Holistic Housing: Concepts, Design Strategies and Processes 9783955531461, 9783920034782

Citation preview

Hans Drexler | Sebastian El khouli

HOLISTIC HOUSING Concepts, Design Strategies and Processes

HOLISTIC HOUSING

HANS DREXLER | SEBASTIAN EL KHOULI

HOLISTIC HOUSING Concepts, Design Strategies and Processess

Edition ∂

This book was developed at the Sustainable Building Design Studio at the Münster School of Architecture Guest professor Dipl. Arch. ETH Hans Drexler M. Arch (Dist.) https://www.fh-muenster.de/fb5/departments/konstruktion/drexler/Prof-Hans-Drexler.php In collaboration with Bob Gysin + Partner BGP Architekten ETH SIA BSA, Zurich www.bgp.ch AUTHORS Hans Drexler Dipl. Arch. ETH M. Arch (Dist.) Sustainable Building Design Studio, Münster School of Architecture Drexler Guinand Jauslin Architekten, Frankfurt Zurich Rotterdam Sebastian El khouli Dipl.-Ing. Arch. TU, energy consultant Technische Universität Darmstadt Bob Gysin + Partner BGP Architekten ETH SIA BSA, Zurich ESSAYS Dominique Gauzin-Müller Bob Gysin EDITORIAL SERVICES Steffi Lenzen (Project Management) Kirsten Rachowiak TRANSLATION FROM GERMAN INTO ENGLISH Laura Bruce Raymond D. Peat Elizabeth Schwaiger COPY EDITING Monica Buckland LAYOUT, COVER DESIGN, TYPOGRAPHY, AND DRAWINGS 3 Karat, Frankfurt, Dipl. Des. Nora Wirth In cooperation with Dipl. Des. Katja Rudisch www.3Karat.de ADDITIONAL DRAWINGS BY Lisa Katzenberger, Simon Kiefer, Stephanie Monteiro Kisslinger STUDENT RESEARCHERS Alexandra Cornelius, Santosh Debus, Marta Hristova, Christine Kutscheid, Anna Sumik PRODUCTION/DTP Roswitha Siegler REPRODUCTION ludwig:media, Zell am See PRINTING & BINDING Kessler Druck + Medien, Bobingen All CO2 emissions that resulted from the flights and car journeys that were necessary to produce this publication were compensated for by the nonprofit foundation myclimate (www.myclimate.org). A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress, Washington D.C., USA. Bibliographic information published by the German National Library The German National Library lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, re-use of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in other ways, and storage in databases. For any kind of use, permission of the copyright owner must be obtained. This book is also available in a German language edition (ISBN 978-3-920034-77-5). © 2012 Printed in Germany, 1st edition Institut für internationale Architektur-Dokumentation GmbH & Co. KG, Munich www.detail.de Printed on 135 g BVS Offset-Paper (FSC certified) ISBN 978-3-920034-78-2 The authors and publisher wish to thank the VELUX GROUP for their generous contribution, without which this publication would not have been possible.

»

«

Housing should be seen as a process and not as a product.   Balkrishna Doshi

6

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION Preface

8

Acknowledgements

9

2 POSITIONS 2.1 A short history of sustainable architecture: Dominique Gauzin-Müller

10

2.2 Sustainable design. A statement: Bob Gysin

20

PART 1: SUSTAINABLE ARCHITECTURE. BASICS AND STRATEGIES 3 FUNDAMENTALS OF SUSTAINABLE DESIGN 3.1 Sense and sensibility of sustainable design

30

3.2 Systemic approach

32

3.3 Sustainable design is contextual design and process orientation

33

3.4 Aspects of sustainable design

35

Local versus global

35

The temporal dimension of architecture

37

Identifying the basic parameters (cause and leverage) instead of optimising and minimising the negative effects (end of pipe)

39

Low-tech versus high-tech

40

Efficiency, consistency, sufficiency

42

Doing the right things and doing things right

43

4 THE BUILDING AND ITS CONTEXT 4.1 Impact: the building’s influence on context

44

The global consequences of human building

44

The city as a model of the future

45

The effect building has on the environment

46

Lighting and shadows

46

Urban ventilation

47

Urban building block: the building as added value for the urban environment

47

The water cycle

47

4.2 Building performance: the effects of urban design and the physical

49

Site factors and urban structure (macro level)

49

Linking the building to the urban structure

50

Effects of the urban building structure and ground plan

51

5 ARCHITECTURE AS A PROCESS 5.1 Designing holistically

55

Integrated design

55

The task. Definition of requirements and qualities

56

From the idea to the design

58

From design to building. Detail design and construction phase

60

From completion to use. Putting the building into operation

62

5.2 The building and its life cycle

64

The building life cycle: economic and ecological analyses

64

Life cycle costing (economic)

64

Life cycle assessments

65

CONTENTS

7

Construction in the life cycle

66

The life cycle of the components

66

Separable connections and hierarchical construction: design to disassemble

66

Demolition, reuse and recycling

67

The building in changing times: temporal dimensions

67

Short-term flexibility of use:

68

Long-term constructional flexibility of use

68

Neutrality of use

69

6 ASSESSING SUSTAINABILITY 6.1 Use and application possibilities of a sustainability assessment Assessing sustainability versus sustainable design 6.2 Strategies and methods of sustainability impact assessments

70 72 73

Tools for urban planning and developement

73

Assessment systems for investors and users

73

Instruments for planners

74

Descriptive assessment systems

75

Quantitative assessment systems

75

Qualitative assessments methods

75

Scope and cost of an assessment

76

6.3 The housing quality barometer – development and methodology

77

Development and structure of the criteria matrix

78

Overview of criteria

80

PART 2: SUSTAINABLE BY DESIGN. PROJECTS 7 PROJECTS 7.1 Keep Thinking – Das Dreieck

92

7.2 Development of a Sustainable Prototype – Minimum Impact House

108

7.3 Solar versus Polar – Sunlighthouse

120

7.4 The Do Tank. – Quinta Monroy

132

7.5 As Grown – Ecohotel in the Orchard

144

7.6 Ephemeral Architecture – Wall House

156

7.7 Outside the White Cube – Townhouse in Landskrona

168

7.8 Recovered – Fehlmann Site

178

7.9 In a Forest – Lakeside House

190

7.10 Palaces instead of Shacks – Isar Stadt Palais

200

7.11 Earth to Earth – Rauch House

214

7.12 Design to Dissemble – Loblolly House

226

7.13 Wooden Box (Holzbox) – Youth and Recreation Camps in Styria

236

7.14 Architecture in Time and Space – Black Box

248

7.15 Architecture for the People! – 20K Houses

260

7.16 Summary of the Analyses of the Projects

272

Table of illustrations and photographs

280

Overview of assessment criteria – foldout

8

1 PREFACE

PREFACE

How can sustainable buildings be designed? This is the core of and the essential question behind this publication. The subject has interested us more and more throughout the years of our collaborative work in different teaching and research projects in the Department of Design and Energy-Efficient Construction at Darmstadt University of Technology. We realised that most publications in the design courses present sustainable architecture as a technical requirement that could be met by implementing a number of single measures. In specialised literature, the mountain of individual criteria is often discussed within the context of a series of exemplary projects that are the result of sustainable planning. But these publications seldom attempt to explain the concrete relationship between requirements and basic conditions and the resulting strategies and design methods, implemented during the planning process. We hope that this publication will present a holistic view that would allow for aspects relevant to the design and planning process, and would place them in a systematic context. We would also like to outline how these aspects can be integrated methodologically into architecture. Sustainable buildings not only have a less harmful effect on the environment, they can also actually be implemented to make better architecture. This has been the core essence of our project from the very beginning. Sustainable building has acquired a rather bad reputation in the public realm as an eco-friendly counterculture that preaches going without and deliberately ignores the aesthetic or cultural dimensions of architecture. This book presents exciting projects that enrich, protect, create energy and inspire; that are also coherent, dynamic and atmospheric – and, most importantly, are fun. We explain how these buildings were created and reveal the story behind the people, the ideas, the questions, the steps and the detours that were necessary for each project to be realised. And we will prove how these buildings possess qualities before they are occupied by the residents or users, whose presence, some believe, contaminates empty, perfect rooms and hence the ‘essence of architecture.’ The objective of this book is to prove that clean, glossy photographs of architecture are only the very beginning of a much larger and often more exciting story. We also aim to discover how people live in and with the buildings. We see this publication as both a textbook and a polemic paper. A textbook because most projects do not lack the will or inspiration, but rather the necessary

