its the architecture stupid

4
48 It’s the Architecture, Stupid! Who really holds the key to the global thermostat? The answer might surprise you. by Edward Mazria One of the keys to slowing global warming on our beau- tiful little blue planet may be educating architects and other building professionals about designing and building more efficient buildings. Photo courtesy of NASA

Upload: mrigss

Post on 20-Jul-2016

18 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

DESCRIPTION

Its the Architecture Stupid

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Its the Architecture Stupid

48

It’s the Architecture, Stupid!Who really holds the key to the global thermostat? The answer might surprise you.

by Edward Mazria

One of the keys to slowing global warming on our beau-tiful little blue planet may be educating architects and

other building professionals about designing andbuilding more efficient buildings.

Photo courtesy of NASA

Page 2: Its the Architecture Stupid

May/June 2003 49

How do we dramaticallycut down on green-house gas emissions,lessen our dependence

on fossil fuels and becomemore energy-efficient with-out arguably wrecking theU.S. economy?

So far, no one’s come upwith a viable answer, largelybecause we keep looking atglobal warming from thesame angle. The result istunnel vision—we keepmissing the forest for thetrees with remedies likecleaner cars, fewer smoke-stacks, more renewableenergy sources. Each is nec-essary, but solves only partof the problem.

What we need is a para-digm shift in the way weview energy consumption inthis country. It’s architec-ture—residential, commer-cial and industrial buildings and their con-struction materials—that account for near-ly half of all the energy used in this countryeach year. And it’s the architects who holdthe key to turning down the global ther-mostat.

The government doesn’t recognize this.The scientific community and public do notrecognize this. The architects themselvesdo not recognize this. Why not?

The answer is simple. Most people don’tunderstand what architects really do andmost architects don’t have a deep under-standing of the relationship between archi-tecture and the natural environment.

Missing the ObviousThe biggest problem with the current

thinking on global warming is that solu-tions have been focused on areas wherenominal reductions in energy consumptionand emissions can be achieved. For exam-ple, environmental watchdogs and themedia have made sport utility vehicles(SUVs) the chief villain of the greenmovement. But if you took every SUV offthe road tomorrow and replaced themwith hybrids, the impact on global warm-ing would be minimal.

That’s because the entire fleet ofSUVs, mini-vans and light-duty trucks inthis country account for only 6 1/2 per-cent of the total U.S. energy consumedeach year. That doesn’t mean we shouldabandon efforts to produce more efficient,environmentally-friendly SUVs and auto-mobiles (reducing emissions in all sectorsas well as our dependence on foreign oilis critical), but it does illustrate a huge

blind spot in America’s energy conscious-ness. Those who develop and promote theframework for environmental initiativeshave boxed us into a narrow view of theproblem, thereby limiting the scope ofpotential solutions.

They’ve overlooked the biggest sourceof emissions and energy consumption inthis country.

It’s architecture.

The Big PictureAddressing global warming is like solv-

ing a Rubik’s Cube puzzle. It takes the rightcombination of elements to complete a pic-ture of a plausible emissions reversal pro-gram that won’t overburden the U.S. econ-omy.

In the process of divining a solution,data has traditionally been divided into foursectors—industry, with the highest energyconsumption and greenhouse gas emis-sions, followed by the transportation, resi-dential and commercial sectors (Figure 1).

The loudest voices call formajor reforms in the trans-portation sector beginningwith greater fuel efficiencyand pushing the auto indus-try to develop new fuelsources and vehicles, suchas fuel-cell cars and lighttrucks.

The industrial agendafocuses on more efficienttechnologies for production,coupled with the use of less-polluting natural gas (toreplace coal) and non-pollut-ing renewable resources(wind, biomass, geothermaland solar) for electric powergeneration.

In the residential andcommercial sectors, theemphasis has been on enact-ing standards and providingincentives to increase theenergy efficiency of buildingshells, appliances, lighting

fixtures and mechanical and electrical sys-tems.

