The End

Just a quick conclusion for you, I’ve very much enjoyed writing this, and taken it far more seriously than I though I would right at the start. This is a great method of keeping my thoughts in one place. So much so that I’m starting my own blog, that I hope to continue and enjoy just as much as this one. My goal is to ideally write after every class I have, with a focus on sustainable design, as a way to keep all my thought together and to be a valuable resource for both myself over my academic career, as well as anyone who likes it.

I’m hoping it’ll help me to really find out what it is that I want to do when I “grow up”, by really pushing myself to engage in the material I’m studying.

Check me out if you want, but at the moment it’s a bit blank:

https://sustainablebuiltenvironmentblog.wordpress.com/

 

Thanks for this opportunity!

The Natural Alternative

Do you have an air conditioner? Why? Do you regularly use it? Do you really need it?

This article is specific for temperature climates, mostly to Melbourne where I’m from and my study of this topic occured. Essentially, a temperature climate is perfect for rejecting extreme weather climates and instead is generally quite regulated. This means that on less than 10 days per year (please note that most of my info on this topic is around 3 years old) will it be hot or cold enough to need artificial temperature control from heaters, air condtioners or fans.

Pasiive heating and cooling techniques rely on a smartly designed and built home (please also note that this technique is better suited for homes rather than businesses where the needs differ greatly), where the site has been well studied and the building location positioned to make the most of the surrounding environment.

This involves making the most of the northern sun, particulary when it’s low in winter, and rejecting the harsh western sun in summer. Passive design also requires that winds be used to a buildings advatage to remove any humidity in the air, over a salt plain if necessary to ensure dry air enters the house. WIndow location is extremely important in this case.

Another major consideration in passive design is knowledge. It’s incredubly important that the residents in the household are aware of which windows to open and when to ensure they’re making the most of the wind type and direction that’s available to them.

Here are 2 examples of some fluid mapping I did for an assigment in my undergrad. Fluid mapping considers wind movement and allows you to model window placement and size to make the most of natural ventilation:

Building materials and their thermal mass capacities become key in holding heat and night purging in the extreme summer days.

Here is an example of an original building, and then my redesign which reduced the buildings energy load by over 60%, just through passive design involving building material adjustments, orientation changes, window placement/size changes, use of plant life and atering the solar and shading considerations:

But, if worst comes to worst in summer, we were always taught to shut the house and windows up from early in the morning and spend the day inside watching tv, a relaxing day that I recommend to everyone.

Sustainable House

I was just reading an article about a prototype house for Perth, WA that has designed to be perfect for the family with sustainable integration and a flexible floorplate. (You can read abou it here). It seems like a fairly well rounded family home and for the most part I like the idea, but my issue lies in the bathroom. For a 3 bedroom home, which suggests 3 – 4 occupants, there are 2 bathrooms. 2 full bathrooms. This really concerns me.

Through most of the undergrad design classes, there was a focus on sustaibaility and respect for the environment through all aspects of design so to me, the inclusion of a second full bathroom is going overboard, and incresing not just the fiscal costs associated with building a bathroom, bu the environmental costs as well.

Tiles and bathroom fixtures, not to mention the associated pipework, plumbing and mains connections require products that are incredibly high in Embodied Energy which have a hige environmental costs. Growing up in a house with many borthers and sisters, I absolutey understand the convenience factor of the second bathroom particularly as we alll grew older and had more regular schedules, requiring the use of the bathroom at the same time.

However we combatted this by having a second toilet rather than full bathroom (however now that we’ve all moved out it does sit quite lonely in the back of the house) and by just generally planning together as a family so that we weren’t all trying to get into the shower at the same time. We were lucky that our shower was somewhat separated from the actual bathroom, so teeth brushing/face cleansing was never really an issue.

I beliebe that alternative bathroom design can go a long way to break down the issues associated with bathroom hogging and timing and that my moving away from the ‘lazy’ and ‘traditional’ bathroom design, we aas designers can come up with better solutions rather than just adding more products.

