holistic housing concepts design strategies and processes_compressed

Prévia do material em texto

Hans Drexler | Sebastian El khouli
Concepts, Design Strategies and Processes
HOLISTIC HOUSING
HOLISTIC HOUSING
HOLISTIC HOUSING
Concepts, Design Strategies and Processess
HANS DREXLER | SEBASTIAN EL KHOULI
Edition ∂
This book was developed at the Sustainable Building Design Studio at the Münster School of Architecture 
Guest professor Dipl. Arch. ETH Hans Drexler M. Arch (Dist.) https://www.fh-muenster.de/fb5/departments/konstruktion/drexler/Prof-Hans-Drexler.php
In collaboration with 
Bob Gysin + Partner BGP Architekten ETH SIA BSA, Zurich 
www.bgp.ch
 
AUTHORS
Hans Drexler
Dipl. Arch. ETH M. Arch (Dist.)
Sustainable Building Design Studio, Münster School of Architecture
Drexler Guinand Jauslin Architekten, Frankfurt Zurich Rotterdam
 
Sebastian El khouli
Dipl.-Ing. Arch. TU, energy consultant Technische Universität Darmstadt
Bob Gysin + Partner BGP Architekten ETH SIA BSA, Zurich
 
ESSAYS
Dominique Gauzin-Müller
Bob Gysin
EDITORIAL SERVICES
Steffi Lenzen (Project Management)
Kirsten Rachowiak
TRANSLATION FROM GERMAN INTO ENGLISH
Laura Bruce
Raymond D. Peat
Elizabeth Schwaiger
COPY EDITING
Monica Buckland
 
LAYOUT, COVER DESIGN, TYPOGRAPHY, AND DRAWINGS
3 Karat, Frankfurt, Dipl. Des. Nora Wirth 
In cooperation with Dipl. Des. Katja Rudisch 
www.3Karat.de
 
ADDITIONAL DRAWINGS BY
Lisa Katzenberger, Simon Kiefer, Stephanie Monteiro Kisslinger
 
STUDENT RESEARCHERS
Alexandra Cornelius, Santosh Debus, Marta Hristova, Christine Kutscheid, Anna Sumik
PRODUCTION/DTP
Roswitha Siegler
REPRODUCTION
ludwig:media, Zell am See
PRINTING & BINDING
Kessler Druck + Medien, Bobingen
All CO2 emissions that resulted from the flights and car journeys that were necessary to produce this publication were compensated for by the nonprofit foundation 
myclimate (www.myclimate.org). 
A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress, Washington D.C., USA.
Bibliographic information published by the German National Library 
The German National Library lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de.
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, re-use of 
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in other ways, and storage in databases. For any kind of use, permission of the copyright owner must 
be obtained.
This book is also available in a German language edition (ISBN 978-3-920034-77-5).
© 2012 Printed in Germany, 1st edition
Institut für internationale Architektur-Dokumentation GmbH & Co. KG, Munich
www.detail.de
Printed on 135 g BVS Offset-Paper (FSC certified)
ISBN 978-3-920034-78-2
The authors and publisher wish to thank the VELUX GROUP for their generous contribution, without which this publication would not have been possible.
»Housing should be seen as a process and not as a product.  
Balkrishna Doshi
«
6
PART 1: SUSTAINABLE ARCHITECTURE. BASICS AND STRATEGIES
3 FUNDAMENTALS OF SUSTAINABLE DESIGN 
 3.1 Sense and sensibility of sustainable design 30
 3.2 Systemic approach 32
 3.3 Sustainable design is contextual design and process orientation 33
 3.4 Aspects of sustainable design 35
 Local versus global 35
 The temporal dimension of architecture 37
 Identifying the basic parameters (cause and leverage) instead of optimising and 
 minimising the negative effects (end of pipe) 39
 Low-tech versus high-tech 40
 Effi ciency, consistency, suffi ciency 42
 Doing the right things and doing things right 43
4 THE BUILDING AND ITS CONTEXT 
 4.1 Impact: the building’s infl uence on context 44
 The global consequences of human building 44
 The city as a model of the future 45
 The effect building has on the environment 46
 Lighting and shadows 46
 Urban ventilation 47
 Urban building block: the building as added value for the urban environment 47
 The water cycle 47
 4.2 Building performance: the effects of urban design and the physical 49
 Site factors and urban structure (macro level) 49
 Linking the building to the urban structure 50
 Effects of the urban building structure and ground plan 51
5 ARCHITECTURE AS A PROCESS 
 5.1 Designing holistically 55
 Integrated design 55
 The task. Defi nition of requirements and qualities 56
 From the idea to the design 58
 From design to building. Detail design and construction phase 60
 From completion to use. Putting the building into operation 62
 5.2 The building and its life cycle 64
 The building life cycle: economic and ecological analyses 64
 Life cycle costing (economic) 64
 Life cycle assessments 65
1 INTRODUCTION 
 Preface 8
 Acknowledgements 9
2 POSITIONS 
 2.1 A short history of sustainable architecture: Dominique Gauzin-Müller 10
 2.2 Sustainable design. A statement: Bob Gysin 20
CONTENTS
7
PART 2: SUSTAINABLE BY DESIGN. PROJECTS
7 PROJECTS 
 7.1 Keep Thinking – Das Dreieck 92
 7.2 Development of a Sustainable Prototype – Minimum Impact House 108
 7.3 Solar versus Polar – Sunlighthouse 120
 7.4 The Do Tank. – Quinta Monroy 132
