Practice
Services
Attitude, behaviour and comfort
Workbook #03 | HUMAN FACTORS: SUSTAINABILITY AND HABITABILITY
We are changing the environment… and not for the better, unfortunately. We change it with our CO2 emissions, by cutting down trees, and generally by everything we do. Yes, two hundred years ago we were cutting down trees – let’s not romanticize the past. But with the Industrial Revolution and the population explosion, the scale at which we affect the weather has become planetary rather than local. And who’s to say that the weather, like all complex systems, won’t tip over the edge of chaos – sooner, rather than later? The Hollywood movie ‘The Day After Tomorrow’ is based on this idea. Cool graphics and a shoddy script aren’t enough to distract one from the uncomfortable knowledge that the beautiful disasters on the screen are inspired by scientific possibility.
This elective is about learning how we can do our bit to stop – or at least delay – our world becoming nothing more a kitschy disaster movie. This elective is about understanding the relationships between individuals (their attitude or expectation informed by personal and social constructs)
the built environment they inhabit (their experience or perception of it)
and the energy they consume to attain & maintain their thermal comfort (modified by environmental design)
“The space within and without, the shelter within and environment, what is within, how far, what is without, how far
That is the question.
Here in lies the difference, between the East and the West.
In the East, within is real within, towards the soul.
In the West, within is corporeal, body temperature, health, comfort, and convenience dominate.
House is a tool for the Western mind, whereas it is the body itself for the Eastern mind. A tool connotes external experiences, a body implies experiences which bounce back, both ways, back and forth, in a give and take.” (Doshi, 2000)
Office building in Gurgaon – What the…?
Experiences… our perception of the spaces we inhabit. Which brings us back full circle to attitude, experience and energy. In India there is a constant struggle between the old and the new, which I suppose would be true for any nation going through the Throes of Development. Building types and technologies are imported wholesale, with the resultant Manhattanization of Indian cities indifferent to the realities of
So our experiences of builtspace are changing, and perhaps not in sync with our attitude or expectations. And why should it? I believe in Modern Architecture, while understanding its weaknesses, but I also believe in levels of architecture where the person (and the family, and the community) interacts with nature. One: the transition space between inside and outside, such as verandas and courtyards, where people gather to have a cup of tea and look at passers-by. Two: the transition between Building and “Outside”, mediated by shadow, water and trees.
One clarification here – most of the pictures I have of India match the typical Westerner’s stereotypical image of India: villages, ‘poor’ people, courtyards and cows. This is only one facet of life in India, one that I’d like to highlight because our vernacular architecture has evolved over the centuries to ‘fit’ the requirements of society and climate. Yes we have multiplexes and glassbox shopping malls (hurrah!) but as I said before, these are Western exports to India. We are still struggling to bridge the gap between an ‘Indian’ architecture in a globalized world. If this sounds a bit apologist I apologize. ☺ And so far as Sydney goes, I think the city as a whole is a lot more exciting than the individual buildings that make it. In other words, the architecture is nothing much to write home about (or journal entries for that matter) – a queer mix of English looking suburbs and a Manhattan CBD. It’s the people and how they interact within the built environment that makes Sydney such a great place, so I’ll talk about it when I get to Sustainability and Habitability in the City.
Habitability (or degree of fit) is maximizing congruence between expectations/intent (…comfort/amenity/health…)
and
socio-spatial conditions
So, speaking as an architect, what I design should take into account optimizing building efficiency vis-à-vis user comfort and energy expenditure (embodied in construction, & expended in maintenance and operation). This is, of course, speaking from Doshi’s “Western” viewpoint. It should also take into account what the people going to inhabit the building expect from it – expectations based on their culture, environmental background, genetic inheritance and social upbringing.
For example
A European couple would have difficulty coping with a situation like the one on the left, while a Japanese one would rely on their powers of concentration (developed by having been brought up in houses with paper screens as walls) to go ahead with whatever they have to do. Different attitudes.
(Mikellides, 1980)
Sketch by Fiddy (from Alida Baxter)
Fishbein’s Theory of Reasoned Action Model examines cognitive and affective components, and intention and affective components (Intent defines attitude dummkopf). When Aldington and Craig were designing a medical practice building in Oxfordshire, they were asked by the clients to “look very carefully at the relationship between doctor and patient.” (Aldington and Craig, 1980). The clients felt that the traditional waiting room, for example, made waiting patients uncomfortable what with “people, embarrassed and worried… forced to look at other equally embarrassed and worried people opposite.” (Ibid) Based on the client’s wish to redesign the typical medical office in more human terms, the architects came up with the following diagram explaining different concerns and resolution. Here, anticipated attitudes informed the design.
Attitudes differ. For all you know, the same situation in a different place might have resulted in a design where patients are encouraged to face each other because they a) they come from a culture where friendliness means discussing each and every ailment you suffer from in gruesome detail or b) it is part of the therapeutic process (for example a circle discussion in a psychiatrist’s office).