I guess we don’t really need to weigh up the cost of convenience over cost, but rather ingenuity and creativity over the standard and rejecting superficial concepts of ‘environmentally friendly’.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

Bibliography

Design Boom 2016, ‘erpingham house by MSG architecture reflects modern day living requirements’, retrieved from <http://www.designboom.com/architecture/erpingham-house-msg-architecture-04-04-2016/&gt;

Food Waste

So food and waste (and food waste) have been spoken about a couple of times in the last few weeks and to me, it sort of of boils down to a couple of key issues: overpopulation, lack of education and, frankly, laziness.

Overpopulation and overconsumption are major issues for many reasons, not the least of which is the impact this has on the food cycle. Too much food is being produced to meet an ever growing demand and isn’t sustainable. The demand for “good quality” food also has a huge impact on the amount of food produced, and the way it’s produced. 40 – 50% of food waste occurs prior to it meeting the consumer, more than 30% of this is due to food not meeting asthetic consumer requirements, such as size, colour, look and shape. This does not consider taste (and as an aspiring foodie, this is what I would argue to be the most important factor when choosing food). What an absolute waste! These are such superficial reasons to throw food away, that could be so much better utilised, or provided to restaurants or homeless shelters, even for a discounted price due to their “lower” quality, or for free.

These could be provided to people who actually need this food to survive and cannot afford it safely and leagally otherwise. At most restaurants, you don’t even see the raw foods that are used as ingrediants, you usually only see the final product so who even cares if your banana doesn’t have the “correct” amount of curve to it?!?

I could go on about that for a while, but I digress.

Education is also a huge factor in this issue. Such as the chicken discussion from today’s class (how long canyou leave leftover chicken in your friege before it’s no longer safe to eat?). SOme people would throw out the chicken after 1 day, or 2 or 3. This seems too soon to me, and the people on either side of me generally agreed after about a week, it would no longer be safe. I’m pretty loose/lazy with my food rules and if I was really hungry, and it was still there after about 10 days (provided it’s been in the fridge this whole time), I’d definitely still be okay eating it.

We also need to look at the difference between “use by” and “best by” dates printed on foods, and the leeway we have with these dates to get the most out of our foods. We should also be better educated on what to do with food scraps, to ensure we’re disposing of these in the most sustainable way 0 do we need a separate bin for this putricible waste?

Laziness is also a pretty big factor, especially for larger families, or even families and people on a very limited budget, where buying in bulk and creating some waste is still cheaper than buying in smaller quantities. It’s also too easy to do the “big shop” and over estimate how much food you’ll need for the week, than to shop every day and only buy the food that will be consumed the following day – with the exception of long term non-perishable foods.

Are smaller quantities the answer? SOme days I want scrambled aggs and only need 4 peices of bread and 4 eggs but this is not really an option for a single person. Should we buy foods as households? Should I buy food for the entire floor of my apartment and share? Is this what my grandparents did with their neighbours?

I’m not really sure there are any easy answers to this question.

On Standby

Home appliances sitting on standby is something that comes up a lot in thise nifty “how to” articles on saving money or saving ebergy around the home. The general concensus has always seemed to be to turn off, completely off, any appliances when you’re not using them (with certain exceptions obviously e.g. fridge): this can mean your television, microwave, washing machine, foxtel box etc.

I recently read an article that really got me thinking about just this.

Apparently Australia’s average standby power usage has decreased by 68 per cent in the past decade, which to me at least, is an absolutely incredible effort and a great comment on the marketing camapaign that has spread the message.

However what really intrigued me is that in Australia, there is no regulation on standby products,  unlike in the UK, Eurpoe or Korea and it is costing the consumer millions each year.

 

“Energy efficiency is the poor cousin in everything and it’s never had the money, the political commitment or the institutional leadership.”

“A gas hot water system with a five-star energy rating uses around 16 megajoules of gas each day, just to offset its standby losses. That is enough to heat more than 60 litres of hot water a day.”

– Alan Pears, senior industry fellow at RMIT

 

“Most things would be in standby mode most of the time – like a TV would probably be used five or six hours a day then it would probably have 18 hours of standby,” he said.