 7.5 As Grown – Ecohotel in the Orchard 144
 7.6 Ephemeral Architecture – Wall House 156
 7.7 Outside the White Cube – Townhouse in Landskrona 168
 7.8 Recovered – Fehlmann Site 178
 7.9 In a Forest – Lakeside House 190
 7.10 Palaces instead of Shacks – Isar Stadt Palais 200
 7.11 Earth to Earth – Rauch House 214
 7.12 Design to Dissemble – Loblolly House 226
 7.13 Wooden Box (Holzbox) – Youth and Recreation Camps in Styria 236
 7.14 Architecture in Time and Space – Black Box 248
 7.15 Architecture for the People! – 20K Houses 260
 7.16 Summary of the Analyses of the Projects 272
 Table of illustrations and photographs 280 
 Overview of assessment criteria – foldout 
CONTENTS
 Construction in the life cycle 66
 The life cycle of the components 66 
 Separable connections and hierarchical construction: design to disassemble 66
 Demolition, reuse and recycling 67
 The building in changing times: temporal dimensions 67
 Short-term fl exibility of use: 68
 Long-term constructional fl exibility of use 68
 Neutrality of use 69
6 ASSESSING SUSTAINABILITY 
 6.1 Use and application possibilities of a sustainability assessment 70
 Assessing sustainability versus sustainable design 72
 6.2 Strategies and methods of sustainability impact assessments 73
 Tools for urban planning and developement 73
 Assessment systems for investors and users 73
 Instruments for planners 74
 Descriptive assessment systems 75
 Quantitative assessment systems 75
 Qualitative assessments methods 75 
 Scope and cost of an assessment 76
 6.3 The housing quality barometer – development and methodology 77
 Development and structure of the criteria matrix 78
 Overview of criteria 80
8 1 PREFACE
How can sustainable buildings be designed? This is 
the core of and the essential question behind this 
publication. The subject has interested us more and 
more throughout the years of our collaborative work 
in different teaching and research projects in the De-
partment of Design and Energy-Efficient Construction 
at Darmstadt University of Technology. We realised 
that most publications in the design courses present 
sustainable architecture as a technical requirement 
that could be met by implementing a number of single 
measures. In specialised literature, the mountain of in-
dividual criteria is often discussed within the context 
of a series of exemplary projects that are the result 
of sustainable planning. But these publications seldom 
attempt to explain the concrete relationship between 
requirements and basic conditions and the resulting 
strategiesand design methods, implemented during 
the planning process. We hope that this publication 
will present a holistic view that would allow for as-
pects relevant to the design and planning process, and 
would place them in a systematic context. We would 
also like to outline how these aspects can be integrat-
ed methodologically into architecture. 
Sustainable buildings not only have a less harmful 
effect on the environment, they can also actually be 
implemented to make better architecture. This has 
been the core essence of our project from the very be-
ginning. Sustainable building has acquired a rather 
bad reputation in the public realm as an eco-friendly 
counterculture that preaches going without and delib-
erately ignores the aesthetic or cultural dimensions 
of architecture. This book presents exciting projects 
that enrich, protect, create energy and inspire; that are 
also coherent, dynamic and atmospheric – and, most 
importantly, are fun. We explain how these buildings 
were created and reveal the story behind the people, 
the ideas, the questions, the steps and the detours that 
were necessary for each project to be realised. And 
we will prove how these buildings possess qualities 
 before they are occupied by the residents or users, 
whose presence, some believe, contaminates empty, 
perfect rooms and hence the ‘essence of architecture.’ 
The objective of this book is to prove that clean, glossy 
photographs of architecture are only the very begin-
ning of a much larger and often more exciting story. 
We also aim to discover how people live in and with 
the buildings. 
We see this publication as both a textbook and a po-
lemic paper. A textbook because most projects do not 
lack the will or inspiration, but rather the necessary 
knowledge about sustainable architecture and how it 
can be implemented. With this in mind, our discussion 
focuses more on how, rather than why, architecture 
can be made sustainable. However, this publication 
does not claim to be complete. There are detailed pub-
lications available that are directed at specific issues, 
such as energy efficiency or life cycle analyses, and 
are more theoretically and methodologically compre-
hensive than is possible in this book. We have put the 
individual topics into a holistic context and analysed 
them with regard to their dependencies and interre-
lationships. 
