February, 2013 - Building-Landscape Bifurcation
There is a problem with civilization.
While built and natural environments define two systems not commonly considered antagonistic, they resist being lumped in some sort of grand unification strategy. This should come as no surprise as the origins of the built environment are a deliberate attempt to address caprice and willful indifference of a natural world. More antithesis than organic outcome, the separation is not just philosophic but real physical barrier allowing localized attention to matters of human import, setting a space separate from though inextricably linked to its parent.
Such is our world defined by architectural and landscape design. A cave might be considered architecture's most primordial design (although it is more properly a landscape feature), yet any landscape artifact offering shelter could be considered as like. The need to create conditioned space isolated from the vicissitudes of a natural environment would be fundamental need no matter complexities of the shell enclosure.
So how can a base requirement that architecture, as representing a built environment, be separate from, isolated from, its surroundings be overcome? A wall exists not in its own isolation, but as part of a entity defined by its presence.
One answer has been the introduction of glazing. By maintaining a visual connection between the natural and built world, some of distinction is muted. A prime example would be Phillip Johnson's "Glass House" whereby under the architect's own reasoning, the world of outdoors and in would be transparent and boundaries indistinguishable to the eye at least. (It could be stated Johnson's Glass House merely reaffirms the necessity of a original purpose of built environments as a concrete barrier...). Moving past Glass housing, the concept has in part, become the modus operandi of modern architecture.
A more modest solution would be house plants, that is, moving outside attributes in. Separation is still maintained between worlds, but the sense that an interior environment is unrelated to its exterior context is softened. It does to work well with glass and glass walls if for no other reason than to allow light to a planting.
Outdoor rooms or spaces less subject to enclosure on all sides can be a technique employed in more moderate climates or more amenable times of year in fluctuating seasonal temperatures. Patios are our most common device. Yards are also popular as occasional living spaces with the added bonus of buffering private from public areas. Yards also can contain trees further augmenting life inside, although some consider trees an unnecessary burden to efficient modern living with their leaf litter messy an ordered existence. One might also add setting up a tent in the back yard, although a tent does not suggest any permanence normally associated with building craft.
A tent brings to mind early efforts of Rudolph Schindler, a European trained architect and his 1920's Los Angeles design-built residence in Los Angles. Impress by splendor of the Sierras, Schindler attempted to bring home Kings Canyon to Kings Road as a kind of camping out without the bother of a vacation to the mountains. One of his residence amenities were sleeping porches; unenclosed bedrooms sitting atop the roof. West Hollywood was a different place in 1924 than it is today as historic photos show for those who doubt. But while privacy succeeds as distance from prying neighbors increases, the trick is the maintain those separations over time. This was Schindler's epic fail. The area Schindler chose was Los Angles, an area soon to be if not already by then subject to intense development. Moreover, even if the city didn't just get so big, beyond the eventual juxtaposition of a high-rise, West Hollywood was never and will never be a National Park. Worst, it does mean that if it was your problem is solved. As with other revolutionary concepts, events overtake and render worthless best of intentions...even if you discount the utter intractabilty of human nature.
But I digress. Schindler's Kings Road home was also notable in developing a dialogue between inner and outer space through techniques of enclosures binding courtyards, transparencies of walls countering solid mass and overall reduction of built form to a more elemental state (read materials in raw unadorned use). That is home strove to replicate the feeling a simpler habitation is maybe the most poignant way of bringing the world home.
In the order of affairs, perhaps the traditional Japanese home establishes the proper relation of built to natural. A room is not forest, but then again it is never far from the presence of such. Each work to enhance and reinforce attributes of the other. If current design can mimic ideals of symbol and complexity, then maybe integration of manufacturer space as oppose to free form logic of organic chaos has been resolved; in part at least.
September, 2012 - LEED certification and Energy Star Label
What's the difference between LEED certification or Energy Star labeling? Is one better than the other either in scope or cost effectiveness?
The short answer is that within the objective of "green building" each serves a different purpose; the former is a comprehensive, whole evaluation of a building and its context, the latter rates only energy efficiency or usage of the building (or its part) itself. Not mutually exclusive, able to achieve similar goals they nevertheless would serve different means and ends.
An overview will help in understanding why:
LEED (Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design) is a third party certification process developed by the US Green Building Council to measure the impact a particular group of construction materials and methods (i.e. a building) have on a wider context in which their placed (i.e. the world), the process and finished product commonly referred to as green building. Its based on a merit system whereby categories such as sustainability, interior environment, materials and resources, energy usage and their respective components are awarded points against a set of standards developed to measure "Green" excellence. Sums of various particulars then quantify and qualify a completed structure for either certified, silver, gold or platinum awards, from least to best. The higher the award, the more Green a building is. As per example of one type of building component dry wall, if its local in source, with a high level of recycled materials, that didn't give-off V.O.C. vapors, and has minimal problems of disposal it might qualify for a high LEED rating. This would in turn help nudge the project toward a higher overall performance leading to a LEED certification of say, gold.
On the other hand, Energy Star is a joint program developed and administered by the E.P.A and the Department of Energy whose goal is to evaluate the energy efficiency of "manufactured" items. Known popularly in conjunction with home appliances, electronics and mechanical systems (as say a water heater), its also a metric toward rating performance of a whole building, be it commercial or residential. As in LEED, Energy Star is assign a numeral rating based on fulfillment of set of standards; but unlike LEED those standards are restricted to expected energy usage or efficiency of a product. In the case of building space, the measure might be a target set by performance of existing buildings. There is no specified path or means toward a target but rather only a final energy performance standard sought through an evaluation done by web-based applications that either guide a designer through various energy efficient strategies in planning and development, or in the case of retrofits, can be used to benchmark performance upgrades. A building qualifying for a Energy Star label would have a rating of 75 or higher, would perform (energy-wise) an average of 35 percent better than comparable buildings and as such would fall within the top 25 percent of comparable building types.
In the search for energy efficient, greener deployments and alterations an Energy Star label can be a stand alone or part of a LEED award. The larger can encompass the smaller (in scope at least).
Of greater import to application may be not how the systems work, but how much do they cost? While both systems lead to eventual savings for the owner after capital expenditures, Energy Star is open to anyone willing to go through online Target Finder or Portfolio Management applications. LEED on the other hand can only be accomplished through specialists, certified to perform the long, tedious process of quantifying the agglomeration of dispersed elements forming what is known as new construction. As expected costs are high if one goes the latter route. And as new building codes within the state of California are based on energy efficiency, Energy Star is also a natural means of testing minimal compliance without burdening the owner with undue expenses of a more comprehensive LEED strategy.
So while a new University building or a corporate headquarters might be able finance LEED certification to present a certain image, ordinary commercial structures will probably want to go with Energy Star labelling. In residential work, where costs are more immediate, I doubt if too many people will look beyond Energy Star and will most likely, reach only energy efficiency minimums for the state in which they reside.
Either strategy will reduce operating costs of a structure, thereby saving an owner monies over the long run. Each too has other less obvious benefits, all of which is a different topic I will leave for yet another post.
