See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/288832692

A unified tool to design and define Architectural Sustainability 2.0.

Conference Paper · September 2013

CITATIONS READS

2 1,301

All content following this page was uploaded by Emanuele Naboni on 02 May 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 A unified tool to design and define Architectural
Sustainability 2.0

Naboni, Emanuele 1
Keywords: environmental sections; sustainable process; students
Abstract Sustainability is moving from its phase 1.0 to 2.0. There is a shift in
the paradigms of sustainable design that can be recorded in the last five years.
Specifically, there is a shift from a rather narrow focus on energy to a broader
view of sustainability and from a technical to a qualitative and restorative
approach. In addition to the classic discussion of natural flows such as wind,
sun, heat, light, water, there are other quantifiable flows that are becoming key
in sustainable design. In addition, there are soft and intangible aspects of
sustainable design such as users’ flows, views, relationships between human
and building scales, democracy, habitat exchange, rights to nature, and
biophilia that need to become part of the sustainability school of though. As of
yet, the consideration of such factors has not been promoted (or just partially
promoted) by certification systems such as LEED, BREEAM or DGNB. Given
such scenario, there is a need for simple and visual tools that support an
integral view of sustainable priorities on a technical level as well as operate as
a set of core values. Such tools should be aimed at engaging design teams
and the broader AEC industry in the present discussion that is necessary to
truly understand how to solve sustainable design. The toolkit proposed here is
meant to support conceptual design as well as the analysis of existing
buildings. The issue of redefining the targets of sustainability in architecture
was the focus of a two-week course held at the Royal Danish Academy with
final-year bachelor students. 45 Danish case studies of so-claimed green
design were analyzed with on-site visits, interviews of occupants and
colloquiums with the architect with the goal of understanding how the buildings
perform according to a wider definition of sustainability. Students have to
analyze the process, products, and principles of sustainability by using a user-
friendly and sketch-based toolkit: a sustainable design storytelling, a multi-
scale matrix, based on the hard and soft aspects of sustainability, and an
environmental section. The storytelling is a powerful time-based tool that
graphically defines the “moments” that determine the sustainable design. The
matrix, inspired by the Living Building Challenge standard, allows to both plan
and assess the identification of sustainable design ideals inspiring project
teams to reach decisions based on restorative principles. Asymmetries in the
matrix show strengths and weaknesses of a project according to a holistic
definition of sustainability. Finally, the environmental section visually and
creatively shows the invisible flows of sustainability that go beyond the classic
sections used in architectural practices to represent sustainability. They also
demonstrate where quantitative and qualitative flows of sustainability overlap,
thereby illustrating how design engages users and nature at the local and the
global scale. Overall, the application of the toolkit to the Danish context aids to
define trends in the field of green buildings and identify cases of missed
1. Institute of Architectural
Technology, School of opportunities of sustainability applications, which are valuable in directing
Architecture, Royal future designs. As a result, the research offers a unified representation tool-kit
Danish Academy of Fine that can be used by students and professionals in architecture in order to
Arts, Copenhagen, develop, communicate, anticipate and improve design of existing buildings
Denmark toward a thoughtful sustainable design.

EAEA-11 conference 2013 . (Track 1) Visualizing Sustainability: making the invisible visible | 75
Naboni E.