The book can be seen as a polemic paper inasmuch as 
the attitude we represent and the necessary changes 
can only be the basis of consensus at first glance. The 
universal espousing of the need for sustainability, by 
society as a whole and architecture specifically, has 
largely become empty clichés that only serve as an 
emergency camouflaging of learned and acquired 
patterns. But the range of those who have discovered 
sustainability as a viable marketing instrument spans 
from star architects to global players in real estate. 
Both groups selectively reduce the subject to ques-
tions regarding technical building features or the use 
of certified and tested materials, thereby denying the 
power of design and, hence, any relevance to the archi-
tectural and academic discourse. 
We aim to communicate the qualities of sustainable 
residential buildings and to describe them as a part 
of the daily life of the people who live in them. This 
is why we thought it was important to visit and expe-
rience the buildings we analysed and described, and 
to speak to the people who developed and/or occupy 
them. An elaborate analysis cannot replace the com-
plex and multifaceted, live experience of a real build-
ing. Our personal encounter and the many discussions 
helped us to try to understand the motives, interests 
and desires of the parties involved, in order to discov-
er why and how they planned and implemented spe-
cific aspects. We wanted to distance ourselves from 
the dominating notion of architecture as a finished 
product – to see it rather as a process and an organic, 
variable system that ages and changes and is in active 
dialog with its environment and users. 
This publication is primarily designed as a work tool for 
architects and planners – hence we have explained the 
different sustainable building design strategies using 
15 examples that each follow different strategies and 
approaches, based on their individual goals, require-
ments and contexts. There are no universal principles 
PREFACE
91 PREFACE
or simple recipes for planning sustainable buildings. 
Each project is a specific response to its context, the local
climate, and the user’s requirements. Therefore, we de-
cided not to restrict ourselves to simple the results of 
planning, but to place special focus on describing the 
methods and processes implemented to achieve the results. 
Sustainable architecture is not a style; it is the product 
of an attitude – with respect to one’s own work, with 
respect to the people for whom we build, and with re-
spect to the world in which we realise our buildings. It 
requires a conscious awareness of the complexity of the 
questions posed by the art of building. Moreover, it re-
quires a great amount of energy in order to overcome 
existing resistance and doubts.
We would like to thank all those who participated in this 
project for their comprehensive support, which often far 
exceeded any expectations: Nora Wirth and her part-
ner Katja Rudisch (www.3Karat.de), who are respon-
sible for the layout and graphics on the book, as well 
as for the wonderful work and their enviable patience 
when dealing with us and our often contradictory ideas; 
Steffi Lenzen, Odine Oßwald, Robert Steiger and Ros-
witha Siegler for the trust they placed in us and for the 
expert support and ever-present professional and con-
structive dialogue; Monica Buckland, Thomas Menzel 
and Kirsten Rachowiak for the persevering verbal and 
written editing of our manuscript; Laura Bruce, Elisa-
beth Schwaiger, and Raymond Peat for the English 
translation, Lone Feifer and Christoph Volkmann, for their 
generous financial backing of our idea, without which 
this publication could not have been realised; Bob Gysin 
+ Partner BGP Architekten AG, who supported us in a 
number of ways and who were so tolerant of the many ab-
sences; Dominique Gauzin-Müller and Bob Gysin, who 
with immense commitment and work contributed two 
wonderful essays to complete our idea; Anna Sumik, Lisa 
Katzenberger and Simon Kiefer, who worked on the analy-
sis and graphic development of the book, and Christine 
Kutscheid, Alexandra Cornelius, Martha Hristova and 
Santosh Debus, who worked on developing the content in 
student seminars; the Department of Design and Energy-
Efficient Construction of Prof. Manfred Hegger at the 
TU Darmstadt and the Münster School of Architecture 
(MSA), who provided us with an inspiring working en-
vironment and every possible form of support; and not 
least our partners and friends who tolerated our moods 
and time demands for a period of over two years.
We would also like to thank all of the participating ar-
chitects, planners, residents, clients, and sponsors, who 
sacrificed their time for us, as well as the photographers, 
who gave us their pictures at minimal cost and some-
times even free:
20K Houses: Danny Wicke, Gayle Etheridge, David 
Thornton, MacArthur Coach, Frank Harris; Ecohotel: 
Sebastian Schels (photos), Deppisch Architekten (photos
and drawings), the Hörger family, Martha Hristova (pho-
tos and drawings) and Mira Hampel (photos: www.mi-
rahampel.de); Black Box: Edward Weysen and Lore De 
Baere, Michelle Verbruggen (photos); Dreieck: Martin 
Albers, Kasper Fahrländer, Andreas Keller, Giorgio von 
Arb and Hannes Henz (photos), Santosh Debus (photos, 
drawings and texts); Fehlmann site: Marco Giuliani, 
Tanja Scholze, Marcel Knoblauch and Franz Aeschbach, 
Martin Kessler, the Latscha family and the Bugmann 
family, Roger Frei (photos: www.rogerfrei.com); Rauch 
House: Martin Rauch and Marta Rauch-Debevec, Roger 
Boltshauser, Anna Heringer,Beat Bühler (photos: www.
