Holistic Housing by DETAIL

HOLISTIC HOUSING

HANS DREXLER | SEBASTIAN EL KHOULI

HOLISTIC HOUSING Concepts, Design Strategies and Processess

Edition â&#x2C6;&#x201A;

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

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION Preface

Acknowledgements

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

2.2 Sustainable design. A statement: Bob Gysin

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

3.2 Systemic approach

3.3 Sustainable design is contextual design and process orientation

3.4 Aspects of sustainable design

Local versus global

The temporal dimension of architecture

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

Low-tech versus high-tech

Efficiency, consistency, sufficiency

Doing the right things and doing things right

4 THE BUILDING AND ITS CONTEXT 4.1 Impact: the buildingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s influence on context

The global consequences of human building

The city as a model of the future

The effect building has on the environment

Lighting and shadows

Urban ventilation

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

The water cycle

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

Site factors and urban structure (macro level)

Linking the building to the urban structure

Effects of the urban building structure and ground plan

5 ARCHITECTURE AS A PROCESS 5.1 Designing holistically

Integrated design

The task. Definition of requirements and qualities

From the idea to the design

From design to building. Detail design and construction phase

From completion to use. Putting the building into operation

5.2 The building and its life cycle

The building life cycle: economic and ecological analyses

Life cycle costing (economic)

Life cycle assessments

CONTENTS

Construction in the life cycle

The life cycle of the components

Separable connections and hierarchical construction: design to disassemble

Demolition, reuse and recycling

The building in changing times: temporal dimensions

Short-term flexibility of use:

Long-term constructional flexibility of use

Neutrality of use

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

Assessment systems for investors and users

Instruments for planners

Descriptive assessment systems

Quantitative assessment systems

Qualitative assessments methods

Scope and cost of an assessment

6.3 The housing quality barometer – development and methodology

Development and structure of the criteria matrix

Overview of criteria

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

3 FUNDAMENTALS OF SUSTAINABLE DESIGN

Cupb oar d

Summer Winter

dry un La

North

Ga rd

Wa rdr U ob tili e ty En tr

Sto rag er o B

Di n i ng Bal ro con om y Ch i l dr en ’

oom edr Ofğce tb s e oom Gu g r errace vin T i L

ell irw sta

toilet and om omthro a

/ ce an

oom yr room dr Bed un La

om ro

m roo ed sb

room ying / dr Sun protection

05 Zoning of interior uses according to solar path

Low-tech versus high-tech

Technology is the answer – but what was the question? Cedric Price

The presence of technology increased drastically over the course of the past decade. Much effort was invested in being able to operate buildings with comfortable interior temperatures with the help of heating, ventilation and cooling systems, independent of the external climate. Electrical lighting made it possible to illuminate interiors independent of daylight. Buildings could thus be operated more and more independently of external conditions. The lifestyle to which we have grown accustomed has become possible only thanks to technology. Providing the great number of people who populate the Earth with humane living conditions is possible only through the targeted use of technology for the generation and distribution of energy, food production and building climatisation. Despite all the advantages that technology has brought to the life of building residents, the negative corollary is that buildings can be constructed and operated only with enormous technological effort if they fail to utilise the energy resources available in the immediate environment properly: in cold and temperate climate zones, poorly insulated buildings consume unnecessary energy for heating. In warm and hot climate zones, buildings that are insufficiently protected from insolation must be constantly cooled. The consequence of deep f loor plans and unfavourable facade design is that interiors require artificial lighting even during daylight hours. Even though the technical effort for residential buildings

is relatively small by comparison with other building types (for example, manufacturing, laboratories and hospitals), they too follow the universal trend towards the preponderance of technology. This trend is enhanced because comfort requirements have steadily increased. In the past, not all rooms were heated year round and users responded to unfavourable interior temperatures by wearing appropriate clothing and limiting the use of some space, there is no tolerance today for either low or high temperatures. This trend is most evident when one looks at how the cost distribution for building projects has shifted: whereas costs for technology were rather low in the past, percentages such as a quarter of the total cost have now become standard. The growing cost factors are a ref lection of higher comfort requirements as well as building concepts that are often clumsy and unsuitable. However when problems in many areas of life are solved with the help of technology, new problems invariably result and these are in turn solved with yet more technology. The example of climate change shows that this strategy often falls short. Even though many problems can be solved with technology, there is always the risk that the technology will have undesired side effects that may only come to the light of day later on and at different locations. Braungart and McDonough describe this type of technology as brute force, because it acts upon the inner forces of the system with might and power instead of working with the forces. This should by no means lead to the conclusion that the technology is the problem. However as a result of this technologizing of buildings, technology is employed to compensate for many wrong decisions in the planning and design, as well as shortcomings with regard to developing a meaningful building concept. Moreover, our love affair with technology has defined one of the most successful architecture styles of the 20th century. The high-tech architecture that emerged in the 1960s took its cue from the aesthetics of space technology and science fiction films. The buildings became technical devices that magically fulfil all needs and desires of the user at the push of a button or with intelligent automation. Even today the hightech aesthetic is the most often cited genre for many building tasks such as office buildings and airport terminals. This attitude is supported by a positivistic way of thinking, which assumes that all problems can be solved by implementing the appropriate technology. As exciting as these ideas may be in the abstract, it is equally evident that buildings of this kind presume that the technology will function without a hitch. Everyday experience teaches us otherwise: every technology is inherently capable of malfunction and functional failure. Heating systems break down; air conditioning systems fail to operate. The experience in recent decades has shown that hightech buildings are very susceptible to malfunctions and are not necessarily user-friendly. In addition to operational malfunctions, the primacy of technology