knowledge about sustainable architecture and how it can be implemented. With this in mind, our discussion focuses more on how, rather than why, architecture can be made sustainable. However, this publication does not claim to be complete. There are detailed publications available that are directed at specific issues, such as energy efficiency or life cycle analyses, and are more theoretically and methodologically comprehensive than is possible in this book. We have put the individual topics into a holistic context and analysed them with regard to their dependencies and interrelationships. The book can be seen as a polemic paper inasmuch as the attitude we represent and the necessary changes can only be the basis of consensus at first glance. The universal espousing of the need for sustainability, by society as a whole and architecture specifically, has largely become empty clichés that only serve as an emergency camouf laging of learned and acquired patterns. But the range of those who have discovered sustainability as a viable marketing instrument spans from star architects to global players in real estate. Both groups selectively reduce the subject to questions regarding technical building features or the use of certified and tested materials, thereby denying the power of design and, hence, any relevance to the architectural and academic discourse. We aim to communicate the qualities of sustainable residential buildings and to describe them as a part of the daily life of the people who live in them. This is why we thought it was important to visit and experience the buildings we analysed and described, and to speak to the people who developed and/or occupy them. An elaborate analysis cannot replace the complex and multifaceted, live experience of a real building. Our personal encounter and the many discussions helped us to try to understand the motives, interests and desires of the parties involved, in order to discover why and how they planned and implemented specific aspects. We wanted to distance ourselves from the dominating notion of architecture as a finished product – to see it rather as a process and an organic, variable system that ages and changes and is in active dialog with its environment and users. This publication is primarily designed as a work tool for architects and planners – hence we have explained the different sustainable building design strategies using 15 examples that each follow different strategies and approaches, based on their individual goals, requirements and contexts. There are no universal principles

1 PREFACE

or simple recipes for planning sustainable buildings. Each project is a specific response to its context, the local climate, and the user’s requirements. Therefore, we decided not to restrict ourselves to simple the results of planning, but to place special focus on describing the methods and processes implemented to achieve the results. Sustainable architecture is not a style; it is the product of an attitude – with respect to one’s own work, with respect to the people for whom we build, and with respect to the world in which we realise our buildings. It requires a conscious awareness of the complexity of the questions posed by the art of building. Moreover, it requires a great amount of energy in order to overcome existing resistance and doubts. We would like to thank all those who participated in this project for their comprehensive support, which often far exceeded any expectations: Nora Wirth and her partner Katja Rudisch (www.3Karat.de), who are responsible for the layout and graphics on the book, as well as for the wonderful work and their enviable patience when dealing with us and our often contradictory ideas; Steffi Lenzen, Odine Oßwald, Robert Steiger and Roswitha Siegler for the trust they placed in us and for the expert support and ever-present professional and constructive dialogue; Monica Buckland, Thomas Menzel and Kirsten Rachowiak for the persevering verbal and written editing of our manuscript; Laura Bruce, Elisabeth Schwaiger, and Raymond Peat for the English translation, Lone Feifer and Christoph Volkmann, for their generous financial backing of our idea, without which this publication could not have been realised; Bob Gysin + Partner BGP Architekten AG, who supported us in a number of ways and who were so tolerant of the many absences; Dominique Gauzin-Müller and Bob Gysin, who with immense commitment and work contributed two wonderful essays to complete our idea; Anna Sumik, Lisa Katzenberger and Simon Kiefer, who worked on the analysis and graphic development of the book, and Christine Kutscheid, Alexandra Cornelius, Martha Hristova and Santosh Debus, who worked on developing the content in student seminars; the Department of Design and EnergyEfficient Construction of Prof. Manfred Hegger at the TU Darmstadt and the Münster School of Architecture (MSA), who provided us with an inspiring working environment and every possible form of support; and not least our partners and friends who tolerated our moods and time demands for a period of over two years. We would also like to thank all of the participating architects, planners, residents, clients, and sponsors, who

sacrificed their time for us, as well as the photographers, who gave us their pictures at minimal cost and sometimes even free: 20K Houses: Danny Wicke, Gayle Etheridge, David Thornton, MacArthur Coach, Frank Harris; Ecohotel: Sebastian Schels (photos), Deppisch Architekten (photos and drawings), the Hörger family, Martha Hristova (photos and drawings) and Mira Hampel (photos: www.mirahampel.de); Black Box: Edward Weysen and Lore De Baere, Michelle Verbruggen (photos); Dreieck: Martin Albers, Kasper Fahrländer, Andreas Keller, Giorgio von Arb and Hannes Henz (photos), Santosh Debus (photos, drawings and texts); Fehlmann site: Marco Giuliani, Tanja Scholze, Marcel Knoblauch and Franz Aeschbach, Martin Kessler, the Latscha family and the Bugmann family, Roger Frei (photos: www.rogerfrei.com); Rauch House: Martin Rauch and Marta Rauch-Debevec, Roger Boltshauser, Anna Heringer, Beat Bühler (photos: www. beatbuehler.ch); Holzbox Tirol: Erich Strolz and Ferdinand Reiter, Gerald Gigler, Roland Kalss, Reinhard Dayer, Mr Rettinger, Ms Vorraber, Johann Harrer, Peter Holzer, Günther Linzberger, Markus Fiedler, Birgit Koell (photos: www.birgitkoell.at) and Hertha Hurnaus (photos: www.hurnaus.com); Isar Stadt Palais: Joachim Leppert and Isabel Mayer, Sebastian Rickert, Thomas Fitzenreiter, Andi Albert (photos); Lakeside House: Tuomas Toivonen, Nene Tsuboi, Maija Luutonen; Loblolly House: Kieran Timberlake, Billiy Faircloth, Carin Whitney and Christopher Kieran, Kevin Gingerich, Christine Cordazzo (photos: www.esto.com); Minimum Impact House: Esther Götz, Kristina Klenner, Marcella Lantelme, Susanne Sauter, Jörg Thöne and Eva Zellmann, Daniel Jauslin (photos), Sabine Djahanschah and the Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt (DBU); Quinta Monroy: Victor Oddó and Alejandro Aravena, Praxedes Campos, Jana Revedin, Sara Maestrello (photos: www.saramaestrello. com) and Christobal Palma (Photos: www.cristobalpalma.com); Sunlighthouse: Juri Troy, Lone Feifer and Heinz Hackl, Dietmar Polczer, Peter Holzer, Adam Mørk (photos: www.adammork.dk); Townhouse: Jonas Elding and Johan Oscarson, Conny Ahlgren and Johnny Lökaas, Åke E:son Lindman (photos: www.lindmanphotography. com); Wall House: Mario Rojas Toledo and Marc Frohn, Paty and Juan Rojas Toledo, Christobal Palma (photos: www.cristobalpalma.com). We would also like to thank all of our colleagues and supporters, such as eeConcept, Jay Kimball, Matthias Hampe and Joost Hartwig, who made their knowledge, as well as their pictures, graphics and documents available to us.