beatbuehler.ch); Holzbox Tirol: Erich Strolz and Fer-
dinand Reiter, Gerald Gigler, Roland Kalss, Reinhard 
Dayer, Mr Rettinger, Ms Vorraber, Johann Harrer, Peter 
Holzer, Günther Linzberger, Markus Fiedler, Birgit Koell 
(photos: www.birgitkoell.at) and Hertha Hurnaus (pho-
tos: www.hurnaus.com); Isar Stadt Palais: Joachim Lep-
pert and Isabel Mayer, Sebastian Rickert, Thomas Fit-
zenreiter, Andi Albert (photos); Lakeside House: Tuomas 
Toivonen, Nene Tsuboi, Maija Luutonen; Loblolly House: 
Kieran Timberlake, Billiy Faircloth, Carin Whitney and 
Christopher Kieran, Kevin Gingerich, Christine Cor-
dazzo (photos: www.esto.com); Minimum Impact House: 
Esther Götz, Kristina Klenner, Marcella Lantelme, Su-
sanne Sauter, Jörg Thöne and Eva Zellmann, Daniel 
Jauslin (photos), Sabine Djahanschah and the Deutsche 
Bundesstiftung Umwelt (DBU); Quinta Monroy: Victor 
Oddó and Alejandro Aravena, Praxedes Campos, Jana 
Revedin, Sara Maestrello (photos: www.saramaestrello.
com) and Christobal Palma (Photos: www.cristobal-
palma.com); Sunlighthouse: Juri Troy, Lone Feifer and 
Heinz Hackl, Dietmar Polczer, Peter Holzer, Adam Mørk 
(photos: www.adammork.dk); Townhouse: Jonas Elding 
and Johan Oscarson, Conny Ahlgren and Johnny Lökaas, 
Åke E:son Lindman (photos: www.lindmanphotography.
com); Wall House: Mario Rojas Toledo and Marc Frohn, 
Paty and Juan Rojas Toledo, Christobal Palma (photos: 
www.cristobalpalma.com).
We would also like to thank all of our colleagues and 
supporters, such as eeConcept, Jay Kimball, Matthias 
Hampe and Joost Hartwig, who made their knowledge, 
as well as their pictures, graphics and documents avail-
able to us.
10 2 POSITIONS
Sustainability! There’s hardly a journal, programme or 
symposium that doesn’t trumpet this word and it often 
becomes the central topic. For all that, there is tremen-
dous variation in the definition or meaning ascribed to 
the word. What has become the fundamental value of 
their lives to some militants is – to others – no more than 
a communications tool for the heedless green washing of 
products. Sustainable architecture can also contain vast-
ly different meanings for those who are active in the 
field. The focus may be on energy use, natural materials 
or social goals. Some associate the term with low-tech 
and self-build projects in wood or adobe, others with 
high-tech installations and nanomaterials. The most 
likely interpretation of sustainable architecture is to un-
derstand it as a balance between rediscovering bio-
climatic principles, building traditions emerging from 
the context, and ingenious innovations that diminish 
resource use. This goal can be achieved only through 
multidisciplinary and integrated planning based on a 
holistic approach. This way, we could soon reach an 
important stage on the long road towards a sustainable 
society. 
Sustainable thinking is by no means a fad, as is often 
assumed. Although the term had not been coined at the 
time, the concept is as old as industrialisation itself, the 
consequences of which it aims to compensate. It became 
known only in the wake of the UN report Our Common 
Future, authored by Gro Harlem Brundtland in 1987. The 
three-pillar model advocated in the report has been dis-
seminated around the world since the world summit of 
Rio de Janeiro in 1992. But it evolved fully only after 
France added a fourth pillar during the sub-sequent 
summit in Johannesburg in 2002. Indeed, in addition to 
ecology, economy and social issues, culture is an essen-
tial core element of sustainable development. For the 
past 150 years, artists and architects have joined biolo-
gists, sociologists, philosophers, politicians, econo-
mists and others in fleshing out the concept. 
A SHORT HISTORY OF 
SUSTAINABLE ARCHITECTURE
DOMINIQUE GAUZIN-MÜLLER 
SUSTAINABLE THINKING AS A 
CONSEQUENCE OF INDUSTRIALISATION 
Since the age of Enlightenment in the 18th century, 
Western culture has subscribed to a model based on 
René Descartes’ ideas and his Biblical models.1 This 
Cartesian worldview regards humans not only as mas-
ters and possessors of nature and rulers over ‘animal-
machines’.2 It also adheres to a belief in progress that 
assumes the continual development of new technologies 
as a means of constantly improving our quality of life. 