“But most new televisions now have almost zero standby, because standby is now included in the [star-rating] label and so manufacturers get a reward if they improve that.”

– Lloyd Harrington, Energy Efficient Strategies

It really makes you think about the difference that can be made if this became an area that was appropriately regulated in Australia, and it’s absoluetly something that everyone can help to be a part of and participate at home.

Seriously, turn off the tv at home when you’re not using it. It’s worth it.

The “Continuous Flow Intersection”

Similar to the post I did on bicycles, I want to look at intersections again. Obviously, the plight of the car on humanity is well known, and it is a slow process to move to alternative methods so we must look at the best ways to integrate the car with the city while it is still such a huge component of any city.

With the extensive urban sprawl happening in so many cities all over the world, we are seeing more and more traffic which has a whole host of negative effects to the individual: stress, increased travel time, increased fuel costs etc.

Below is an image of a “Continuous Flow Intersection” (proposed for Hoddle Street intersections in Melbourne), which aims to have as much constant movement through the 4 way intersection as possible, limiting the stopping time. This type of intersection would be beneficial in moving traffic through spaces quicker, but it does take up approximately 40% more area than a typical 4 way intersection, and does require alternative methods be introduced for pedestrians: such as overpasses or tunnels.

 

I do have a concern however, that we shouldn’t be making driving easier for people, and that our time and money would be much better invested in moving people through spaces in a more effient manner such as through bike paths or public transport.

I’m also finding it difficult to see how bikes could be safely engaged with this intersection as well. Hopefully they won’t be disregarded the way pedestrians seem to have been.

Whatever you think, it’s definitly food for thought.

Images:

Daniel Andrews, Victorian Premier: Facebook post 28.04.16 16:30

 

Vertical Ecosystems

In a world of ever increasing urban complexity, the I’d do much we must look at to ensure we are still achieving a social and liveable space.
The article listed below discusses just this, in trends of the availability of green spaces; proven to have a positive impact on the people who experience them.

WOHA consider the use of vertical ecosystems as a response to “unprecedented urbanization, accelerating climate change and the need for preservation of tropical biodiversity”. They present 3 innovative projects that all allow those in the space to experience green spaces in a new way:through vertical walls, open walkways and communal gardens.
It becomes increasingly necessary to find new ways to integrate the bidding firm and landscape in order to really achieve liveability in such a dense and over urbanised space.

http://www.archdaily.com/787229/woha-unveils-fragments-of-an-urban-future-for-the-2016-venice-biennale

Eco-blocks and Progressive Architecture

So today I’m going to discuss a little bit about the lecture I had on Wednesday as part of “History and Theory of Urban Design”. I want to look at Malcolm Wells’ article from ‘Progressive Architecture’ in 1965 and in particular, the graphic below “the absolutely constant incontestably stable architectural value scale”.

I believe it’s such a revolutionary concept, to have this kid of thinking that hero’s and protects the environment, so succinctly in the 1960’s. Abolutely the main concepts such as “stores solar energy”, “creates rich soil” and the like should still be in the forfront of every designers mind when producing works of this scale. These key ideas are necessary at all stages and really need to be better addressed.

Now we look at Fraker’s eco-block design for large scale cities, particularly those in China. The main idea behind each of these super blocks, is that they become self sustainable, in terms of energy, water, waste and liveability – including job creation, healthcare and education.

The images below show some examples of this:

With cities growing and sprawling at alarming rates, we must look towards more sustianable ways of developing them so we can sufficiently meet the needs of the people, whilst simultenously efficiently meeting the needs of the planet.

For more information on this topic, I implore you to look at Fraker’s lecture at UC Berkely from the Connected Urban Development Global Conference Amsterdam September 24, 2008  entitled “The Eco Block: China Sustainable Neighborhood Project”

Therefore I leave you with the following graphic to think about:

 

Images:

©2007 by the Regents of the University of California The EcoBlock Harrison Fraker, FAIA Professor College of Environmental Design, UC Berkeley

Green Roofs

This article is particularly relevant to what we were talking about in class on Friday with green roof systems. The article talks about the first ever street facing green roof terraces in Australia, designed by Steele Associates. A paramount principle of the design is orientation.

