OPINION
DATA AND JUMPERS CAN HELP SAVE PLANET
The word ‘sustainability’ should be banned from descriptions of any building until post-occupancy data backs up the architect’s eco-claims, says Peter Williams
As an architect, there are times when I fi nd it very diffi cult to
read the architectural press without laughing, crying or shouting. What triggers the emotional rollercoaster is usually the outlandish claims about designs in terms of sustainability. Whether our buildings wear the BREEAM badge of greatness, or the green-roofed hat of biodiversity, or even a simple necklace of sparkly PVs, they are all now indisputably sustainable. How do we know this? Mainly because the architects tell us they are and the journalists report this as fact. Perhaps we should agree to ban the
word ‘sustainability’ in connection with any unbuilt scheme and focus on the targets set. Until a building has been through at least two years’ of seasonal change and the energy use patterns are established, we cannot report with any accuracy whether it is working properly. Without this information the claims of consultants are simply PR. Despite the good work of the soft landings initiative (
www.bsria.co.uk/ services/design/soft-landings) sadly, some construction professionals still do not consider what happens to the building once it’s been handed over as an important issue, and they swiftly move onto the next project. Perhaps this is because there is
very rarely time to think in practice these days, as fees become tighter and allocated project hours more limited. Perhaps it is not stressed enough during architectural education, or perhaps (most worryingly) it is simply not high enough on our list of project priorities. In my role as director of Professional
Practice for The University of Cambridge, I recently asked Bill Bordass to come and give a seminar on post-occupancy surveys to our Part 3 students. At the end of the seminar, Bill said: ‘I think about 50% of them understood what I was on about.’ Given what the industry is setting
20 CIBSE Journal December 2012
Sadly, some construction professionals still do not consider what
happens to the building once it’s been handed over
out to achieve, it is inconceivable that architecture students can complete fi ve years of study and still not understand the importance of the issue. Having been involved in post- occupancy surveys on previous projects, the benefi ts are considerable in terms of valuable lessons learned, from complex building management system (BMS) issues through to simple items of user occupation and use. Given the value, do we undertake enough? Should each completed scheme be obliged, through regulation, to undertake one? Should clients demand them as part of a complete professional service? I certainly feel that full knowledge of a building’s actual energy use – no matter how frightening to the consultant team – will, fi rstly, prevent us all from claiming too much credit during the design stages and, secondly, will focus our efforts on the areas that really matter: how to ensure our buildings perform to the agreed design criteria and energy use. Generally, the clients spoil things by insisting on moving into the buildings, ruining not only our architectural photographs but also putting all the lights on and playing with the heating controls, appearing unable to control the occupants. However, I do appreciate how hard it is to deal with
the expectations of building users. In my own home, even during November, it appears acceptable behaviour – not by me, I might add – to wear minimal clothing and simply turn the heating up to compensate for any exposed skin on show. The intellectual arguments that follow do not always favour the building owner (me), despite the threats to the users over their responsibility for melting ice caps. This behaviour does seem outlandish
and ridiculous, but it does not seem so bad when I think of all the sustainability conferences I have attended where the air conditioning has been so cold I have had to keep at least three layers of clothing on. Perhaps our fi rst major step towards energy use should be a major rethink of acceptable clothing that adapts to the prevailing weather conditions. Maybe the response to a client who asks for a radical approach to low energy design should be a discussion about allowing staff to wear shorts and t-shirts when the weather heats up and a fl eece when it cools down? As a result of the behaviour of my
own building users (agreed: it is harsh to think of daughters in this way) I do understand how hard it is to reduce energy use, but I have decided to adopt that great anthem to reducing gas and electricity use in the home, Michael Jackson’s Man in the Mirror: ‘I’m starting with the Man in the Mirror, I’m asking him to change his ways, and no message could have been any clearer, if you want to make the world a better place take a look at yourself, then make a change.’ So, jumpers when it’s cold. And no vests between April and October – a good rule for clients everywhere.
● PETER WILLIAMS is a director with Moses Cameron Williams Architects and is director of Professional Practice at the University of Cambridge. The views expressed above are his personal views and do not represent the aforementioned organisations
www.cibsejournal.com
SHUTTERSTOCK / LARYSA SNIGIREVA
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68