Great article, Lloyd! I appreciate the framing of our pursuit for lower carbon buildings in this holistic way. Two related sources that come to mind : Stuart Brand's "How Buildings Learn" (which I bet you've seen), and "Vital Architecture" by Ruud Roorda. The high road / low road dichotomy in Brand's is illustrated well by your writing, but your discussion of windows and health is a unique take that adds more strength to the conversation.
I've been thinking a lot about the quantifiable/unquantifiable thing a lot recently.
It seems to me that many of us have been using a rational/scientific/modernist approach to warning about the issues with climate change for many years without any success.
And one of the major gripes I have with passivhaus (which I'm very much a fan of in principle) is just how spreadsheet-y it is and how many of its proponents will tell us how great their buildings are because the air infiltration rate is a few cubic millimetres lower than standards whilst ignoring the fact that their buildings look hideous. My argument isn't that we shouldn't do passivhaus, but that we should be doing it at the same time as designing buildings that are brilliant in all the other ways by which we define good architecture. Too many passivhaus architects are not good designers and too many good designers aren't interested in passivhaus because it boxes them in to designing in a very prescribed way.
I don't know if you're familiar with the Scottish writer and academic Iain MacGilchrist and his writings on right brain/left brain thinking (if you're not, take a look - he's brilliant) but his most recent substack post is titled 'quantity kills'.
And of course there's the wonderful old quote from Louis Kahn (a right brain thinker if ever there was one) about architecture moving from the unquantifiable to the quantifiable and then back to the quantifiable.
If we're relying on left brain maths/physics to tell people how good our buildings are, or to inspire them to action against climate change, I just don't think it's going to work.
Love this discussion. I've been skeptical of the idea of preservation through these means. Yet, I'm a big fan of finding a way to not need WBLCA because we don't need another costly process when we already know many things to do better today. I signed up for a year and I'm looking forward to receiving the book - how does that happen?
Great article, Lloyd! I appreciate the framing of our pursuit for lower carbon buildings in this holistic way. Two related sources that come to mind : Stuart Brand's "How Buildings Learn" (which I bet you've seen), and "Vital Architecture" by Ruud Roorda. The high road / low road dichotomy in Brand's is illustrated well by your writing, but your discussion of windows and health is a unique take that adds more strength to the conversation.
I love “how buildings learn” there is a great video version that Brand made.
Great article as always Lloyd.
I've been thinking a lot about the quantifiable/unquantifiable thing a lot recently.
It seems to me that many of us have been using a rational/scientific/modernist approach to warning about the issues with climate change for many years without any success.
And one of the major gripes I have with passivhaus (which I'm very much a fan of in principle) is just how spreadsheet-y it is and how many of its proponents will tell us how great their buildings are because the air infiltration rate is a few cubic millimetres lower than standards whilst ignoring the fact that their buildings look hideous. My argument isn't that we shouldn't do passivhaus, but that we should be doing it at the same time as designing buildings that are brilliant in all the other ways by which we define good architecture. Too many passivhaus architects are not good designers and too many good designers aren't interested in passivhaus because it boxes them in to designing in a very prescribed way.
I don't know if you're familiar with the Scottish writer and academic Iain MacGilchrist and his writings on right brain/left brain thinking (if you're not, take a look - he's brilliant) but his most recent substack post is titled 'quantity kills'.
And of course there's the wonderful old quote from Louis Kahn (a right brain thinker if ever there was one) about architecture moving from the unquantifiable to the quantifiable and then back to the quantifiable.
If we're relying on left brain maths/physics to tell people how good our buildings are, or to inspire them to action against climate change, I just don't think it's going to work.
I will be in Edinburgh in early October to speak at a conference, this time I want to see your building.
It would be great to see you then Lloyd - you've got my contact details I think.
sorry that should be back to the unquantifiable in the penultimate paragraph...
Finally some one is calling out the miserly windows being inflicted on occupants in "low cost " housing in the name of efficiency.
You can spot a passive house apartment a mile away by the gun turret windows especially in the bedrooms.
Love this discussion. I've been skeptical of the idea of preservation through these means. Yet, I'm a big fan of finding a way to not need WBLCA because we don't need another costly process when we already know many things to do better today. I signed up for a year and I'm looking forward to receiving the book - how does that happen?
Thanks for subscribing Lauren the book is on its way.