>>”Or perhaps we should only build where we have gorgeous mountains and deep blue skies in the background.”
That’s probably why Innsbruck was inspiring you.
Open question, Lloyd—what do you think of the Russian khrushchevka-style apartment buildings? I have often thought that part of the Russian dourness is because of the awful architectural design of their housing—and my personal opinion is that Passivhaus design quite closely emulates the same architectural style. It’s not aesthetically appealing.
Can you say more about the inherent energy inefficiency of windows? I live in a 1920 brick courtyard building in Chicago, in a fairly large fourth floor condo with many large windows and lots of light. The building lacks central air, but we’ve found that it seems to have been designed so that by strategically opening and closing windows in the summer, we are able to achieve cross breeze that keep the space comfortable on all but the very hottest days without AC. Is this benefit offset by whatever heat is lost through the windows in the winter?
The Passive House itself doesn't have to be "box-shaped" at all. That's why the PHPP exists. This way you can look at the influence of these deviations from the box and the influence of slightly larger windows.
Now, if the other "optimization" is aimed at really low costs (for new buildings), it is quite true that more complicated shapes and larger windows are more expensive; this does not depend on whether it is an energy-efficient design or not.
The good news: it depends on the total volume V, because the surface/(usful area) develops with V to the power of (2/3) for the same shape.
My experience: almost anything is possible if you don't 'have' to go to the extreme.
To Lloyd: If it sounds like the passive house is restricting creativity in architecture, that really makes me angry - we've long since proved that's not true. The architects who do really good designs don't have that problem - they have the creativity to create a beautiful building that functions at the same time (being environmentally conscious is part of the function these days). The problem only arises when you confuse "minimalist design" and "energy efficiency". This illustrates one thing very well: the solution is not narrow-minded minimalism, but freedom in design and consideration of the quantifiable environmental impact (as well as the benefits, e.g. usable space and comfort) through a reliable tool.
I do not think it is Passivhaus that is restricting creativity, if i may tread on your turf, it is physics. Every building whether passive house or not should be simpler, squarer, shorter, and with more reasonable windows. Hannes Gauch's great study showed this. My turf is sufficiency, and we have to use less stuff per capita whether passivhaus or not. And yes, they can all still be boxy but beautiful. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261922018426
The boxy buildings in Heidelberg and Innsbruck look better than their North American 5/1 counterparts because
* The windows are set deeply into the wall
* The window have appropriately colored frames instead of being plain white
That being said, I do think North American 5/1s, at least in your examples, are better at using color to make things aesthetically interesting as opposed to being plain white/beige. So I think a good solution to the "boxy but beautiful" conundrum is:
* Always, always spec innie windows. Forget about outies, they belong in the dustheap of history.
* Spec window frame colors that make sense given its surroundings. If it's not possible because the vinyl frames would warp in the sun or something, then either spec window frames that aren't vinyl, that are made of higher quality vinyl, or introduce some exterior shading that would protect it from the sun. Another advantage of innie windows is that the inset provides additional protection from the sun.
* Use strong colors on the exterior. Sure, some people might hate them, but IMO it's better to get some hate and some love than to get a "meh" from everyone. Hatred from a minority won't get a building torn down, but love from a minority certainly will prevent it!
Thanks for the quote from Baba Dioum it really made my day! On a related note, I don't get into Downtown Toronto very often these days but a couple of weeks ago I saw this monstrosity under construction ( https://urbantoronto.ca/database/projects/king-toronto.9543 ) and it's completely the opposite of what you've been writing about for years & in this post specifically. I mean it looks like someone dropped acid in a window factory after visiting Habitat in Montreal. There really needs to be a virus that corrupts all software that's used to paint plants on the outside of building illustrations.
Good post Lloyd. If windows and doors are sized and placed to serve the spaces within (surely that is the point??) then it will look random from outside.
Also don't downplay the plant a vine thing. I love the Vauban district in Freiburg. Strip away the trees and it would probably look awful. Take away the people and it will look even worse. We don't experience the world through a camera lens but that is how we judge buildings.
>>”Or perhaps we should only build where we have gorgeous mountains and deep blue skies in the background.”
That’s probably why Innsbruck was inspiring you.