9

10

2

POSITIONS

A SHORT HISTORY OF SUSTAINABLE ARCHITECTURE DOMINIQUE GAUZIN-MÜLLER

Sustainability! There’s hardly a journal, programme or symposium that doesn’t trumpet this word and it often becomes the central topic. For all that, there is tremendous variation in the definition or meaning ascribed to the word. What has become the fundamental value of their lives to some militants is – to others – no more than a communications tool for the heedless green washing of products. Sustainable architecture can also contain vastly different meanings for those who are active in the field. The focus may be on energy use, natural materials or social goals. Some associate the term with low-tech and self-build projects in wood or adobe, others with high-tech installations and nanomaterials. The most likely interpretation of sustainable architecture is to understand it as a balance between rediscovering bioclimatic principles, building traditions emerging from the context, and ingenious innovations that diminish resource use. This goal can be achieved only through multidisciplinary and integrated planning based on a holistic approach. This way, we could soon reach an important stage on the long road towards a sustainable society. Sustainable thinking is by no means a fad, as is often assumed. Although the term had not been coined at the time, the concept is as old as industrialisation itself, the consequences of which it aims to compensate. It became known only in the wake of the UN report Our Common Future, authored by Gro Harlem Brundtland in 1987. The three-pillar model advocated in the report has been disseminated around the world since the world summit of Rio de Janeiro in 1992. But it evolved fully only after France added a fourth pillar during the sub-sequent summit in Johannesburg in 2002. Indeed, in addition to ecology, economy and social issues, culture is an essential core element of sustainable development. For the past 150 years, artists and architects have joined biologists, sociologists, philosophers, politicians, economists and others in fleshing out the concept.

SUSTAINABLE THINKING AS A CONSEQUENCE OF INDUSTRIALISATION Since the age of Enlightenment in the 18th century, Western culture has subscribed to a model based on René Descartes’ ideas and his Biblical models.1 This Cartesian worldview regards humans not only as masters and possessors of nature and rulers over ‘animalmachines’.2 It also adheres to a belief in progress that assumes the continual development of new technologies as a means of constantly improving our quality of life. Nature is seen chiefly as a resource, the exploitation and processing of which will furnish us with ever greater material comfort. However, beyond this thinking, there have always been advocates for a more reasonable approach to interacting with nature and in favour of moderation. In the mid-19th century, the philosopher Henry David Thoreau became one of the first dissenting voices in the United States, which was then well on its way to becoming the largest industrial nation in the world. His lyrical hymn to nature, Walden. Or Life in the Woods,3 is often regarded as the origin of the ecological movement. Some ideas expressed by Jean-Jacques Rousseau and the proponents of Romanticism in Europe also found their way into this body of thought. Around the turn of the 20th century, Rudolf Steiner, following in the footsteps of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, introduced a philosophy of anthroposophy with the aim of restoring harmony between humans and nature. His philosophy, which has many followers to this day, found expression in pedagogy and medicine, in agriculture and even in architecture. Around the same time several movements emerged in opposition to the industrialisation of building and living; spearheaded by architects, artisans and artists, they included the Wiener Werkstätten of Josef Hoffmann’s circle and the Arts & Crafts movement, originally founded by Rennie Mackintosh in Scotland and then continued in the work of the Greene

2

brothers in California. The Bauhaus, founded by Walter Gropius in 1919, also sought to integrate architecture, arts and crafts, albeit in a vein that was more strongly characterised by the Modern movement and the International Style. Several prominent politicians also recognised the risks early on and sounded a warning. More than a century ago, on 3 December 1907, President Theodore Roosevelt cautioned in his annual message to the US congress: ‘Optimism is a good characteristic, but if carried to an excess it becomes foolishness. We are prone to speak of the resources of this country as inexhaustible; this is not so. The mineral wealth of the country, the coal, iron, oil, gas, and the like, does not reproduce itself, and therefore certain to be exhausted ultimately; and wastefulness in dealing with it today means that our descendants will feel the exhaustion a generation or two before they otherwise would’.4

OPTIMISM FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT, INVENTOR OF ORGANIC ARCHITECTURE An important approach originated in the United States. Influenced by Thoreau’s work, the architect Frank Lloyd Wright (1867 – 1959) believed that a house was born like a living organism out of a meeting between the spirit of the site and the needs of the inhabitants, thus developing the concept of ‘organic’ architecture. Wright’s built work was inspired by scientific, artistic and philosophical approaches, including that of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. Two residential and studio complexes by Wright serve as convincing examples of his organic architecture: Taliesin, first built in 1911 in the green hills of Wisconsin and Taliesin West, built at a later date in the Arizona desert. Both buildings exemplify how a client and an architect were able to realise the same programme in very different geographic and climatic environments. In Europe, the proponents of the organic approach were Hans Scharoun (1893 – 1972), Hugo Häring (1882 – 1958) and Alvar Aalto (1898 – 1976), and later on the Hungarian architect Imro Makovecz (b. 1935), who was influenced by anthroposophy.

of natural forces without incurring consequences. Where were the architects joining these committed artists? In an era that, in the footsteps of the international movement, was orientated towards the archetypes of Modernism – the use of concrete and standardised building methods – a handful of outsiders tried to follow a different path. These attempts were marked by the use of local building materials, the promotion of local traditions and an artisanal quality. In the developing countries, the best example for this movement is found in the work of the Egyptian architect Hassan Fathy (1900 – 1989). He emphasised the authenticity of rural culture and juxtaposed it with the loss of identity and even corruption that arise from the use of Western building techniques and materials. In doing so he became a model for many proponents of an alternative architecture; his work continues to be admired in North and South. Fathy erected more than 150 projects for the poor in Egypt, Iraq and Pakistan, building with mud bricks (adobe), and rediscovered building traditions from Nubia with the handson participation of the residents. In this manner he began to build two new villages for the local inhabitants in the Valley of the Kings in the 1940s; they were never completed because the future residents were hesitant to settle there. Fathy penned a detailed account of the creation of these villages in his book Gourna, a Tale of Two Villages.5

A BRAVE NEW WORLD? The 1930s and 1940s saw the emergence of more critics of the social development in Britain and the United States. With a view to shaking the world out of its complacency, Aldous Huxley described a society in which people were suppressed and where the need for critical thought and questioning the world order had been lost through consumption and drugs in his 1932 novel Brave New World. In 1936 Charlie Chaplin exposed the negative sides of the industrial society in his satirical film Modern Times; and in Our Plundered Planet, 1948, Fairfield Osborn warned against the lunacy of presuming one could resist the process

01 Taliesin, Wisconsin (USA), Frank Lloyd Wright, 1911

POSITIONS

11

12

2

POSITIONS

In it he also admits to his own mistakes and reveals the reasons for his failure, among others the socio-cultural situation: in the colonial era, he lamented, any concrete box became an icon of modernity. Unfortunately little has changed to this day... A quest towards indigenous alternatives was also underway in Asia during that period. Balkrishna Doshi (b. 1927), who worked with Le Corbusier in Ahmedabad, has sought to adapt modernistic concepts to the Indian context ever since he launched his Vastu-Shilpa Foundation for Studies and Research in Environmental Design in 1955. In harmony with Eastern philosophy, he is among the first to embrace a holistic approach towards design for architecture and urban planning.