Taken together, these strategies are allworthwhile and necessary, but only addressa portion of the U.S. contribution to globalwarming. For example, it would takeincreasing gas mileage of every passengerand light-duty vehicle on the road to anaverage of 40 mph over the next ten yearsjust to stabilize the projected increase intheir gas consumption at today’s levels.

The environmental lobby, the electricutility industry and the current adminis-tration are miles apart when it comes tothe use of renewable energy technologiesfor generating electricity. The environ-mental community would like to see about8.6 percent of the total U.S. demand forelectricity in 2020 generated by renewables(wind, solar, biomass and geothermal),while industry and the Energy InformationAdministration (EIA) project only 2.3 per-cent. However, 8.6 percent of electricity

produced by renewables in 2020 wouldonly supply about 30 percent of the EIAprojected increase in electric demand.Meanwhile, in the residential and com-mercial sectors, stringent prescriptivebuilding codes have already been adoptedby many states, so substantial code-drivenenergy and emissions reductions in thesesectors are unlikely.

None of these strategies reverses ouremissions, though they mitigate theimpact of emissions as our future needfor energy spirals upward. Think of it asdeficit spending. As our national debtmushrooms, we’re making payments onthe interest without touching the principal.

The Mount Airy library, in Mount Airy, North Carolina, a U.S. Department of Energydemonstration project built in 1981, is a completely daylit, passively heated andcooled facility that uses 75 percent less energy than a typical library in the region.

Figure 1

Gor

don

H. S

chen

ck, J

r.

Marlin Addison
Highlight
Marlin Addison
Highlight
Marlin Addison
Highlight
Marlin Addison
Highlight
Marlin Addison
Highlight
Page 3: Its the Architecture Stupid

50

We need to turn down the global ther-mostat, but it’s locked. Who holds the key?

It’s the architects.

The Case for ArchitectureBy graphically rearranging the tradi-

tional way of reporting energy use and gasemissions, the key to visualizing the issuesand the actions necessary to address the sit-uation becomes clear. Creating a new sec-tor termed “Architecture,” which combinesthe residential and commercial sectors andthat part of the industrial sector contain-ing industrial buildings and building mate-rials, a new and very different picture

emerges. This picture clearly illustrates theproblem and the sectors that must be care-fully investigated in order to effect a change(Figure 2).

In this new picture, Architecture con-sumes approximately 48 percent of all theU.S. energy produced and is responsible for46 percent of all U.S. CO2 emissions annu-ally, almost double any other sector. It’salso the fastest growing energy-consum-ing and emissions sector (Figure 3).

Buildings are among the most long-livedphysical artifacts society produces. Theyare typically used for 50-100 years, so theirinertia has a major impact on future energyuse and emissions patterns. Today’s archi-tecture will be with us for a long time.

Architects design most buildings andspecify all the materials used in their con-struction. The design of a building—itsform, fenestration, construction materialsand finishes—largely determines the build-ing’s lifetime energy consumption and gasemission patterns.

The mechanical and electrical systemsincorporated into a building design will con-vert today’s fossil fuel energy to make thatdesign habitable—to heat, cool, light andventilate spaces as well as power equip-ment. Buildings can be designed to uselarge or small amounts of imported energyand in some cases no imported energy at all.

Today, architecture has become

estranged and totally divorced from nature.Most structures are designed to be isolat-ed from their surrounding environment.They require an uninterrupted supply offossil fuel energy in order to operate.Otherwise, if their energy supply is dis-continued, they become uninhabitable—too hot, too cold, no light, etc. They insulatethemselves against the environment for aslong as possible in an effort to preservetheir internal conditions. The constructionstandards and building codes in force todayfully support this design strategy.

Currently, most building energy codesrequire ample insulation values for walls,roofs, foundations and glass areas in sup-

port of this design strategy. Thesecodes are at the point where morestringent requirements yield verysmall returns. In many cases the ener-gy it takes to produce the additionalmaterial is greater than any potentialsavings. In fact, U.S. energy con-sumption per square foot of buildinghas been increasing slightly since1990, a testament to the fact thatbuilding codes have not been effec-tive in stimulating further reductionsin the Architecture sector.

