18
INDUSTRY VIEWFINDER
Which construction methods & design approaches do you prefer for Passivhaus projects?
fi nding had far fewer votes in 2025 (those agreeing totalled only 47%), suggesting that as Passivhaus develops and becomes more widespread, the role of the architect is not as prominent as many may have hoped, possibly driven by the critical need to control costs in the current climate. We also sought to give credence to the positive assertion that clients were more accepting of the changes to buildings’ appearance resulting from Passivhaus, as the building approach became more common. Unfortunately, this result had moved in the wrong direction, with a strong fi nding of 82% agreeing in 2021 being moderated to something much more mediocre in 2025 – only 33% said that their clients were readily accepting the changes required. In 2021 the key result was ‘generally much more uncompromising design rules’ (corroborated by half of respondents). This rigidity of the Passivhaus regime was however less challenging in 2025, although still retaining the number one spot, for 38% of respondents. Secondly, ‘boxy appearance’ was tied with ‘challenges of MVHR maintenance,’ at 36%, although again these were lower than in 2021 as designers had become more accustomed to Passivhaus, with 42% and 37% respectively. For this year’s group, ‘differently positioned/smaller windows’ saw a jump of 11% from 2021 as a persistent stigma for clients. A key verbatim comment recorded from one respondent around
client’s perceptions, beyond the extra cost required, was that there was an “underappreciation of the comfort benefi ts” offered by Passivhaus. Other revealing comments included a perception among clients that “design is focused on reducing heating consumption with little attention given to wellbeing and overheating,” and that “it costs too much and is stuffy,” and the idea that “the occupier is not in control.” With the advent of the 2025 Future Homes Standard (FHS) requiring an uplift in new homes’ energy effi ciency – albeit arguably in the event requiring less improvement in the Standard’s
WWW.ARCHITECTSDATAFILE.CO.UK
consultation iteration than had been anticipated, we asked architects whether they thought that there was room for both the FHS and Passivhaus in UK construction. This was partly due to views having been expressed in the industry as to whether the FHS could render Passivhaus redundant, but our 2021 contingent was largely favourable to the idea of both standards being in effect, and used – overall 90% agreed there was a place in the market for both standards. However, a further 38% believed that the FHS “will make Passivhaus obsolete.” Come the 2025 survey, which was compiled several months after the launch of the 2023 consultation on FHS (which revealed modest targets and no increase on U-value requirements on the previous Building Regulations), opinions were somewhat more muted. 90% still believed there was a place for both standards, and only 10% said they still thought the new FHS would make Passivhaus redundant, arguably a negligible result.
Contractor challenges According to our respondents, was using Passivhaus for designing and certifying projects becoming more popular in the UK among architects, clients & contractors over the past few years. Generally speaking, and speaking as architects, they believed their profession was likely to be more amenable and keen to engage in Passivhaus (62%), contrasting with only 19% saying that Passivhaus was not becoming more popular among architects. Unfortunately, the news was not so good with contractors (at least from our architect respondents’ standpoint), with a meagre 22% saying Passivhaus had grown in popularity as an option, whereas a decisive 42% said it had not. In terms of clients, it was more balanced, with 40% saying that clients were becoming more favourable to the idea of investing in Passivhaus. The above fi ndings on popularity growing among architects suggests that the various design challenges involved were not
ADF MARCH 2025
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