Nature is seen chiefly as a resource, the exploitation and 
processing of which will furnish us with ever greater 
material comfort. However, beyond this thinking, there
have always been advocates for a more reasonable 
approach to interacting with nature and in favour of 
moderation. In the mid-19th century, the philosopher 
Henry David Thoreau became one of the first dissent-
ing voices in the United States, which was then well on 
its way to becoming the largest industrial nation in the 
world. His lyrical hymn to nature, Walden. Or Life in the 
Woods,3 is often regarded as the origin of the ecologi-
cal movement. Some ideas expressed by Jean-Jacques 
Rousseau and the proponents of Romanticism in Europe 
also found their way into this body of thought. 
Around the turn of the 20th century, Rudolf Steiner, fol-
lowing in the footsteps of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, 
introduced a philosophy of anthroposophy with the aim 
of restoring harmony between humans and nature. His 
philosophy, which has many followers to this day, found 
expression in pedagogy and medicine, in agriculture 
and even in architecture. Around the same time several 
movements emerged in opposition to the industrialisa-
tion of building and living; spearheaded by architects, 
artisans and artists, they included the Wiener Werk-
stätten of Josef Hoffmann’s circle and the Arts & Crafts 
movement, originally founded by Rennie Mackintosh in 
Scotland and then continued in the work of the Greene
112 POSITIONS
brothers in California. The Bauhaus, founded by Walter 
Gropius in 1919, also sought to integrate architecture, 
arts and crafts, albeit in a vein that was more strongly
characterised by the Modern movement and the Inter-
national Style. 
Several prominent politicians also recognised the risks 
early on and sounded a warning. More than a century 
ago, on 3 December 1907, President Theodore Roosevelt
cautioned in his annual message to the US congress: 
‘Optimism is a good characteristic, but if carried to an 
excess it becomes foolishness. We are prone to speak 
of the resources of this country as inexhaustible; this 
is not so. The mineral wealth of the country, the coal, 
iron, oil, gas, and the like, does not reproduce itself, and 
therefore certain to be exhausted ultimately; and waste-
fulness in dealing with it today means that our descend-
ants will feel the exhaustion a generation or two before 
they otherwise would’.4
OPTIMISM 
FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT, INVENTOR OF 
ORGANIC ARCHITECTURE
An important approach originated in the United States. 
Influenced by Thoreau’s work, the architect Frank 
Lloyd Wright (1867 – 1959) believed that a house was 
born like a living organism out of a meeting between 
the spirit of the site and the needs of the inhabitants, 
thus developing the concept of ‘organic’ architecture. 
Wright’s built work was inspired by scientific, artistic 
and philosophical approaches, including that of Johann
Wolfgang von Goethe. Two residential and studio com-
plexes by Wright serve as convincing examples of his 
organic architecture: Taliesin, first built in 1911 in the 
green hills of Wisconsin and Taliesin West, built at a 
later date in the Arizona desert. Both buildings exem-
plify how a client and an architect were able to realise 
the same programme in very different geographic and 
climatic environments. In Europe, the proponents of the
organic approach were Hans Scharoun (1893 – 1972), 
Hugo Häring (1882 – 1958) and Alvar Aalto (1898 – 1976),
and later on the Hungarian architect Imro Makovecz 
(b. 1935), who was influenced by anthroposophy. 
A BRAVE NEW WORLD?
The 1930s and 1940s saw the emergence of more critics 
of the social developmentin Britain and the United 
States. With a view to shaking the world out of its 
complacency, Aldous Huxley described a society in 
which people were suppressed and where the need 
for critical thought and questioning the world order 
had been lost through consumption and drugs in his 
1932 novel Brave New World. In 1936 Charlie Chaplin 
exposed the negative sides of the industrial society in 
his satirical film Modern Times; and in Our Plundered 
Planet, 1948, Fairfield Osborn warned against the 
lunacy of presuming one could resist the process 
of natural forces without incurring consequences. 
Where were the architects joining these committed 
artists? 
In an era that, in the footsteps of the international move-
ment, was orientated towards the archetypes of Mod-
ernism – the use of concrete and standardised building 
methods – a handful of outsiders tried to follow a different 
path. These attempts were marked by the use of local 
building materials, the promotion of local traditions and 
an artisanal quality. In the developing countries, the 
best example for this movement is found in the work of 
the Egyptian architect Hassan Fathy (1900 – 1989). He 
emphasised the authenticity of rural culture and juxta-
posed it with the loss of identity and even corruption 
that arise from the use of Western building techniques 
and materials. In doing so he became a model for many 
proponents of an alternative architecture; his work con-
tinues to be admired in North and South. Fathy erected 
more than 150 projects for the poor in Egypt, Iraq and 
Pakistan, building with mud bricks (adobe), and redis-
covered building traditions from Nubia with the hands-
on participation of the residents. In this manner he 
began to build two new villages for the local inhabitants 
in the Valley of the Kings in the 1940s; they were never 
completed because the future residents were hesitant 
to settle there. Fathy penned a detailed account of the 
creation of these villages in his book Gourna, a Tale of 
Two Villages.5 
01 Taliesin, Wisconsin (USA), Frank Lloyd Wright, 1911
12
THE SCANDINAVIAN PIONEERS
At the other end of the world, the yearning for authenticity
was equally alive. Although Alvar Aalto invariably af-
firmed his belief in Modernism, he never forgot his 
Scandinavian roots. He always campaigned for respect 
for the small people and warned against standardisa-
tion in architecture because its humanity would be di-
minished by it. His Villa Mairea, built in 1939, is often 
seen as Europe’s first ecological house. Several arche-
types of Modernism are cleverly blended with typical 
characteristics of the tradition: stone walls, timber 
posts and cladding, planted roofs etc. The human scale 
is evident in many small details, such as hand-formed 
curvatures on the side of the chimney, or the woven 
door handles.
