Giving up? No, broadening.

 Giving up? No, broadening 

There are many issues on which one should never give up, such as fundamental human rights. In these, every voice counts both for society and for the individual. Other matters are not so clear. Should one object to the intensifying of construction activity, especially of high-rise buildings, in the Randstad? Some people do put up a fight against this trend but the results are frankly disheartening: instead of 110, the height of towers is reduced to 75 metres (https://www.omroepwest.nl/nieuws/4477783/woontorens-op-plek-voormalig-ministerie-worden-lager-wil-haagse-gemeenteraad). Even worse, there are many more proponents of high-rise, intensive urbanization, often with arguments that seem rational. Any debate with them leads to an impasse and, as they represent considerable interests by a multitude of stakeholders, it's their views and plans that win the day. 

Should one give up objecting? Emphatically, no! Such developments can ruin the future of cities that have been quite liveable so far, so any objection that can tweak this future is worth making. What one should give up is debating in the narrow frame within which questionable tendencies are justified. The housing boom and high-rise building in the Randstad is justified by the housing demand but this is not the only relation that matters. One should also analyse what causes this demand. This might reveal factors that influence the location and form of desirable housing, for example that apartments in high-rise housing are often a temporary solution for young people. The appeal of low-rise terraced houses with private front and back yards, and easy access to the ground remains strong, especially to families with young children. Moreover, what makes people want to live in the Randstad rather than any other place in a tiny country like the Netherlands? There may be more room for development all over the country, not just in a few urban centres, if other aspects like employment and amenities become more widely spread. 

Further broadening of the frame for the housing debate concerns apparent inconsistencies between policies: stimulating fast building construction may be incompatible with the climate goals of the country, including nitrogen emissions (supposedly solved by lowering the highway speed limit) and the energy transition (do new urban developments comply with its long-term goals?). Will the new high-rise, dense housing lead to more urban heat islands? Will it make the traffic and transportation problems even worse? The thing with the built environment is that it underlies too many facets of daily life and therefore too many of our urgent problems. Letting cities grow willy-nilly inevitably exacerbates these problems. 

So, rather than giving up the debate one should put it in the broad frame it deserves. We've been talking about related problems separately for too long. It's time that we accepted that they are connected in a way that doesn't allow for piecemeal, simple solutions. 

New architecture for Leiden

 New architecture for Leiden 

Today, Good Friday, the main item on the news page of the regional broadcaster is a controversial plan for the redevelopment of an old part of the University in Leiden: Omstreden plan ter inzage: waarom wil Universiteit Leiden uitbreiden in binnenstad? - Omroep West. The controversy apparently concerns the demolition of a number of social housing units, so as to make space for a new humanities campus. The steady decline of social housing in the Netherlands is indeed a sign of our times, although it doesn't receive enough attention next to worries about the housing shortage and dangerous investors in the housing market. However, what caught my attention were the artist's impressions of the new buildings (Beelden - Humanities Campus - Projecten - KCAP). 

The design is by an established architectural firm and the images depict a morphology one should expect from them: flat façades dominated by glass and a paper-thin roof on top. For over a decade, the same architecture has been facing me from across the street at my office: the student housing complex at the corner of Michiel de Ruyterweg and Julianalaan, Delft (2 Michiel de Ruyterweg - Google Maps). With less glass on the façade but no sun shading, just like the Leiden design, this complex is also oriented to the south and the west. Whenever the sun shines, the student studios are notorious for becoming unbearably hot. 

Is there any reason to assume that the Leiden University complex will fare better? It is possible that it will use very advanced materials or that it will have heavy-duty services that could alleviate the thermal gains from the unfortunately oriented glass but such measures significantly raise construction and operation costs. This is obviously not desirable, although we seem to care less and less about such matters. Dutch buildings were already  overly and often unnecessarily reliant on mechanical ventilation; following the heatwaves of early years, air conditioning is presented as an unescapable necessity but there is significantly less interest in passive measures such as sun shading, clever orientation or natural ventilation. Moreover, when it comes to university buildings and student housing, thermal performance appears not to be a priority: in addition to the Delft housing complex mentioned above, there is another abominal case in Leiden (Bloedhete studentenflats in Leiden: 'Het kan wel 40 graden worden' | NOS) and probably many more elsewhere. 

Still, in the environmentally-conscious twenty-first century, with so much talk about sustainable, low-energy buildings, not trying to include passive solutions in a major public building is surely a lost opportunity. We need exemplary designs that demonstrate the possibilities of cleverer architecture. Adding a bit of green to the flat roofs of the new humanities campus in Leiden, as the artist's impressions suggest, is far from enough. 

Energy and comfort

Energy and comfort 

Energy remains a popular subject at my place of work. Many researchers and even more students have ideas that could turn buildings from inefficient and wasteful into net producers of energy. This could change everything and solve all our problems. 