THE SCANDINAVIAN PIONEERS At the other end of the world, the yearning for authenticity was equally alive. Although Alvar Aalto invariably affirmed his belief in Modernism, he never forgot his Scandinavian roots. He always campaigned for respect for the small people and warned against standardisation in architecture because its humanity would be diminished by it. His Villa Mairea, built in 1939, is often seen as Europe’s first ecological house. Several archetypes of Modernism are cleverly blended with typical characteristics of the tradition: stone walls, timber posts and cladding, planted roofs etc. The human scale is evident in many small details, such as hand-formed curvatures on the side of the chimney, or the woven door handles. Christianity only reached Scandinavia in the 12th century, which may explain why people in this region continue to have an especially strong connection with nature and its spiritual forces. In keeping with their cultural proximity, many Scandinavian architects adopted the organic approach: the Swedish architect Ralph Erskine (1914 – 2005) and later on the Norwegian Sverre Fehn (1924 – 2009), as well as the Finn Reima Pietilä (1923 – 1993) and his wife Raili, known for works that include their student residence Dipoli (1966) on the Otaniemi campus in Helsinki, which was designed by Aalto. All were influenced by the teachings of the Norwegian architecture critic Christian NorbergSchulz (1926 – 2000), who in turn was strongly influenced by the philosophies of Henry-David Thoreau and Martin Heidegger. His work Genius Loci. Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture, published in 1980, is a compendium of his ideas and insights. Context is a central theme. Norberg-Schulz analyses the psychology of the inhabitants at a location in relation to the unique characteristics of the site: the impact of long, cold winters in Nordic countries, as well as that of sun and warmth in Italy, the traditional architecture of which he studied for a long time. Sverre Fehn’s oeuvre reflected the ideas of his friend Norberg-Schulz and those of his master Frank Lloyd Wright. His international breakthrough came in 1962 after the completion of the Nordic Pavilion – a concrete structure punctured by openings for trees – at the Biennale in Venice. In addition to his commitment to the Modern movement from the 1950s onward, he was always a proponent of a constructive poetic, which he had adopted from Jean Prouvé in France. The museum in Hedmark heralded a change in his style, departing somewhat from Modernism and increasingly influenced by traditional architecture and the materials associated with it.

02 Nordic Pavilion, Venice Biennale (Italy), Sverre Fehn, 1962

The Australian Glenn Murcutt (b. 1936) was influenced by the critical modernity of Aalto and Fehn as well as by the aboriginal culture of his native land and the archetypes of vernacular architecture he discovered on his numerous travels. His career has been following

2

an atypical course since 1969, with the architect realising primarily single-family homes that are characterised by a reticence in their formal language and material and by how they are embedded in the landscape. Murcutt, who has always worked on his own and still draws by hand today, has always been a strong critic of the wasteful consumption of energy and raw materials.

THE DISSEMINATION OF ECOLOGICAL THINKING The foundation for ecological thinking as we understand it today was laid after the Second World War with the creation of several international institutions. The International Union for Conservation of Nature, founded in 1948, published the first report on the state of the environment on Earth in 1951, a pioneering work in their pursuit of reconciling economy and ecology. In 1962 Rachel Carson warned of the toxic effect of pesticides and other chemicals, which were being employed quite carelessly on a mass scale at the time, in her ground-breaking work Silent Spring, describing the dangers of water and air pollution. The bestseller The Population Bomb (1968) was sensational on a similar scale; in it author Paul Ehrlich forecast an explosion of the world’s population, proposing that it might reach seven billion by the year 2000 – a figure that nearly came true. When US students who were critical towards the establishment rediscovered Thoreau’s work in the 1960s, it came as a wakeup call to entrepreneurs. In 1968 a handful of industrialists joined forces and founded a think tank as a forum in which biologists and economists would brainstorm with high-ranking international civil servants on a global governance of the environment. The publication of their first report to the Club of Rome in 1972, entitled The Limits to Growth, sparked a minor revolution. Lead by Dennis Meadows, researchers at MIT6 drew the public’s attention to the ruthless exploitation of our natural resources, waste of energy and water and environmental pollution, and called for ‘zero growth’ in order to decelerate these dynamics. Although the report caused a furore, it was quickly decried as painting too catastrophic a scenario. In Only one Earth, a report for the UN Conference on the Human Environment, also in 1972, Barbara Ward and the French microbiologist and ecologist René Dubos coined a motto that has been adopted many times since it was first published: ‘Think globally, act locally.’ In 1973 Ernst Friedrich Schumacher added more concrete examples in Small is Beautiful: a Study of Economics as if People Mattered.

POLITICAL SUSTAINABILITY In the 1970s, economists and philosophers joined in the discussion on what at that time was not yet called sustainability. The Romanian-American mathematician and

economist Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen was the first, in his 1971 publication The Entropy Law and the Economic Process, to dare to address a reduction in growth – a demand that was taken up again and vehemently defended in the first decade of the 21st century by French economist Serge Latouche.7 In 1973, the Austrian-American philosopher, theologian and pedagogue Ivan Illich published a radical critique of capitalism. The central thesis of his work entitled Tools for Conviviality was: ‘Society can be destroyed when further growth of mass production renders the milieu hostile.’ One of Illich’s main concerns was to warn the developing countries against repeating our mistakes: ‘Above all I want to show that two-thirds of mankind still can avoid passing through the industrial age, by choosing right now a postindustrial balance in their mode of production.’8 The visionary manifesto addresses education, politics and transportation in the quest for a convivial society, that is, a humane society. Humans should control machines – not vice versa! This theoretical continuation of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World and Chaplin’s Modern Times emphasises the important role of art and culture in the shift towards a sustainable society. Hans Jonas, a German-American philosopher, published his seminal work The Imperative of Responsibility: In Search of an Ethic for the Technological Age in 1979. In it he emphasised the anthropocentrism of Cartesian thought and the materialism it engenders, and explored the arbitrary power technology bestows upon humankind. Additionally, Jonas analysed the impact of human activity on society and the environment, the disturbance of a millennia-old equilibrium through industrialisation and the resulting responsibility. All these publications have contributed to many people’s conducting themselves in both their daily and their professional lives in a more sustainable manner over the past 30 years.

THE PREMISE OF ECOLOGICAL BUILDING From the 1950s onward, more and more architects engaged with the concept of ecological building, especially in the southwest of the United States. In 1951 Paolo Soleri (b. 1919), the Italian owner of a ceramics factory, built an Earth House in the desert of Arizona, which became the seed for Arcosanti, his concretised Utopia. Up to 1991, Soleri – a student of Frank Lloyd Wright – developed this city of the future like a human ecosystem. Today, the city has some 80 inhabitants, who produce their own food. The Sea Ranch, a holiday development on the Pacific coast, 150  km north of San Francisco, became the model for modern wood building for many European architects. In 1965 Charles Moore (1925 – 1993) built Condominium One at the site, the first of many holiday developments, all of which subscribed to the same philosophy: adaptation to the unspoilt landscape, organic forms, red cedar cladding and roof shingles. Around the same time, California also became the mecca for solar architecture. David Wright’s book on passive solar design Natural Solar Architecture,

POSITIONS

13

14

2

POSITIONS

a passive primer, published in 1978, was translated into many languages and is considered a classic work to this day. This evolution was fundamentally influenced by the work of the Austrian-British mathematician and architect Christopher Alexander, who had founded the Center for Environmental Structure at the University of Berkeley in 1967. Like those of Illich, Jonas and Georgescu-Roegen, Alexander’s paths had also led from Europe to North America, and like his predecessors, he too had mastered several areas of knowledge as a foundation for his holistic approach. 03 Condominium One, Sea Ranch, California (USA), Charles Moore, 1965

His seminal work A Pattern Language. Towns, Buildings, Construction, published with several co-authors in 1977, 04 Domaine de la Terre, is the second volume of a trilogy encompassing several Villefontaine (France), thousand pages on which a six-person team had Françoise-Hélène Jourda and Gilles Perraudin, Adobe worked over a period of eight years. To begin with, the construction: Laboratoire pattern language is a planning aid in which the 253 CRATerre, 1985 basic patterns are an expression of a common cultural language. The authors present an analysis of the prob-

lem for each of the patterns studied in the work – from independent regions to children in the city to efficient structures. The problem is then discussed and explored with the help of examples. Although the work and its illustrations appear somewhat dated today, an exploration of Alexander’s Pattern Language is well worth the while. It could be seen as a first attempt to comprehend the complexity of sustainable architecture and sustainable urban planning, as well as the ecological, economic and sociocultural connections between the two – and furthermore as an attempt to master these if possible.

