Z E M C H 2 0 1 2 I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o n f e r e n c e
82
more people to be walking or biking to work or schools and to eliminate the need for a
personal vehicle, is a valuable asset that has to be developed and protected.
A comparative analysis
Is it possible then, through a
comparative
analysis, to study combination possibilities
between the architecture that is built anyway for the upper economic segment and that of
the lower economic segment, as in the 75/25 percent example? Can experiences gained
in either case and synergies between them strengthen both? The UIA Shelter for the
Homeless competition showed that this is possible as in the advertising board homeless
accommodation project. Several proposals showed designs where one by inexpensive
initiatives and a minimal use of materials could house the poor at an affordable costs
and even providing waste energy at no cost. To approach, address and solve the
challenges of homelessness, will lead to better cities for everybody, also for the rich.
This paper has been searching for signs of a paradigm shift as regards sustainability.
How is sustainability weighted and what kinds of solutions are sought, are they technical
or architectural? The findings are more than indicating that while until now a lot of effort
has been put into developing a range of energy efficiency technologies and renewable
energy systems that have a cost-impact on the investment while leading to low running
costs, a trend towards building larger and larger unit calculated in m
2
per person has
been emerging. This happens while there is a push towards zero energy building (VOSS
and MUSALL 2011) and even plus energy building designs. Such a trend do however
seem to ignore one key factor, the one represented by size. Is area efficiency ignored? It
takes almost twice the energy to power twice the size building. Logically, one would have
thought that there is a great drive towards designing more compact housing units. This is
rarely the case. On the other hand, as a result of financial turmoil in some countries
people are getting to live more densely as young people are forced home to their
parents. This is not a healthy development as it is not voluntary, but the ecological result
might be positive as it leads to a more compact dwelling pattern.
In many markets there is still a lack of smaller flats. It is the bigger ones that make profit
for the contractors so they disregard the smaller ones. There is hence a growing need
for smaller flats for first-time house buyers. This need might lead to a shift of paradigm
where the following factor will become more important:
•
More weight is put on the planning process to ensure area efficient concerned
solutions as regards plans and volumes. The “machine” must be made to work
more efficiently to become more affordable. A larger “machine” is not necessarily
a better machine or better home for most people, on the contrary. The best
machine is the one that does exactly what it is supposed to do and with minimal
use of energy, materials and with a minimal ecological footprint. It does all that
within a reasonable initial and affordable cost limit. Simultaneously, lower running
costs are ensured both as regards energy, down payments and interest payment.
•
Compressing the lived in space is the cheapest way to save costs. The ideal goal
for a suffering economy could tilt towards 15m
2
per person rather than towards
60 m
2
per person.
Conclusions
The technological development is fast and accelerating. Most people are hence barely
able to understand and adapt to recently emerging innovations. The range of new
products and services now entering the market are doing so at a speed where many
experience the attempts at finding their way through all new claimed well-working
technologies like finding their way through a jungle.
