Robust Architecture

The energy transition today can only succeed with some measure of technology. The dependencies that Ivan Illich presented are therefore unavoidable. Central to his thoughts on Energy and Equity [1], however, is the reduction of the per-capita energy allotment to a level that does not exceed the amount critical to societal wellbeing. Low-tech design and robust architecture, as elucidated by this publication, take up this question. The hope that technology represents the sole solution for the climate crisis, on the other hand, relegates the responsibility to future generations.

What are responsibility and equity in construction? And does the issue not go beyond this, requiring a limitation to more modest means, a reversion to local building traditions and the potentials of simplicity?

Take a centuries-old farmhouse in the Alps, built according to the artisanal tradition of solid timber from the surrounding forest. It is situated so that the location allows for an orientation optimised against weather influences and capable of withstanding other adverse conditions (e.g. the danger of winter avalanches) as much as possible. The ground plan concept varies with size, but as a rule boils down to what is necessary to accommodate a residence and livestock under one roof, so that in winter the living spaces adjacent to the livestock pens can benefit from the animals’ body heat. The kitchen and its hearth are positioned so that appropriate ventilation flaps can be used to heat other living spaces next to or above it. Long-lasting wood protection is provided by appropriate constructive means, such as large roof overhangs. This is obviously simple, yet functional, aesthetic, intrinsically valuable and extremely efficient in multiple respects.

But the farmhouse is not the only building that works like this. Observations of old stone houses in Wales and Tuscany as well as clay buildings in East Asia and Africa yield similar insights. Built with craftsmanlike precision, using whatever was locally available, these houses are geared toward actual requirements and optimised for relevant weather conditions. For this reason, a lot of these houses are still around, and have stood the test of time remarkably well in many respects.

Nowadays, placing even a single opening into a building envelope in accordance with standards has become a science. Aside from a knowledge of diverse rules and regulations, it generally requires specialised technical literature offering pages-long guidance. Last but not least, the users need voluminous handbooks to operate the buildings in compliance with the rules. This seems absurd, but is in many regards a feature of contemporary practice – all around the world, in fact. Thanks to globalisation, industrialisation and rationalisation of building production, traditional building culture and its associated knowledge and crafts- manship have gradually been lost. The separation of ground plan and facade and the detachment from locally anchored and traditional building methods have led to a building method that is supposedly egalitarian. The use of “smart technology” in the building sector has removed the effort to produce heat and fresh air from human activity. At the same time, demand for comfort and expectations of year-round uniform comfort levels have risen, while the willingness to work with natural seasonal or weather-related temperature fluctuations and cycles has fallen. Conversely, increasing sensory overload and the accelerating pace of living have led to a growing desire for sensory experiences and resonance [2]. We want experiences such as a fire in a log burner that slowly warms a room. As glass high-rises in desert regions, specialised high-tech facades in salt-laden sea air and oversized villas in the sprawling developments outside metropolitan centres arise, gobbling fossil fuels for air conditioning, paving over large tracts of land and leading to exploding maintenance costs, the question to ask is whether this building approach is really sensible in the long term. How is it possible that all the energy-saving measures implemented over the last few decades have led to the consumption of ever more energy? And in these days of climate and energy crises, is it not high time to return to locally adapted and needoriented building methods in order to arrive, if possible, at a new, robust architecture? An architecture that meets today’s requirements and demands for comfort, but that once again guarantees long-lived, intrinsically valuable buildings – or better yet: restores the value of existing buildings – by taking into account simple low-tech parameters. Resilient buildings of natural materials that do not end up in hazardous waste landfills at the end of their service life, but whose components are rather reused or allocated to biological material loops. That would be wonderful!

The basic reflections and the idea for this publication were created during a study sponsored by the research programme “Stadt der Zukunft” (City of the Future) by the Austrian Federal Ministry for Climate Action, Environment, Energy, Mobility, Innovation and Technology (BMK). The editor thanks the sponsor for its support and the publisher for the chance to realise this project as well as for the excellent collaboration during its creation.

Low-tech design is intended to pull the value of natural building materials and buildings, a high regard for craftsmanship and a conscious appreciation of nature and our ecosystem more solidly into focus. With this in mind, we have gone in search of reliable criteria, scrutinised design processes and found exemplary projects that show that this method of building is not only possible, but actually even relatively simple. Low-tech construction can be much more than – as is commonly assumed – just foregoing automatic ventilation. However, the examples also illustrate that, in view of existing norms, standards and funding guidelines, low-tech buildings are possible only after a careful assessment by the clients of the costs and risks involved. The only way to exit from the spiral of energy dependence is via a sweeping paradigm shift. We need robust architecture that lasts a long time, consumes few resources and is needoriented and resilient. We need it so that the building sector will soon no longer be responsible for immense energy consumption and waste removal costs. We need it so that, from an architectural perspective, we can look forward to a positive future.