We know that buildings can bedesigned today to operate with lessthan half the energy of the averageU.S. building at no additional cost.

The design information needed to accom-plish this is freely available. It wasdeveloped in the 1970s and 1980salong with demonstration projectsthat were built and monitored at thattime. The Mt. Airy, North Carolina,library is an example of one of thesedemonstration projects (see photo,page 49). Since then, many build-ings of all types have been designedand constructed with annual energyconsumption and CO2 emissions of50 percent to 75 percent below theU.S. average, further illustrating thatthis magnitude of reductions is read-ily attainable.

Blueprint for a RevolutionAchieving these reductions in the

Architecture sector will requirenothing short of a revolution in the archi-tectural design community. The challengeis that the architecture inherited from ourpredecessors is no longer valid today. Theglobal problems we now face provide thebasis for a new architecture and a dialoguewith nature that will give this new archi-tecture its uniqueness.

This revolution, if it is to succeed, beginswith design education and the understand-ing that each work of architecture has glob-al implications. There are currently 124

accredited schools of architecture in theU.S. with an enrollment of more than 30,000students. Fewer than half the schools havefaculty with a deep understanding of thedesign principles necessary to transformarchitecture from its mindless and passivereliance on fossil fuels to an architectureintimately linked to the natural world inwhich we live. And, of the schools that dohave faculty with experience designing low-energy buildings, many have only one fac-ulty member with the necessary expertise.

There is precious little time to educatethousands of faculty in the design principlesnecessary to effect a dramatic change inthe Architecture sector’s emissions outputand operational and embodied energy con-sumption patterns. However, because ofthe nature of architectural programs andtheir system of design studios, the educa-tion of students and faculty can take placealmost overnight.

What is needed in each and every “stu-dio,” included as a requirement in the prob-lems issued to students, is that architec-ture be designed to engage the environ-ment in a way that significantly reduces oreliminates the need for fossil fuels. Due tothe investigative nature of the design stu-dio, students educate themselves throughthe research necessary to address thedesign problem, and—through studio cri-tiques—they will educate their instructorsas well.

Schools must also offer computer sim-ulation and living systems courses to aug-ment the design studio and provide stu-dents with a deep understanding of theprinciples involved in natural processes.The schools, then, have the potential toinstitute changes in the profession so pro-found that we can begin to speak about anew direction in architecture. It thrustsarchitecture into a pivotal role in solving acritical global dilemma, and in doing so itserves the highest creative purpose.

It’s the Architecture, Stupid!

Figure 2

Figure 3

Marlin Addison
Highlight
Marlin Addison
Highlight
Marlin Addison
Highlight
Marlin Addison
Highlight
Marlin Addison
Highlight
Marlin Addison
Highlight
Marlin Addison
Highlight
Marlin Addison
Highlight
Marlin Addison
Highlight
Marlin Addison
Highlight
Marlin Addison
Highlight
Marlin Addison
Highlight
Marlin Addison
Highlight
Page 4: Its the Architecture Stupid

May/June 2003 51

To ensure that all this takes place quick-ly, the National Architectural AccreditingBoard should make the accreditation ofarchitecture programs contingent upon ful-filling the above requirements, and StateLicensing Boards must include in their pro-fessional architecture licensing exam asegment requiring an understanding ofthese principles.

There are other beneficial impacts toimplementing this educational strategy.Roughly 15 percent of architecture studentscome from abroad and many of these inter-national students are in graduate programs.The U.S. will be training these students,many of whom will return to their nativecountries, in the design principles neces-sary to affect significant worldwide reduc-tions in greenhouse gas emissions. This isespecially important in developing nationsas they strive to increase their standard ofliving with major investments in infra-structure and building projects.

And schools with studio-based industri-al design and interior design curriculumscan incorporate the same strategies to effecta major change in their programs as well.

