Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Report this comment to a moderator

Please fill in the form below if you think a comment is unsuitable. Your comments will be sent to our moderator for review.
By submitting your information you agree to our Privacy & Cookie Policy.

Report comment to moderator

Required fields.

Headline

Weekend roundup: ​Architects fight climate change – unless it’s ‘unnecessarily complex’

Comment

Can we put a stop to this misinformed discussion once and for all? The simple fact is that the DRMM 'timber' building had considerably (approx 1750 cu m) more concrete in it than the revised SP building. Architects should stop preaching and collaborate with the consultants who understand structural design and embodied energy properly. CLT is a good material for certain applications but in this case its not the most suitable for material efficiency, operational energy, embodied carbon or Part B compliance (as described in the current regulations). We will publish a full analysis of the scheme in the context of the RIBA's carbon challenge, which we sincerely hope architects will take the time to study and understand, perhaps before making simplistic arguments (characterised by the discussion here) to clients who are entitled to rely on our expertise and impartiality.

Posted date

10 February, 2020

Posted time

12:24 pm

required
required
required
required