Recycling Architecture Biennale Exhibit Argues for Fewer New Buildings

[xchrom]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/recycling-architecture-biennale-exhibit-argues-for-fewer-new-buildings-a-853204.html


Is it possible for humans to live on this planet and not leave any footprints while at the same time saving on heating costs? It may sound a bit exaggerated, but that seems to be the unfulfilled wish behind much of today's environmentally friendly architecture. The problem is that even if these homes are passive and are energy-efficient, it takes a lot of energy to build them. The production of the materials, transport and construction are all energy-intensive and also offset the environmental gains made by these buildings. The numbers are even worse if one first tears down a building in order to erect a new one.

Few ideas have caught on as quickly in the world of architecture as the one that every new house should also wear a winter coat. Adding more insulation, everyone seems to argue, saves money. Rock wool is slapped onto the facades of buildings as if Germany were located somewhere in Siberia. We drill for geothermal heat as if it were oil. And energy efficiency is optimized to the point that homes are turning into power plants.

But the idea of the "ecological" house is an all-pervading fiction that at times seems to be laid on as thick as the insulation layers that encase them.
That, at least, is what architect Muck Petzet, the commissioner of the German entry at this year's Venice Architecture Biennale, believes. He also offers a rebellious theory: When calculating a building's energy use, if you consider not just the energy that is required to run it but the energy consumed over the building's entire life cycle, then passive houses suddenly don't look so attractive. The reason is this: In a true calculation of energy consumption, it is the production of materials, transport of construction materials and assembly that are the decisive factors, Petzet argues.

[midnght23]

1. nice post

It is realisticks.

[eppur_se_muova]

2. K&R. Echoes Buckminster Fuller in this regard.

Fuller considered the weight of a building to be a very important criterion, and aimed for maximum strength-to-weight ratio. Hence the geodesic dome and Octetruss.

[xchrom]

3. omg -- a blast from my hippie past -- thank you for reminding me. nt

love buckminster fuller.