3 FUNDAMENTALS OF SUSTAINABLE DESIGN

also translates into a steady effort for manufacture, maintenance and operation of the building. And the conditions for operating such technical systems have changed drastically in recent years as a result of diminishing resource, rising energy costs and climate change. High-tech solutions are usually brought into play at the end of the process (end-of-pipe strategy). But reduction or prevention make more sense than efficient provision for a (technological) requirement that was created. Instead of installing and operating a highly efficient lighting technology, it is better to arrange workstations in such a manner that they are optimally supplied with natural lighting during the hours of use. Good building insulation or utilisation of passive solar energy is simpler than an efficient heating system. Lower water consumption through water-conserving sanitary installations and fittings, such as waterless (no-f lush) urinals or vacuum toilets, makes more sense than efficient water treatment. In this book we have compiled a series of examples that drastically reduce the requirement for technology, energy and other resources through very simple architectural and structural design options. With an intelligent building concept, energy consumption can easily be reduced by a factor of 5 to 10. This is an indication not only of the tremendous progress with regard to efficient building design, but also how far we have distanced ourselves from a sensible degree of technology. The opposite approach to the high-tech strategy is to optimise the building through passive measures or low-tech solutions. Intelligent concepts for volume, facade and construction alone make it possible to operate buildings at most locations and for the better part of the year with less technology and energy consumption. These low-tech strategies deliver a string of advantages: utilising environmental energies at the site is free and reliable into the future. Although technical malfunctions can never be excluded entirely, they are less frequent. Any technical installation with moving parts and electronic circuits is by definition more susceptible to glitches than a wall or a window. As a result of the lesser complexity of the systems, unwanted internal and external consequences are far less likely with low-tech solutions. We do not wish to promote a return to the low standards of the past. A complete abdication of technology results either in insufficient comfort conditions in the buildings or to a senseless augmentation of the effort required for the construction. A building without any heating supply is unthinkable in locations with cold winters if healthy internal temperatures are to be maintained. But technology should not be the first solution in building; it should be the last resort once the low-tech and architectural options have been exhausted. This prioritisation is also supported by a life cycle assessment of the systems. Technical systems tend to have a shorter life cycle than the building fabric.

According to Hegger, Fuchs, Stark and Zeumer, the operation of a building from the perspective of energy (requirements) can be organised into to five themes. The low-tech measures are listed in the first column, with the high-tech measures in the next column to the right: Neither one nor the other approach can be employed as a panacea. What matters in each instance is a careful analysis of context and requirements on the basis of which the appropriate means are selected. There are building tasks where a high-tech approach makes sense due to extreme requirements, just as there are building tasks where only a low-tech approach is possible and promises success.

ENERGY THEMES

REDUCE ENERGY REQUIREMENTS

OPTIMISE ENERGY SUPPLY

LOW-TECH

HIGH-TECH

Heating

Preserve heat

Efficient heat generation (gain)

Cooling

Avoid overheating

Evacuate heat efficiently

Air

Natural ventilation

Efficient machine ventilation

Light

Utilise natural lighting

Optimise artificial lighting

Power

Utilise power efficiently

Decentralised power generation

06 The ten building blocks of energy-efficient building according to energy themes

The questions that need to be posed are: which technology is necessary and appropriate? Which technology can be employed without problems in the long term? For most building tasks the answer is: a useful combination of high-tech and low-tech elements. Concepts where the technology completes and enhances the building. Strategies such as passive houses or zero-energy houses (also zero net energy houses) are only thinkable with a combination of high-performance construction and highly efficient building systems. Once again it is important to understand the building as a system in which the individual components complement and enhance one another. Interdisciplinary teams can successfully implement integrated designs of this kind. The prerequisites are that the architects engage more intensively than before with the technical trades and that engineers are involved in the planning and design at an earlier stage.

5 ARCHITECTURE AS A PROCESS

ARCHITECTURE AS A PROCESS

Buildings are primarily perceived and developed as spatial objects; their temporal dimension often recedes into the background. They are thought of as static structures (property) and exist in this frozen, ideal state only in the imagination of the designer. In reality the building is subject to changes taking place on various timescales; it is less a state and much more a process. This observation applies not only to the design and construction of a building. Architecture is also constantly changing during the rest of its life cycle – through aging and use, as well as extension, conversion and demolition.

Architecture is a dynamic process and as such it is neither immobile nor static. Buildings regress from a state of higher order into one of the greatest possible disorder, the greatest possible entropy.1 The higher the entropy of a system, the more even and random the distribution of energy and material within the system becomes. Buildings weather and fall into disrepair until they reach a state of equilibrium with the surrounding system. This process can be halted or slowed down only by the continuous input of energy and materials, by carrying out maintenance, repairs and refurbishment – or by transforming the building to a higher state of order through the use of materials and external energy. In addition to the structural dimension, which is governed by the laws of physics, architecture also has a non-material, cultural and social dimension that conforms to other laws. The idea of a building survives even if the materials of which it is composed deteriorate and dissolve in a state of higher entropy. The stones from which the Greek temples were built decay, but the idea of the temple remains and even goes on to grow through further development and transformation. The idea of the Greek temple thus re-emerges in the humanist ideals of the Renaissance, just as it does in the classical themes of the Enlightenment.

Architecture can evade this loss of order by other means: by widening the frame of assessment and consideration to include the building’s use and its users. Change, then, is not defined as loss of order, but rather as an inherent part of the process in which external energy is incorporated into the system to achieve a higher and more complex order. This paradigm shift requires that architecture not be seen as a deterministic process ending with the iconic photography of the still-virgin and unoccupied building. Only if architecture is able to include and use the existing forces can it free itself permanently from inevitable and insidious decay.

Only if architecture is not independent of buildings, but lives primarily through buildings, will it be able to use this transformational force for itself.

The prerequisite for this is a willingness to think about the building over its whole life cycle: not only on a material level in the form of energy and material flows, but equally on its emotional, functional and social levels. Functional and social mean here the specific needs that architecture has to fulfil. It must be user oriented, usable, and adaptable to changes in needs while allowing room for interpretation and appropriation, in the sense of adopting as one’s own, as well as foreseeable and unexpected changes. Emotional, on the other hand, means that architecture must be relevant. It constructs identity and moves people. Its structure must be durable and strong enough to come through changes, and its qualities greater than economic pressure. Strategies other than the familiar linear methods of planning and design are required to avoid drowning in the complexity of this approach. This process does not start with the singular idea of an architectural genius. The development of a project does not take place in

5 ARCHITECTURE AS A PROCESS

100

80 Cost control

Cost plan

Demolition

Use

Execution

Public tenders

01 Influence on the overall cost as the design process progresses

Total costs [%]

100

Project planning

In today’s interdisciplinary and multi-member design teams, the architect plays a different role than he or she did earlier. The traditional image sees him or her in the role of captain, who – eyes fixed firmly on the objective – uses authority to keep control of the planning, design and construction process. It is much harder to maintain control over today’s more complex sequences of events. To avoid loss of authority, architects often make decisions without checking adequately or against their better judgement. Conflicting objectives and problems are denied instead of solved. Complex design processes cannot be mastered and controlled. They demand the knowledge and the capabilities of a helmsman, who guides and leads rather than directs.