Meeting the ChallengeCoupled with this transition in design

education, there must be a process in placeto support a similar movement in the pro-fessional architecture community. To setthe wheels in motion, federal and state gov-ernments should require that all govern-ment renovation and new building projectsbe designed to meet an energy consumptionperformance standard of one half the U.S.regional average for that building type. Oncethis standard is established, most city andcounty governments, school boards, hous-ing authorities and educational institutionswill follow suit with similar standards.

The adoption of these performance stan-dards should be linked to an intensive fed-eral program to refine and transform com-plex and cumbersome building perform-ance simulation programs so they are user-

friendly, graphic in format and seamlesslyintegrated with the Computer AidedDesign and Drafting (CADD) programscurrently used by architecture firms. Thiswill ensure that architecture firms willhave the appropriate tools necessary tocomply with the new standards.

When these simulation programs are inwidespread use, build-ing codes for all hous-ing developments andcommercial, institu-tional and multi-fami-ly buildings can bechanged from theircurrent prescriptiverequirements to thenewer performancestandards that will bein place for all govern-ment buildings.

The AmericanInstitute of Architects(AIA) has produced awealth of informationregarding the embod-ied energy in buildingmaterials. To furtherreduce energy con-sumption and emis-sions in theArchitecture sector,this material should be incorporated into afederally sponsored, nationwide, AIA con-tinuing education program with the specif-ic goal of reducing the embodied energy ofbuilding designs by a modest 15 percent bythe year 2008.

With about 1.75 billion square feet ofbuilding demolition, 5 billion square feetof new construction and 5 billion squarefeet of renovation taking place in the U.S.each year, the potential for annual energyconsumption and CO2 emissions reductionsare enormous. If the above programs werefully implemented, energy consumptionand emissions in the entire Architecturesector would stabilize and begin to decline(Figure 4). This would put the U.S. well onits way toward meeting its internationalobligations.

Because 76 percent of all the electricityproduced in the U.S. is used just to operatebuildings, these programs would also

replace the need to construct most of 1300new power plants over the next 20 yearsprojected by the Administration’s NationalEnergy Policy. It would reduce the need tomine, transport and burn 750 million tonsof coal and build thousands of miles of newgas pipelines and power lines during thatsame period.

The KeyThe American architectural community

has the unique opportunity to lead the wayin reversing the destructive trend of human-induced climate change. They hold the keyto the lock on the global thermostat. If theyopen the lock, and if the automobile indus-try likewise accepts its responsibility toincrease the gas mileage of its fleet—and ifmore States require that a percentage oftheir energy come from non-pollutingrenewable resources—then the U.S. willhave a viable strategy in place to combatglobal warming and restore its internationalgood will and credibility. ❂

Edward Mazria is principal-in-charge of design forall projects at the architectural firm of MazriaRiskin Odems Inc., 607 Cerrillos Road, Suite G,Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505, (505) 988-5309,e-mail: mazria@ mazria.com, web site: www.mazria.com.

Figure 4(Architecture sector in quadrillion Btus)The Architecture (+program) scenario assumes the programs outlined in this article are fully imple-mented as follows: (1) energy consumption reductions for government owned buildings are imple-mented in 2004, (2) energy consumption reductions for all buildings are implemented in 2007 and(3) the 15 percent embodied energy reduction for all buildings is implemented over a 5 year peri-od, beginning in 2005. The Architecture (+program, +10/20) scenario assumes the programs out-lined in this paper are fully implemented, as well as the States implementing a renewable energyportfolio standard (10 percent of electricity supplied by renewables by 2015 and 20 percent by2025, as outlined in the Union of Concerned Scientists Clean Energy Blueprint, October 2001).

Figure 4

The Natatorium of the 170,000 square foot Genoveva Chavez CommunityCenter in Santa Fe, New Mexico, is a current example of a building thatincorporates south-facing clerestories for daylighting and heating, aswell as to take advantage of the special quality and intensity of light inSanta Fe.

Rob

ert

Rec

k

Marlin Addison
Highlight
Marlin Addison
Highlight
Marlin Addison
Highlight
Marlin Addison
Highlight