Christianity only reached Scandinavia in the 12th 
century, which may explain why people in this region 
continue to have an especially strong connection with 
nature and its spiritual forces. In keeping with their 
cultural proximity, many Scandinavian architects 
adopted the organic approach: the Swedish architect 
Ralph Erskine (1914 – 2005) and later on the Norwe-
gian Sverre Fehn (1924 – 2009), as well as the Finn 
Reima Pietilä (1923 – 1993) and his wife Raili, known 
for works that include their student residence Dipoli 
(1966) on the Otaniemi campus in Helsinki, which was 
designed by Aalto. All were influenced by the teachings
of the Norwegian architecture critic Christian Norberg-
Schulz (1926 – 2000), who in turn was strongly influ-
enced by the philosophies of Henry-David Thoreau and 
Martin Heidegger. His work Genius Loci. Towards a 
Phenomenology of Architecture, published in 1980, is a 
compendium of his ideas and insights. Context is a cen-
tral theme. Norberg-Schulz analyses the psychology of 
the inhabitants at a location in relation to the unique 
characteristics of the site: the impact of long, cold 
winters in Nordic countries, as well as that of sun and 
warmth in Italy, the traditional architecture of which 
he studied for a long time. 
Sverre Fehn’s oeuvre reflected the ideas of his friend 
Norberg-Schulz and those of his master Frank Lloyd 
Wright. His international breakthrough came in 1962 
after the completion of the Nordic Pavilion – a concrete 
structure punctured by openings for trees – at the 
Biennale in Venice. In addition to his commitment to 
the Modern movement from the 1950s onward, he was 
always a proponent of a constructive poetic, which he 
had adopted from Jean Prouvé in France. The museum 
in Hedmark heralded a change in his style, departing 
somewhat from Modernism and increasingly influ-
enced by traditional architecture and the materials 
associated with it.
The Australian Glenn Murcutt (b. 1936) was influenced 
by the critical modernity of Aalto and Fehn as well as 
by the aboriginal culture of his native land and the 
archetypes of vernacular architecture he discovered 
on his numerous travels. His career has been following 02 Nordic Pavilion, Venice Biennale (Italy), Sverre Fehn, 1962
In it he also admits to his own mistakes and reveals the 
reasons for his failure, among others the socio-cultural 
situation: in the colonial era, he lamented, any concrete 
box became an icon of modernity. Unfortunately little 
has changed to this day...
A quest towards indigenous alternatives was also un-
derway in Asia during that period. Balkrishna Doshi 
(b. 1927), who worked with Le Corbusier in Ahmedabad, 
has sought to adapt modernistic concepts to the Indian
context ever since he launched his Vastu-Shilpa Foun-
dation for Studies and Research in Environmental 
Design in 1955. In harmony with Eastern philosophy, 
he is among the first to embrace a holistic approach 
towards design for architecture and urban planning.
2 POSITIONS
13
an atypical course since 1969, with the architect realis-
ing primarily single-family homes that are character-
ised by a reticence in their formal language and mate-
rial and by how they are embedded in the landscape. 
Murcutt, who has always worked on his own and still 
draws by hand today, has always been a strong critic of 
the wasteful consumption of energy and raw materials.
THE DISSEMINATION OF ECOLOGICAL 
THINKING
The foundation for ecological thinking as we under-
stand it today was laid after the Second World War with 
the creation of several international institutions. The 
International Union for Conservation of Nature, found-
ed in 1948, published the first report on the state of 
the environment on Earth in 1951, a pioneering work 
in their pursuit of reconciling economy and ecology. 
In 1962 Rachel Carson warned of the toxic effect of 
pesticides and other chemicals, which were being em-
ployed quite carelessly on a mass scale at the time, in 
her ground-breaking work Silent Spring, describing the 
dangers of water and air pollution. The bestseller The 
Population Bomb (1968) was sensational on a similar 
scale; in it author Paul Ehrlich forecast an explosion of 
the world’s population, proposing that it might reach 
seven billion by the year 2000 – a figure that nearly 
came true.
When US students who were critical towards the 
establishment rediscovered Thoreau’s work in the 1960s, 
it came as a wakeup call to entrepreneurs. In 1968 a 
handful of industrialists joined forces and founded a 
think tank as a forum in which biologists and economists 
would brainstorm with high-ranking international civil 
servants on a global governance of the environment. 