To have sufficient time and capacity during the preliminary and final design phases for a detailed investigation of the variants, studies and simulations, the weightings of the individual design phases need to be adjusted to the changing realities. In some pilot projects, such as the design of the CO2-neutral Masdar City in Abu Dhabi, these adjustments were already implemented in the formulation of the contract, and the ratio of the fees for each design phase was changed in the favour of the first phases. In Europe as well, many investors and clients expect more certainty of design and costs at an earlier stage of a project. For this reason it is worthwhile and necessary to discuss matters with suitable specialist companies at an early stage, and to keep residents and authorities informed over the progress of the design.

Demand planning

Integrated design The ability to define the objectives and requirements of a project, include all the relevant aspects and assess the interactions between them, calls for different perceptions and ways of seeing the issues from everyone involved in the process. The challenge in controlling planning and design is to bring together the different points of view arising out of the different perceptions and combine them into a holistic way of looking at the problem. Only if all the interested parties are aware of the goals can any process be efficient and achieve its objectives. For this reason the early inclusion of the parties, and the consistent and continuous references to interrelationships and dependences are crucial for the development of holistic projects. The influences of society and culture and the patterns of behaviour entrained into students in schools and universities favour an object-oriented solution to any problem. ‘The visible, the facts, the objects [are] easy to recognise, while the connections and links often seem to be invisible at first glance and in our perception. Consequently our society promotes uni-dimensionality and specialisation because this generally leads to greater recognition.’ – Frederic Vester 2

The usual method of distributing the time and work content between design phases adopted in most of today’s professional fee scales for architectural services (AIA, RIBA, HOAI, SIA etc.) impedes an early and comprehensive analysis of design variants, as a majority of the design decisions are scheduled for later in the process when all the fundamental decisions have already been made. The ability to influence the result diminishes disproportionately the further the design progresses.

Construction phase

5.1 DESIGNING HOLISTICALLY

The difference between the management styles of a helmsman and a captain is that the former allows the planning and design process to be open-ended and amendable. The person behind the wheel is prepared at any time to re-examine decisions and, if necessary, to change or correct the direction. The way is not defined, just the objective.

Degree of influence of the initial and subsequent costs [%]

splendid isolation to the exclusion of those who have interests in or are affected by it. The process starts with a detailed analysis of the objectives and requirements, the needs and constraints, taking into account all shareholders and stakeholders, the interrelationships in the spatial and societal context, and the formulation and prioritisation of common objectives. At every iteration of the design, this information is checked, analysed and referenced again to the most important parameters and actors. The success of the process depends crucially on the transparency and compre hensibility of the methods applied. Planners and designers keep others informed, and are themselves kept informed, of the results of each step through continuous communication. Systematic methods of thinking and design require the inclusion of all parameters relevant to the system and those specifically linked to the variable, time.

6 ASSESSING SUSTAINABILITY

Assessing sustainability versus sustainable design Assessment systems and methods can be used in all stages of the design and planning process. As shown in chapter 5, an iterative and recursive approach represents one of the basic principles of a comprehensive design methodology. A reassessment of the results in relation to goals and requirements needs efficient and practical instruments, which provide sound conclusions when assessing variations and alternatives in the early phases of a project. This is when design and assessment methods are very closely linked. A successful goal-oriented approach is not possible without the appropriate instruments for qualification and assessment â&#x20AC;&#x201C; moreover, these new assessment methods also have a complementary character. They serve as useful tools that can be applied in addition to the usual strategies, which help planners to find solutions and make decisions. Choosing the most effective system for design and planning processes is based on parameters such as typology, building dimensions, planning phase, and the basic legal circumstances. However, because sustainability assessment is still a young practise, there are only a few systems available today that can be used in different countries or for a wide range of use typologies. LEED and BREEAM are doubtless the most established and widely used systems, and can be applied in over 60 countries. Both of these systems, as well as the German system DGNB, can be used as early as the pre-design phase to ensure sounder planning. At the moment, the DGNB system can be applied only for office and administration buildings (other uses are still in the development or prototype stages), while LEED and BREEM can already be used

for a much wider range of typologies. However, each system is time-consuming and costly, which, (still) makes them less cost-effective for smaller projects. Moreover, the systems cannot be used for early analyses or design phases. The Pearl Building Rating System (PBRS) by Estidama (UAE)6 is a simple and practical assessment that can supplement the planning process throughout all phases. However, the method is in general more suited to larger projects. The Housing Quality Barometer 7-system, which was developed by the Technische UniversitĂ¤t Darmstadt and adapted for this publication, is especially suited to redevelopment projects. The system has been used as a potentials analysis for teaching and research activities on existing buildings. Assessing a building that will be re-developed allows the early diagnosis of potentials and weaknesses; it also allows us to define possible strategies and target values, and later to verify whether these have been successfully fulfilled. Because the system is simple to manage and takes less time to complete than others, it can be used to assess versions in new buildings as well. The planning tool developed in the research project entitled Haus der Zukunft (House of the future)8 at Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts can be used to define goals; it also serves as an aid for recognising potentials and dependencies during the design phase while providing transparency for clients and planning teams. When using this tool, it is advisable to coordinate important design and planning decisions in the long-term planning phases, using the results of analysis that this planning tool provides.

DGNB/BNB LEED CA

BREEAM TQ HQE

CASBEE

LEED

MINERGIE-ECO LEED VAE

EEWH

SICES ESTIDAMA

LEED IN

LEED BR Green Star

Green Star NZ

01 International sustainability assessment systems (selection)

6 ASSESSING SUSTAINABILITY

ation Loc 11

1 Comfo rt 2F lex ib il

ity

10 Ac ce ss i

y lit bi

pact ll im a r ve 8O

4 Functio nal q ual ity

9 Processing q uali ty

uality ial q pat 3S

5 Renovation Existing situation

on ati er Op

osts 6 User c

7 Re sou r c e ne ed s

02 Analysis of potentials with the life cycle assessment: analysis of the present state (brown) and the definition of the desired target values (blue)

Because there is increasing experience and knowledge available to build on, great advances in sustainability assessment systems can be expected over the next few years. Moreover, in the future planning instruments will play a greater role in providing architects and planners with less complex tools that are easier to handle. In the meantime, however, it will soon become urgently necessary, for architects in particular, to close the existing gap in knowledge. At some point, sizable building projects will begin using subcontractors for sustainability consultation and assessment, which will ensure that the consultation remains independent. Nonetheless, it will still be important for planners to have a broad basic understanding of sustainable building issues, so that they can participate in informed discussions with auditors and consultants concerning specific concepts and further developments. For small- or medium-sized projects, it will also become indispensable for planners to be knowledgeable about planning sustainable buildings. This is the only way to develop a comprehensive architecture and planning culture and establish long-term standards.