EUROPEAN EXPERIMENTS Europe was sensitised to the issue for the first time when two oil crises in rapid succession – in 1973 and 1979 – suddenly made the population aware that energy is a scarce and expensive commodity. This gave rise to a great interest in solar building, bioclimatic houses and the use of adobe and wood. France assumed a pioneering role with the construction of three experimental developments that attracted visitors from around the world: the Village solaire in Nandy, a Paris suburb; Villabois, a group of 117 duplex and terraced houses, which was inaugurated on the occasion of the first international Wood Fair Batibois in Bordeaux in 1984; and the Domaine de la terre in Villefontaine near Lyon, which was completed a year later. This social housing complex comprising 65 units in single-family homes and small multi-family buildings is home to 300 people living comfortably in the shelter of walls made of rammed earth, adobe or pressed mud bricks. The construction was overseen by the Laboratoire CRATerre, which had been founded at the School of Architecture at Grenoble in 1979. The committed team at the laboratory resurrected adobe construction from obscurity by thoroughly and diligently analysing traditional buildings from all continents as well as conducting scientific studies into the properties of the kernels that form the material. CRATerre became the UNESCO Chair for Earthen Architecture, Constructive Cultures and Sustainable Development and many architects who today build with earth and sand around the world acquired the ABCs of adobe construction at the centre. France’s decision in favour of nuclear energy as its main source of power, which was to ensure the autonomy of the nation, spelled not only the end of experiments with renewable energies, but also an end to the quest for energy-efficient building and the use of materials that use little embedded energy. Nearly all the research funding was directed towards nuclear energy, and the inexpensive energy – albeit only seemingly so and then only for the short term – led to many wrong decisions that are difficult to rectify today.

GERMAN PIONEERS The German pioneers hail from the south of the country: Thomas Herzog (b. 1941) in Bavaria; Peter Hübner

2

(b. 1938), Joachim Epple, as well as Günter Behnisch (1952 – 2010) and later on his son Stefan in Baden-Württemberg. Thomas Herzog, a long-time professor at the University of Technology, Munich, is regarded as one of the founders of bioclimatic architecture. The philosophy of the practice opened in 1972 is to further and cultivate Modernism: ‘The task is to exercise social responsibility and to participate actively in the scientific and technological progress as well as to integrate aspects relevant for the environment in multiple ways – specially the possibilities of solar energy.’9 The single-family house with a triangular cross-section and a glass-structure projecting out- and downward to the ground, which Herzog erected in Regensburg in 1979, became a prototype. The post-and-beam construction in glulam (glued laminated timber) was conceived in collaboration with the timber engineer Julius Natterer. The same team designed the impressive EXPO roof, a large roof construction with pavilions for the World EXPO 2000 in Hanover. Peter Hübner, who also combined teaching and practice, looked upon building as a social process.10 From 1982 onwards, he designed and realised a series of youth buildings in the Stuttgart area, in Wangen, Herrenberg and Feuerbach, in a process of user participation. The youth centre in Stammheim has the shape of a dinosaur, while the one in Möglingen is reminiscent of a UFO. The principal material is invariably wood, often combined with brick. Several schools were also realised in a participatory process, among them a few Steiner schools and a kindergarten composed of many small wooden houses for the city of Stuttgart; and a church, in whose construction Hübner’s students at the University of Stuttgart participated – as was often the case with his projects. On the occasion of the IBA Emscher Park, Peter Hübner and his office Plus + designed two very inexpensive row house developments, one in Lünen, the other in Gelsenkirchen. The building block system of wood frames on a concrete slab was intended to facilitate a self-build by the inhabitants. Since 1952, the Stuttgart firm of Behnisch and Partners has been developing an approach to contemporary architecture that has consistently remained free of fads, trends and preconceived ideas. Their colourful buildings, characterised by a high degree of empathy with their users, exude freshness and cheerfulness. Be they schools, offices, retirement homes or a high-profile building such as the parliament building in Bonn, the firm’s projects are designed in their totality from the inside out, in harmony with their environment. Günter Behnisch’s basic principles are reflected in his buildings: respect for humans and nature; adaptation to the individual needs of the users; democratisation of the concept; putting the ‘apparatus’ into question; multiplicity within unity.11 From the 1990s onward, Stefan Behnisch furthered his father’s social goals with ecological measures, which were often developed in close collaboration with the engineering firm Transsolar. The research institute in Wageningen, completed in 1998, was one of the first buildings in Europe where energy strategies and material selection had been rigorously examined.

The firm gained international stature as a result of this project. James Steele12 and Peter Blundell Jones,13 two British architecture critics with a longstanding focus on ecological architecture, have emphasised the important impulses of Behnisch and Partners, now Behnisch Architects.

ECONOMIC AND ECOLOGICAL SUSTAINABILITY After the foundation of the Rocky Mountains Institute in Colorado in 1982, the alternative energy strategies developed by the environmental activist Amory B. Lovins and his wife L. Hunter Lovins attracted more attention. They gained fame after the publication of Factor Four, a 1995 book they authored together with the German scientist and politician Ernst-Ulrich von Weizsäcker, the founder of the Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy. What does Factor Four mean? It refers to the quadrupling of resource productivity, that is, Doubling Wealth – Halving Resource Use. In this report to the Club of Rome, the authors were not content with delivering a situation report as in The Limits to Growth. They offered 50 concrete suggestions for solutions from all sectors of the economy, including many in the building sector: thus, the passive-house concept by Wolfgang Feist is one of the examples described in the report. This was followed shortly after by the publication of a book that suddenly – if only in approximation – translated resource consumption into a language understandable by all with the help of the term ecological footprint. The authors were two economists: the Swiss Mathis Wackernagel and the Canadian William Rees.14 They estimated that 1.8  hectares were available globally to each person on Earth (gha) and described how humankind had surpassed bio-capacity threshold of the Earth in the 1980s. The situation has deteriorated every year since then. The WWF, which publishes updated data by location every year in its Living Planet Report,15 adopted the concept. In the 2008 report, the ecological footprint had reached 9.5 gha (that is, more than five-fold) in the United States, roughly 4.8 gha in the European Union, 1.3 gha in Asia and Oceania and 1.1 gha in Africa. Globally, we are currently consuming renewable resources 50% faster than the planet Earth is able to renew them sustainably.

THE SUSTAINABLE MODEL OF VORARLBERG Sustainable architecture must not focus on ecological and economic aspects alone; it must also take social and cultural factors into consideration. The gains for society can be observed in the example of Vorarlberg.16 This small Austrian state, poverty-stricken for a long time and now economically successful, has the greatest social capital17 in Europe and is also the most sustainable region in the union.