An inclusive sustainability
This paper introduces a unified toolkit for the analysis and the development of sustainable
design and its visualization. The aim is to support the design of a type of architecture that is
performative, therefore capable of providing user comfort in a resource-efficient manner; and,
expressive, therefore able to engage the user and reflect the program and its context in terms of
climate, nature and culture. Perhaps because of the dominance of rating systems (i.e. LEED,
BREEAM, DGNB) and of empirically based sustainability perspectives, both professionals and
students of architecture often equate sustainability with technology, quantifiable energy
efficiency, or its visible hardware. Conversely, the proposed toolkit promotes sustainable design
that includes multiple perspectives or waves of complexity in sustainability, yielding a matrix of
viewpoints and concerns. Given the exponential rate of ecological trends, it supports the question
of how we, as designers, might look beyond the current limits of our approach to environmental
technology and ecological design to establish a more holistic design tactic.
The issues of redefining the perspective of sustainable design and defining tools that support
the design process and the analysis of sustainability were the focus of a two-week course held at
the Royal Danish Academy in fall 2012. 45 Danish green buildings (or claimed Green Buildings)
were analyzed with on-site visits, publications, interviews with occupants and colloquiums with
the architects. Some interesting insights can be derived from this: 45% of the architects were
approachable, 55% of the design cases are properly documented and published, and 80% of the
buildings are “accessible”. In some cases the lack of documentation, the architects’ refusal to
provide information and partake in interviews are found as being related to the dynamics of green
washing and a fear of being scrutinized.
The goals of the research are twofold. The first is the understanding of how the recent
production of “green” buildings relates (or not) to a holistic definition of sustainability that goes
beyond the definition provided by norms and rating systems. The selection of case studies is
based either on high certification levels reached (i.e. DGNB or LEED) or on architectural quality
and their connection to nature. The second goal is the testing of the aforementioned toolkit in
order to analyze the design process of the case studies and the implementation of principles of
sustainability when buildings are in use. The toolkit is composed of three tools: a sustainable
design process storytelling, a matrix based on a variety of principles of sustainability and an
environmental section (tab.1). Such tools were conceptualized prior to the course as a way to
support the design of new buildings and as well as to support the analysis of existing buildings.
This is a powerful time-based tool that graphically defines
The storytelling diagram
the “moments” that determines the sustainable design.
Inspired by the Living Building Challenge standard, this
tool allows the planning of sustainable design principles and
The principles’ matrix
ideals that inspire project teams to reach decisions based on
restorative principles.
This allows to visually and creatively show the invisible
flows of sustainability behind the classic sections used in
architectural practices, in order to represent sustainability
Environmental flows section
and where quantitative and qualitative flows of
sustainability overlap, illustrating how design engages users
and nature at the local and the global scale.
Tab. 1 Composition of the unified sustainable design tool-kit

The tool-kit does not reduce ecologically sustainable design to mere performance. While
sustainable design is increasingly associated with performance measures (a trend that is
reinforced by rating systems and regulations), sustainability in fact presents a complex reality that
includes social, technological, and aesthetic values. The field of sustainability architecture

76 | EAEA-11 conference 2013 . (Track 1) Visualizing Sustainability: making the invisible visible
 A unified tool to design and define Architectural Sustainability 2.0

promotes the understanding of the complexity of sustainable design and places design and
technology in a context of subjective perception and inter-subjective cultural meaning.
The basic premise underlying its conception is that there are “multiple natures” to designing
with nature. It is clear that the ‘ecological’ challenges we face are not even purely physical. Many
are social and spiritual as well. However, much of sustainable or “green” design, such as the
approach exemplified by the U.S. Green Building Council's (USGBC) program for Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), is based on an objective-only approach. What are
missing are subjective and inter-subjective perspectives. For example, there are no LEED credits
for creating experiences of beauty, none for creating or fitting to ecological order, and none for
placing people into rich symbolic relationships with nature. Quality and subjectivity do not appear
on this horizon. This is not to argue for a devaluation of the LEED approach, merely to point out
its bias. Indeed, high-performance green approaches to building design are absolutely necessary.
The principles’ matrix and green washing
Among the rating systems the broader definition of sustainability is adopted by the Living
Building Challenge standard. This standard comprises seven areas of performance: site, water,
energy, health, materials, equity and beauty. These are subdivided into a total of twenty
imperatives, each of which focuses on a specific sphere of influence (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1 The Principles’ Matrix applied to the evaluation of an existing building design. In light blue are highlighted the areas
of sustainability that the project is poorly approaching. In red and orange are the strengths of the project.
The standard includes both quantitative qualitative measures that relate to habitat, ecosystems,
and the inspiration of people, none of which are incorporated by any other rating system.
Asymmetries in the matrix show the strengths and weaknesses of a project according to the
different measures impacted by the design. About half of the 45 case studies recorded
asymmetries in the color of the matrix, highlighting an important issue: despite architects’ claims
there is not always a strong focus on sustainability. In some cases there is little focus on social