6.2 STRATEGIES AND METHODS OF SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT ASSESSMENTS Existing sustainability assessment methods follow different approaches and strategies. The choice of the appropriate methodology is closely related to the field in which it is to be applied and the particular target group.

Assessments systems Instruments for urban and spatial planning Instruments for urban and spatial planning are designed to establish a regionally or nationally comparable, high standard in planning and development processes for sizable building and housing development projects. They are usually used in planning and in competitions to aid political committees or competition juries in the decision-making process. Because of the comparative lack of data and information during the design phase, there is usually a general set of criteria that can be verified using only few quantitative and qualitative parameters. Some examples of this form of assessment tool are the Swiss system Albatros9 and LES!,10 a system developed by the city of Linz. Assessment systems for investors and users Assessment systems for investors and users are devised to prioritise a transparent presentation of the results of certified buildings, in the form of various labels (for instance LEED: silver, gold, platinum) that provide user-friendly and commercial marketing of the achieved standards. These systems are mainly used to assess finished buildings, but also often have a pre-design phase (BREEAM) that helps achieve realistic and committed agreements on goals at an early planning stage; they also provide a higher level of planning guarantee for planners and investors. The German system DGNB belongs to this category of systems, as does the British BREEAM, the American system LEED, and the Japanese CASBEE.11 Many energy standards, such as Passivhaus or MINERGIEÂŽ,12 also belong to this category.

02 Living vertically, 3rd floor

REDENSIFICATION OF EMPTY PLOTS The current discussion regarding sustainable architecture is concentrated on the optimisation of buildings. The choice of location has a decisive inf luence, however, on sustainability. Here, redensification offers many advantages within city centres: area use is decreased, use of existing infrastructure is intensified, and the social fabric of the city continues to develop. Using gaps between buildings and other left over spaces that would be appropriate for a minihouse can also be seen as repairing the city, which increases its attractiveness. In the case of the Minihouse, an unplastered brick wall stood for 40 years on a prominent inner-city street. The Minihouse transformed this urban blemish, which resulted from post-Second World War traffic planning colliding with the GrĂźnderzeit (lit.: â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;founder epochâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;) block structure into a site of high recall value. Developing these narrow, inner-city niches and leftover spaces calls for new building typologies and constructions because conventional architectural forms have rendered them useless. In comparison, suburban locations, where the greatest percentage of new residential housing is being created,

possess an underdeveloped social and cultural infrastructure and a narrow selection of work opportunities. The things needed for daily use are often not outside the immediate proximity. These locations therefore create a greater need for mobility for their residents, who are forced to use cars. The urban sprawl of the landscape destroys important ecological areas, valuable natural spaces, and agricultural land or forests. In order to evaluate land use properly, streets and other infrastructure need to be considered, in addition to the land that is built upon. The Minimum Impact House research project examined inner-city leftover spaces for their suitability for sustainable residential constructions. It systematically recorded remaining spaces in the Frankfurt innercity area, then assessed and evaluated them for their potential as spaces for redensification through residential housing. The results of this research showed that within the coming ten years, approximately one third of the residential needs of the city can be compensated for through either redensification or by adding storeys in the densely built inner-city area of Frankfurt.1

7.2 MINIMUM IMPACT HOUSE

111

Location quality and available facilities City centre Regional centre Childcare and elementary schools Secondary schools Colleges and adult education Social services facilities Hospitals and medical centres Doctors and pharmacies Playgrounds and play areas Parks and open spaces Recreational areas Public transport availability Alternative transport concepts Car accessibility Footpaths and bicycle paths

03 Living vertically, 2nd floor

Process quality Systematic planning and user participation Assessment in the planning process Personalisation

04 The Minihouse roof garden

Flexibility and variety Variety of use Spatial flexibility of the apartment

A SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE IN THE CITY The Minihouse was developed as a prototype for such redensification, and unites many peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s desired ideal to own their own home in the form of a single-family house in a central location. Conventional multi-storey housing constructions have failed to develop answers for these remaining spaces and gaps in the city urban fabric. The Minihouse used a plot of 29 m 2 to constructed a building of 150 m 2 floor area. Because there was very little space, the Minihouse developed its qualities by a vertical staggering of spaces. Whereas multi-storey housing constructions align individual spaces along one plane, the Minihouse developed them vertically. This approach creates continuous, vertical spatial relationships between the different levels, and a view of the city that varies from storey to storey. This method of construction makes the Minihouse extremely efficient: the external spaces and various lines of view are a part of the visual residential area and give a spacious impression despite the actual limits of space. The area-efficiency is not merely something to measure and evaluate; it is also an incalculable spatial experience. A roof terrace compensates for the lack of a ground-level garden. However, living in a vertical house can have its disadvantages. The residential concept and form is not for everyone. The house contains many steps, which are a hindrance for older people with restricted mobility. Moreover, the day-to-day experience of vertical pathways is considered in general to be more burdensome than horizontal ones. The roof terrace is not really a replacement for a garden either. It of course provides beautiful views of the city, but does not replace the safe and protected outdoor areas desired by many families with young children.

Comfort Natural light in the apartment

Resource demands of the building Spatial efficiency Revitalisation and redevelopment area

Primary energy demands for mobility

Building-related costs in the life cycle Cost of mobility Building and property costs

142

7.4 QUINTA MONROY

23 Housing estate 2004

24 Housing estate 2010

7.4 QUINTA MONROY

is estimated at 10,000,000 US$. If the concept of the Quinta Monroy is applied to all future plans, it will improve the living situation for nearly 1,000,000 people. More importantly, this investment would certainly be one of the most socially acceptable and sustainable options for a country that is a world leader in income inequality. 8 It is hard to imagine how opportunities such as this would not inspire one’s own architectural practice.

