keating wrote: Architectural Technologists will be extinct in a couple of years, surely they could be retrained as Building technologists.
Its a terrible indictment of the architecture profession that the vast bulk of its members have little understanding of low energy building and materials science.
keating wrote:Its a terrible indictment of the architecture profession that the vast bulk of its members have little understanding of low energy building and materials science. Recently on the radio a spokeperson for the RIAI didn't even know what a passive house was.
keating wrote:Low energy buildings are not about bolt on technologies or cross flow ventilation. Natural ventilation is inappropriate for office buildings or homes, it is uncontrollable, not acoustically sealed, dosent filter air or manage humidity. Humidity is our biggest building defect in Ireland. Natural Ventilation does not deal with those clammy wet summers day.
The Deap software looks simply at energy balance, Passive house measures performance. The cost of a building should be measured over a couple of decades with even conservative energy price increase estimates. Its not enough to simply leave it to the plumbers and the electricians. A building needs to be designed around comfort and future proofed so as it dosent become a lead weight around the clients necks. Have architects realised that the days of churning out sub standard speculation stock has ended.
wearnicehats wrote:Keating's dislike of the architecture profession is well documented in these forums - his main bug-bear seems to stem from the fact that he bought a crap apartment that he can't offload
I wouldn't agree at all with this. The vast majority of graduates in the last five to ten years have a very good knowledge of low energy building. I know in the practice I work in there's a healthy level of knowledge and interest in the subject.
The fact is that not many architects have built experience with it because in cost cutting exercises low energy technologies are always the first thing to go.
However most architects will be fully adept at implementing the basic principles of low energy design regarding orientation, glazing ratios, passive ventilation, insulation levels etc.
Planning is interesting but does not have that craft feeling. I'm just disappointed that many Architects just don't care for building. This happened before we need an Architecture that reflects our new epoque, The age of Scarcity.
garethace wrote:And lets face it, in terms of construction and design, we are a long way off of 'low carbon' as it is, not to mind going beyond that.
Brian O' Hanlon
keating wrote:Bringing this back to architecture, low energy is not about bolting on fancy equipement ists abouit using the simple tools of Architecture. Christover Alexander et all. Best klessons in Passive House is to look at the old abandoned cottages in the countryside. Siting, Orientation, compactness, daylight. The first year stuff.
Bringing this back to architecture, low energy is not about bolting on fancy equipement ists abouit using the simple tools of Architecture. Christover Alexander et all. Best klessons in Passive House is to look at the old abandoned cottages in the countryside. Siting, Orientation, compactness, daylight. The first year stuff.
garethace wrote:So we need to be ercareful, really careful, how we manage this opportunity.
What prompted me to write to her was a real concern that the market for 'Eco' products seems to be becoming saturated with sellers who know very little about the fundamentals behind their products.
"Conventional buildings are typically designed by having each design specialist “toss the drawings over the transom” to the next specialist. Eventually, all the contributing specialists’ recommendations are integrated, sometimes simply by using a stapler.Green builders, in contrast, are insisting on the sort of highly integrative design process that was used by the Amsterdam bank, a process that melds diverse skills and perspectives into a whole that is greater than the sum of its constituent parts. One of the best ways to ensure that this takes place is to have the architects, engineers, landscapers, hydrologists, artists, builders, commissioners (specialists who get the building working properly between construction and occupancy), occupants, maintenance staff, and others who have a stake in a particular building all design the building together.
All these stakeholders collaborate in a “charrette” process—a short, intensive, teamwork-oriented, multidisciplinary roundtable—to ensure that key synergies between design elements are captured and that those elements work together to yield big energy and resource savings at the lowest possible cost."
The products and services characteristic of our modern economy are far too complex for any one person to understand how they work. It is cognitively overwhelming. Therefore, organizations must have some mechanism for decomposing the whole system into sub-system and component parts, each "cognitively" small or simple enough for individual people to do meaningful work. However, decomposing the complex whole into simpler parts is only part of the challenge. The decomposition must occur in concert with complimentary mechanisms that reintegrate the parts into a meaningful, harmonious whole.
[The extension pdf has been deactivated and can no longer be displayed.]