Talk about sobering irony. While the world's fascination is focused on Burj Khalifa - or the Dubai Tower - the world's tallest and earthquake-resistant building at the height of 828 meters, our attention here is absorbed into the gruesome accident that happened in Metro Tanah Abang Market, Jakarta, where an additional building collapsed and killed several people. It collapsed not due to an earthquake or other natural causes, but a lack of structural strength.
The officials of the Taiwanese government promptly "save" the achievement of their Taipei Tower 101 (509 meters tall) through its transformation into the most environmentally friendly skyscraper in the world. Meanwhile, our own country's government officials are busy building malls, super-malls, shopping centers, department stores and plazas, which tend to be bad for the environment. The buildings appear as unattractive glass boxes, sucking up energy, robbing their neighborhood of green open spaces, absorbing ground water, not factoring in sunlight and wind. This epidemic - mockingly known as "Manhattanization" - is best to nipped in the bud.
The problem is not merely the monotonous physical appearance, which was a carbon copy of tall buildings in the West. Not only cultural imperialism air, either. We are more worried about the negative impact of the mushrooming glass-box-buildings to the environment. Especially in regards to the climate change phenomenon, which is now a hot topic to discuss.
It is to be noted that a number of people were dissappointed with the "Copenhagen Accord" which was formulated in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) last December.
True, that it already mentions the indication of certain targets to prevent global warming, temperature rise and the mitigation of the negative impacts of climate change at global, national and local scales. But there was no binding, fair and efficient agreement in the implementation.
No wonder Copenhagen, where UNFCCC was held, which had the nickname of Hopenhagen, has now changed to "Floppenhagen". The environmental activitists' high hopes and dreams, plummeted drastically like a flopped balloon past its prime.
However, we can never surrender and return to business-as-usual. Everyone must get up and grab a new attitude of business-unusual.
So far, when people talk about global warming, the pointing finger always lays the blame on illegal logging and diminishing forests. However, according to the Green Building Council and Environmental Protection Agency in the US, the impacts of commercial buildings and real estates are no less horrifying.
In the year 2005 it was noted that the building industry absorbed 39 percent of energy need, 68 percent of electricity consumption, and released 40 percent of the glass house emission from total (Green Building, J. Yudelson, 2007).
We can certainly imagine how big the impact was for global warming and climate change.
To tackle the environmentally destructive "Manhattanization" epidemic, we need various efforts.
First, obviously, through the rules and regulations as the umbrella of the law that binds everyone. When it comes to city planning and development, there is already some laws, i.e the Spatial Planning Law, the Environmental Law and the Cultural Heritage Law.
However, the Architectural Law remains unseen. I obtained some information that the draft is already at the hand of the House of Representatives, but it hasn't been further processed.
Perhaps it is seen as non-urgent and un-"sexy". It is imperative to be stated that among the ASEAN countries, Indonesia is the only one with no architectural law.
Second, the role of the Association of Indonesian Architects (IAI) as the professional organization that has to be more sensitive, proactive, responsive and environmentally aware.
As far as my knowledge goes, since 2005 the American Institute of Architects (AIA) has issued a Declaration on Green Design. One of its points is the evaluation system called the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED). IAI must promptly follow AIA's footsteps so we are not left in its dust.
Third, the high education setting, especially in the disipline of architecture, needs to conduct more worldly studies, reviews and research. There are at least two major target groups, for example, the traditional architeture with all its local wisdom and the front-line architecture with all its avant-garde technology.
It is advisable that every emerging architectural piece is based on indepth research. We must remember that every architectural piece mirrors the spirit or the soul of time.
And we all carry the message to strive together to leave an authentic generation in our footsteps. After all, architecture is often said to be the archeology of the future.
That is, if we do not want to be branded as uncivilized people, without any unique cultural artefacts.
The writer is the professor of Architecture and Town Planning at the Semarang-based State Diponegoro University (UNDIP) and a member of the Indonesian Academy of Sciences (AIPI).
