessed May 22, 2023, https:// www.akt-uk.com/projects/bloombergeuropean-hq/

<?> E-architect, “Bloomberg European Headquarters in London,” accessed May 22, 2023, https://www.earchitect.com/london/bloombergeuropean-headquarters-in-london

demolition. If a building achieves a strong enough rating in either of these assessments it is acknowledged as something reputable, a reparative act to shorten the construction industry’s distanced relationship to the environment.

With a BREEAM rating of 98.5, Foster and Partners Bloomberg HQ in London has been measured as ‘outstanding’, earning the status of “world’s most sustainable office building” by numerous outlets along with the architects themselves.26 Such was the publicity surrounding the innovative focus on sustainability within the project, it managed to win the RIBA Stirling Prize in 2018, lauded as some sort of zeitgeist to aim toward. It achieved this feat through technological innovation: 250 custom Japanese bronze facade ‘fins’ that channel natural air into the building, 2.5 million custom aluminium ‘petals’ that reflect light to cool the internal spaces and vacuum-flush toilets to minimise water usage.27 There is passive ventilation, on-site energy production from a combined power to heat station, and 500,000 energy efficient LED’s.28 These architectural accoutrements are calculated to save 70% on water usage and 40% on energy consumption.29 Operationally then, Bloomberg HQ appears to go some way toward a meaningful apology, but are these cutting-edge eco-technologies just a virtuous veil? 600 tonnes of bronze was imported from Japan for the fin-like appendages on the facade. The manufacturing of aluminium, used to make the 2.5 million petals, has one of the highest carbon emissions of any material. A “quarry full of granite” was imported from India for the floors and the engineers, AKT II, stated that there were “no limits on the tonnage of steel” used in the structure, favouring the “visual impact” of the architecture.30 The embodied carbon of Bloomberg HQ is huge and, according to RIBA’s own sustainability advisor, Simon Sturgis, a “significant multiple” of a more conventional new-build office.31 Their technological efforts to reconcile the environmental offences of architecture are nothing more than bolt-on remedies that justify a business-as-usual approach to architectural

13. Image - Norman Foster stands before the UN Climate Change Conference.

Will Ing, “Whole-Life Carbon Assessments - a whole new type of greenwash?” The Architect’s Journal, no.1 (October 2022): 15.

practice. Fosters and Bloomberg fall short of meaningful reparation, using apologetic architectural appendages and offsets to prop up their virtue-hungry egos.

Following the aforementioned criticism this project eventually received, and in an effort to curb the threat of operational innovation becoming the precedent for sustainability, Whole Life Carbon Assessments were introduced. WLCA’s measure the carbon emitted by a building over its entire lifetime so that architects can no longer hide behind innovative paraphernalia. Now, the embodied carbon created in resource extraction, material manufacture and construction processes are accounted for. In the UK, these assessments are currently only enforced in London for structures taller than 30m, but they will eventually become an industry wide mandate to a more genuine apologetic architecture. In theory, these assessments seem like a step toward a low-carbon future, however they require complex calculations that fundamentally predicate upon prediction and forecasting.32 To accurately measure the carbon emitted from a future demolition is not possible without assumptions being made. Architects and developers are savvy to this and have begun to use this uncertainty to skew the numbers of these assessments in a new form of creative carbon accounting. There are several emerging ways in which carbon calculations are being manipulated. Offsets are monetary donations to either afforestation, forest protection, or land protection schemes in order to generate carbon credits that permit the emittance of carbon. In principle, the charitable act of promoting and contributing to something environmentally and ecologically beneficial is deemed to be enough to balance out the damage of construction. A good act will cancel out the bad. It is offsets that have allowed 100 Liverpool Street by Hopkins Architects to gain BREEAM outstanding status, along with Net Zero Carbon status after its WLCA. By donating to forest protection schemes in Tibet and Mexico, they have indirectly ‘saved’ carbon and made equitable