EAEA-11 conference 2013 . (Track 1) Visualizing Sustainability: making the invisible visible | 77
Naboni E.

sustainability while purely quantifiable performance (i.e. energy) is used as an argument for
sustainability. In other cases is the opposite.
The application of the tool-kit to the analysis of the buildings emphasizes how designers can
label their buildings, especially commercial ones, as sustainable without providing the evidence to
uphold such claims. This is partly due to ambiguous nomenclature employed, such as
“sustainable”, “bioclimatic” and “green” (Martin et al, 2011). In the majority of the case studies
these labels are rarely associated with precise environmental performances and are frequently
used as a substitute for hard data. It could be seen how architects often lack a scientific
understanding of sustainability and therefore use these vague terms to describe their buildings in
interviews, thereby proliferating confusion and misconceptions (Altomonte, 2009). In order to
further a meaningful discourse of sustainability within the architectural profession, green claims
need to be based on both a holistic view (i.e. the one proposed by the principles’ matrix) and on
hard data (i.e. the one derived by building performance simulation). The proposed tool-kit is
therefore aimed to support both practices that face new design task and whoever want to look at
sustainable design and previous works with more critical eyes.
The matrix and the shift from sustainability 1.0 to 2.0

Fig. 2 The shift from Sustainability 1.0 to 2.0 (students: John Phillip Edstrand, Anders Rod, Ida Bjallerbæk Pedersen,
Joakim Kerrn Malmgren)
Each of the 45 analyzed buildings were tested using the principle matrix color scale in order
to evaluate the influence on the building locally and globally. The comparison of matrixes allows
to analyze what the trends in sustainable design are. One of the findings is that early 2000s case
studies are innovative prototypes, but when monitored, they frequently do not behave as
predicted. Lately, more emphasis is placed on user needs and occupier preferences than in the past
(Fig. 2) (Tab. 2). People who spend their lives inside buildings now demand thermal, visual and
acoustic comfort and control of their own space or workspace. There is greater appreciation that
the occupiers are influenced by design variables including the degree of access to daylight, natural
ventilation, natural materials and views of nature. So one big change over previous design models
is the search for more natural and satisfying interior environments.
An interesting output of the use of the matrix is that “architectural energy design” is gaining
more importance of “mechanical based energy design”. In early 2000 the focus was mainly
related to energy conservation and, in that sense, mechanical engineers could be the leader of
design process. Today, there is awareness that architectural design is generally the more cost
effective option: optimizing the design can reduce the energy consumption of buildings by as
much as 80% (Lechner, 2000). This increasingly is the ideal sought by progressive architects and
even a few demanding clients. Such understanding of the “power of Architecture” is however just
recently implemented in practices, after they have started to use environmental simulation tools to
predict the performance of different design options.
Finally, it is also recorded how project design is now influenced more than ever by concepts
like ‘cradle to cradle’ (i.e. adopted by the Danish office 3XN) question the choice of materials
and the life-cycle models employed (i.e. Vandkusten Architects) ‘Biomimicry’ has also gained a
foothold in design methodology, helping to shape buildings from ecological perspectives. New
knowledge has also led to an upsurge of interest in research in architectural practice- much of it

78 | EAEA-11 conference 2013 . (Track 1) Visualizing Sustainability: making the invisible visible
 A unified tool to design and define Architectural Sustainability 2.0

involving green issues and undertaken by the specialist sustainability divisions (i.e. Henning
Larsen). It has also been recorded how the changes identified involve mainly large practices and
those undertaking international projects.

