Over time, these spaces came to hold meaning for us, and we desired to make them more permanent. As we began to form societies and changed from nomadic hunter-gatherers to farmers and eventually expanded to citizens of cities, our architecture became more constructed, invasive. Architecture began to allow mortals to leave an indelible mark upon the earth: the Egyptians and their pyramids, the Greeks and their temples, and the Gothic artists and their cathedrals. There are structures that have lasted thousands of years—and will stand for thousands more.

I don’t want this post to simply be a history lesson. But to understand where architecture is going and what it needs to do, we have to see what it has done.  

Today, while we have almost infinite technological advances at our fingertips, many architects are not changing the real substance of architecture. We’ve been using the same construction methods for over 100 years. While many say that they advocate sustainability, they are not doing enough to innovate their field.

I think that Werner Sobek would agree with me. I had the privilege of seeing Sobek speak at Penn about 2 years ago, and he discussed several of his sustainable projects. He has started a program that he calls Triple Zero, which translates to zeros in each of the most important parts of a building: energy, emission, and waste. Each building (6 to date, all residences) can support itself by creating its own energy, uses materials and construction methods that do not create negative emissions, does not create any waste in construction, and if it’s demolished, can be completely recycled.

This is a relatively radical concept in the field of architecture: creating a building that has virtually no footprint during and after its use.

Others are starting to understand this concept on a larger scale. I just read a review of an exhibit at the MoMA that is a collection of proposals for how the city of New York will deal with the rising water levels in the next century. They foresee a city that has replaced much of its permanent infrastructure with new materials and formats, creating an environment that is largely permeable.

Some designers are now seeing that in order to be more sustainable, we need to be more harmonious with nature. This seems obvious, but there are many cues that we can take from the design of natural things in order to improve the performance of our buildings and environments. If you do the Google search for “biomimicry architecture“, you’ll be surprised at how much comes up. As of yet, it’s mostly an academic and theoretical ideal, but I think that this is where architecture will end up going in the next 50 years.

While the changes that we’re making now are helping us little-by-little to decrease our impact on the Earth, we have to radically shift our modes of thought on how we design and construct our built environment. It’s not enough to merely use thin veneers of sustainable materials. We must rethink the entire precedent of planning, architecture, and design that has gone before us for thousands of years. This is not an easy task, yet we are very capable. We just need to be willing.

No related posts.

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

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.

Jess is far too modest to advertise this herself, but I just have to tell you about it. She now has her own website with all her graphics and architectural designs. It’s a gorgeous portfolio. Please give it a look, and tell your friends: http://www.jessicaleebutler.com/Index.html. — AWO

A large portion of my posts relate to the trends, shortcomings, and advantages of the “green” movement within the realm of architecture. I have my opinions and concerns about the popularity of the green movement as just a “fad,” something that people just do for the sticker price or for first impression. While I don’t deny that it’s good people are moving in a more sustainable direction for whatever reason they choose, we need to be changing not just our standards and incentives, but also our motivations and thought processes.  

A new report by Rob Watson has shown that while many LEED-certified buildings are more sustainable, they are not necessarily more energy-efficient. Fewer than 30% of these buildings would qualify for the ENERGY STAR label, a more stringent and energy-focused rating system operated by the Department of Energy. This fact can lead us to assume that builders and developers are focusing more on getting LEED points in areas that cost less (materials, construction methods, etc.) and get them the certification, but not necessarily the ones that matter in terms of consumption (mechanicals, insulation types). While I think that this assumption is mostly true (who doesn’t want to save a buck these days?), I also think that there is an important factor to consider when looking at the performance of LEED and uncertified buildings in general: human, and particularly American, energy consumption.

While making changes in the efficiency of buildings throughout the country will in the end help to improve our total consumption, the fact is that while we Americans continue to employ the same energy-using practices, it will be hard to make a large dent in the amount of energy we use. Right now, we leave lights and TVs on, use inefficient lightbulbs, charge laptops, leave computers plugged in, cook, clean and live our lives with a huge amount of energy wasted. At most schools, supermarkets, airports, office buildings, and most other public buildings, lights are left on for the duration of every single night of the year, I assume for security and aesthetic purposes. We have air conditioners, heaters, and fans; ipods, stereos, TVs, and alarm clocks; all things that we use every day and take for granted. Everything down to our stop lights uses energy, and most people don’t realize the inherent cost of operating all the things that fill the buildings we use. Aside from the performance of the building, the people who sleep, eat, work, and live in them are still following the same habit: wasting as much energy as they like because that is the standard of living they’re used to.