GOAL –

ENERGY PAR AMETERS Q h: Q p:

no permanently installed heating system no permanently installed heating system

External Wall: Windows (Uw):

RATING LEVELS Location quality and available facilities City centre Regional centre Childcare and elementary schools Secondary schools Colleges and adult education Social services facilities Hospitals and medical centres Doctors and pharmacies Playgrounds and play areas Parks and open spaces Recreational areas Public transport availability Alternative transport concepts Car accessibility Footpaths and bicycle paths Accessibility Public accessibility and thoroughfares Integration of transport routes and roads Car parking availability and accessibility 4XDOLW\ RI VWDWLRQDU\ WUDIğF Wheelchair accessibility

COMPONENTS BUILDING SHELL Supporting structure:

SUBJECT

uninsulated steel-concrete partitions and roofs, concrete block walls Wooden board material no requirements

Process quality Systematic planning and user participation Assessment in the planning process Self-administration Personalisation Appropriateness and building tradition Addressing the user

HEATING AND VENTILATION No permanently installed heating system

HOT WATER Decentralised electrical hot water supply

Quality of space and design Integration into the environment Communal facilities Communal outdoor spaces Different degrees of publicness Design of the building’s entrance areas Zoning within the apartment Privacy protection Visual references in outdoor spaces Private open space Relationship between indoor and outdoor areas Entrance and hallways in the apartment Functional Quality Media connections Quality of building systems Equipment quality of sanitary facilities Private storage rooms Utility space Communal storage spaces Flexibility and variety Choice of apartments Variety of use Conversion capacity 6SDWLDO ĠH[LELOLW\ RI WKH DSDUWPHQW 6SDWLDO ĠH[LELOLW\ RI WKH EXLOGLQJ Furnishability

Absolute min. °C Absolute max. °C

Temperatures

Minimum °C Maximum °C

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Resource demands of the building Utilisation 6SDWLDO HIğFLHQF\ Revitalisation and redevelopment area Sustainable use of building materials Durability and dismantling Primary energy demands for mobility Energy demands for room temperature control Energy demands for electricity Proportion of renewable energy Generating water circulation Reducing water consumption Overall impact of buildings Environmental hazards of technology Environmental hazards building materials Waste sorting and composting Primary energy content of the construction

-5 -10 -15 -20 -25 -30

Comfort Natural light in the apartment Lighting of access areas Thermal comfort in summer Thermal comfort in winter Internal sound insulation and acoustic zoning Requirements for insulation from outside noise Healthy materials Controlled fresh air supply Security of the outdoor areas Security of the building

Jan

Feb

March

25 Climate data for Iquique

April

May

June

July

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Building-related costs in the life cycle ([WHUQDO FRVWV Cost of mobility Building and property costs Maintenance and upkeep costs Energy costs

143

RATING 1

148

7.5 ECOHOTEL IN THE ORCHARD

04 View of the hotel room

7.5 ECOHOTEL IN THE ORCHARD

05 Facade facing the apple orchard

149

06 Capillary material in the gap between the facade layers

STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND MATERIALS The holistic concept is most evident in the Ecohotel’s structural design. The building was constructed mainly from renewable raw materials. The basic idea was to compensate for the greenhouse gas emissions, created by producing the building, by the greenhouse gas contained in the wooden building elements. But this has not verified by calculations. The rooms of the building are composed from boxes that were built from solid wall and ceiling elements of solid wood. Due to the unique structure of the boxes, the walls and ceilings were constructed as double shells, which provides better sound insulation. However, this seems not sufficient to keep noises and voices from penetrating the partitioning walls. Hence the walls of the boxes consist of planks made from 96-mm thick laminated wood between which a 30-mm, wooden, soft fibreboard is mounted with glue. The ceilings are constructed from 124 mm cross-layer solid wood elements equipped with impact sound insulation and 60 mm heating screed. The wooden building components were not coated on either the interior or exterior surfaces, because the structure was designed so that the building components would be weather-protected by ventilation and roof overhangs on all sides. This guarantees first of all that the building components can be used at the end of their life cycle, to generate energy or otherwise. Second, it means that there are solvents in the interior spaces that might be harmful to the environment or health. Weather-resistant larch wood was used for the exposed facade of the arcade, and oak for the floors because it is harder and more durable. For the sliding doors of the bathroom, solid wood was used with a plastic recycled from PET bottles.

On the inside, the wooden surfaces of the wall and ceilings are exposed, creating a unique atmosphere in the rooms. The natural material looks beautiful but also smells pleasant. Interior surfaces are neither painted nor coated, which guarantees a natural indoor climate and means that there are no chemical residues. The wooden panels are made from Swiss stone pine (lat.: Pinus cembra), which is known for its calming effect on humans. The architects refer to corresponding studies regarding this wood. Swiss stone pine was used traditionally to build infant cradles. The client was aware of this tradition and suggested that Swiss stone pine be used for the construction material.

g Räumliche Flexibilität Haus Möblierbarkeit Comfort Natural light in the apartment Thermal comfort in summer Thermal comfort in winter

Healthy materials

Resource demands of the building

Sustainable use of building materials Durability and dismantling Energy demands for room temperature control

Overall impact of buildings Environmental hazards building materials Primary energy content of the construction

07 Construction scheme: individual boxes are added to one another

176

7.7 TOWNHOUSE IN LANDSKRONA

13 Architectural dialogue

7.7 TOWNHOUSE IN LANDSKRONA

The Townhouse is tailored to suit the desires and needs of its users. However, the more a building suits specific users, the less it adheres to standard requirements. If other users were to move in, they would have to adapt to the building because it would be too complex to adjust the building to someone else’s needs, such as enclosed bedrooms. The tailored design suits its wearers well. It would suit a person of the same size, so to speak. The sustainability of this approach can be seen in the dialogue with the building and the context: the sensitive placement within the urban situation and the hoped for catalyst effect for Landskrona. This shows that sustainability should not always be reduced to pure energy efficiency and ecology. A sustainable building is the result of an active dialogue involving the context and the users.

