The perception of the expression SB is traditionally mainly resources focussed, with latest years some more attention for indoor climate and health ( due to air tightness and ventilation measures) Also lifestyle and social participation have had a minor role under the approach. After successful nineties, latest years, SB as expression has lost its impact and interest, partly due to a government change, partly due to the complexity of the total approach.
Focus is now more on detailed issues: (renewable) Energy (EU driven) , a indoor climate and Health campaign and programmes(government), and smart building/production (flexible etc) as a "movement" (market). Besides, there is renewed interest in spatial and Urban planning, for several reasons: due to climate change and the Dutch geographical position, liberalisation and maintenance of large grid systems, and land scarcity. Un-officially the Dutch government has changed its focus already to climate adaptive policies, in stead of prevention
Its symbolised by the magazine we have in NL: Duurzaam Bouwen ( Sustainable Bulilding) It changed its name 3 years ago to Pure building ( to connect to a ' feeling") . This did not work, and now its renamed as Building IQ ( Bouw IQ) symbolising the 180 degree turn to industry and production solutions. ( But criticised by in crowd))
The more broad approach and most interesting project , is now coming from market parties(!) : a stakeholder group initiated the Toolkit for SB for project developers: written from Proj.dev. point of view with costs as a central item: multiple choices lead to a housing concept, with all consequences and performances listed. Hundreds are available in the toolkit, for every niche and every SB aspect.
You could say this is " market driven" and up scaling to mainstream. However successful, still small. In general the interest and implementation of SB is less as 5 or more years ago, however a basic reasonable level is now incorporated in activities of municipalities and market parties.
The only really mainstream success is in recycling building and demolition waste: over 95 pct in NL. And work is going on to decrease the level of downcycling. Its even getting profitable now.
The main driving parties at the moment are municipalities and large organisations, that initiate new innovative projects. However Government drive still is a critical issue for further enhancement of SB, as well as climate change: which will cause a focus at larger systems, in stead of buildings. Where this works out all right is in the successful recycling market: recycling rate is high: 96 pct ( so partly as road foundation) but improving, also the commercialisation.
And yes, we see limits of the system: more or less all simple and limited measures are taken(at building level, product level). in order to establish further major changes in our resource consumption, the political and economical systems should be adapted to support this. If not adapted, demolition ( in stead of re-use), fossil fuels ( instead of renewables and reduction), intensive land use and population growth will further worsening the situation.
By doing nothing , the wish of the government that the market should take up sustainability and SB, might come trough, since things get worth, resources depleting , traffic jams all over etc. So the market will find solutions, but if that will be the sustainable ones?
This overview has been written as part of an Inernational seminar organised by iiSBE and the Urban Environment group of Wageningen university. 14 Countries provided an update on the state of the Art in SB.
A full report can be found at The UE group Websiste .
Ronald Rovers, summer 2006
