The problem with architecture is architects!

Some of you who know me, know my general bias against the architectural profession.  I have built up this bias over many years for many reasons, but primarily due to the lack of respect many of their designs show to good building science.

Well today was grounds to again support this bias and I just can't keep my thoughts contained.  Against my better judgment, I attended the Sustainabuild conference in Vancouver which is geared towards the architectural community.  My draw was one of the speakers - Murray Frank - who I highly respect and was one of the only real rays of sunshine in an otherwise cloudy and stormy day.  Fortunately he provided a presentation on good science or my head would have exploded with all of the assaults to good building science presented throughout most of the day's balance.

Let me give you some examples.  I just about bit through my tongue when one of the early presenters discussed Chicago's Aqua tower shown in the photos below and advised "we can design buildings that are able to capture solar energy".. "and get rid of excess heat within the building".  

Are you kidding me? 

The Aqua tower is an abomination to all good building science practices and pretty much eliminates the ability to separate the exterior from the interior environment due to its extreme solar bridging and moisture transport by means of the extended floor slabs.  I can advise that in the heart of the summer, you still need to have the heat turned on during cloudy days (I have the unfortunate distinction of having stayed at the hotel during a recent vacation - my wife booked the place before I realized where it was).

The Aqua Tower in Chicago - Photo by your author Summer 2012

Thermograph image showing the extreme heat bridging present in this building (Notice the 20º Celsius spread in temperatures) - Photo http://www.healthyheating.com

But the tower won some awards and was designed by a women and is pursuing the LEED certification, so it must be a good thing - right?

Wiki states "Sustainability was an important factor in Aqua's design. Gang and her team refined the terrace extensions to maximize solar shading, and other sustainable features will include rainwater collection systems and energy-efficient lighting. The green roof on top of the tower base will be the largest in Chicago." 

Why not try and make the building enclosure bullet proof before worrying about small energy contributors like lights and rainwater collection. 

Green roofs have been proven many times to not be green (they often do not reduce storm runoff, make for poor performing insulation, often need to be watered to stay alive, are often poorly installed leading to leaks, and the list goes on).  The only reason for them is a visual pleasantry and no one is going to see this one being on the top of one of the tallest buildings in the area.

The same presenter then tried to advise the room, towers are less green than low rises because they use more energy per cubic meter due to the need to "pump all that water up all those floors".  A figure of 1100 units (believe it was kWh/m2/annun) was identified for the towers and a much lower figure was used in their example for low and mid rise units.  This person was advocating that we take up more land for buildings, make the buildings shorter, and that the result would be that we needed less 'green' space and parks because there would be less shading from neighbouring buildings and I guess indicates people would be more comfortable staying in their little cubby holes. 

Fortunately there was a presenter later in the day who represented the Marine Gateway project at Marine Drive and Cambie in Vancouver.  He had actual numbers from the modelling of the development which were down around 100 units which represent a very attractive target and a well run efficient building.  But what if he was not in the room.  The first presenter's assertion that towers equated to energy inefficiency would have prevailed and could have started a whole new push by the architectural community based on poor concepts using inaccurate data.

Besides Murray's presentation, the only other ray of hope in the room for me, was the fellow who presented on the Cambie Corridor densification project and specifically the Marine Gateway project.  This project appears to be a great step towards sustainable multi-family living.  There is only 50% glazing in the residential and 51% in the commercial spaces (compared to 75%-90%+ for many downtown buildings).  The presenter went on to say that the areas that are not glazed are heavily insulated.  Finally a team with their priorities straight.  Get the building envelope right and you will have a low energy and 'green' building.

An example was made early in the day that showed the lotus car and had the presenter discussing how beautiful the cars exterior was and the true marvel was how the engineers were able to fit everything that was NEEDED into that 'beautiful' shape to make that shape FUNCTIONAL.   

I see this process as being the biggest fundamental flaw with the architectural community. 

We need to abolish this process and instead first decide on our performance goals, define our building enclosure to meet those goals using good building science, and only then allow the architects into the fray to design the perceived 'beauty' into the buildings. But only up to the point that the client can afford, after committing to the performance objectives first, and only to the point that the architects design does not impend the designed enclosure that is needed to meet the performance objectives. 

Only then will our building start to become legacies instead of liabilities and truly be 'green'!