There is nothing wrong with these ambitions until you realise that they could be serving as an alibi for spending increasing amounts of energy. This is evident in the lifestyles these designs serve. Through the naked window panes of Dutch houses a passerby cannot help catching a glimpse of the inhabitants and their attire: light, essentially summer clothes, with short sleeves, while the temperature outside is close to zero. Are these people so tough or are they used to high temperatures indoors? 

Could it be that the solution to energy problems lies not in new technologies but in lowering the thermostat from twenty-plus degrees to eighteen and putting a jumper on? Unfortunately, that's a rhetorical question of the type only old farts ask, so we have to avoid it. Let's remind ourselves that there's nothing wrong with our current levels of comfort or raising them even further. After all, they keep us healthy, just like frequent air travel allows us to see the wonders of the world. Economising is an outdated idea, out of tune with the circular patterns of consumption that drive the economy today. 

Numbers and interpretations

Numbers and interpretations 

Some numbers trouble me, for example official statistics stating that building activity or use is responsible for this much of waste production in a country or that much of global energy consumption. They tend to be hefty percentages that automatically suggest that we should take action: buildings have to change in the way they are designed, constructed, maintained, used, demolished etc. 

The potential seems undeniable but are the specific actions justified? First of all, why do we assume that there are inefficiencies? It may be so that the large numbers relating to the built environment are inevitable, given our needs or habits. It's inconceivable that we stop heating our homes or workplaces but that's not all. Airconditioning, for example, used to be a luxury, even in cars, and nowadays it's more of a necessity. Do we know what the minima or maxima are, even if they exist? 

Secondly, who's going to change things and how? Existing disciplines are keen to take charge and innovate but at the same time they are the ones who perpetuated all the existing ills. Would we expect witch doctors to develop MRI scanning? Would we even train witch doctors to operate MRI scanners? 

Thirdly, is the change feasible? People are not stupid, so if there was something better to be done, they'd have done it some time ago. If the built environment is inefficient in some respects, this may be due to greater efficiencies in other aspects. 

In conclusion, let's dig deeper to find the real problems instead of jumping into arbitrary, unwarranted action. I have no doubt that we can improve the built environment but what is depicted as promise and progress does not always convince me in justification and hence also in potential. 

Comfort, energy, behaviour

Comfort, energy, behaviour

There was an interesting news item a couple of days ago on the dangers of airconditioning (https://nos.nl/artikel/2295688-klimaatverbond-airco-s-frustreren-doelstellingen-klimaatakkoord.html). It's been the hottest June and July on record, so we're inevitably  aware of the importance of cooling buildings. It also makes sense that relevant agencies point out that until now in energy policies we'd been focusing only on the effects of heating in buildings and neglecting cooling, which increases energy consumption and its impact on the environment. Airconditioning is already too familiar, e.g. from cars, for us not to expect it in buildings, too.
What doesn't help is that heating and cooling are presented as distinct aspects and subsystems. The common parts are neglected, for example the role insulation plays. Do people understand that it keeps both the heat and the cold out of abuilding? And how about passive climatic solutions, stuff that doesn't require energy? When are we going to promote these and integrate them in the design of buildings? We're eager to reduce energy consumption but such solutions have yet to become prominent in planning and building codes.
Finally, it's not helpful that the news item puts emphasis on human behaviour, claiming that how people are going to use airconditioning is uncertain: they could use it to protect themselves from extreme temperatures but also to keep temperature at a comfortable 22 or 23 degrees. Putting the blame on users makes little sense, not just because people have different needs (not just preferences) but also because the environments we create for them should be inclusive, covering wide ranges of needs. The goal is that most people feel comfortable indoors, regardless of the temperature outdoors. Don't blame them for needing more than what current buildings offer, just make buildings perform better, using as little additional energy as possible.

Wind farms and Futurism

Wind farms and Futurism 

The aesthetic arguments against wind farms, voiced mainly in artistic circles, amaze me. That people would single out wind turbines among the ugliness that surrounds us is puzzling and rather hypocritical, especially when supported by comparisons with other machines that are supposedly beautiful, like locomotives. Even worse, the beauty of locomotives and the like is chiefly by reference to what Futurists used to preach.

I hear such arguments and want to scream at them, tell them that they're just reiterating what Futurists had said 100 years ago, that they lack the critical capacity to understand and interpret it for our times. I'm certain that if those Futurists were alive today, they would be ecstatic about wind turbines. Just the idea that electricity is being generated and flowing in them would bring them to the brink of an orgasm; the mere size of turbines would fascinate them; the dramatic movement of the blades would enthuse them; and the repetition of turbines in artificial ridges on top of a tamed landscaped would probably form the ultimate example of the triumph of technology. Yes, I'm sure Futurists would be fervent proponents of wind farms primarily on aesthetic grounds.