<?>

14. Aluminium Fins - Bloomberg, Foster and Partners.

<?> British Land, “Halving Embodied Carbon at Scale - 100 Liverpool Street,” accessed May 25, 2023, https://www.britishland.com/ sustainability/our-views/halvingembodied-carbon-scale-100-liverpoolstreet

<?> Patrick Greenfield, “Exposing rainforest carbon credits: why offsetting isn’t working,” Today in Focus, podcast audio, January 23, 2023, https://www. theguardian.com/news/audio/2023/ jan/23/exposing-rainforest-carboncredits-why-offsetting-isnt-working

<?> Simon Sturgis, RIBA, Embodied and Whole Life Carbon Assessments for Architects (London: RIBA Publishing, 2017) 8.

their carbon calculations.33 The carbon savings accounted for in these schemes are achieved through prediction models that assess the likelihood of the deforestation of a particular area. In other words, they are calculated on assumptions and speculation. Vera is the company that guarantees the authenticity of an offset scheme and yet, almost all of their verified offsets have broken their promises. Even the owner of this prediction model has said that it is inaccurate and should not be used in this way.34 This goes without mentioning how indirect and lazy the concept is in the first place; the forest already exists, the trees have already sequestered the carbon, no additional amounts of carbon are being sequestered and yet, simply by donating to a thin third party ‘promise’ it allows architects like Hopkins to pat themselves on the back for achieving ‘net zero’. The Carbon credits are being generated on the false belief that enormous amounts of forests are being protected so that architects and developers alike can pass the WLCA and run their practice as normal, all whilst virtue-signalling how compassionate they are and how sustainable their buildings are. Apologetic architecture in this scenario quite literally offsets any meaningful reparation.

Whole Life Carbon Assessments are calculated on the expected life span of a building, to spread the total carbon cost over time. RIBA suggests this assumption to be “60 years for all building types.”35 The greater the life span, the more distributed the carbon emissions will be, subsequently reducing the value of carbon in the WLCA. If a building were genuinely expected to survive 120 years, the emitted carbon for the WLCA will be halved. Niall McLaughlin Architects’ predicated the life span of their Magdalene College Library upon the existing architecture of The University of Cambridge, the context and client for the project. Because the majority of the structures at the university have lasted 400 years, the practice reasoned that their building would survive in the same way. A Whole Life Carbon Assessment spread over 400 years is going to

15. Net Zero? Offset - 100 Liverpool Street, Hopkins Architects. 16. 400 Years - Magdalene College, Niall McLaughlin.

look good no matter the embodied or operational carbon. In spite of its heartfelt conception, all these assessments have done is provide architects with an easier method in which to gesture toward something apologetic.

Worryingly, all three of the case studies - Foster and Partners, Hopkins, and Niall McLaughlinhave been celebrated with architecture’s most prestigious awards. Bloomberg HQ won the RIBA Stirling Prize in 2018, 100 Liverpool Street was shortlisted for the same award in 2022 with Magdalene College Library going on to win it. If these are the zeitgeist for a low carbon future, one can’t help but feel totally demoralised.

TIME TO MEAN IT

Such is the acceleration and capacity for care-culture today, the apology has expanded into something other than just a text-based performance. Technological accoutrements, sentimental hubris and creative carbon accounting together are constructing an apologetic language to architecture. It is one of rooftop ‘forests’, disjointed façades, aluminium ‘petals’ and nugatory promises. Apologetic architecture exists only to divert attention away from the consequential reality of construction, screened by an image of virtue that compliments the ego of the architect.

The problem lies in the intent. On the surface, there is no real issue with the addition of trees or grasses on the roof or façades of a building, nor is there a problem in retaining a facade, but it is the strategy behind these trends that is of concern. Marketed as environmental solutions to the climate crisis, they are praised as the precedents in which to turn to and yet, all these addons manage is to excuse a business-as-usual approach to construction. The actual structure of the architecture has not been altered at all. Ecologically their impact is negligible, instead offering a market-based remedy that prolongs the way we practice. It is about image, not content. Rather than curb the trajectory of environmental demise, apologetic architecture diffuses the urgency and need for drastic action. It promotes an ignorance and laziness that is shortening the borrowed time we have in finding a resolution.