The publication of their first report to the Club of Rome
in 1972, entitled The Limits to Growth, sparked a minor 
revolution. Lead by Dennis Meadows, researchers at
MIT6 drew the public’s attention to the ruthless ex-
ploitation of our natural resources, waste of energy 
and water and environmental pollution, and called for 
‘zero growth’ in order to decelerate these dynamics. 
Although the report caused a furore, it was quickly de-
cried as paintingtoo catastrophic a scenario. In Only
one Earth, a report for the UN Conference on the 
Human Environment, also in 1972, Barbara Ward and 
the French microbiologist and ecologist René Dubos 
coined a motto that has been adopted many times since 
it was first published: ‘Think globally, act locally.’ In 
1973 Ernst Friedrich Schumacher added more concrete 
examples in Small is Beautiful: a Study of Economics as 
if People Mattered.
POLITICAL SUSTAINABILITY
In the 1970s, economists and philosophers joined in the 
discussion on what at that time was not yet called sus-
tainability. The Romanian-American mathematician and 
economist Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen was the first, in 
his 1971 publication The Entropy Law and the Economic 
Process, to dare to address a reduction in growth – a de-
mand that was taken up again and vehemently defended 
in the first decade of the 21st century by French econo-
mist Serge Latouche.7 In 1973, the Austrian-American 
philosopher, theologian and pedagogue Ivan Illich pub-
lished a radical critique of capitalism. The central thesis 
of his work entitled Tools for Conviviality was: ‘Society can 
be destroyed when further growth of mass production 
renders the milieu hostile.’ One of Illich’s main concerns 
was to warn the developing countries against repeating 
our mistakes: ‘Above all I want to show that two-thirds of 
mankind still can avoid passing through the industrial 
age, by choosing right now a postindustrial balance in
their mode of production.’8 The visionary manifesto 
addresses education, politics and transportation in the 
quest for a convivial society, that is, a humane society. 
Humans should control machines – not vice versa! This 
theoretical continuation of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New 
World and Chaplin’s Modern Times emphasises the 
important role of art and culture in the shift towards a 
sustainable society.
Hans Jonas, a German-American philosopher, published 
his seminal work The Imperative of Responsibility: In 
Search of an Ethic for the Technological Age in 1979. In 
it he emphasised the anthropocentrism of Cartesian 
thought and the materialism it engenders, and explored 
the arbitrary power technology bestows upon human-
kind. Additionally, Jonas analysed the impact of human 
activity on society and the environment, the disturbance 
of a millennia-old equilibrium through industrialisation 
and the resulting responsibility. All these publications 
have contributed to many people’s conducting them-
selves in both their daily and their professional lives in a 
more sustainable manner over the past 30 years.
THE PREMISE OF ECOLOGICAL BUILDING
From the 1950s onward, more and more architects en-
gaged with the concept of ecological building, especial-
ly in the southwest of the United States. In 1951 Paolo 
Soleri (b. 1919), the Italian owner of a ceramics factory, 
built an Earth House in the desert of Arizona, which 
became the seed for Arcosanti, his concretised Utopia. 
Up to 1991, Soleri – a student of Frank Lloyd Wright – 
developed this city of the future like a human ecosystem. 
Today, the city has some 80 inhabitants, who produce 
their own food. The Sea Ranch, a holiday development 
on the Pacific coast, 150  km north of San Francisco, 
became the model for modern wood building for many 
European architects. In 1965 Charles Moore (1925 
– 1993) built Condominium One at the site, the first of 
many holiday developments, all of which subscribed to 
the same philosophy: adaptation to the unspoilt land-
scape, organic forms, red cedar cladding and roof shin-
gles. Around the same time, California also became 
the mecca for solar architecture. David Wright’s book 
on passive solar design Natural Solar Architecture,
2 POSITIONS
14
a passive primer, published in 1978, was translated into 
many languages and is considered a classic work to 
this day.
This evolution was fundamentally influenced by the work 
of the Austrian-British mathematician and architect 
Christopher Alexander, who had founded the Center for 
Environmental Structure at the University of Berkeley in 
1967. Like those of Illich, Jonas and Georgescu-Roegen, 
Alexander’s paths had also led from Europe to North 
America, and like his predecessors, he too had mas-
tered several areas of knowledge as a foundation for his 
holistic approach. 
His seminal work A Pattern Language. Towns, Buildings,
Construction, published with several co-authors in 1977,
is the second volume of a trilogy encompassing several
thousand pages on which a six-person team had 
worked over a period of eight years. To begin with, the
pattern language is a planning aid in which the 253 
basic patterns are an expression of a common cultural 
language. The authors present an analysis of the prob-
lem for each of the patterns studied in the work – from 
independent regions to children in the city to efficient 
structures. The problem is then discussed and explored 
with the help of examples. Although the work and its il-
lustrations appear somewhat dated today, an exploration 
of Alexander’s Pattern Language is well worth the while. 