GOAL –

0.61 (without addition) 37.8 kWh/m2a 152.75 kWh/m2a

Qp/resident:

1,757.7 kWh/a

U-value: 0.19 W/m2K 8 mm rough plaster (thin render coat felted smooth, painted with silicate paint NCS S 0500-N) 10 cm brick 10 cm polystyrene foam 10 cm brick (300 leda insulated masonry) 8 mm rough plaster (thin render coat felted smooth, painted with silicate paint NCS S 1000-N) U-value: 0.14 W/m2K 3 cm vegtech xeroflor moss-sedum 2.5 cm nophadrain 5 + 1 drainage sheet 25 cm extruded polystyrene vapour barrier 2 cm gradient insulation (topping slope 1 : 100) EPS-cement slope 1 : 100 11.5 cm double layer metal deck slab U-value: 0.19 W/m2K 6 cm screed (concrete topping, steel trowelled) 10 cm concrete mat slab incl. floor heating 20 cm polystyrene insulation 15 cm compressed gravel U-value: 1.2 W/m²K

Roof:

Floor to the earth:

Windows:

HEATING, VENTILATION AND HOT WATER Ventilation system with heat recovery Compact air-water-heat-pump installation with integrated ventilation, air extraction, air supply and heat recovery

Absolute min. °C Absolute max. °C

Temperatures

Minimum °C Maximum °C

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Flexibility and variety Choice of apartments Variety of use Conversion capacity 6SDWLDO ĠH[LELOLW\ RI WKH DSDUWPHQW 6SDWLDO ĠH[LELOLW\ RI WKH EXLOGLQJ Furnishability Comfort Natural light in the apartment Lighting of access areas Thermal comfort in summer Thermal comfort in winter Internal sound insulation and acoustic zoning Requirements for insulation from outside noise Healthy materials Controlled fresh air supply Security of the outdoor areas Security of the building Resource demands of the building Utilisation 6SDWLDO HIğFLHQF\ Revitalisation and redevelopment area Sustainable use of building materials Durability and dismantling Primary energy demands for mobility Energy demands for room temperature control Energy demands for electricity Proportion of renewable energy Generating water circulation Reducing water consumption Overall impact of buildings Environmental hazards of technology Environmental hazards building materials Waste sorting and composting Primary energy content of the construction

-5 -10 -15 -20 -25 -30

Process quality Systematic planning and user participation Assessment in the planning process Self-administration Personalisation Appropriateness and building tradition Addressing the user

COMPONENTS BUILDING SHELL External wall:

RATING LEVELS

Accessibility Public accessibility and thoroughfares Integration of transport routes and roads Car parking availability and accessibility 4XDOLW\ RI VWDWLRQDU\ WUDIğF Wheelchair accessibility

ENERGY PAR AMETERS A/V-ratio: Q h: Q p:

SUBJECT

Jan

Feb

March

April

14 Climate data for Landskrona

May

June

July

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Building-related costs in the life cycle ([WHUQDO FRVWV Cost of mobility Building and property costs Maintenance and upkeep costs Energy costs

177

RATING 1

178

7.8 FEHLMANN SITE

RECOVERED FEHLMANN SITE, BOB GYSIN + PARTNER BGP ARCHITEKTEN

Every intervention is a disruption; disrupt with intelligence. Luigi Snozzi

PARTIES CONCERNED Client: Architects: Engineer: Energy planner: Landscape design: Tree conservation: General contractor:

AXA Versicherungen AG Bob Gysin + Partner BGP Architekten ETH SIA BSA, Zurich Dr. J. Grob & Partner AG, Winterthur Gruenberg + Partner AG, Zurich vetschpartner Landschaftsarchitekten AG, Zurich Woodtli Baumpflege Ost AG, Märwil Implenia Generalunternehmung AG

PAR AMETERS Site: Geodata: Planning period: Construction period:

Use: Accommodation:

Users: Plot size: Floor space: Gross floor space: Main usable area: Energy reference area: Occupancy index: Floor space index: Gross capacity: Land use: Living space:

Building costs:

Winterthur, Switzerland 47°30‘0.72“N – 8°44‘12.69“E 1999 (competition) – 2006 2007 – 2008 1st + 2nd phase (5 buildings)/2009 – 2010 3rd phase (1 building), 4th phase to be completed 57 apartments, 10 of which condominiums 7 x 2.5-room apartments 20 x 3.5-room apartments 22 x 4.5-room apartments 8 x 5.5-room apartments approx. 140 residential users + 30 workspaces in the former villa 14,636 m2 3,945 m2 10,004 m2 7,163 m2 9,666 m2 0.27 0.68 32,150 m3 (without existing buildings) 99 m2 plot size/resident 28 m2 floor space/resident 51 m2 /resident – average Switzerland: 44,1 average Winterthur: 521,2 approx. 19,000,000 CHF (1st + 2nd phase) 3,095 CHF/m2 gross floor space (1st + 2nd phase) 4,330 CHF/m2 main usable area (1st + 2nd phase) 680 CHF/m3 gross capacity (1st + 2nd phase, incl. underground garage)

01 Site plan, scale 1 : 20,000

Living in a green environment is still a widespread ideal. A house of one’s own with a small garden, a safe place for the children to play, where one can escape from the hectic pace and noise of the city at the end of the working day and at weekends. The consequences are known and visible wherever one turns. The architecture critic Benedikt Loderer has said that the ‘Hüslipest’ (roughly the ‘compulsive desire for home ownership’) is to blame for urban sprawl in Switzerland,3 and few would contradict the statement. But the endless patchwork of row houses and single-family homes is not only spreading across the countryside and leisure areas near the city, but is also linked to a correspondingly steep increase in energy required for mobility, which cannot be halted with more energy-efficient houses and vehicles alone. The alternatives that are usually offered are not regarded as equal by a majority of people. Not everyone is enchanted by the idea of enjoying their evenings after a workday in densely developed inner-city districts, surrounded by trendy cafes, organic food shops and parking chaos, and to raise their children there – regardless of how many day care centres and playgrounds the area might offer. But central and quiet properties are rare and unaffordable for a large part of the population; development to a degree of density that preserves the sense of living in a green environment is therefore a challenge.

179

7.13 HOLZBOX

HOLZBOX YOUTH AND RECREATION CAMPS IN STYRIA, HOLZBOX TIROL

We are looking for the simple, not the banal. We love the ordinary, not the standard. We choose the singular but not the original. We are excited about what is now, not about what is fashionable. We value the imagined.

