
Found this article, very interesting.


*Article sourced from
http://www.detail.de/artikel_3xn-louisiana-museum-of-modern-art_24069_En.htm
As architects, we can no longer afford to approach this challenge with failure in mind. We no longer have any excuses. We’ve got all the benefits of analytical tools and research, which means far less guesswork, and there is also an increasing body of work that we can learn from.
The innovations of a decade ago have become commonplace, and now we have them at our finger tips. Something else that is interesting is how this new knowledge has reconnected architects to our traditional knowledge and skills, for example, the way we use and reuse materials like brick, lime mortars and timber.
Sustainability is about far more than just a structure’s energy demands. Britain’s historic buildings are central to our culture and the best of them have served us well in many ways, but they are, by and large, simply not efficient enough.
So when we build anew, we need to produce a contemporary architecture that is just as beautiful as the Georgian house but consumes no energy to heat and cool.
We should think of sustainability not as a “go faster” stripe but rather as a fundamental ingredient of how we should be designing long-life buildings.
'No'
Many modern buildings have been designed to minimise their environmental impact, but with their complex technologies they don’t always perform as well as expected. And they certainly don’t have a monopoly on sustainability. Many historic buildings perform surprisingly well, and they can do even better with a few simple extras such as roof insulation, thick curtains and a new boiler.
Recent studies show that Victorian schools can equal the performance of those designed to the latest building standards, and easily surpass the highly glazed, lightweight schools of the sixties and seventies. The fact that they have lasted so long shows they were well built and adaptable, and they have long since repaid the energy embodied in their construction.
Low-energy technologies are expensive, complicated and demanding to maintain, and have an unknown lifespan. Designers like gadgets but users find them perplexing, and if they go even slightly wrong, their benefit can be entirely lost. Complexity is the enemy of longevity, and so too of sustainability. Modernists have always been fascinated with technology, or the image of it, but simple passive solutions will be the longest lasting.
Traditional buildings have huge advantages: thermal mass, natural ventilation and daylighting for a start. Of course we should make new buildings energy-efficient, but true sustainability has got to mean improving those we have rather than starting from scratch.
Although the definition of sustainable development (above) given by the Brundtland Commission, is frequently quoted, it is not universally accepted and has undergone various interpretations. Definitions of sustainability may be expressed as statements of fact, intent, or value with sustainability treated as either a "journey" or "destination."[5] This difficult mix has been described as a dialogue of values that defies consensual definition.[6] As an appeal for action it is also open to many interpretations as to how it can be achieved. Sustainability has been regarded as both an important but unfocused concept like "liberty" or "justice"[7][8] and as a feel-good buzzword with little meaning or substance.[9][10][11] As a call to action, sustainability" is open to various political perspectives on ways to achieve particular sustainability goals.
The idea of sustainable development is sometimes viewed as an oxymoron because development inevitably depletes and degrades the environment.[12] Consequently some definitions either avoid the word development and use the term sustainability exclusively, or emphasise the environmental component, as in "environmentally sustainable development".
The term "sustainability" is defined in many ways according to the context in which it is applied. As all human activity entails sustainability the word may be used to refer to any aspect of human behaviour. The fundamental integrated dimensions of sustainability are often taken to be: ecological, social and economic, known as the "three pillars"[15] These are depicted as three overlapping circles, to show that these are not mutually exclusive and can be mutually reinforcing.[16]
While this model was intended to increase the standing of ecological concerns, it has since been criticised for not adequately showing that societies and economies are fundamentally reliant on the natural world.
The economy is, in the first instance, a subsystem of human society ... which is itself, in the second instance, a subsystem of the totality of life on Earth (the biosphere). And no subsystem can expand beyond the capacity of the total system of which it is a part [17]
As Herman Daly famously asked "what use is a sawmill without a forest?"[18] For this reason a fourth and outer "environment" circle is sometimes added that encloses the other three - or economy, society and environment are represented as three concentric circles with the economy in the centre (see diagrams).
The Earth Charter sets out to establish values and direction in this way:
We must join together to bring forth a sustainable global society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace. Towards this end, it is imperative that we, the peoples of Earth, declare our responsibility to one another, to the greater community of life, and to future generations.
A simpler definition is given by the IUCN, UNEP and WWF:
Sustainabilty is: improving the quality of human life while living within the carrying capacity of supporting eco-systems.[19]
Sustainability can also be presented as a call to action, as:
... a means of configuring civilization and human activity so that society, its members and its economies are able to meet their needs and express their greatest potential in the present, while preserving biodiversity and natural ecosystems, planning and acting for the ability to maintain these ideals in the very long term.[20]
The evolution of thinking about sustainability has paralleled historical events that have had a direct impact on human global sustainability. [Definition taken from Wikipedia]
Eco:
Designing and building structures that use sustainable, non-harmful materials and techniques, integrate with the environment as much as possible without harming it, and result in buildings that are aesthetically beautifully as well as healthy for the occupants and the surrounding eco-system.