Early 2000 – Sustainability 1.0 Trend After 2010 – Sustainability 2.0

Focus on the building performances Focus on the users’ performance
Mitigation is the key word Adaptation is the key word
High Tech Solution Low Tech – user-friendly solution
Buildings are closed and collects flows Buildings are open to flows
Energy is the primary concern Ecology is the main concern
External consultants and Mechanical
Sustainable Design is integrated into the
Engineers are the main actor of
architectural practices
Sustainability
Sustainability is proposed to Clients Clients require sustainabile design
Rating system impact was emerging Rating systems strongly impacts the design
Tab. 2 Sustainability 1.0 vs. Sustainability 2.0

Mapping the sustainable design process

The storytelling diagram (Fig. 3) is functional for planning and understanding how
sustainable design features are implemented, when and by whom (architects or external
specialists) and according to which set of targets (those set by clients, local regulations or
certification systems). In the course it is used in order to describe the design processes of case
studies. The findings are multifold. For instance, it is clear that sustainability has begun to alter
the nature of architecture and the structure of architectural offices. The huge growth in sustainable
expertise coupled with the expectation that buildings will be LEED, BREEAM or LEED rated
prior to construction and certified post construction, has led to the emergence of specialist
sustainability teams in most medium to large architectural practices. It is recorded how these
teams are often manned by architects with further degrees in energy or sustainability studies. As
the need for green expertise grows, these teams assume more influence within their host
company.

Fig. 3 Sustainable Design Process of the City of Wenminster College (students: John Phillip Edstrand, Anders Rod, Ida
Bjallerbæk Pedersen, Joakim Kerrn Malmgren)
EAEA-11 conference 2013 . (Track 1) Visualizing Sustainability: making the invisible visible | 79
Naboni E.

Some large architectural practices are now more than design service providers: they are green
consultants undertaking project evaluation, conducting post occupation evaluation (POE), and
engaged in externally funded research. The evolution of Henning Larsen and 3XN offices, two
amongst the largest Danish offices, over the last twenty years, is a good example. The
consequence has been to widen the knowledge base of architectural practice and bring it closer to
that found in engineering offices. In fact, some big design practices now trade with engineering
divisions undertaking energy modeling and parametric design. As the Danish government and
corporations push ahead with zero carbon policies the nature and structure of architectural
practice is changing.
Environmental section and flows
Sustainable design is a discipline that, whatever one’s intentions or whatever its purpose or
function is, requires the shaping of form. The sustainable principles described by the matrix and
the process’ map can be graphically translated into sections that include a variety of measurable
and non-measurable flows (Tab. 3). Sections can guide architects to rapidly test different
scenarios, which enable them to control for specific sustainable features. They can stimulate
thought and serve as a reference around which the conversation on building performance is
centered (Edwards, 2008). The use of sections in the conceptual phase drives a type of
architecture that is receptive to soft performance, such as the integration of the natural context and
the users’ well-being, as well as hard performance. In this approach the architect’s sensitivity and
experience are valorized in closer connection to local values, priorities and microclimates. These
vary seasonally and interannually (due to climate change). The environmental section reminds the
designers of the big difference between urban and rural microclimates and between northern and
southern cities. Apparently it seems to be an obvious consideration, but one problem with
BREEAM and LEED, is the lack of subtlety with which generic assessment schemes address
local climate. The section reminds designers that differential rainfall and sunshine patterns, wind
speeds and air temperatures have a big impact on the economic viability of building systems
(Fig. 4, Fig. 5). Attention to location allows the sustainable building of the future to express the
unique ecological and climatic condition of its particular position.

How shall we shape form? How shall we shape form to

maximize performance? In this terrain, good form minimizes
Maximize Performances
resource consumption and pollution while maximizing
(Environmental Flows)
human wellbeing

How shall we shape form to guide flow? In this terrain, good

form solves for ecological pattern by creating structure in the
Connect to Ecological Flows and built environment that best accommodates ecological
Cycles processes through mimicry of and fitness to the context of
natural ecosystems.

