Ecotect Example Output

This is my last semester at Penn, and in the architecture department, that usually means it will be the most difficult and time-intensive semester of your undergraduate career. So while my Econ-major friends are taking 3 credits and having fun on the weekends, I’m spending free time working in teams and learning how to use a new piece of software: Autodesk‘s somewhat unknown Ecotect Analysis.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not bitter about the dichotomy of work vs. play; most of us architecture students would much prefer learning a new piece of software or discussing the latest smart building material over a night of drinking, so this is pretty exciting stuff. I had never heard of Ecotect prior to about a month and a half ago, and what I knew was very limited.  

At first glance, the software allows a designer to input a building model into the program and utilize it to calculate energy loads and see the effect of natural lighting upon the building. Even this limited interpretation of the program’s use is surprisingly important and useful: by simply using a computer program, a designer can make decisions about the efficiency of the building before it even leaves the drawing table. These simulations can allow the designer to make more careful decisions about window placement, sun shading, and other factors that effect the efficiency of the building in relation to its sun exposure.

But Ecotect is not only used for these limited applications. It can calculate wind directions and ventilation for a particular area, aid designers in placing artificial lighting, provide data for acoustical analysis, and it also works almost seamlessly with other modeling and designing programs.

Essentially, a designer can work with this software in order to create a building that is environmentally sensitive with little to now extra work on their part. It will save energy costs in the long run and saves headaches when it comes to construction. This leaves us no excuses for not factoring in these environmental indicators that will help make better living and working spaces and lessen our footprint on the earth.

Ecotest Example Output

I can understand, however, that there is some sticker shock to buying the software: $2400(+/-)  for most firms is a lot to ask. If you’ve read some of my earlier posts, you could probably deduce that I’m a proponent for higher governmental involvement in sustainable building and design. It’s therefore probably easy to understand my solution to this problem: There are plenty of small government subsidies for sustainable projects in both residential and commercial sectors (in PA you can get funding for anything from PV panels to efficient windows), so it’s logical that some sort of subsidy could be set up to help firms pay for this software. In the long run, the efficacy of using this software is well worth its up-front cost, but as always, the issue comes down to motivation: Architecture and design firms need a reason to pay for it.

In the technological age that we live in, we really have no more excuses for not building and living sustainably. It’s really just a matter of choice.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

1. LEED-certified buildings. This is probably the system that I know the best, having worked in the field and helped to maintain the paperwork and evaluations for LEED certification. As I mentioned in my previous post about green building in the U.S., LEED is very costly to even register for, and is generally geared more towards developers and businessmen who can use the LEED label as a value-add. The article in Good Magazine argues that the LEED system needs to have stricter standards, which I also agree with, but I also think that it needs to be more accessible. Right now, the numbers of families that are seeking certification for their own homes is very small, a sector that needs to be appealed to in the green department. While many say that the cost of a LEED building is offset by the savings that are made in operations and maintenance over time, the fact is that we still do not have good information on how these buildings perform, and the up-front costs of not only the registration, but the design and construction of these buildings are a major deterrent. In general, I think that the money spent on these buildings is similar to a brand-name clothing purchase: you get the label, but the quality of the quality of the product is still debatable.
2. ENERGY STAR buildings. I have also worked a bit with this rating system, but they recently overhauled it to be much more stringent. This program is run by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and is a bar for both buildings and products. The ENERGY STAR system has been around for longer than LEED, and therefore has more information to back up its success. Certifying an ENERGY STAR home is cheaper than obtaining a LEED certification, and some argue that it is a better and more effective system, producing more efficient buildings. This point is of course debatable, but ENERGY STAR definitely beats LEED in the accessibility department, and it seems that more homeowners are willing to invest in an ENERGY STAR home, not just for the reasons of cost, but also because ENERGY STAR has created a system for existing structures, something that LEED has yet to do for the residential sector.
3. Passive House system. I can’t say that I know much about the Passive House system, as it is mainly popular in Europe. This system doesn’t require certification and validation, but rather acts as a support network for people who wish to build very energy efficient homes. Started in Germany, the Passivhaus Institut was formed to define what a passive home is, and to help people build them. While the owners of these houses do not get a shiny plaque to put on their buildings, the standards for creating a passive home are quite impressive, and they generally use a small fraction of the energy compared to a ‘normal’ house. The U.S. chapter of the Institute offers consulting services and tools to help build these homes, but are in general not overbearing in their requirements. The main problem with this system is that most people in the U.S. know nothing or very little about it. Hopefully, in the coming years builders will learn about this system and use it to their advantage.
4. Pre-fab. A big buzz that has been going around the design world lately is pre-fab architecture. Whether it’s turning shipping containers into apartment buildings, putting a house together using Standard Insulated Panels, or just buying a flat-out pre-fab home, it’s getting popular and more cost-effective. A company called Blu Homes is a well-known designer of small-scale, sustainable pre-fab homes. Their business seems to be going strong despite these dark recession days, and their movement is gaining momentum. While getting a pre-fab home is generally much cheaper than paying a designer to build you a bonafide “green” home, the costs are still usually much higher than what an average home buyer can pay (upwards of $200k). I think that a combination of different forms of pre-fab is definitely in our future, because parts can be mass-produced once we have the expertise and facilities, but there is still a certain amount of customization available in design. I think that over the next 10-20 years, the costs of pre-fab will go down and these methods will become the new and improved version of our large-scale suburban developments today.

After looking at all these standards and methods, it really becomes apparent that the U.S. is fledgling in its attempts to create some sort of universally-accepted green building system that can be used easily and cheaply. It will most likely be a combination of these ideas and more to come that we will eventually settle on to create and spread green architecture in our country.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.