[UKPHC Part 2] This was the great debate question raised at last week’s Passivhaus Conference, here architects and Passivhaus enthusiasts give their view.
Nick Grant, Elemental Solutions:
‘Yes. Passivhaus standards are a constraint, but nature has incredible constraints and we do not say nature is dull or boring. Intuitive design doesn’t get us to Passivhaus standards.
‘To a trained eye a Passivhaus building will always look like a Passivhaus but if you are serious about sustainability then you have to design to constraints.’
Richard Hawkes, Hawkes Architecture:
‘Passivhaus is a tool and it can become intuitive the more you use it. But I don’t design using PHPP.’
John LeFever, Hastoe Housing:
Customers of housing developers want brick and stone, surely that is more of a constraint to design than Passivhaus principles.’
Fran Bradshaw, Anne Thorne Architects:
‘Passivhaus is just another tool in the book. It can do both design and energy efficiency. It is a bad idea to look at it as a constraint.
Some buildings will just not work for a sustainable planet
‘Some buildings will just not work for a sustainable planet. For example, I love Zaha’s work but I would love to challenge her to design in that way but to Passivhaus standards – is it achievable?’
Sarah Lewis, bere: architects:
‘Passivhaus opens up the possibilities of design rather than closes them down. It allows us to use PHPP to design better, more energy efficient buildings.’
Jonathan Hines, Architype:
‘Passivhaus is just the logical next step on the journey to creating a rigorous design discipline for sustainable architecture. It frees up the architect to create sustainable well designed buildings’.