Sustainability in a post-Covid world

Architects often talk about retrofitting and improving existing buildings, but, asks Anthony Cooper, are we applying our efforts wisely, or do we need to think bigger?

By way of introduction, I design carbon-positive homes for clients (where carbon is stored in the materials used for construction). I work primarily for well-off clients who are often less interested in a low-carbon environment and tend to look to offsite manufacture for quality and assurance of price. That said, I have always maintained a keen interest in retrofitting existing houses. I occasionally dabble in the ‘additions and alterations’ market and I am certainly not divorced from its consequences.

Central to my thought process is that we are not going to retrofit houses without government incentives: the lower down the economic ladder you are, the more likely it is that your home was poorly designed or constructed; compounded by the fact that this applies equally to new-build houses. Typical retrofits are essentially perverse, offering up short-term solutions that can often do more harm than good.

I once asked Grand Designs’ Kevin McCloud what he’d suggest when it came to retrofitting old housing stock. He replied without blinking, ‘Curtains. Heavy curtains.’ Although he had offered a succinct answer and one that was refreshingly simple, it seemed to over-simplify the problem.

Schemes to upgrade housing stock are typically aimed at the elderly or economically deprived. Looking at the socio-economic standing of people may well be a good place to start but retrofitting needs to encompass everyone.

One thing is for certain, we are not going to control nor change the minds of those who want their radiators turned up to tropical, or those who scoff at people who do. We live in a time of opposites and pointing fingers at one another will only polarise society even more. Just think of Brexit or the current 2020 US presidential elections.

“We should ensure our energy systems and devices are ‘plug and play’

And what about the role of the architect in this debate? We always look to upgrade the envelope of the home or add technology as an intelligent solution. These are, if done correctly, fantastic ways to upgrade our building stock. That said, this affects only a very small percentage of properties and is relatively meaningless when looking at climate change as a whole.

Part of the problem

When you see the word retrofit, I challenge you to look at it in terms of infrastructure. What we can do now and what will be possible in the future. We are already in a state of flux when it comes to climate change, and we can exploit the already world-changing Covid-19 pandemic to help refocus the national debate on a bold solution, one we can all get behind: legislation, not grants and incentivised schemes.

We, as architects, need to accept that we are part of the problem. We wrap clients’ homes in airtight polymer shells, and enable the installation of the cheapest heating and ventilation systems because of cost-engineering or budgetary constraints and then wash our hands of the issue. We’ve had too many years of badly designed retrofits and new-builds creating unhealthy working and living conditions and the health of the occupants is not often considered an essential part of the solution.

We can't export our way out of this, either financially or morally

We need to be humble and to listen and learn: we are not ideally placed to lead. Although we think we can put our hands to everything, there are others out there who are better placed than us to offer practical solutions in this debate.

Positive start

Cheap energy may well be the way to achieve this over time. Cheap, clean energy – and efficient ways to store it. We are on course for a number of energy problems, including a shortage of electricity for all those ‘green’ cars. And what about the unhealthy materials found in the manufacture of the energy and devices, never mind their disposal? We can’t export our way out of this, either financially or morally. Shortterm ‘green’ solutions are sweeping the carbon problem under the proverbial carpet. The electric car is, initially at least, making things worse, not better.

We can look to other counties like Germany who have, for more than a decade, mixed hydrogen into their gas supplies as a short-term ‘green gas’ solution while looking at the potential for hydrogen-only solutions in the future. This is not the sole answer obviously, but it tackles the problem head on in terms of emissions, and uses existing infrastructure to do so. It is a positive start.

As with all low-carbon, carbon-neutral and carbon-positive ideals we should look to lifecycles, recyclability and cradle-to-cradle solutions, too. When it comes to technology on the microscale, we should ensure that our energy systems and devices are ‘plug and play’.

These plug-in elements could be solar panels, heat-pumps or batteries, for example. Current components can then be swapped out in future years for better, more efficient solutions.

Lobby parliament

Governments should only allow architects to specify – and occupants to utilise – solutions that can be recycled, upcycled or reused; or even returned to the environment. A Baufritz house, for instance, offers an excellent quality compost. Yes, our houses can be composted at the end of their lives. Our insulation, for example, is cradle-tocradle certified.

The current government’s £5,000 scheme for insulation and technology upgrades is an interesting start in our Covid-19 world as it does not look at your income or your age in order to access it. It is not, however, without its flaws. Like all schemes of this type, those who most need it are the least likely to access it and will be most exposed to fraudulent schemes and exploitation.

The solution, I would propose, lies in creating a scheme that is automatically accessed by all: one that circumvents the issue of socioeconomic standing or age as a barrier to accessing the scheme.

Architects, this is where we can be most effective now: by lobbying our government in a fair and responsible manner through the RIBA and other similar bodies. This is where we can make a difference. As our energy becomes greener, ultimately, we cannot ‘waste’ it. Its production is carbon neutral and it can be stored efficiently. It positively affects every home and building, not just those who can afford it. We can achieve this by upgrading and retrofitting the National Grid, not the individual home.

Then, and only then, can we have a true debate about retrofitting in the architectural sense. One that is not about sustainability alone. The retrofitting debate then becomes about making our homes healthy, and not about how much energy they waste. This is where we can make an actual difference. And we, as architects, can refocus and start this revolution now.

Anthony Cooper is Design Director for The House Designers, the inhouse architects for Baufritz (UK). He studied architecture at the University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa, and has been working as an architect in Cambridge since 2000.