How shall we shape form to manifest meaning? In this

terrain, good form reveals and expresses “the patterns that
Manifest Relationship and Educational connect” in ways that celebrate the beauty of natural order,
Value (information flows) place inhabitants into relationship with living systems (or
their idea of nature), and situate human habitation in
bioregional place
How shall we shape form to engender experience? In this
terrain, good form orchestrates rich human experiences and
Engage Users (user flows) creates centering places conducive to self-aware
transformation, in which we can become most authentically
who we are.
Tab. 3 Sustainable Flows Visualized in the Environmental Section

80 | EAEA-11 conference 2013 . (Track 1) Visualizing Sustainability: making the invisible visible
 A unified tool to design and define Architectural Sustainability 2.0

Fig. 4 CFD studies emphasize flows that can be included into environmental section (student: Francesco Tonnarelli)

Fig. 5 Section based Shadows studies (student: Elisabet Hugrun Georgsdottir)

Fig. 6 Redrawn section of The Sun House Nursery in Copenaghen(students: Lou Charrier, Clara Kynne Schmidt, Simon
Hald, Peter Ravnborg, Rasmus Thomas Larsen)

EAEA-11 conference 2013 . (Track 1) Visualizing Sustainability: making the invisible visible | 81
Naboni E.

Fig. 7 Redrawn section of the Herstedlund Community Centre in Copenaghen(students: Jennifer A. Dyke, Vera Bannwart,
SandrienDeroose, MargretheKabell Christensen)

The need to maximize daylight and to allow for optimizing natural ventilation has led to
narrower buildings. Two common types exist: the large tall narrow floor-plate office and the
suburban low to medium-rise shallow plan office. This type of office, often involving atria, is
numerically the most common. It also in hybrid form is frequently used for learning and research
spaces in universities. One key feature of the type is the lack of internal walls. Where partitions
are required, there are low screens usually less than 1.6m in height. As such space and internal
layouts are fluid thereby supporting the exchange of information as well as the sharing of daylight
and natural unprocessed air. Typically this type of office is occupied by companies which value
social exchange and quality of the workplace environment.
Another characteristic of the type is the degree of occupant control of the working
environment. Unlike in deep planned buildings where energy systems dominate, in the shallow
plan office there is more interface between the interior and exterior world, and between office
space and atrium. This results in user access to the control of blinds and lights, opening windows
and ventilation. Hence occupants can adjust the temperature of the workplace and decide whether
views or sunshine are sought. This degree of control of the interior climate influences
performance, productivity and wellbeing- and hence is of importance to employers.
One key feature of the type is the use of the stair as a point of information exchange and flow.
This secondary function of the stair results in characteristic attention being paid to the size,
location and design of the stair. It is often larger than necessary, sometimes contains seats on
generous landings, is placed close to water or plants, has commanding views over work areas, and
acts as a point of contact for many in the organization. In the offices of many media companies
the stair accesses video labs, cafe and canteen areas and exhibition spaces. In universities such
stairs will lead to research labs, coffee bars and teaching space.
Another key development over the past decade has been the development of active, energy
generating roofs in office and educational buildings. Spurred on by pressure to exploit renewable
energy sources and to use rainwater roofs have taken on particular significance in the context of
green buildings.

82 | EAEA-11 conference 2013 . (Track 1) Visualizing Sustainability: making the invisible visible
 A unified tool to design and define Architectural Sustainability 2.0

Section and the atrium

Fig. 8 Diagrammatic sections of the City of Westminster College Atrium (students: John Phillip Edstrand, Anders Rod, Ida
Bjallerbæk Pedersen, JoakimKerrnMalmgren)