Karl Josef Schattner PARTICIPANTS Client:

Municipality of Passail, Naturfreunde (Wildalpen), Lebenshilfe (Oase Berta), sponsored by LEADER+ Project of the EU/Province of Styria Architects: Holzbox Tirol, Innsbruck Timber structure: Strobl Bau – Holzbau GmbH, Schachnerhaus, Zimmerei Kieninger, Haas Holzbau Building systems: Strobl Bau – Holzbau GmbH, Schachnerhaus, Zimmerei Kieninger Statics: Johann Riebenbauer, Graz Accessibility Consultant: Josef Hetzenauer Awarding body/sponsoring Province of Styria, Department of Regional Development, Spatial Planning, Rural and Community Development

PAR AMETERS (FÜRSTENFELD) Location:

Geodata: Panning period: Construction period: Users: Plot size: Floor space: Gross floor area: Residential floor area: Energy reference area: Occupancy index: Floor space index: Gross capacity: Land use: Living space: Building costs:

Passail, Wildalpen, Fürstenfeld, Bad Aussee, Niederalpl and Planneralm; all in Austria 47°16‘42. 98“N – 15°30‘23.10“E 2003 to 2008 per project approx. 4 months Between 24 and 58 beds 4,100 m2 (all in Fürstenfeld) 305 m2 305 m2 232 m2 288 m2 0.33 (incl. existing) 0.61 (incl. existing) 836 m3 136 m2 area/user 10 m2 plot size/user 5 to 7 m2 /user 1,550 €/m2 incl. furniture plus foundation 500 €/m3 with furniture 30 to 40 % sponsored by the Province of Styria

5 1

01 Site plan, scale 1 : 2 500

Architects have been concerned with modular construction methods for almost 100 years. Some of the most impressive designs of the 20th century, by architects such as Jean Prouvé, Le Corbusier, Buckminster Fuller, Konrad Wachsmann and Walter Gropius, thought it was the future of architecture. Nonetheless, it is still impossible to rationalise and industrialise architecture and the building industry beyond a certain, marginal level. There are still very few modular constructions or components, and building operations have remained largely unchanged for the last 100 years. Even now, the majority of buildings are constructed on site, manually, from small building components; they are permanent constructions with no possibility of separating the materials at a later date. Modern timber construction is an exception here. However, timber-building components, which are produced under optimum conditions in weather-protected factories and can be assembled on the construction site in a few days, have meanwhile become the rule rather than the exception. This is a superior method raises quality of craft, and thus reduces the time needed to construct the building, and is probably even less expensive. Modular building methods largely consist of individual components, which

237

04 Wildalpen, view from the river

BUILDING CONCEPT AND CONSTRUCTION The design brief called for a high level of flexibility, ecological construction methods, and accessibility for disabled people at a minimum cost. Holzbox responded with a thoroughly simple and direct execution. The ground plans are optimised to make maximum use of the surface area, and the modularity allows for a high level of flexibility in planning and use. The cost of construction is reduced to the absolute minimum: a rough and untreated building shell combined with brightly coloured installed elements with high-quality surfaces. The basis forms three spatial modules that are each 10 m deep and glazed on both narrow sides. The sidewalls, floor and roof are made from solid cross-laminated

05 Cross section, Passail, scale 1 : 250

timber boards. The module consists of an independent self-supporting element that can be linked horizontally to any desired length or stacked vertically up to three storeys high. The method of construction allows the module to adapt easily to any topographical or foundation situation. The side facade of the end module is insulated on the outside. They can be panelled with different rear-ventilated facade constructions: with untreated larchwood, high-pressure laminates (HPL), or solar collectors, such as in Bad Aussee. The exterior sides of the ceiling and floor are also insulated and panelled. All of the modules have the greatest possible proportion of similar components and are all based on the same

7.13 HOLZBOX

241

Standortqualität und Versorgung Ortszentrum Regionalzentrum Kindergärten und Grundschulen Weiterführende Schulen Hochschulen und Erwachesenenbildung Einrichtungen Sozialer Dienste Krankenhäuser und Ärztezentren Ärzte und Apotheken Spielplätze und Spielflächen Parkanlagen und Freiflächen Naherholungsflächen Angebot ÖPNV Alternative Verkehrskonzepte Anbindung PKW Fuß- und Fahrradwegerschließung Accessibilityänglichkeit

06 Plan groundfloor/upper floor, Passail, scale 1 : 600

basic concept: in the centre are a bathroom and washing facilities, plus a meeting area, around which the other uses are grouped. The sanitary facilities (consisting of showers, toilets and a washbasin), the construction of the furniture, the interior walls and the doors are identical in all modules. Each module has its own loggia and a covered entrance area. The smaller, supervisor module is 20 m 2 in size with interior dimensions of two metres, and has one bed that faces the loggia and is hidden from view. Near the entrance there is a smaller working area. The larger module with a surface area of 40 m 2 and an interior width of 4 m can accommodate six to eight beds, arranged either as bunk beds or twin beds on both narrow sides of the building. A kitchenette and small dining area with a table are located in the middle of the space. The ground plans were developed in collaboration with Josef Hetzenauer, an expert in accessibility construction. To use the relatively small amount of available space in the best way for wheelchairs, the bathroom and washing facilities were equipped with sliding doors, which allows wheelchair users to access the corridor areas. There are a number of specialised modules, based on the two above-mentioned basic modules, which apply the same construction principle. The ground plan and construction, to even the most minute details, have been designed to be as simple and as functional as possible: the flat roof is less expensive than a saddle roof and allows the boxes to be stacked. It also ensures that all modules are constructed in the same manner, regardless of where they are produced. The floor plan developed for the project makes the most efficient use of the surface area and minimises the costs for building operation and utilities. The arrangement of the windows on the narrow front end of the structures optimises lighting and ventilation, and simplifies the construction of the side facades and the longitudinal arrangement of the modules. The building shell construction allows each module to be designed individually, without changing the primary or secondary structures.

