Building Better - what does this mean?
I enjoy conversations generated from parties outside my everyday operational sphere and a recent conversation with Malcolm McCracken, a senior analyst in Infrastructure with a background in Planning, is the inspiration for this blog. Malcolm, like me, has a passion for making our built environments better suited for both people and planet. While the areas of our influence operate at opposite ends of the decision-making process and the scale of our projects differ, our conversation still touched on the core of where we should be looking at, if we are to bring the New Zealand Built environment into the 21st Century.
There are four big challenges that I see facing the Architecturally Designed and Built space. They are energy efficiency, carbon (Both operational and embodied), densification (Medium Density Residential Standards) and social considerations.
There are fantastic tools available to Architects and Architectural Designers to help this, but there is no one silver bullet solution and no one tool that is going to do it all. As Architects and Architectural Designers, we are going to be using multiple tools for our projects over the next couple of years to develop our design solutions to then challenges that we are facing.
As we face the reality of higher energy prices, along with the residual effects of inflation and an increase in the cost of living, we need to now more than ever, consider the energy efficiency of our buildings and homes. The cheapest place to make energy savings is in the design stage, and those considerations need attention and investment early on. Prevention is better than cure. Yet energy modelling is still not a common and accepted practice. The opportunity to understand, correct and quantify remains largely untapped and often incorrectly assumed. Higher performance homes cost between 5 and 10% more in construction with higher design and consultant fees. Given its more expensive and less effective later to improve the performance of a building, that increase in initial capital cost should be considered an investment. It’s the same rationale for buying a fuel efficient car. Running and Maintenance or Upgrade costs versus Capital costs.
We have amazing tools such as PHPP (Passive Haus Planning Package) to get a clear idea of how a design is going to preform before construction begins.Yet at the moment it is regarded as an expensive add on to projects. When clients and customers start asking for power bills of buildings and homes that they wish to occupy or purchase, the value of Design energy modelling will come quickly into the Design and Built realm. Currently, the costs for assumptions and lack of consideration to building performance is being passed onto unaware occupants and owners. As the building for Climate Change programme progresses (and it will progress its just a case of how fast) this energy modelling evaluation will eventually become mandated as part of the Consenting and Approval process.
The second challenge is carbon. Both operation carbon in terms of energy, but also embodied carbon in terms of materials and construction. Some energy efficient materials are made from toxic substances, and so the evaluation needs to assess the trade offs and offer the best solution that works for both. There is no perfect solution to balancing these two challenges, however that is no excuse not to give it your best shot. BRANZ has been developing carbon calculators and shortly they will be compulsory at consent stage. This will be to demonstrate compliance and progress in line with New Zealand’s commitments to the Building for Climate change targets of 50% reduction in Greenhouse emissions by 2030. The current New Zealand coalition government is still on track for these changes and if industry starts to sit back and carry on with status quo, there will be more construction sectors facing supply and demand issues or even foreclosure.
Our conversation inevitably led to the Medium Density Residential standards that are in the process of being taken up by some councils here. It appears that despite loud noise in campaigns, the reality is that Medium Density is required as a part of Building for Climate Change and future resilience. Here in Hamilton, we have taken for granted the luxury of space for too long, and now its time to use our land more smartly before we destroy a spatial and natural resource we need to survive. The opportunity to make energy efficient, low carbon, medium density homes, buildings and developments that have a strong people focus is possible. Not easy, but firmly necessary in my opinion to making better cities for every day new Zealanders.
We simply cannot rely on Urban Design Planning rules and other compulsory standards to create quality spaces for people. Regulation is required, but incentives are critical to keeping momentum and achievement in the foreground. We have seen how regulation sets minimums that are then treated as targets which often get marketed as quality.
The last challenge that I see is social considerations and people, and it’s a largely silent challenge with little tangible reporting. We have long talked about the triple bottom line of sustainability, which is the triangulation of environmental, social and financial considerations. The social aspect of Architecture is the hardest of these to quantify yet has the ability to enhance the everyday lives of occupants in immeasurable means. The Covid lock downs highlighted for me, a self-confessed introvert, how social connection matters to our wellbeing. Bringing human psychology into design and shifting the narrative from creating buildings to creating spaces and places for people is critical as is the difference between a house and a home. We all want a place to call home, a space where we feel we belong, that supports our financial, physical, and emotional wellbeing. Communities grow and function with a sense of belonging.
As our lives become more isolated and as technology increases our interaction with a screen rather than a face, we need to create spaces and developments that bring back social interaction in a way that is easy, comfortable, and common. Ockham Developments are just one example of what can be achieved in a New Zealand Environment. Homestar and Green Star are tools and incentive rating systems that have a social and liveability component. There are tools that are addressing this design aspiration that is often adversely created unconsciously with a disconnect from Designer to Occupant.
It’s a daunting and at times overwhelming thought at where we need to be, and how much work we need to do to get there. However, countries such as Scotland and Ireland are already embracing Passivehaus as standard and much of Europe has socially vibrant developments. There are solutions already realised that can encourage and guide us to create well considered New Zealand solutions here. As we see our Construction Industry push back on changes to H1 of our building code (which is a small part of building performance) I am reminded that there are others walking the talk. ”It’s too hard”, “now is not the time”, or “it adds cost” are not reasons for not embracing the challenge, they are excuses. Excuses don’t make champions nor do they embrace and create positive change. Let’s create a construction industry of champions. We have tools that that can help us.