‘Only fools and barbarians do not face their houses towards the winter sun’

– Oliver Steele of Steele Associates

Passive heating and cooling are my favourite things ever, and the study in these subjects is pretty much the reason I’m doing this degree.

“The automation system has thermostats, wind sensors, light sensors and seasonal timers, so it will automatically bring out the awning over the back deck to shade the big glass doors on summer mornings”

– Steele

The orientation of the sun, and using this to one’s advantage is often overlooked in modern society, for the ease of buying a cookie-cutter design with no context and the low  cost of designing a new home in this way.

“The building scored eight-and-a-half stars on the Building Sustainability Index, a rating Steele describes as “very high”. Its eco-friendly design features include double-glazed windows, a 5000-litre water tank, and a bioethanol fireplace which provides heating. An 8.5-kilowatt solar panel on each house generates electricity. “The residents are never going to see an electricity bill””

“The cost has been roughly the same as building a high-end architect-designed house, but offset by the savings made in running it. Steele says the house would be “incredibly cheap” to live in.”

– Steele

This is a great way to bring in your average home buyer, but the crown jewel on this design is its green roof

“It gives you really good thermal insulation, because you have the plants shading the roof surface from direct sun, and you also have 150 ml of soil over the roof which keeps it nice and cool. It also has really good acoustic insulation”

– Steele

It’s also in an incredibly effective way to increase and support biodiversity in the area, by providing a habiatat and food source for local fauna.

For me, this type of design that incorporates low cost, low energy living is my absolute dream, and the reason I’m passionate in the field of architecture. This is what I can hope to achieve in my studies and career.

 

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

References

https://www.broadsheet.com.au/sydney/art-and-design/article/secret-sustainable-design

 

The Big Smoke

The issue of owning and using cars in one that has appeared in almost every class I’ve taken, and in a majority of the lectures I’ve been a part of.

I completely understand the reliance on cars as I myself have owned a car since I was 17 and when I was 20 (not even out of home yet) I bought myself a brand new shiny car. Which I drove everywhere. I drove it to uni ( In Geelong – more than half an hour away), I drove it to work and I drove it to my friends houses. To make myself feel better about it now, I consider that the public transport in Melbourne, particularly where I live at the time, was abysmal. It was in no way worth the effort and cost when I had a cheaper alternative at my disposal. I worked strange hours so I rarely had to deal with any traffic or parking issues.

Living in Sydney, my entire concept of car ownership has completely flipped. I now live along a major bus line, with buses arriving never more than 10 minutes apart (On a Sunday. Monday – Friday I can expect a bus every 2 minutes or so) and the parking in Sydney and at uni is either non existent, or impossibly expensive.

Owning a car now for me is almost a hassle. I live in an apartment complex with no parking, so may car is a few minutes walk away on a public street and this often leaves me feeling quite stressed. I’m lucky to use it once a week, and mostly I make myself use it just to keep it in working order.

If I’m being completely honest, the only reason I’ve still got it is to drive to Melbourne (Still haven’t decided how regular this will be so I can’t do a cost benefit analysis) as it may be cheaper for me to just hire a car for a week a few times a year.

But it does beg the question – why do so many other people in the city need a car? Not everyone will be in my situation, surely? I understand the convenience, but does it really outweigh the cost? I know I’m lucky as I have a concession Opal card, and I’m very close to so many buses but I think one of the major reason I love public transport in Sydney is because I’ve experience public transport in Melbourne. Most people really have no idea how good they’ve got it.

Basically, I think people really need to consider working and living closer together, which I know can be difficult for a whole range of reasons, but we as a society really need to move away from our reliance on the car; sooner rather than later.

For further reference, a great little read can be found here: How Driverless Cars Could, Should – and Shouldn’t – Reshape Our Cities