Passivhaus appears to be the word of 2009 so far in green design terms. It’s moved from the pages of Building, Building Sustainable Design and BD to the voices of influence amongst the chattering classes – Channel 4 building porn show Grand Designs and the Observer architectural guru Stephen Bayley. The former offered an example of Passiv (do you spell it with or without the e?) principles at work at a new house in Kent, while Bayley picked Passiv as a future design trend – this was at one extreme, while at the other you had futuristic, credit-busting moving towers in Dubai.
Grand Designs offered what TV often does – lovely visuals, some strong narrative but lacking in the required detail. A classic instance of this was when Kevin McLeod was explaining passive principles by use of a cardboard box and some silver paper – just as he was getting into his stride there was a crash from the building site. Part of the arch that was a feature of the house had collapsed. Clearly this drama took precedence over design theory. And as the thread of comments on the website points out there was a lack of clarity on how the couple were generating energy on the scheme.
Bayley sums up the opportunity that passive offers, but raises the main problems with it: can we deliver the standard and will anyone want them? Both are considerable hurdles: the first supposes a “a quality of detailing hitherto unknown to our native builders” as Bayley put it. The second has been raised for some time, and was voiced by my parents-in-law whilst I was watching the programme at the weekend. There were fundamental misgivings about controlling the air supply of the interior of the house. Casey at Carbon Limited summed up this issues well in a post last week.
In a strange way you wonder whether passive could actually work better in more controlled environments, such as offices. In a great study in the first edition of Building Sustainable Design King Shaw Associates founder Doug King offers a primer on passive design and points a way forward for how passive can be incorporated into major projects. For this he introduces the ideas of having passive and active zones within buildings – he describes these much better than I ever could. The result is inner core parts of the building such as storage, circulation requiring artificial lighting and ventilation but the passive parts not. This he argues would result in a 33% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions and would be a “genuinely sustainable design”. This may be an indication that Passivhaus principles may well not be a flash in the pan once the gloss of Grand Designs and national coverage begins to dull.
Related posts:
- Grand Designs craziness ...
- The wisdom of Bill Bordass ...
- Collaborative thinking, but when? Eco-friendly food and restaurants. Hydrogen cars. Bikes sharing schemes in...
- Carbon neutral software ...
- Open House does its bit ...
on Feb 23rd, 2009 at 11:55 am
In evaluating insulation continuity on refurbishment and new build residential properties I am regularly finding the installation bears no resemblance to the detail – many of these projects are alleged ‘eco makeovers’. If Passiv does become a significant trend, building control will need to improve immeasurably, or condensation and mould will be common.
on Feb 23rd, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Exchange passiv with passive and you get a longer list of internal and external specifications, exchange both of them for common sense and you get what you need!
on Feb 25th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Unfortunately, Passivhaus is only an energy-related standard and the issues of waste and water deserve equal prominence. I do like the Passivhaus approach, especially the measurement of kWh rather than carbon, but we musn’t overlook the other important factors in achieving sustainable development.
on Apr 2nd, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Great post! I’ve been trying to push passive houses here in California, and have definitely run into the two issues you mention: level of detailing – it’s just hard to build these things! and how they look. Actually, I think in the States there’s a third thing, which is the name is not great – too much confusion with the old “passive solar” movement, the term “passive” just sounds lazy, and “house” isn’t accurate, because it applies to non-house buildings.
So part of my brief that I’ve assigned myself – to address the second problem – is to work with California architects and builders to come up with “vernacular” versions of PH’s – like a passive ranch house, or a passive Craftsman cottage – that will be familiar and appealing to Californians.
Will you be in Frankfurt at the Passive House conference? If so, let’s make sure to meet up.
Nils
on Apr 6th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Nils,
Many thanks for the respone and great to discover that the movement is spreading. I would suggest your best bet would be to get in contact with an expert in the field, Henrietta Lynch. She has written three article on the issue here including this one http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=453&storycode=3130710. I’d be happy to forward her details to you. I’m pretty sure she’s going to the Frankfurt event. Unfortunately I don’t think I’ll be making it this time.
Phil
on Apr 28th, 2009 at 2:41 am
Hi Nils, I’m currently doing a thesis related to a new ’sustainable vernacular’ for Australia. I would be interested to hear of your knowledge and experience in adapting the Passivhaus to a Californian ‘vernacular’. Certainly, the ‘Californian bungalow’ as it is known in Australia is a recognisable building style from the 1920s-30s that may well be compatible with passivhaus
on Aug 30th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
[...] Passiv(e) thinking | Zerochampion zerochampion.building.co.uk/2009/02/23/passive-thinking – view page – cached Passivhaus appears to be the word of 2009 so far in green design terms. It's moved from the pages of Building, Building Sustainable Design and BD to the voices — From the page [...]