The Master Australian Architect and Pritzker prize winner, Glenn Murcutt often cites this wonderful ancient Aboriginal proverb when describing his approach to his architecture. It’s such a beautiful philosophy, in my view…  to touch the earth lightly.

But the question we might ask is… what does it mean?

There seems to be a suggestion of a keen sensibility to the land in which we live - an inspired evocation of a feeling of harmony between nature and us, humans. There appears to no association of dominance; but rather, a keen respect of commonality… a sort of airiness, if you will. Like the artistic movement of the classical style of a Romantic Ballet performance; whereby the woman, being the main focus, impresses upon the audience her fine-tuned pointe work, her elegance and grace and striking bodily movements - whilst being supported by her partner. He does not dominate, but works in furthering her technique, her performance, and enhancing the beauty of the collective entity. A perfect concord of two performers; one giving and the other taking, in an elegant and non-aggressive spirit.  This is the evocative image that comes to mind when I think of this simple, yet complex proverb... to touch the earth lightly.

To touch the earth lightly, could also be interpreted as; or described using a different synonym: the much loved and over-used saying that I am guilty of also using, which is sustainability. This word might conjure up images of wind turbines, solar panels and Hesham garments, but I don’t think it’s the conventional notions that are typically associated with modern day connotations of sustainability, when we speak of touching the earth lightly.

The early Aboriginals didn’t have access to the technologies that we do today. They didn’t think of alternative methods of generating energy. They didn’t conceive new types of plastics that would biodegrade; or different methods of recycling in the sense that we do today. They didn’t do any of the things that we typically associate with the act of being sustainable - however, the approach they took to harnessing the Earth’s resources was very sustainable. The philosophy, as I believe it to be, is to work in harmony with the land, as was just illustrated by the two ballet performers: to give and to take as per necessity. Survival to the Aboriginals was not, in the Darwinian sense of the word, only for those of the fittest; but rather, survival meant engaging in a co-operative entity with the community and with the natural environment. They knew the specific preferences of each animal, such as kangaroos preferred the short grass, the bees preferred a typical tree native etc.. and formed models of land development that would guarantee the sustainability and balance of all these elements. Their approach of thinking was simplistic, but not simple - and there’s a difference. 

Since the dawn of the industrial revolution, I believe we have somewhat missed the mark as it pertains to true sustainability. Rather than touching lightly, there seems be an aggressive encroachment and violent aberration of the natural environment. It is having detrimental effects on our health and well-being, as well as the health of the planet, the animals, and especially the poor. In his encyclical, Laudato si, Pope Francis addresses the state of our urban environment, when he says:

 “… we are conscious of the disproportionate and unruly growth of many cities, which have become unhealthy to live in, not only because of pollution caused by toxic emissions but also as a result of urban chaos, poor transportation, and visual pollution and noise. Many cities are huge, inefficient structures, excessively wasteful of energy and water. Neighbourhoods, even those recently built, are congested, chaotic and lacking in sufficient green space. We were not meant to be inundated by cement, asphalt, glass and metal, and deprived of physical contact with nature.” 

This is the opposite, in my view, of touching the earth lightly and we are suffering; directly and indirectly because of it.

I don’t believe the onus is on us completely, but as designers and architects, we have some power in the way in which we orchestrate our approach to the built environment. We can exercise some change… so, what can we do?

To put it into perspective, let’s extract some wisdom from a story written by D’ette Corona:

It was a chilly fall day when the farmer spied the little sparrow lying on its back in the middle of his field. The farmer stopped his ploughing, looked down at the frail, feathered creature and inquired, “Why are you lying upside down like that?”

“I heard the sky is going to fall today.” replied the bird.

The old farmer chuckled. “And I suppose your spindly little legs can hold up the sky?”

One does what one can.” Replied the plucky sparrow.

And to that, I would say, whilst we might not be able to exercise incredible change - one does what one can. In all humility, we can emulate the actions of the weak sparrow and do what we can. And we can do that by learning a thing or two from the humble nature of Glenn Murcutt and his approach and philosophy to the way in which he designs his buildings.

“I cannot pursue my architecture,” he commonly says.. “without considering the minimisation of energy consumption, simple and direct technologies, a respect for site, climate, place and culture. Together, these disciplines represent for me a fantastic platform for experimentation and expression. Of particular importance is the junction of the rational and the poetic resulting hopefully in works that resonate and belong to where they reside… To touch the land lightly goes beyond just how you place a building on the site. It’s how you minimise the energy impact of climactic conditions on a building. …you’re not pulling on the earth’s resources to cool or heat the building to the extent that you otherwise would. It’s about minimal impact on the site, but it’s also about capitalising on the best aspects of the site.”