Apologetic architecture is a symptom of the principles contained within the phrase ‘it is easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.’ In other words, if we continue to cast gestures of apology, we continue to excuse and permit the offences they try to cover up. The thinking behind a reparative architecture must shift fast, from something hollow to something heartfelt, from token technologies to construction methodologies, to avoid this becoming the zeitgeist for sustainability.

10__INFLUENCES

AGE OF APOLOGY 01

FORGIVENESS, NOT PERMISSION

AGE OF APOLOGY 01

FORGIVENESS, NOT PERMISSION

AGE OF APOLOGY 01

FORGIVENESS, NOT PERMISSION

Endnotes

1 Danielle Celemajer, “The Apology in Australia: Re-Covenanting the National Imaginary

2 Aaron Lazare, On Apology, New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 4.

3 Aaron Lazare, On Apology, 5.

4 Aaron Lazare, On Apology, 5.

5 Aaron Lazare, On Apology, 21.

6 Nick Smith, “The Categorical Apology,”

7 “Zoeller Apologises for Woods Comments,” New York Times, May 24, 2023, https://www. nytimes.com/1997/04/22/sports/zoeller-apologizes-for-woods-comments.html

8 Aaron Lazare, On Apology, 6.

9 Nick Smith, “The Categorical Apology,” 484.,

10 Amelia Gentleman, May Wolfe-Robinson and Kate Chappell, “Prince William speaks of profound ‘sorrow’ for slavery in address to Jamaican PM,” The Guardian, May 21, 2023, https:// www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/mar/23/jamaicas-pm-tells-kate-and-william-his-countryis-moving-on

11 Melanie Klein, Love, Guilt and Reparation and Other Works 1921-1945, (New York: The Free Press, 1975): 311-312.

12 Patrick West, Conspicuous Compassion, (New South Wales: Centre for Independent Studies, 2004): 64.

13 UK Green Building Council, Net Zero Whole Life Carbon Roadmap (London: UKGBC, 2021), 6.

14 Garry Fuller, “Building Works Responsible for 18% of UK Large Particle Pollution,” The Guardian, October 21, 2022, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/21/buildingworks-responsible-for-18-of-uk-large-particle-pollution

15 Oliver Wainwright, “Fatcat developers created our housing crisis. Here’s how to stop them,” The Guardian, April 30, 2020, https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2020/apr/30/ fatcat-developers-created-our-housing-crisis-heres-how-to-stop-them

16 “The Tory 100: captains of industry, party donors (and a few tax avoiders),” The Guardian, April 1, 2015, https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2015/apr/01/tory-100-industrycaptains-party-donors-tax-avoiders

17 Will Ing, “Is the boom in green roofs and green walls good for sustainability?” The Architects’ Journal, no. 1 (October 2021): 13.

18 Will Ing, “Green roofs and green walls,” 4.

19 Will Ing, “Green roofs and green walls,” 14.

20 Will Ing, “Green roofs and green walls,” 15.

21 LETI, Climate Emergency Retrofit Guide (London: LETI, 2022) 10.

22 Ian Clark Architects, “Chart Street Studios,” accessed May 24, 2023, https://www. ianchalkarchitects.com/chartstreetstudio

23 The Gentle Author, “Outrage: future generations will laugh in horror and derision at the folly of facadism,” The Architectural Review 1447, no. 1 (January 2018) 98.

24 The Gentle Author, “Folly of Facadism,” 99.

25 AHMM, The Rowe: Information Pack (London: AHMM, 2022) 14.

26 Foster and Partners, “Bloomberg’s new headquarters rated world’s most sustainable,” accessed May19, 2023, https://www.fosterandpartners.com/news/archive/2017/10/bloombergs-new-european-headquarters-rated-world-s-most-sustainable-office-building/

27 George Kafka, “Money Talks: Bloomberg London, UK, by Foster and Partners,” The Architectural Review 1458, no.2 (February 2018), 88.