The most typical solution found in recent built design in Denmark is the atrium. The potential
of overlapping different flows gives a special role to it (Fig. 8). It has many functions-
environmental, social and organizational. It is often the shop window for a building, a place to
locate the front desk, to display key advertising or directional data and to establish an appropriate
image (Edwards, 2012). This is often expressed in designer furniture, art installation and interior
landscape. Many atria have their design justification in energy strategy: the atrium provides
essential daylight into the building core, it encourages natural ventilation using solar and
incidental heat gains, and surfaces of the atrium can promote radiant night-time cooling.
However, for many office workers the atrium is a place for socializing, either on the ground floor
where the entrance is usually located, or on decks and bridges higher up. To the occupant of big
offices the atrium is neutral space where gossip is gained, ideas shared and big vistas enjoyed.
Often the atrium is also the place where office gatherings and parties take place. In educational
buildings atria are designed for informal learning and for socializing between lessons.
Many office atria are generously landscaped with large trees, water features and seats. Water
is a common feature of office atria because it helps give humidity to the air and when running
(which is normally the case) helps mask background noise. The atrium is becoming an urban
space, if not part of the landscape of the city then at least a place where office workers can gain
access to a more natural and tranquil world. In busy city centers office workers increasingly have
little time for perambulating around more formal city parks. Here the office atrium becomes a
substitute for urban green space- a place to escape the hectic pace of the office desk. This is
particularly true in hostile climates where it may be too hot or too cold to go outside for a break
from work.
The atrium provides a quasi-green space within the building where coffee and sandwiches can
be taken against the backcloth of foliage, flowers and trickling water. Increasingly designers see
the atrium performing three inter-related functions- energy and environmental: social and cultural:
health and stress. The environmental capacity of atria is well known and widely employed in

EAEA-11 conference 2013 . (Track 1) Visualizing Sustainability: making the invisible visible | 83
 Naboni E.

different building types and in different climate regions. The social and cultural role is also
widely acknowledged with many companies creating places in atria for staff to meet either in a
work capacity or more informally. Concepts of transparency and innovation support atrium usage
in corporate terms with many companies valuing the exchange of knowledge, which often occurs
within these lofty sunlit spaces. However, the health and stress potential of atria has only recently
become appreciated. As a substitute for the under utilized external park, the office atrium assumes
the role of a space for meditation and relaxation within largely green surroundings. Away from
the hectic and competitive world of the open-plan office, the atrium provides a haven to stretch
ones legs and reflect upon the day. Hence, the atrium has an important role if properly designed in
health and stress management.
Conclusion
The three tools, the principles’ matrix, the design process map and the sections are powerful
tools in support of sustainable design activities and research. Students were able to gain specific
experiences by analyzing design cases qualitative and quantitative performances. They have used
methodologies of investigation on how spaces serve occupants’ requirements in daily and
seasonal cycles. The tool users developed an understanding of how sustainable architecture can be
visualized, evaluated and executed effectively at different levels.
The use of the toolkit allowed for an appreciation of different concepts of sustainable
development over a period of ten years. The examination illustrates how one might interpret
architecture from multiple perspectives, and it reveals how a unified method can inform design.
One outcome of the proposed method is that more expansive perspectives of the world and human
consciousness are necessary to meet the diverse ecological, social, cultural, ethical, and
technological challenges of buildings’ sustainable design.
References
Altomonte, S. (2009). "Environmental Education for Sustainable Architecture", Review of
European Studies, vol.1, n. 2, 2009, pp. 12-24.
DeKay, M., Guzowski, M. (2006). A model for integral sustainable design explored through
daylighting. Proceedings of the 2006 ASES Conference, Boudler, CO: ASES, July 2006.
DGNB, http://www.dgnb-system.de
Edwards, B. (2009). Rough Guide to Sustainability. RIBA Publishing.
Edwards, B., Naboni, E. (2012). Green Building Pay: Productivity, Design, Ecology. Routledge.
Lechner, N. (2000). Heating, Cooling, Lighting: Sustainable Design Methods for Architects.
Wiley.
LEED, http://www.usgbc.org/leed
Living Building Challenge, http://living-future.org/lbc
Martin, M., Chong, G., Brandt, R (2011). Design Informed: Driving Innovation with Evidence-
Based Design, Wiley.

84 | EAEA-11 conference 2013 . (Track 1) Visualizing Sustainability: making the invisible visible

View publication stats