A world-famous architect’s design is coming to life on Buffalo’s waterfront. The newly-opened Frank Lloyd Wright Boathouse was originally designed for the University of Wisconsin.
It took over 100 years to take the design from paper to construction, but the Frank Lloyd Wright Boathouse on the Niagara River is now officially open, and the new building is exactly how the architect designed it.
The idea to resurrect the design nearly 50 years after Wright's death — the architect died in 1959 — came at a conference of Wright scholars a decade ago.
"This is really a piece of modern architecture that still looks modern, even though it was modern 102 years ago," says Marks, who heads the corporation.
The boathouse marks the latest addition to Buffalo's contingent of Wright structures, which includes the Blue Sky Mausoleum, Graycliff Estate and Darwin Martin House.
Global Ecology Research Center at Stanford University is an extremely low-energy laboratory and office building for the Carnegie Institution of Washington. The mission of the new Department of Global Ecology is to conduct basic research on the interactions between the earth's ecosystems, land, atmosphere, and oceans.
This project unified several buildings and activated spaces on a site that the Carnegie Institution has occupied since 1928, improving contact and circulation between two departments and creating an outdoor collaboration space.
This project was chosen as an AIA Committee on the Environment Top Ten Green Project for 2007. It was submitted by EHDD Architecture, in San Francisco, California.Designed by the architect Mick Pearce in conjunction with engineers at Arup Associates, Eastgate Building in Harare, Zimbabwe, is just one example of sustainable architecture that uses dramatically less energy by copying the successful strategies of indigenous natural systems. The building - the country's largest commercial and shopping complex - uses the same heating and cooling principles as a local termite mound.
That's no mean feat. Termite mounds are marvels of engineering. Deep inside, the insects farm a fungus, their only food. It must be kept at exactly 87 degrees, while the temperatures on the African veld outside range from 35 degrees at night to 104 degrees during the day.
They do it by venting breezes in at the base of the mound, down into chambers cooled by wet mud carried up from water tables far below, and up through a flue to the peak. Toiling with the tireless, compulsive work ethic of all ants, they constantly dig new vents and plug old ones to regulate the temperature.
Temperature regulation is a struggle familiar to any architect. Mick Pearce of the Pearce Partnership was given a challenge by Old Mutual, an insurance and real estate conglomerate: build an office block that would be livable with no air-conditioning and almost no heating.
This is a terrific example of sustainable architecture that is biomimetic, indigenous, and economically viable on its face. Yet the Eastgate story also demonstrates an important aspect of the sustainability/biomimicry trend - that incrementally greater value may be found by studying solutions from those niches (ecological and economic) where resources are more constrained than the ones you inhabit. Don't study the oasis - study the desert.
Termite Mounds Inspire Design of Zimbabwe Office Complex.
The complex is actually two buildings linked by bridges across a shady, glass-roofed atrium open to the breezes.
To keep the harsh highveld sun from heating the interior, no more than 25 percent of the outside is glass, and all the windows are screened by an unusual form of sunshade: racks of cement arches that jut out more than a yard.
Fans suck fresh air in from the atrium, blow it upstairs through hollow spaces under the floors and from there into each office through baseboard vents. As it rises and warms, it is drawn out through ceiling vents. Finally, it exits through 48 round brick chimneys.
During summer's cool nights, big fans flush air through the building seven times an hour to chill the hollow floors. By day, smaller fans blow two changes of air an hour through the building, taking advantage of what Pearce calls "the coolth in the slab." For winter days, there are small heaters in the vents.
- The Eastgate's owners saved $3.5 million on a $36 million building because an air-conditioning plant didn't have to be imported
- The building uses less than 10 percent of the energy of a conventional building its size.
The two-story house, of minimal 9-meter cubic proportions, was designed to be a habitable sculpture. Titus Bernhard, the architect used some 365 steel baskets, weighing 28 tones of dolomite stones. The entire house giving it a solid, medieval look. The steel and stone structure is placed in front of the brick shell insulation. The entire shell of the building is built under the steel baskets and is designed to act as a water-bearing layer.
The 28 tons of boulders have formed a kind of ecological shell for the building, buffering the heat in summer and the cold in winter. This way the consumption of energy is reduced to a minimum.
Architect : Titus Bernhard
Location : outside Augsburg, Germany