What if sustainability isn’t the goal?
In the world of design, “sustainability” has become the golden word. It’s on signage, product labels, and mission statements. But there’s a growing tension beneath the surface — one that too often goes unspoken:
A “sustainable” building can still be a harmful building.
This isn’t a fringe opinion anymore — it’s a growing awareness across the built environment: a sustainable building can still be a harmful building.
Sustainability’s Incomplete Promise
By definition, sustainable design aims to reduce negative impacts. It seeks to use fewer resources, emit less carbon, and consume less energy than a “standard” alternative. This is, of course, better than the status quo.
But “less bad” is not the same as good.
A building made of low-toxin materials can still displace wildlife. A high-performing glass box may trap heat, reflect glare into the street, and create lifeless interiors. A carbon-neutral development might still strip a site of its topsoil, its trees, and its ability to absorb water. A sustainable school may still leave its students disconnected from daylight, fresh air, or the feeling of being truly alive.
We don’t just need buildings that take less — we need buildings that give more.
Enter Regenerative and Biophilic Design
Regenerative architecture moves beyond the “do less harm” mentality. It asks a deeper question: how can this place — once built — be better than it was before?
Regeneration is not about net-zero. It’s about net-positive.
And biophilic design — which reconnects people with nature in the spaces they inhabit — is a core pathway to achieving that.
At Daedal, we believe architecture should heal.
It should restore the soil. Replenish biodiversity. Clean the air. Spark curiosity. Invite reflection. Cultivate awe.
This isn’t idealism. It’s a necessity.
If our cities are to thrive through the climate, mental health, and social crises we now face, we need architecture that actively enriches life.
Three Design Mindsets: A Comparison
Let’s take a moment to clarify the differences between sustainable, biophilic, and regenerative design — and why we must go further.
| Design Mindset | Primary Focus | Typical Outcome | Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sustainable | Reduce harm | Lower emissions, improved insulation, material efficiency | High-performing building that meets energy targets but lacks connection to landscape or sensory richness |
| Biophilic | Reconnect with nature | Sensory richness, psychological wellbeing, human comfort | School with natural materials, daylight-filled interiors, indoor-outdoor flow, and garden views |
| Regenerative | Restore and renew | Biodiversity, carbon sequestration, community vitality, future resilience | Civic hub that regenerates habitat, purifies water, and becomes a living social commons |
These are not mutually exclusive. In fact, regenerative buildings should be both sustainable and biophilic — but with a far greater ambition.
Why Sustainable Buildings Can Still Be Harmful
The problem lies not just in what sustainable design includes — but what it leaves out.
It often ignores context.
Sustainable checklists don’t account for cultural stories, place-specific ecosystems, or local materials with deep meaning. A timber-clad building shipped from the other side of the world might tick a box, but does it really serve this place?
It rarely prioritises the human experience.
A building can perform well on paper but feel oppressive or uninspiring to inhabit. Emotional architecture — the kind that moves us — is often overlooked in sustainability frameworks.
It can reinforce extraction.
Even recycled or certified materials can be part of a global extractive economy. Energy-efficient buildings that still rely on toxic finishes or non-renewable resources are delaying harm, not eliminating it.
Designing to Give Back
Imagine if every building replenished its site’s water cycle.
Or reintroduced native species.
Or drew children outside to explore, not escape.
Or gave back power to the grid rather than draining it.
We’ve already seen it happen.
A small school courtyard that becomes a micro-forest and pollinator haven.
A roof that captures rain and filters it through a wetland garden.
A suburban house designed around the wind, not against it — creating airflow, connection, and joy.
These aren’t fringe ideas. They are the blueprint for a resilient, caring future.
The Future is Soulful, Not Just Efficient
Efficiency is not the problem.
Our appetite for more is.
A regenerative, biophilic building often feels smaller, simpler, and more attuned to rhythm and restraint. It trades in novelty for depth. Flashy materials for honest ones. Impressive facades for feeling.
And most importantly: it brings people back into relationship — with place, with time, with each other.
That’s what we design for at Daedal. Not just a smaller footprint — but a deeper one.
A Call to Clients, Collaborators, and Citizens
Let’s not pat ourselves on the back for doing less harm. Let’s ask more of architecture.
The best buildings give back.
They’re not just energy efficient — they’re emotionally resonant.
They don’t just house people — they ground them.
They don’t just avoid harm — they generate healing.
The next time you’re building, renovating, or planning a space — ask:
“How can this place make life better for everyone it touches — humans, animals, plants, air, water, and soil?”
That’s the future worth building.