“…I'm very interested in buildings that adapt to changes in climatic conditions according to the seasons, buildings capable of responding to our physical and psychological needs in the way that clothing does. We don't turn on the air-conditioning as we walk through the streets in high summer. Instead, we change the character of the clothing by which we are protected. Layering and changeability: this is the key… the combination that is worked into most of my buildings. Occupying one of these buildings is like sailing a yacht; you modify and manipulate its form and skin according to seasonal conditions and natural elements, and work with these to maximise the performance of the building.”

As well as notably designing for site specificity and controlling heat gain and loss, cooling etc.. he also speaks a lot about the use of materials; how we acquire them and how we must use them. We can ask questions like, how much energy is being expended to produce certain materials and design in a way that they are being used efficiently. We know, for example, that steel and aluminium consume a lot of kilojoules per kg… aluminium more so. We also know that timber uses far less megajoules per kilogram and that when acquired responsibly, is a much better source of renewable material. When procuring and using materials, we should understand the embodied energy of these materials, how and where they were sourced and apply more thought and design when specifying them. To consider using a minimum of materials, but deriving strength from the shape or incorporating composites, rather than its mass, as an example.

The next way to think about materials, is to transform from a linear, wasteful way of using resources to a completely closed-loop model in which all resources are stewarded in cycles and nothing is lost as waste. This means, carefully considering how buildings and joints are put together. Instead of using nails; a screw with a plug or a fish plate might be a better alternative, so that it can be pulled apart and reused at a later time if need be. Another thing to consider, is covering joists with foil, so that the material doesn’t get wet or dry and will last forever. We might also consider alternatives to the bonding of bricks - instead of using cement, which can’t really be reused, perhaps lime and mortar might be a better alternative, so that if the bricks need to be pulled apart and reused, lime and mortar is much more forgiving at its removal and then it can be crushed, add more lime to the concoction and both the substance and brick can be reclaimed. Closing the loop is about using materials in a sensible way, so that we only need to cultivate it once and not fall into this cycle of consuming and discarding and then consuming again. 

This brings me to the next point and one that I am very passionate about: less material and more labour. To reference Laudato si, Pope Francis states, “Any approach to an integral ecology, which by definition does not exclude human beings, needs to take account of the value of labour… Labourers and craftsmen thus ‘maintain the fabric of the world’ (Sir 38:34). Developing the created world in a prudent way of caring for it… if we reflect on the proper relationship between human beings and the world around us, we see the need for a correct understanding of work.” 

If we approach the way we source and use materials in a responsible way, we should also be considering in capitalising on a renewable resource, and that is labour. Instead of approaching construction using the standard components, we should aim at reducing material use by 20% and increase labour, thus keeping people employed; but also closing the loop on the need to attain more material resources. In his book, cradle to cradle, William McDonough reiterates the power of thoughtful consideration and labour when he explains the successful model of ants, he says. “Consider this: all the ants on the planet, taken together, have a biomass greater than that of humans. Ants have been incredibly industrious for millions of years. Yet their productiveness nourishes plants, animals, and soil. Human industry has been in full swing for little over a century, yet it has brought about a decline in almost every ecosystem on the planet. Nature doesn’t have a design problem. People do.” 

These simple suggestions didn’t include wind turbines or solar panels (although I have nothing against these), but they go back to the original idea and way in which the Aboriginals cultivated and used the land.

Note also, that Murcutt draws his philosophy heavily on the junction between the rational and the poetic. Whilst it’s important to approach sustainable design rationally, as is illustrated above - we must also consider the much important aspect of the poetic, which is beauty - as is also spoken about in the encyclical just mentioned. Just as the man in the ballet performance enhances the beauty of the woman, so too, when we attempt to touch the earth lightly, we must enhance the beauty of our built and natural environment, so as to be truly “sustainable.”

There is much more to be said on this subject and will be followed up with a more in-depth analysis at a later date. The idea here, is to instill a culture and ideology, whereby we change our attitude towards the earth and think of ways to touch it lightly.

I will give the final word and some great take away advice from another great Australian Architect, Richard Leplastrier. He says: “If in doubt about building, do not, and if you do, do it as minimally as possible, make it as good as possible, and make it as demountable as possible so it can be reused. Respect, respect the place, and respect the life that is engendered within it.”

Below are some images, sketches and a floor plan of one of my favourite Glenn Murcutt projects that I believe epitomises the notion of touching the earth lightly. Enjoy.

Simpson-Lee House, Mount Wilson, Blue Mountains, New South Wales, Australia : 1988-93

Photography: Anthony Browell

Disclaimer: The material and advice given on this blog has been prepared for informational purposes only and is not intended to provide, and should not be relied on for full consulting advice. Always consult with a professional for more accurate information that especially tailors individual circumstantial needs.

Cover Photo: Columbia Artists