« Looking for Code approval? Check the grey bits | Main | Swiss Re's disappearing natural ventilation »

25 April 2008

Comments

Thomas tredgold

Excellent article - thanks for commissioning it.

I feel a lot of this archi chat about broadening our definitions will fall into exactly the problem most "foreman" people say - its all about the wooly not the hard. If we broaden we will fall into the architects camp - where we can talk a lot and do little. Thats why architects want to broaden things - they have the most (in design terms at least) to lose if the sustainability game turns into practical hard numbers. On the other hand witness the crap engineering driven design that code 6 homes can become - prison blocks with no windows; however this can be solved if people don't buy the houses. I don't think engineers should drive design.

As a services engineer i have been amazed at how architects who never gave me the time of day are clamoring for advice on how to make buildings green (at least from a carbon emissions pov).

The main way architects will start designing green building will be when EPCs (and other hard numbers) start showing how crap most building they have designed are...please do a whole issue next year on the EPCs / DECs that were achieved on so called green buildings built in the 80's to now. Pick the green buildings and interview the original architect, FM bloke and services engineer.

If we broaden the debate we will merely allow it to be talked away.

Tom

Phil Clark

Interesting points Tom. You touch on a really interesting dynamic going on between architects and engineers at present.
I wouldn't presume to speak for Jon but I think he's attempting to widen the debate and definition to hopefully inspire architects. If it's all down to numbers and performance where does it leave their profession?

The comments to this entry are closed.