You cant blame the building…
I like a good discussion, and evaluating or assessing buildings, for its level of sustainability always guarantees a strong debate. Trying to score a building in one figure, for instance, and the use of weighing factors, takes at least two beers to exchange pros and cons. Next beer is needed to exchange views whether yes or no to include the inhibitors behavior, and another one to yes or no evaluate the process of building, instead of only the performance.
By then the warming up is completed and the real issues can get to table. And I had a few of these discussions lately. Another beer please…
Since what are the real issues. The question is raised for instance if health issues or the acoustic performance be included in a sustainable building assessment? Some places in the world are more lively then others and people feel happy in either setting: If you make rooms deaf, in some cultures people get crazy. You could say that's a local adaptable indicator, but why isn't that regarded as part of a basic set of requirements of a building, documented in a countries building regulations? Whether these are good or bad, or not arranged at all, is another issue, but should not be part of a sustainable building assessment: The fact that the construction should be strong enough to withstand wind forces and other loads, is obvious, but part of building regulation, and not addressed in Sustainable building assessments!
Yes but what then if a building is in a remote location, requiring a car to go up and down to work? That should be assessed! , continues the arguing, and good for an extra round. Look at it this way: You cant blame the building to be in that spot… Also the choice to live there and to go by Petrol driven car to work, is by the owner, not by the building: the owner could take a bicycle for instance. Or, what we don't know when we assess the building: will there be 1 or 3 people living an commuting? Or maybe they all live and work from home, like an artist painter, or any other work that does not relate to distance: again its not the building that is responsible for that.
But when its new land, in stead of Brownfield: The building has not chosen the land, it's the municipality that has given the permission to appoint it as a construction site: You should blame the local policy for that, not the building… But they are corrupt, the project developer has bought the permission...: Well, It still can be a good building. We should not put all the worlds problems on that building. …
As you already guessed, I would like to make a strong plea to assess only what is really the building to blame, which is, being there, requiring a certain amount of materials, to provide m2's of a given quality ( the building regulations) and requiring a certain amount of energy to make it inhabitable . And yes, occupying land , but not the location is decisive but in how far that is compensated by making a productive roof ( in terms of energy or agriculture area: This way only causing lifting the land, not exclude it.)
In other words, to what extent the building is responsible for depletion of resources, and maybe emissions. That's what the building, and its composers can be blamed for.
I await discussions…., cheers!
PS I found an interesting book on the web, free downloadable as pdf: Sustainable energy, without the hot air. It aims to eliminate all the crap from discussions, and to look only to hard data making discussions (on energy) clear…