Wheelchair accessibility

Quality of space and design

Zoning within the apartment Privacy protection Visual references in outdoor spaces Private open space Relationship between indoor and outdoor areas Entrance and hallways in the apartment

Flexibility and variety

Spatial flexibility of the apartment Spatial flexibility of the building Furnishability

Resource demands of the building Spatial efficiency

The materials used in the project – rough-cut larch on the outside and planed larch and HPL boards on the inside – reduce maintenance costs and offer warm and durable surfaces that can be adapted to the needs of the users. The facades are constructed without roof projections, which creates an uninterrupted patina that shows the aging process without compromising the cubic form. The construction method is optimised more toward ensuring flexibility rather than keeping investment costs at a minimum. A standard timber frame structure is less expensive, but it would have made stacking or projecting the boxes more difficult. Building-related costs in the life cycle

Building and property costs Maintenance and upkeep costs

274

7.16 SUMMARY

SUBJECT

DAS DREIECK 1

MINIMUM IMPACT HOUSE 4

SUNLIGHTHOUSE 1

QUINTA MONROY 4

Location quality and availabe facilities City centre Regional centre Childcare and elementary schools Secondary schools Colleges and adult education Social services facilities Hospitals and medical centres Doctors and pharmacies Playgrounds and play areas Parks and open spaces Recreational areas Public transport availability Alternative transport concepts Car accessibility Footpaths and bicycle paths Accessibility Public accessibility and thoroughfares Integration of transport routes and roads Car parking availability and accessibility Quality of stationary traffic Wheelchair accessibility Process quality Systematic planning and user participation Assessment in the planning process Self-administration Personalisation Appropriateness and building tradition Addressing the user Quality of space and design Integration into the environment Communal facilities Communal outdoor spaces Different degrees of publicness Design of the building’s entrance areas Zoning within the apartment Privacy protection Visual references in outdoor spaces Private open space Relationship between indoor and outdoor areas Entrance and hallways in the apartment Functional Quality Media connections Quality of building systems Equipment quality of sanitary facilities Private storage rooms Utility space Communal storage spaces Flexibility and variety Choice of apartments Variety of use Conversion capacity Spatial flexibility of the apartment Spatial flexibility of the building Furnishability Comfort Natural light in the apartment Lighting of access areas Thermal comfort in summer Thermal comfort in winter Internal sound insulation and acoustic zoning Requirements for insulation from outside noise Healthy materials Controlled fresh air supply Security of the outdoor areas Security of the building Resource demands of the building Utilisation Spatial efficiency Revitalisation and redevelopment area Sustainable use of building materials Durability and dismantling Primary energy demands for mobility Energy demands for room temperature control Energy demands for electricity Proportion of renewable energy Generating water circulation Reducing water consumption Overall impact of buildings Environmental hazards of technology Environmental hazards building materials Waste sorting and composting Primary energy content of the construction Building-related costs in the life cycle External costs Cost of mobility Building and property costs Maintenance and upkeep costs Energy costs Target Values Site Users Plot size Floor space Gross floor space Residential floor area Main usable area/gross floor space Occupancy Index Floor space Index Land use Plot size/resident Floor space/resident Living space/resident Building costs/m2 GFS Building costs /m2 MUA Building costs/m3 GC A/V-ratio Qh Qp Qp/resident

Zürich, Switzerland appr. 130 res. and 60 work spaces 3,562 m2 appr. 1,970 m2 – appr. 4,714 m2 – 0.55 2.5 – 24 m2 ca. 13 m2 36 m2 1,070,000 €/m² 1,311 €/m² 2,321 €/m³ – 129 kWh/m2a 162 kWh/m2a 5,832 kWh/a

Frankfurt am Main, Germany 2+4 AP on 1st and 2nd floor 92.23 m2 29.2 m2 203.1 m2 85.0 m2 (without 1st and 2nd floor) 0.76 0.31 1.66 – 30.75 m2 9.73 m2 42.5 m2 1,305 €/m² 1,721 €/m² 398 €/m² 0.59 13.9 kWh/m2a 12.1 kWh/m2a 514.3 kWh/a

Pressbaum near Vienna, Austria 4 Residents (estimated) 1,292 m2 122 m2 332 m2 150,4 + 42,7 m2 (basement) 0.58 0.09 0.26 – 323 m2 31 m2 48 m2 2,021 €/m² 3,477 €/m² 753 €/m² 0.77 23.0 kWh/m2a 25.3 (-24.2 incl. PV) kWh/m2a 1,714 (-1,639 incl. PV) kWh/a

Iquique, Chile appr. 450 residents 5,025 m2 appr. 1,650*/3,200** m2 – 3,500*/6,700** m2 – 0.3*/0.6** 0.7*/1.3 – 11.5 m2 7 m2 15 m2 – 200 US$/m2 incl.plot – – no permanently installed heating system * Undeveloped state (2004) ** Developed completed state

7.16 SUMMARY SUBJECT

ECOHOTEL IN THE ORCHARD 1

TOWNHOUSE LANDSKRONA

WALL HOUSE 1

275

FEHLMANN SITE 1

Hohenbercha, Germany 42 (21 rooms) 6,000 m2 (estimated) 408 m2 868 m2 461 m2 0.56 0.235 0.59 – 64.3 m2 19.4 m2 10.5 m2 1,311 €/m² 2,321 €/m³ 359 €/m² 0.66 55 kWh/m2a 33.75 kWh/m2a 1,296 kWh/a

Lampa (Santiago de Chile), Chile 2 Residents 5,758 m2 149 m2 230.84 m2 189 m2 0.82 0.025 0.04 – 2.879 m2 74 m2 94 m2 434 €/m² 529 €/m² – – Oven fired with wood scraps appr. 3 kWh/m2 (estimated) 945 kWh/a

Landskrona, Sweden 2 residents 110 m2 (incl. path) 59 m2 125 m2, 136 m2 (with addition) 93 m2 0.744 0.54 1.42 – 55 m2 62.5 m2 29 m2 2,240 €/m² 3,010 €/m² 680 €/m² 0.61/0.91 (with addition) 47 kWh/m2a 152.75 kWh/m2a 1 757.7 kWh/a

Winterthur, Switzerland 140 resident + 30 AP 1,4636 m2 3,945 m2 10,004 m2 7,163 m2 0.71 0.27 0.68 – 99 m2 28 m2 51 m2 3,095 CHF/m² (1st+2nd phase) 4,330 CHF/m² (1st+2nd phase) 680 CHF/m² (1st+2nd phase) 0.29 – 0.43 33 – 42 kWh/m2a 31 – 40 kWh/m2a 2,416 kWh/a