One attitude common to all cultures, however, is prioritizing convenience and economy over energy saving and sustainability. The planet needs saving, but I like hot water baths. I’m not saying people are frivolous or air-headed – it’s just natural we think about Our Selves first because our society is based on the notion that men are discrete units designed to survive nature: each man for himself. So it’s up to us as designers to strike the right balance between cost/ convenience and thermal comfort/ sustainability. Psychometric charts are useful diagrams that indicate optimal combinations of the major factors of internal climate: air temperature, humidity, radiant temperature and velocity (air changes per unit time). But these optimal conditions are ‘objective’ – I function at a homeostatic temperature of 37 degrees Celsius but 24 degrees is considered comfortable. If I were sitting on the steps outside the Red Centre chatting with friends, air temperature at 15 degrees I’d still consider myself comfortable.
Fanger's basic assumption--thermal comfort is defined in terms of the physical state of the body rather than that of the environment i.e. what we actually sense is skin temperature and not air temperature. For thermal comfort need:
‘Standard’ steady-state models like the ASHRAE standards ignore realities of culture, genetic inheritance and personal preferences/ level of activity.
We as human beings may in fact desire variations in our thermal environment. McIntyre discusses the need for sensory and physical stimulation and makes a case for fluctuating interior temperatures to counteract thermal boredom . . . It can be argued that achieving a steady optimum temperature is akin to finding the most popular meal at the canteen and then serving it every day. (Kwok, 2000)
Consider these anecdotes collected by Alison G. Kwok from the Internet:
Comfort is subjective. Here are photographs from a trip I took to Jaipur (India) at the peak of the desert summer. The first two are inside the Jaipur Fort: they show how the need to seek shelter from the sun is met by design elements like jharokhas (semi-covered terraces) with jaali (sun breaks), thick masonry walls for insulation, protected open spaces and stone chajjas (large overhangs running all around the building parapet). Besides the climate factors, the building complex also allows for different levels of contemplation and sociability – friends gathering in pockets off the main circulation, and moi sitting alone, daydreaming.
So this journal entry has been about understanding how people, built environment and the natural environment interact at a micro level – the expectations people have from their buildings and to what extent these expectations are fulfilled.
We talk about thresholds where things transform and emerge into something else – event horizons at planetary scales. What about considering the thresholds at the level of our houses as mediators between public and private, inside and outside, Man and Environment? Anything I do may not have immediate visible results on the Earth, but it sure will impact on how I live and what I expect from my life… and maybe that’s good enough. Change begins at home. As an architect I can conscientiously design for climate and comfort and the expectations of my client. The question that arises is this – as a human being do I follow those same sensibilities, practising what I preach. I have the sneaking suspicion that despite my best intentions, I do not. It’s all talk. Or, to be fair to My Self, it’s mostly talk.
Then how do I design for:
Before joining UNSW I worked three years in the architectural field. In the course of this work I explored the idea of sustainability and habitability in architecture in various projects. I don’t know if I want to go into those in detail right now, but I will describe some images I created that sort of chart a course – a ready reckoner of sorts.
The diagram above shows the life cycle of a building and how we as architects make decisions at different stages.
Starting from 12 o clock, the building is at the raw material stage. At the design stage we factor in variables of function and climatic factors like ideal and possible building orientations. As construction commences and proceeds, energy is used to
This means we have to consider things like how far the material is from the site – is the quarry nearby? The embodied energy of the building thus increases (shown in orange), as does the environmental impact (yellow) caused by the production, transport and assembly of materials and products. By the time the building is operational at 4:30 p.m. the embodied energy is already quite high. Our job is to minimise the embodied energy of construction, and of the maintenance and decomposition of the building once it is operational.
Most importantly, throughout the life cycle all our decisions are judged against the criteria of health and safety (in blue), and of equity. These are constants – no compromises.
Health and safety: I might save on energy by using asbestos that is readily available from a factory near my site, but then I end up with a Sick Building. Or I could go for single glazing for all my windows to reduce embodied energy at the construction stage, but then the building is poorly insulated and I rely more on mechanical conditioning so my operational energy costs go up, and the users are not comfortable.
Equity: This means an equitable distribution of wealth and knowledge across the board. From the villagers manufacturing bricks to the CEO of the construction company, I
Based on these criteria, the following diagrams indicate ideas regarding different parts of the life cycle – ‘internalization of the precautionary principle and intergenerational equity’.
Once the building is up, the next step would be Post Occupancy Evaluation – are the users satisfied with the building? what suggestions do they have? What’s the energy performance like? If my buildings and designs embody these principles only then can I consider myself to be environmentally conscientious. Otherwise it’s all talk. By monitoring myself as a person and as an architect, I can become more ‘eco-centred. If I, and other architects, succeed in balancing expectations, costs and energy performance, then people have more options open to them. If we don’t, then why would they? Awareness of the possibilities is the key.