POSITIONS

15

16

2

POSITIONS

Vorarlberg generates the amount of power the region requires. Some communities have achieved energy autonomy thanks to a combination of hydropower, solar collectors, geothermal power and biomass. The public transport network reaches even the smallest of mountain villages. Grocery stores sell rural products from the many local organic farmers, and the workers and craftsmen who built the Baroque churches and monasteries on the shores of Lake Constance have been famous for the quality of their work since the 18th century. Building components produced in the region, such as woodbased materials, ventilation equipment and steel fittings, are renowned around the world. Thanks to the engagement of the architects in Vorarlberg, it was architecture that paved the way for this dedicated and hence successful transformation of the region towards sustainability in the 1980s. Every year, the region attracts more than 10,000 players in the building sector from around the world. In Klaus, they visit the first passive-house school in Austria, designed by the firm of Dietrich and Untertrifaller. They admire the Factor-10 renovations carried out by Helmut Kuess, who creates social housing schemes that boast less than 15  kWh/m 2a in annual heating requirements. Another oft-admired project is the community centre in Ludesch, a masterpiece by Hermann Kaufmann. The building, with its sophisticated energy technology and near power autonomy thanks to 350 m 2 of photovoltaic modules, was constructed, among other materials, with 221  m3 of local silver fir and 5.5  tonnes of sheep wool,

05 Olympic stadium Munich (Germany), Behnisch & Partner in collaboration with Frei Otto, 1972 06 Administrative centre for the Landesgirokasse bank (now BW Bank) Am Bollwerk, Stuttgart (Germany), Behnisch & Partner, 1996

and contains only half of the embedded energy of a comparable building (less than 18 kWh/m 2). What is the recipe for success? The implementation of a participatory democracy, great transparency in the political sphere and the courage of the local representatives at the local and regional level are among the chief factors. Yet in addition to historical, economic and sociocultural factors, the attitude of the local architects also contributes to the success. Although their buildings are renowned around the world, they exhibit none of the airs and graces of star architects. They regard themselves first and foremost as service providers and are concerned with the needs and desires of their clients. They have been practising integrated planning for a long time, involving engineers from the very early stages of creating the first drawings, and work hand in hand with craftsmen and labourers. There is no competition among them but competitiveness, and they are open and communicative with regard to both their positive and their negative experiences. This feedback, which is among other things disseminated through the communication work of the local architecture and energy institutes, explains the rapid and decisive steps that Vorarlberg has continued to take towards sustainability for several decades. Together, the agents of building have found the right balance of low-tech and high-tech, tradition and innovation for their regional context. Two of the buildings presented in this book were realised in Vorarlberg or by architects from Vorarlberg: Rauch House in Schlins and the Sunlighthouse.

2

SMALL SCALE, BIG CHANGE

LOW-TECH OR HIGH-TECH?

Given its climate conditions and the high user demand for comfort in summer and winter alike, Europe has concentrated predominantly on energy: the passive house in Germany and Austria, MINERGIE® in Switzerland. But other important factors also have to be taken into consideration. In a globalised world, which, responding to the pressure exerted by international conglomerates, focuses on the use of concrete, steel and high-tech, material selection should be subjected to critical examination.

These young architects, who wish to introduce more sustainability and humanism into the built environment, include the German Anna Heringer, the Chinese Wang Shu and Li Xiaodong, and Francis Kéré from Burkina Faso. They are represented in this volume by the 20K House by the American Andrew Freer (Rural Studio) and the Quinta Monroy by the Chilean Alejandro Aravena (ELEMENTAL). Most are at home in two cultures: some hail from the southern hemisphere and have studied in the West; others were born in Europe or North America, but have lived for many years in the south. Like the trailblazers of the 1970s, they see themselves as citizens of the world – open to that which is different, be it people or cultures.

A new generation of architects is trying to follow a different path with the use of local, renewable and recyclable building materials. These young colleagues, who set their ego aside, find their fulfilment under the motto more with less. They emphasise the authenticity and beauty of vernacular architecture and expose the negative sides of using building materials and technologies from industrialised countries: the high levels for embedded energy in construction and transport, the unsuitability of concrete blocks for warm climates, the loss of identity. The proponents of this nouvelle vague have become known in recent years through nominations for the Aga Khan Award or the Global Award for Sustainable Architecture18 and are supported by the LOCUS-Foundation.19 They are given a place in exhibitions in leading architecture galleries and museums around the world. In 2010, the Museum of Modern Art in New York featured this new, socially engaged architecture in the exhibition Small Scale, Big Change.20

Whether they are built in adobe, wood, concrete or with recycled materials, the works of these responsible young architects meet not only ecological and economic criteria, but also high social and cultural standards. They not only build for but often with the public in a participatory process that gives labourers new competencies and provides women and children participating in the build with a new sense of their own worth. Architectural intelligence, humility and empathy are often unified in these projects. The beauty of these extraordinary buildings also lies in the balance of low-tech and high-tech that is in harmony with the context. Indigenous materials such as mud bricks and bamboo are often enhanced through the purposeful

POSITIONS

07 Primary school in Klaus, Vorarlberg (Austria), Dietrich Untertrifaller, 2003 08 Community centre in Ludesch, Vorarlberg (Austria), Hermann Kaufmann, 2005

17

18

2

POSITIONS

use of modern technologies, some of which have previously been tested in European laboratories. The result is a meaningful transfer of know-how: a win-win situation for all participants.

CARTESIAN VERSUS HOLISTIC THINKING The Cartesian approach, which has dominated Western culture for nearly four centuries, is based on a rational analysis of facts and linear, compartmentalised thinking. To overcome the problem of our age, we need more humility, more openness and also more empathy! A holistic worldview has strong links to nature and gives free rein to intuitive thinking – derived from Aristotle’s axiom: ‘The whole is more than the sum of its parts.’ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, who was equally a poet and a scientist and devoted himself passionately to scientific phenomena, was also a proponent of this philosophy. More and more people see the future of our world in this interdisciplinary, integrative and open conduct, which is found in all fields where sustainable thinking and action are required: in pedagogy, in medicine – where body, mind and spirit cannot be separated – in agriculture, where natural and healthy food should be produced in a resource-friendly manner. Architects and city planners have also embraced this holistic approach. The organic architecture of Frank Lloyd

Wright is based on an ideal, the teaching of which is in his view ‘so much needed if we are to see the whole of life, and to now serve the whole of life [...].’21 Integrated planning, which has spread through the English-speaking world in recent years, is the methodical implementation of an approach that is rather philosophical in origin. It is the integration of knowledge and the networking of sub-sectors, which are growing more numerous by the day. Architects, city planners and landscape designers as well as engineers in all disciplines are called upon to bring more than technical skills to the table. They should also be willing to work together closely and constructively as a team of experts, to incorporate impulses provided by sociologists or economists and, of course, to respond to the needs and wishes of clients and users.

THE KEY TO PARADIGM CHANGE The holistic process provides us with the opportunity to master ever more complex tasks. To this end we require both sides of our brain, more than ever before, in order to think differently in a new world. The creative and empathetic right brain should complement the analytic left brain. Albert Einstein had already warned us: ‘You cannot solve a problem from the same consciousness that created it.’ The necessary paradigm change that will lead to a sustainable society requires close

09 Sandgrubenweg (residential building), Bregenz (Austria), Wolfgang Ritsch, 2007

2

POSITIONS

collaboration between individuals, institutions and corporations. Given the numerous problems we have to surmount within a short period of time, conclusive examples and know-how within the industrialised countries, where great differences still exist, must also be disseminated throughout the southern hemisphere. It is our responsibility to prevent the developing countries from reproducing our mistakes. That responsibility begins with admitting these errors, attempting to rectify them, as far as possible, and pursuing a different path in a rigorous and exemplary fashion. Today, we have not only sophisticated technologies at our disposal, but also many insights into a modern use of traditional, locally available, renewable building materials. All that is lacking is the will to question conventional, wasteful practices and to implement new, more sustainable practices with rigour and consistency. The key lies with humans, not with technology.

