
What is the difference between sustainable architecture and bioclimatic architecture? Both terms are frequently used within the profession, though their underlying principles were discovered centuries ago (referring to the vernacular tradition of architecture) and the terms themselves were derived from the concept of “sustainable development,” first proposed by Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Brundtland at the 42nd session of the United Nations in 1987:
“Development is sustainable when it meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”
But what is the difference between the two? They are highly similar concepts, varying only according to the intentions of the architect using them. To clarify: terms like sustainable architecture, green architecture, eco-architecture, or environmentally conscious architecture are often used by architects attempting to reflect a basic climatic awareness in their work, but whose actual “gestures” have little impact on energy efficiency. Their primary focus often ends up being to make the building appear “eco-friendly” through a green facade or a green roof. In most cases, these designs lack a real climatic foundation. By contrast, the second term, bioclimatic architecture (without any qualifiers), bases its entire raison d'être on the climate. The building's final appearance is secondary, as all design decisions stem from a preliminary study of the climate—treating it as a fundamental tool—and aim to understand and leverage it.
