Open question, Lloyd—what do you think of the Russian khrushchevka-style apartment buildings? I have often thought that part of the Russian dourness is because of the awful architectural design of their housing—and my personal opinion is that Passivhaus design quite closely emulates the same architectural style. It’s not aesthetically appealing.
Can you say more about the inherent energy inefficiency of windows? I live in a 1920 brick courtyard building in Chicago, in a fairly large fourth floor condo with many large windows and lots of light. The building lacks central air, but we’ve found that it seems to have been designed so that by strategically opening and closing windows in the summer, we are able to achieve cross breeze that keep the space comfortable on all but the very hottest days without AC. Is this benefit offset by whatever heat is lost through the windows in the winter?
Well, well...
The Passive House itself doesn't have to be "box-shaped" at all. That's why the PHPP exists. This way you can look at the influence of these deviations from the box and the influence of slightly larger windows.
Now, if the other "optimization" is aimed at really low costs (for new buildings), it is quite true that more complicated shapes and larger windows are more expensive; this does not depend on whether it is an energy-efficient design or not.
The good news: it depends on the total volume V, because the surface/(usful area) develops with V to the power of (2/3) for the same shape.
My experience: almost anything is possible if you don't 'have' to go to the extreme.
To Lloyd: If it sounds like the passive house is restricting creativity in architecture, that really makes me angry - we've long since proved that's not true. The architects who do really good designs don't have that problem - they have the creativity to create a beautiful building that functions at the same time (being environmentally conscious is part of the function these days). The problem only arises when you confuse "minimalist design" and "energy efficiency". This illustrates one thing very well: the solution is not narrow-minded minimalism, but freedom in design and consideration of the quantifiable environmental impact (as well as the benefits, e.g. usable space and comfort) through a reliable tool.
I do not think it is Passivhaus that is restricting creativity, if i may tread on your turf, it is physics. Every building whether passive house or not should be simpler, squarer, shorter, and with more reasonable windows. Hannes Gauch's great study showed this. My turf is sufficiency, and we have to use less stuff per capita whether passivhaus or not. And yes, they can all still be boxy but beautiful. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261922018426
The boxy buildings in Heidelberg and Innsbruck look better than their North American 5/1 counterparts because
* The windows are set deeply into the wall
* The window have appropriately colored frames instead of being plain white
That being said, I do think North American 5/1s, at least in your examples, are better at using color to make things aesthetically interesting as opposed to being plain white/beige. So I think a good solution to the "boxy but beautiful" conundrum is:
* Always, always spec innie windows. Forget about outies, they belong in the dustheap of history.
* Spec window frame colors that make sense given its surroundings. If it's not possible because the vinyl frames would warp in the sun or something, then either spec window frames that aren't vinyl, that are made of higher quality vinyl, or introduce some exterior shading that would protect it from the sun. Another advantage of innie windows is that the inset provides additional protection from the sun.
* Use strong colors on the exterior. Sure, some people might hate them, but IMO it's better to get some hate and some love than to get a "meh" from everyone. Hatred from a minority won't get a building torn down, but love from a minority certainly will prevent it!
Thanks for the quote from Baba Dioum it really made my day! On a related note, I don't get into Downtown Toronto very often these days but a couple of weeks ago I saw this monstrosity under construction ( https://urbantoronto.ca/database/projects/king-toronto.9543 ) and it's completely the opposite of what you've been writing about for years & in this post specifically. I mean it looks like someone dropped acid in a window factory after visiting Habitat in Montreal. There really needs to be a virus that corrupts all software that's used to paint plants on the outside of building illustrations.
I have often written about this this building often I cannot find it now, but here is my call for simplicity and complaing aout Bjarke https://authory.com/LloydAlter/Why-Do-We-Make-Everything-So-Complicated-We-Need-Radical-Simplicity-Right-Now-ab584a90d5d0a4393befb1ab51c3e2589
Good post Lloyd. If windows and doors are sized and placed to serve the spaces within (surely that is the point??) then it will look random from outside.
Also don't downplay the plant a vine thing. I love the Vauban district in Freiburg. Strip away the trees and it would probably look awful. Take away the people and it will look even worse. We don't experience the world through a camera lens but that is how we judge buildings.
Of course you wrote a post on this! Just saw I liked it!
I may have to share pics of a couple of new buildings going up near us that appear to reflect the closet approach.