It is widely acknowledged that the converging problems of climate change, energy costs, energy security, and the degradation of the worlds eco-systems, have largely resulted from increased consumption, material throughput and the conversion of natural resources into waste. This throughput and waste has provided many western people with greater affluence, but it also has also incurred heavy environmental toll. The World Wide Fund for Nature estimates that if the population of the world were to consume as much as the average Brit then we’d need three worlds to provide for us! The current environmental toll is a function of population, affluence, and technology. As no one can peacefully, or equitably, reduce either population or affluence, one can only hope that technology holds the key.
I have observed that the generic palette for a green building includes goes something like this: lots of glass, solar panels the obligatory green roof and maybe a windmill or two. Whilst these approaches have their place there is a more subtle, and interesting, aspect to green design than is ordinarily being discussed, it’s called integrated design.
Another observation is that whilst there is much talk of renewable technologies, most of which are bolt-ons, such as wind turbines or photovoltaics, there is little real talk, or understanding, of systems integration and energy efficiency. Arguably it is local authorities, and their guidance known as PPS22 aka the Merton Rule, that perpetrate the reason for much of this talk. All things considered the attention given to renewables is quite surprising as it is expensive to install, expensive run and, until the unit costs begin to fall, does not represent the most economic alternative.
Unlike the bolt-on approach currently favoured in the UK integrated design and energy efficient technologies are, within the whole life of a building, very cost effective, profitable in fact. Furthermore our research shows that only by adopting integrated design can you actually ensure that, compared to a business-as usual model, renewable energy generation can actually become affordable. How is this possible? The key realisation stems from the fact that energy efficiency is about as cheap, if not cheaper, than renewables are expensive. As a consequence across the whole system the whole life cost need not be any greater that the business-as usual model.
A report in the McKinsey Quarterly, early 2007, moves our research claims even further going as far as to suggest that climate change can be tackled a little or no additional capital cost; providing that we address the problems in the most appropriate sequence. Mr Osbourne, please take note!
Because of this research it is perhaps not surprising that rather than turning to micro-generation, renewable energy, or even nuclear power as a solution to climate change, I firmly advocate using less energy from the start. It is with this in mind the practice has recently undertaken a trip to Germany to assess world-leading developments in energy efficient design and has developed an integrated design methodology based upon international best practice.
An underpinning concern that I believe is critical to the success of a project is the desire to investigate, on a project-by-project basis, how little energy the building can use while meeting the needs and aspirations of the people inside it. Founded upon the principle least cost greatest impact this runs against the main stream of green building right now.
We try not to talk about solar panels or massive windows that connect the inside of a building with the outside environment. We consider less glamorous topics such as insulation, boilers, heating distribution systems, piping, cavity walls and preventing overheating; thus avoiding air conditioning.
Effective integrative design is about more than designing sophisticated, highly efficient components. If one begins to take nature as the model then you begin to realize that, individual species and organisms often create a surplus of goods, and as a consequence could be deemed inefficient. If you then consider integrated ecosystems it can be recognized that they are highly effective because outputs of some components are inputs to others, reducing waste to zero. In effect one organism’s waste becomes another’s food. I aim to apply this same theme of design integration to the components in each of my projects.
Typical economic theory hinges upon the perception that there is a law of diminishing returns whereby the more resources you save, the greater the cost of the next increment of savings. This theory can only be held to be true if each incremental saving is achieved in the same manner as the last, and in a way that has no other benefits. The theory ceases to be relevant when the design looks at the system as a whole.
Whole-system design optimises an entire system for multiple benefits, rather than isolated components for singular benefits. As a consequence it can, in the words of energy expert Amory Lovins, “tunnel through the cost barrier.” The consequence is that very large savings can cost less than small or no savings, simply by capturing the interactive effects between components.
Critical to this type of design process is a cohesive interdisciplinary design team and early engagement with the building contractor that can overcome the traditional Chinese wall syndrome whereby each party individually completes there work before throwing it over the wall to the next party in the chain. The interdisciplinary work ethic rails against the concept that “to many cooks spoil the broth” and instead recognises that to make a really great meal before you begin to cook you need all the ingredients, in the right proportion before you start and then proceed to use them in the appropriate sequence. It is through these concepts of systems integration that we seek to offer truly radical efficiency. Another example arising from our research suggests that in contrast to a “good” office building, already performing some 30% better than “standard” practice, we can, using integrative desgn, provide superior levels of thermal comfort in the summer and winter, an additional 40% reduction in carbon emissions and energy cost savings in the order of £3-4/m2 per annum (compared to best practice and perhaps even double that when compared to ‘typical’ good practice) all at comparable or negative up front capital costs. Furthermore for a marginal increase in capital cost of about 5% energy use can be reduced by something in the order of 75-85% with a payback of roughly 3-6 years.
With the emergence of the European Energy Performance Directive, Energy Performance Certificates in tandem with and the UK governments drive towards net-zero carbon development (to accompany the Code for Sustainable Homes the government is now drafting the Code for Sustainable Buildings) the first cost and whole life affordability of these options is not something to be sniffed at.
I have observed that it is the search for increased systems integration as a means of addressing national and global concerns helps to differentiate my approach from other architects. It is through the use of whole-system design principles and by necessity searching for the best solution technologically, functionally, economically and creatively, that clients stand to gain decisive environmental credibility and competitive advantage over their rivals.
Churchill once said, “We shape our buildings and our buildings then shape us.” It is with this in mind, as we turn gradually shift towards more sustainable ways of living, one begins to wonder whether the buildings we build shouldn’t begin to offer insight into how to achieve more with less, how to efficiently and effectively offer sustainable living without compromising human needs. It is from this vantage point that integrative design enables you to begin to wonder how these buildings could become net producers of energy, water and perhaps even food? In this only is this context that buildings could begin to offer the right kind of pedagogy to future generations.
By delivering our clients successful projects that we aim to introduce pressure within the industry that will help raise the bar and make design integration become standard practice. At LEAP we believe that good design doesn’t compromise; it optimises. The optimal solution often solves problems you didn’t even know you had.
Personally I regret that architects today are not being adequately taught about energy in buildings. Instead, instead they focus on aesthetics, designing highly conceptual projects that express an idea, rather than solve a problem. In an attempt to move integrated design and energy efficiency further up the agenda in resent years I have been lecturing at both Newcastle and Northumbria University. As integrated design would logically dictate my devotion to the applied science of architecture is still grounded in a concern for the aesthetic but not beholden to it.
NOTE: This article was originally written when author worked at DEWJOC Architects (which latterly became Devereux Architects). In 2011 Mark set up his own practice so that he could continue to pursue his interests in developing sustainable, low energy architecture.
Notes on the author:
Mark Siddall, principle at low energy architectural practice LEAP, is an architect and energy consultant specialising in low energy and PassivHaus design. He was project architect for the Racecourse Passivhaus scheme and has a keen interest building performance. In addition to architectural services his practice provides project enabling and education for clients, design teams and constructors.
LEAP website: www.leap4.it