Until Americans are ready to address real sustainability by reducing consumption with everyday activities, the performance of buildings themselves will not be able to have a large impact in the energy crisis that is coming our way. This starts with our own motivations: Right now, most people are building LEED- or ENERGY STAR- certified homes for their resale and rental values (another report released this year shows that green rated buildings have higher rental rates than comparable buildings) rather than a genuine interest in sustainability. These labels have become a trend that are more for popularity contests than actual efficiency. Until the factors that effect our sustainability start directly effecting us (builders, developers, homeowners, lessees) such as energy prices, access to energy and how we are using it, we won’t have a motivation to change the status quo. Without placing direct regulations on these factors, I don’t foresee any change in the attitudes of our country on how we use and waste energy.

So, maybe this holiday season, we can all turn off the Christmas lights a little sooner, watch a few less holiday TV episodes, and spend a little more face time with our families in the interest of conserving energy.

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.

Almost any professional in the field will tell you that the government and other organizations with influence (such as unions) need to start working on the education of sustainable building. Contractors, homeowners, and developers, among others, have no idea what measures are necessary to create an efficient and sustainable building. To add to the complexity and confusion of designing and constructing a building, the extra layer of intricacy that is involved with sustainable design can be equally frustrating for architects, designers, and builders alike.

For those who want to try and ameliorate this situation, it’s not just as easy as, “well, go take some classes.”

Right now, the Green Building Certification Institute through the U.S. Green Building Council heads up the education and certification of green professionals with their LEED AP program, or Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Accredited Professional. This is a solid system that has a required exam based on the LEED requirements for buildings.

Unfortunately, to become a LEED AP, you have to pay the steep $450 exam fee, plus the $100 registration fee and biennial renewal fee of $50. This means that you must invest an initial $550 dollars plus another several hundred dollars over your career to obtain and retain the status of LEED AP.

Another huge disincentive is that these credentials are based on the specific LEED standards, which are only tailored to one of five certification systems. For example, to be credentialed in both LEED for Homes and LEED for Neighborhood Development, you have to take two separate exams, and upkeep two sets of credentials. While it is good to have a standard for education and credentialing systems, this is simply not feasible for a huge number of professionals.

The USGBC also offers many classes through its local chapters, but despite these opportunities and the LEEP AP programs, most professionals including plumbers, HVAC experts, electricians, drywall contractors, and many other types of building subcontractors have no incentive and little opportunity for education in green building methods and techniques. A huge part of what makes a green building green are the details in the systems and integral functioning parts of the building, and the lack of education in these fields will continue to be a huge detriment to the progress of sustainable buildings.

The Energy Coordinating Agency is currently working to create a training center in North Philadelphia to educate and prepare local professionals for “green collar jobs”, a sector that seems to be growing. This is a small step in the right direction, but unions and city or state governments really need to start making some headway in creating incentives or requirements for professional education and/or accreditation to help continue the progress and success of the green building movement.

Lastly, the most important and most challenging group that needs attention is the clients of the green professionals: the public. While there are a few groups who are apt to go for more ‘green’ designs, few of them actually understand the inner workings of what creates a sustainable home, office building, or apartment complex. And there are many others who are either totally or mostly ignorant of sustainable design, working with and creating standard buildings such that have been designed for the last few decades. Trying to educate this group is seemingly impossible, because they have no incentive to learn more about this type of building other than their own personal interest. Some developers are jumping on the bandwagon because building green can be used for a marketing ploy, but these developers are not necessarily required to understand what the green building is and what makes it green.

To educate building professionals and clients, it seems that a larger initiative will need to take place either in a statewide or national organization to provide incentives for green education and implementation. While it seems that the green revolution will continue to pervade the U.S., I would bet that, without some kind of education for both professionals and their clients, it will eventually hit a ceiling that will be nearly impossible to penetrate without some basic knowledge.

No related posts.

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