About 4,000 used timber window frames from all EU countries form the approx. 3,000 m2 area of the glass facades on the administrative headquarters of the Council of the European Union in Brussels (BE) 2015, Philippe Samyn & Partners with Studio Valle and BuroHappold

1

Direct solar-gain zeroenergy houses, Trin (CH) 1994, Andrea Rüedi. The solar buildings in Trin are considered pioneering structures in solar architecture. They cover all heating requirements through incident solar radiation and passive thermal storage. Largescale glazing of the south facade, a directly sun-exposed floor of polished and darkcoloured concrete as well as indirectly heated solid walls and ceilings of limestone make houses without conventional heating possible. things is seen as responsible for the rise in allergies [4].

Increasingly, planners and architects are tending toward a stronger reduction of “technology”, instead favouring low-tech design over highly complex, automationand technology-dependent building concepts.

Eco tech, low tech, high tech

In the 1970s, as a reaction to the oil crisis of that era, the first reform movements toward an environmentally oriented low-tech architecture were created. Their goal was to present an ecologically sound alternative to the expansive and increasingly industrially oriented building industry. The countertrend was expressed primarily in the form of do-it-yourself initiatives in residential construction, based on environmental building methods using natural materials. This first “energy crisis” also brought the issue of forward-looking concepts for energy supply into the consciousness of broad swaths of the population. The first attempts to experiment with thermal collectors in self-build groups eventually resulted in a broad and extremely successful DIY initiative for solar collectors. While the potential of passive solar-energy utilisation was recognised quite early in architectural circles, the first step toward solar technology was taken with the implementation of solar collectors. Since then, the development of “eco or green technology” has progressed by leaps and bounds. In pursuit of maximum energy efficiency, passive-house building concepts were developed in which heat loss is significantly reduced thanks to a completely airtight building envelope. The building functions using automated ventilation but no conventional heating. The energy response of a building due to climatic conditions, its structural form or its usage can now be determined very precisely through building simulations. Meanwhile, owing to advances in energy efficiency technologies, even positive-balance plus-energy buildings are now possible.

Energy-saving construction

In the early 1990s, climate engineering and new computer simulation options were linked with a revolutionary change in building design: “With the aid of computer simulations, we are in a position to adapt buildings to natural energy flows. New concepts of passive modulation can be developed. The implementation of novel technologies during the design can make technology in the finished building largely unnecessary. Intelligent design makes the building itself into a climate device: Rooms become ventilation channels, windows and doors become valves, ceilings turn into light reflectors and facades into heaters.” [5]

Developments of recent years, however, have pointed in a different direction. Today, technology largely makes up for caprice in design. A comfortable interior climate, lighting and heated spaces can be produced anywhere, regardless of the surrounding conditions and outdoor climate. The prevailing question is not one of feasibility, but rather of cost and the affordability of comfort.

READ = Renewable Energies in Architecture and Design. The text was developed by Thomas Herzog in 1994/95 within the framework of a READ Project of the European Commission DG XII, and the wording was discussed and agreed upon in collaboration with leading European architects.

2 a—b Autonomous energy residence, Maladers (CH) 2011, Matthias Stöckli Architektur. Building upon the first experimental solar houses by Andrea Rüedi in Trin, numerous successor structures were created that furthered the development of autonomous energy construction and solar architecture. The building concept relies on direct solar gain with thermal storage in floors, walls and ceilings and natural thermal lift. A photovoltaic array on the south side delivers electricity; cooking is done with wood only in winter, otherwise with solar electricity.

But the initial approaches to energy-efficient building in the early 1990s were based strongly on building concepts optimised for the passive use of solar energy or environmental cycles without the implementation of technology. The preamble of the “European Charter for Solar Energy in Architecture and Urban Planning”, adopted by the READ (Renewable Energies in Architecture and Design) Group in 1996, reads: “Roughly half of the energy consumed in Europe is used to run buildings. A further 25 % is accounted for by traffic. Large quantities of non-renewable fossil fuel are used to generate this energy, fuel that will not be available to future generations. The processes involved in the conversion of fuel into energy also have a lasting negative effect on the environment through the emissions they cause. In addition to this, unscrupulous, intensive cultivation, a destructive exploitation of raw materials, and a worldwide reduction in the areas of land devoted to agriculture are leading to a progressive diminution of natural habitats. This situation calls for a rapid and fundamental reorientation in our thinking, particularly on the part of planners and institutions involved in the process of construction. The form of our future built environment must be based on a responsible approach to nature and the use of the inexhaustible energy potential of the sun. The role of architecture as a responsible profession is of far-reaching significance in this respect. Architects must exert a far more decisive influence on the conception and layout of urban structures and buildings, on the use of materials and construction components, and thus on the use of energy, than they have in the past. The aim of our work in the future must, therefore, be to design buildings and urban spaces in such a way that natural resources will be conserved and renewable forms of energy – especially solar energy – will be used as extensively as possible, thus avoiding many of these undesirable developments.” [6]

Energy-saving building concepts of the 1990s were characterised by their ambition to make optimal use of the sun as an energy source and to establish a “solar architecture”. In this context, the direct solar-gain houses in Trin and subsequent buildings are considered pioneers of solar architecture (Figs. 1 and 2). By now, the implementation of components for the utilisation of solar energy is an inherent partt of every design. However, the focus has noticeably shifted from an architecture and design oriented toward solar gains to the solar technology itself. That is to say that building concepts are usually reduced to “making room” for technical components for the use of solar energy, solar collectors and PV panels.