FOOTNOTES CHAPTER 2.1 1 Genesis, 1 Mo 1:28. ‘[...] and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.’ 2 René Descartes: Discours de la méthode pour bien conduire sa raison et cherecher la verité dans le sciences, Leiden, 1637. 3 Henry David Thoreau: Walden; or, Life in the Woods, Boston, 1854. 4 Theodor Roosevelt: Seventh Annual Message to Congress; December 3, 1907, online on: www.academicamerican.com/progressive/docs/TRonConserv.htm, (accessed: May 2011). 5 Hassan Fathy: Gourna; a tale of two villages, Cairo, 1969. 6 Donella H. Meadwos, Dennis I. Meadows, Jorgen Randers, William W. Behrens III.: The Limits to Growth; A Report to the Club of Rome, online on: http://www.clubofrome.org/?cat=45 (accessed: May 2011). 7 Serge Latouche: Survivre au Développement. Paris, 2004 and Petit Traité de la décroissance sereine, Paris, 2008. 8 Ivan Illich: Tools for Conviviality, London, 1971. 9 Thomas Herzog: Philosophy of the Practice, online on: www.herzog-und-partner.de, ((accessed: May 2011). 10 Peter Blundell-Jones: Peter Hübner. Building as a Social Process, Stuttgart/London, 2007. 11 Dominique Gauzin-Müller: Behnisch and Partners. 50 Years of Architecture, New York, 1997, Berlin 2007. 12 James Steele: Ecological Architecture. A Critical History, London, 2005. 13 Peter Blundell-Jones: Günter Behnisch, Basel/Boston/Berlin, 2000. 14 Mathis Wackernagel, William Rees: Our Ecological Footprint Reducing Human Impact on the Earth, Gabriola Island, BC, Philadelphia, PA, 1996. 15 Chris Hails: Living Planet Report 2008, online http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/all_publications/living_planet_report/, (accessed: May 2011). 16 Dominique Gauzin-Müller: Ökologische Architektur in Vorarlberg. Ein soziales, ökonomisches und kulturelles Modell, Berlin/Heidelberg, 2011. 17 Edwin Berndt: Sozialkapital. Gesellschaft und Gemeinsinn in Vorarlberg, abridged version of a study commission by the Office for Questions of the Future (Büro für Zukunftsfragen), Vorarlberg, 2003. 18 LOCUS-Foundation, Paris, www.global-award.org, (accessed: May 2011). 19 LOCUS-Foundation, Paris, www.locus-foundation.org, (accessed: May 2011). 20 Andres Lepik: Small Scale, Big Change, New York, 2010. 21 Frank Lloyd Wright: An Organic Architecture. The Architecture of Democracy, Cambridge, MA, 1970.

19

20

2

POSITIONS

SUSTAINABLE DESIGN. A STATEMENT BOB GYSIN

DESIGNING The definition of design in the Internet encyclopedia Wikipedia reads in part: ‘A specification of an object, manifested by an agent, intended to accomplish goals, in a particular environment, using a set of primitive components, satisfying a set of requirements, subject to constraints. [...].’1 Architectural design is thus a complex process, which requires specific prerequisites: a solid knowledge of architecture and construction, analytical thought and design faculties. Location and landscape, urban context, functional requirements are the most important parameters, as well as the given constructional options. The task is to conceive and invent form and content within a specific context. Designing is never creation out of nothing. Nor is designing a break with the past, and it is never a completely new beginning.

PARADIGM CHANGE Topics such as global warming, demographic changes, globalisation and the possibilities of re-organising megacities will determine whether humankind has a future worth living. At the onset of this millennium, the interconnectedness between human action and existing environmental problems became tangible. For the first time, we are taking note that there is causality at play. The transition from fossil fuels into a post-fossil age will lead to migrations on a larger scale due to climate change and hence social unrest with farreaching political consequences. The complexity of climate change is great; we can only guess at the consequences, as yet unquantifiable in absolute numbers. Scientists speak of a possible global warming by considerably more than 2 °C by 2050 and a possible rise in sea level of 2 m and more. CO2 is the

main cause of global warming. Yet greenhouse gases are generally neither visible nor noticeable by smell; they manifest only gradually and we can therefore barely perceive them directly. Most building experts and many interested citizens are aware that 30 – 40% of all CO2 emissions are generated through construction. It is also a known fact that the construction and operation of buildings worldwide account for approximately 40 – 50% of the total energy consumption and that an enormous savings potential exists in this field. Why is change in behaviour so agonisingly slow? Is human consciousness not as highly developed as we believe or hope after all? Despite all the faith in technology of our time, no one can in good conscience insist on having things under control and being able to continue to do so! Might it not be opportune to analyse our socio-political behaviour and to adapt it accordingly – combining this with an implementation of the latest research and technology? Why, then, do we not act with greater awareness and efficiency? Do people focus more on what they are losing than on what they might gain? 2 Is our unbroken faith in continued (economic) growth playing an evil trick on us? These are all simple questions for which there are, however, no simple answers.

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT ‘Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ – states the report of the U.N. Brundtland Commission from 1987. 3 Today we understand sustainability as a three-pillar model that balances the ecological, economic and social demands of a project. Architecture is unquestionably capable of developing concepts that correspond to all of these demands.

2

Yet measuring and assessing sustainability is a highly complex process, and experts throughout the world are engaged in exploring this task in the context of developing sustainability labels for buildings. Hence, sustainable design requires that the designer bring a critical awareness of society and the pressing problems of climate change and environmental destruction to the table by contributing both intellectually and creatively. The designer will then quickly reach the conclusion that a completely new approach to thinking is necessary in architecture and especially with regard to conversion and new building projects.

SUSTAINABLE BUILDINGS – SUSTAINABLE ARCHITECTURE What distinguishes sustainable buildings from normal buildings? One could argue as follows: architecture is sustainable when it is something other than mere building, that is, when it has special design qualities, is technically up to date and socially compatible. Creating a technically optimal building that fails to satisfy the aesthetic, design and societal requirements is simply not enough. Architecture is always linked to the cultural identify of a society – it is, one might say, society’s mirror image. Sustainable buildings contain aspects of architecture that are closely linked to the ethics of our creative work.

SUSTAINABLE CITIES – SUSTAINABLE PLANNING It is an enormous challenge to invent a sustainable model of the city that ensures a high quality of life for all citizens on this earth and is not just suitable for a few privileged Western cities. Meeting this challenge requires not only an uncompromising attitude among architects and urban planners, but also rigorous politics. Megacities, in particular, will present us with tremendous problems in the coming decades. Scarcity of resources will create economic, ecological and social tensions. We will have to deal more extensively and intensively with the issue of how we want to handle our

(European) agglomerations or conurbations. Even in a small country like Switzerland, valuable arable land was consumed at the rate of more than one square metre per second – resulting in a steady decrease in biodiversity, a despoliation of the landscape and a constantly increasing need for mobility. Studies in smaller cities such as Zurich have shown that 100,000 additional inhabitants could easily live within the same urban perimeter through proportionate densification – without diminishing the quality of life. In other words, nearly 25% more people could live and work in the same area than is the case today. Although these figures have been calculated for Zurich, it is reasonable to infer that the same parameters could be applied to many European cities. This means that sustainable growth in the coming decades can be achieved mainly through careful and qualitative densification of our cities. But what is the nature of the city? The city is a living organism, compact and dense, open and wide, with nooks and crannies, with differing degrees of public and private spheres and a mix of uses that far surpasses pure commerce. A comprehensive cultural diversity evolves on the basis of a high-performance traffic system and the specific geography, integrating old and new structures. A city cannot be created through efficient planning tools alone. People must make the city into what it is – alive.

