Nemesis
Member
- Messages
- 9,402
- Location
- Planet Earth
From the latest issue of Building Design:
Traditional homes are greener, says study
29 June 2007
By Marguerite Lazell
But exponents of modern methods reject ‘simplistic’ findings
Research by Robert Adam Architects and environmental engineer Atelier 10 has found that traditionally built homes could enjoy 15-20% lower operating costs than modern designs with high levels of glazing.
The study, which compared two computer-modelled buildings of identical size, layout and orientation, showed the thermal mass of a traditional building would mean it needed less cooling in summer and less heating in winter than its modern counterpart.
It also suggested that despite the extra glazing, the modern building would need more artificial lighting inside because occupants would use blinds to reduce glare and overheating.
“You need to take account of longevity. We are demolishing at a very fast rate”
But architect James Pickard of Cartwright Pickard, which has expertise in designing housing using modern methods of construction, said the conclusions were selective and oversimplistic.
“Modern methods of construction are much more efficient,” he said. “Are they taking into account waste? There’s a high level of waste on traditional sites. And it can be difficult getting the skills on site. Add defects, snagging, whole-life costs, and you’ve got a different picture altogether.
“Traditional buildings are very leaky, they lose a lot of heat through drafts, whereas modern methods allow you to build a much more airtight construction.”
He said that arguments about thermal mass would not be applicable to much traditionally built housing, which may have been drylined so the thermal mass was not exposed to the dwelling.
Adam, who specialises in traditional designs, defended the research, saying Pickard’s criticisms over waste were “ridiculous” and “just about site management”.
He said: “One thing you do need to do is take account of longevity. Traditional houses have been here for hundreds of years. We’re now demolishing industrially produced buildings at a very fast rate. Even the most elementary practical experience will tell you that.”
Adam added that the study had been limited to heating, lighting and embodied energy. “Like all scientific investigations, you have to limit the parameters,” he said.
He emphasised the research was not about the aesthetics of new homes. “This is not about modernity, it’s not about style, it’s about construction types,” he said.
Yeah right - all traditional housing is draughty and dry lined...
Traditional homes are greener, says study
29 June 2007
By Marguerite Lazell
But exponents of modern methods reject ‘simplistic’ findings
Research by Robert Adam Architects and environmental engineer Atelier 10 has found that traditionally built homes could enjoy 15-20% lower operating costs than modern designs with high levels of glazing.
The study, which compared two computer-modelled buildings of identical size, layout and orientation, showed the thermal mass of a traditional building would mean it needed less cooling in summer and less heating in winter than its modern counterpart.
It also suggested that despite the extra glazing, the modern building would need more artificial lighting inside because occupants would use blinds to reduce glare and overheating.
“You need to take account of longevity. We are demolishing at a very fast rate”
But architect James Pickard of Cartwright Pickard, which has expertise in designing housing using modern methods of construction, said the conclusions were selective and oversimplistic.
“Modern methods of construction are much more efficient,” he said. “Are they taking into account waste? There’s a high level of waste on traditional sites. And it can be difficult getting the skills on site. Add defects, snagging, whole-life costs, and you’ve got a different picture altogether.
“Traditional buildings are very leaky, they lose a lot of heat through drafts, whereas modern methods allow you to build a much more airtight construction.”
He said that arguments about thermal mass would not be applicable to much traditionally built housing, which may have been drylined so the thermal mass was not exposed to the dwelling.
Adam, who specialises in traditional designs, defended the research, saying Pickard’s criticisms over waste were “ridiculous” and “just about site management”.
He said: “One thing you do need to do is take account of longevity. Traditional houses have been here for hundreds of years. We’re now demolishing industrially produced buildings at a very fast rate. Even the most elementary practical experience will tell you that.”
Adam added that the study had been limited to heating, lighting and embodied energy. “Like all scientific investigations, you have to limit the parameters,” he said.
He emphasised the research was not about the aesthetics of new homes. “This is not about modernity, it’s not about style, it’s about construction types,” he said.
Yeah right - all traditional housing is draughty and dry lined...