Environmentally Aware Architecture?

it could be asked just how environmentally aware is the profession in general? A recent article in a mainstream self-build magazine gave five architects the opportunity to respond to a brief which concentrated on environmental concerns. Unfortunately, the resulting designs showed a general lack of environmental awareness, although this was glossed over by the editorial in the magazine almost to the point of ignoring the original requirements.

The brief came from Roger and Jeanette Redman who responded to the magazine’s ‘Dreamhome Challenge’ where readers send in their requirements and five architects come up with outline concepts. The Redmans purchased a superb ten acre plot in Somerset, comprising grassy fields gently sloping to the south. They have the nod from the local planners that there should be no major constraints to replacing the existing property on the site with a modern, eco-friendly, chalet bungalow. The specific requirements of the brief were for a ‘Passive House’ with no conventional central heating, also with importance given to the magnificent southward views from the site. The Redmans didn’t want an open plan design, but would allow double doors between certain rooms. As well as the usual rooms, a large sun lounge was required for solar gain, and there should be four bedrooms, two of which were to be en-suite. The expected design would be quite large at around 280 m2, and a budget of £135 000 was given.

First impressions of the resulting designs show that all but one of the architects had trouble with simple size and cost restraints, with floor areas up to 334 m2 and build costs as high as £200 000. The architects also seemed to have misread the brief, assuming that the Redmans merely wanted to pay lip-service to energy efficiency in an attempt to save on heating bills, instead of requiring it as the main design constraint. One of the major failings that many of the architects fell into was having a large sun room or conservatory space contiguous with other rooms such as lounge, dining room or kitchen. Without very careful consideration and ventilating this could lead to overheating in summer and could be a major cause of heat loss at night and in winter, leading to a need for extra heating. Another common error was unbuffered doors to the exterior, with front and back doors opening straight into a sun lounge or extensive entrance hall. You would think the requirement for some sort of closed off entrance lobby would be fairly obvious for an eco-house, but maybe not to everyone!

Two of the architects made very poor use of desirability of an east/west layout, which would be necessary to maximise solar gain. One house was very definitely on a north/south axis, and the architect in this case also incorporated a large expanse of sloping glass in the roof of the main bedroom, in his words “to add a little drama to the design – it will wreck the u-values I’m afraid!”. So, drama is more important than u-values! Another design had two bedrooms lit only by north facing Velux windows, too high for a view, and facing the wrong way for solar gain. The same dwelling had a kitchen sink facing a blank wall instead of the magnificent views. One concept was described as “over-fussy, with lots of the twiddly bits that architects seem to love – expensive to build and thermally very poor”. The house would have a very large wall to floor area ratio and the kitchen and family room would seasonally freeze or boil due to being integral with a massive wrap-around conservatory. The same house had huge wrap-around windows on the north facing bedrooms, presumably to make the design work aesthetically.

The Redmans had meanwhile decided to research and design their own house, without using an architect. They told the magazine that they preferred their own design to any of the architects concepts. The Redmans design is much simpler, outside doors are buffered by sensible entrance lobbies, north facing windows are small, and there is at least 180 mm of insulation in the extra wide wall cavity. Not only did the magazine neglect to mention their design, but they significantly modified the Redmans comments about the architects concepts in order to play down the criticisms, thus virtually ignoring the original brief.

Is it the case that these architects are generally unaware of how to tackle this kind of brief, or is it that general ‘design’ issues are viewed by them as so paramount that everything else, including the environment and energy efficiency, must play second fiddle to how a building looks? After all, we can always turn up the heating if we don’t get the u-values right! It would be nice to think that the architects concerned, if they had been working directly for the client instead of a magazine, would have been able to do greater justice to the passive solar requirements. If not, then we are in for a long haul before environmental concerns work their way into mainstream bulk housing, which is where the main energy savings need to be made. Perhaps we need to work on the universities where architects are taught their design skills, hoping that there will be a younger generation of architects who, like our membership, will be able to allow environmental considerations to guide the design of a building.