SUSTAINABILITY AS OPPORTUNITY In the past, the field of sustainable building was given too little weight and remained without noticeable success for a long time. Past visions and utopian ideas of green cities were no longer capable of being embraced by a majority. But visions are also always opportunities for the future – and in the best scenario, they become catalysts for fundamental change. Increasing resource costs, diminishing resources of raw fossil fuels and the gradually visible and palpable climate change accompanied by its potentially devastating side effects finally brought about a gradual mass awareness with regard to opportunities for sustainable development. Is this not an opportunity for architects to make up for the lost ground over the past decades?

1400 Oil Consumption (Quads)

1200 1000 800 600 400 200

10 00

B 60 C 0 BC 20 0 B 20 C 0 AD 60 0 A 10 D 00 A 14 D 00 A 18 D 00 A 22 D 00 A 26 D 00 A 30 D 00 A 34 D 00 A 38 D 00 AD

0

01 Peak Oil – finiteness of fossil energy sources

Some architects today are bemoaning the supposed loss of freedom in design, instead of embracing the role as generalist and designer. Sustainability must be understood by the architecture profession as a contribution to good architecture, not as a hindrance! It is an illusion, of course, to imagine that a rapid change in awareness can be achieved. Nevertheless, we should embark on the hopeful path of making a small, but perhaps decisive contribution toward solving the environmental problems through a sharpened awareness and improved collaboration between architects, engineers, ecologists, economists and the construction industry.

POSITIONS

21

22

2

POSITIONS

02 Fossil energy sources – and their impact

We don’t have a choice. However, we are confronted with the urgent question whether technological possibilities alone are sufficient and will truly advance us in the long term. Changing our lifestyle will determine success – ultimately we must assume responsibility collectively as a society.

MAINTAINING AN OVERVIEW Can an architect today be solely responsible that the project he or she is building is in fact sustainable? An increasingly common complaint is that the architect is gradually being deprived of his competencies, that too many specialists are involved in the building process, and that no one has a comprehensive overview. Is the demand for more sustainability in building responsible for the loss of having an overview? But these demands are not the primary cause of the complexity of building. The complexity is also a result of the nature of the task itself. Statutory requirements and ever more demanding technical demands for the created structure are often compounded by the investors’ requirements for maximum return on investment. In addition, complex geometries are used to render a building unique – architecture as branding. Given this focus on many individual areas, there is indeed a risk that no one has a complete overview anymore. If the societal, social demand is to be taken seriously, other agents must be part of the building process: politics, administration, clients, users and the specialists and colleagues involved in the planning. The degree of sustainability in the building sector is determined by the relationship of society, politics and planners and their complex interplay. Critics who have bemoaned the arrogance of architects since Modernism may be right in the sense that some architects overestimate their own abilities if they believe themselves capable

of covering all aspects of this broad field on their own. Improved forms of collaboration will have to be established.

INTERDISCIPLINARITY Architects can no longer deliver on all that is required, and have been unable to cover every discipline of planning and building for some time. Specialists such as structural engineers and building systems planners have been joined by building physicists, energy specialists, facade builders, traffic experts, sociologists and legislators. In view of the many specialists we are easily wont to forget one participant, who influences many aspects, and that is the client and his or her representatives. They are responsible for many of the elements that make the difference between architecture and building. This does not mean that architects should be relieved of their responsibility. As generalists, they must shoulder the conceptual responsibility of planning the entire structure. This includes a broad general knowledge. Unfortunately, far from being an eye opener, the word sustainability is a thorn in the eye of many colleagues; sustainable building is seen as a hindrance rather an opportunity. For new requirements are added to existing ones. They define how much energy may be consumed and how the energy is to be utilised. More importantly: the greatest potentials for energy conservation exist in building, and they are possible through innovate projects and not only through the implementation of technology. There is a need for improved models for the planning process and coordination, as well as the progressive involvement of the participants at the right level. This will make it possible to conserve resources on a large scale and to reduce the burdens on the environment.

2

ARCHITECTURE CRITIQUE What is the contribution of the trade press to the relationship between architecture and sustainability? Although an exploration of the meaning of Modernism and a critical analysis of it began in many European countries as early as the 1950s, in Germany, the productive forces were almost exclusively occupied with reconstruction of the bourgeois society. Captive within this process, the only possible response to the resurgent European debate on architecture was one of aversion: a complete rejection of anything that had a whiff of the avant-garde. German architectural journals began to open up and engage in a discourse oriented towards the future only later on, albeit without the ability to initiate any trends themselves.4 The crisis in the medium of the journal since the turn of the millennium has aggravated the situation: glossy images have replaced theoretical discourse and debates. For the most part, editors have neglected current themes of architecture and sustainability. Star architects are often celebrated and environmentalists are treated with derision, lip service is paid to speculation, a superficial interpretation of architecture and wondrous technology – an attitude that is hardly conducive to inspiring architects as a whole to think in a differentiating manner and to disseminate new approaches to solutions in building. In contrast to information, criticism is notable for expert knowledge and linguistic ability, combining description, analysis and evaluation according to comprehensible criteria. A contemporary critical theory of architecture would therefore need to incorporate not only society as a whole, but also the whole of ecology into its evaluation of the existing built environment and the potential for future development. 5

Watt

In other words, criticism should embody less a neutral theoretical content than an ethical-political position. One ethical aspect of a contemporary critique of architecture must be to take a good look at the condition of the world and the contribution to that condition of the

object that is being critiqued. For the built environment shapes the society. Or, in the words of Rem Koolhaas: ‘It is the task of architecture to create a plausible relationship between the formal and the social.’6

THE ARCHITECTURE COMPETITION For some time, the architecture competition has been a familiar instrument for augmenting quality. But it not only serves to discover qualitative architecture, it also reduces the risk of nepotism in how commissions are awarded. In our region, one can hardly conceive of projects without an architecture competition – in many European cities and even worldwide, it has led to improvements in architecture and urban planning. The theme of sustainability is part of the competition. When sustainable buildings are part of a competition brief, the parameters must be stated clearly and unambiguously, so that they can be assessed. There is a lot of catching up to be done in this area. Too many competition programmes still fail to include a call for sustainability, or if they do, the requirements are stated with insufficient clarity and are too loosely defined. Requirements are described without providing the appropriate context and the effort is sometimes insurmountable for the authors of the brief. Worst of all, however, both first-round examiners and expert jurors are often overwhelmed by the task. When sustainability aspects are primarily examined and evaluated individually by specialists, an essential factor is lost: whether or not a project is sustainable as a whole, is not determined by the use of technology alone. In most cases, it is the interaction between innovative architecture and innovative technology that makes the difference. The manner in which evaluations are undertaken is frightening at times: individual aspects are assessed with no consideration for the interplay between architecture, economy and ecology. There is a great need for improvement: new examination and evaluation processes for sustainability

1500

Today Goal 2000-Watt Society

1250

Source: Novatlantis, ETH Zürich

1000 750 500 250 0

Infrastructure

Consumer goods and food

Infrastructure

03 Switzerland – great potential in buildings

Electricity

Car

Air travel

Public transport

POSITIONS

23

24

2

POSITIONS

10 ≤ x < 11 9 ≤ x < 10 8≤x