The simple and powerful concept of “No Cradle–No Grave” is built on the centuries-old anthropomorphic analogy that perceives architecture as alive and, like any living being, is born and eventually dies. No matter how environmentally necessary and optimistic the goals of progressive material reclamation and reuse are, we should not be pollyannaish and deny the reality of corporeal death and the necessity of graves.
Death is inevitable and death need not be bad. To fully embrace life, we must confront the reality of endings. An environment that is truly ecologically sustainable must not be overly optimistic and dream only of an eternal and everlasting health that is endlessly circular. Death and decay is what makes life possible. We should not ignore the inevitability of weathering, aging, decay and discard. For the city to be a healthy and ever-evolving organism, we must embrace the continual loss of time-worn buildings and their materials. But how do we ensure that architecture that is terminal will experience a good death – a death with dignity?
Currently, the medical profession is experiencing a seismic paradigm shift as it confronts the brutal truth that it has mistakenly concentrated all of its attention exclusively on curing disease and prolonging life and thus finds itself ill-equipped to address the needs of the dying.1 Thankfully, the growing Hospice Movement has stepped in and now better prepares the dying for a death that is natural, healthy and good. The emerging and disruptive practices of the Death Positive Movement are challenging our cultural conceptions of how we die.2
This should be a cautionary warning to architects, designers and material scientists who might embrace a naïve natalism and a simplistic utopian vision that ignores the necessary inevitability of death, dying and endings. This paper will explore the lessons that we might learn from the contemporary theory and practice of Hospice Care and the Death Positive Movement. A case study will be presented in which hospice theory was applied to the end-of-life of a significant but terminal building and its materials.
We should not ignore or deny that people die every day and that someday we will meet our own end. Similarly, buildings and their materials reach the end of their lives. In our efforts to be ecologically responsible, do we, as designers, ensure that those deaths are good deaths? Are they healthy deaths, deaths that possess peace and dignity and thus contribute to the prolonged evolution of livable cities? The question is not “graves or no graves?” Rather, the question should be – when we require a grave, is the death of a building a meaningful and positive one? – is it one with significance and dignity?
1. Gawande, Atul (2014). Being Mortal: Medicine and What Matters in the End. New York: Metropolitan Books, Henry Holt and Company.
2. Neumann, Ann (2016). The Good Death: An Exploration of Dying in America. Boston: Beacon Press.
Lessons learnt from practical projects , Durability and ageing