It could be seen as a first attempt to comprehend the 
complexity of sustainable architecture and sustainable 
urban planning, as well as the ecological, economic and 
sociocultural connections between the two – and fur-
thermore as an attempt to master these if possible.
EUROPEAN EXPERIMENTS
Europe was sensitised to the issue for the first time when 
two oil crises in rapid succession – in 1973 and 1979 – 
suddenly made the population aware that energy is a 
scarce and expensive commodity. This gave rise to a great
interest in solar building, bioclimatic houses and the use 
of adobe and wood. France assumed a pioneering role 
with the construction of three experimental develop-
ments that attracted visitors from around the world: the 
Village solaire in Nandy, a Paris suburb; Villabois, a group 
of 117 duplex and terraced houses, which was inaugu-
rated on the occasion of the first international Wood Fair 
Batibois in Bordeaux in 1984; and the Domaine de la terre 
in Villefontaine near Lyon, which was completed a year 
later. This social housing complex comprising 65 units 
in single-family homes and small multi-family buildings 
is home to 300 people living comfortably in the shelter 
of walls made of rammed earth, adobe or pressed mud 
bricks. The construction was overseen by the Laboratoire 
CRATerre, which had been founded at the School of Ar-
chitecture at Grenoble in 1979. The committed team at 
the laboratory resurrected adobe construction from ob-
scurity by thoroughly and diligently analysing traditional 
buildings from all continents as well as conducting sci-
entific studies into the properties of the kernels that form 
the material. CRATerre became the UNESCO Chair for 
Earthen Architecture, Constructive Cultures and Sustain-
able Development and many architects who today build 
with earth and sand around the world acquired the ABCs 
of adobe construction at the centre. 
France’s decision in favour of nuclear energy as its main 
source of power, which was to ensure the autonomy of 
the nation, spelled not only the end of experiments with 
renewable energies, but also an end to the quest for en-
ergy-efficient building and the use of materials that use 
little embedded energy. Nearly all the research funding 
was directed towards nuclear energy, and the inexpen-
sive energy – albeit only seemingly so and then only for 
the short term – led to many wrong decisions that are 
difficult to rectify today.
GERMAN PIONEERS
The German pioneers hail from the south of the country:
Thomas Herzog (b. 1941) in Bavaria; Peter Hübner 
03 Condominium One, Sea
 Ranch, California (USA), 
 Charles Moore, 1965
04 Domaine de la Terre, 
 Villefontaine (France), 
 Françoise-Hélène Jourda 
 and Gilles Perraudin, Adobe 
 construction: Laboratoire 
 CRATerre, 1985
2 POSITIONS
15
(b. 1938), Joachim Epple, as well as Günter Behnisch 
(1952 – 2010) and later on his son Stefanin Baden-Würt-
temberg. Thomas Herzog, a long-time professor at the 
University of Technology, Munich, is regarded as one of 
the founders of bioclimatic architecture. The philosophy 
of the practice opened in 1972 is to further and cultivate 
Modernism: ‘The task is to exercise social responsibility 
and to participate actively in the scientific and techno-
logical progress as well as to integrate aspects relevant 
for the environment in multiple ways – specially the pos-
sibilities of solar energy.’9 The single-family house with 
a triangular cross-section and a glass-structure project-
ing out- and downward to the ground, which Herzog 
erected in Regensburg in 1979, became a prototype. The 
post-and-beam construction in glulam (glued laminated 
timber) was conceived in collaboration with the timber 
engineer Julius Natterer. The same team designed the 
impressive EXPO roof, a large roof construction with pa-
vilions for the World EXPO 2000 in Hanover.
Peter Hübner, who also combined teaching and practice, 
looked upon building as a social process.10 From 1982 on-
wards, he designed and realised a series of youth build-
ings in the Stuttgart area, in Wangen, Herrenberg and 
Feuerbach, in a process of user participation. The youth 
centre in Stammheim has the shape of a dinosaur, while 
the one in Möglingen is reminiscent of a UFO. The princi-
pal material is invariably wood, often combined with brick. 
Several schools were also realised in a participatory pro-
cess, among them a few Steiner schools and a kindergar-
ten composed of many small wooden houses for the city of 
Stuttgart; and a church, in whose construction Hübner’s 
students at the University of Stuttgart participated – as 
was often the case with his projects. On the occasion of 
the IBA Emscher Park, Peter Hübner and his office Plus + 
designed two very inexpensive row house developments, 
one in Lünen, the other in Gelsenkirchen. The building 
block system of wood frames on a concrete slab was in-
tended to facilitate a self-build by the inhabitants.
Since 1952, the Stuttgart firm of Behnisch and Part-
ners has been developing an approach to contemporary 
architecture that has consistently remained free of fads, 
trends and preconceived ideas. Their colourful build-
ings, characterised by a high degree of empathy with 
their users, exude freshness and cheerfulness. Be they 
schools, offices, retirement homes or a high-profile 
building such as the parliament building in Bonn, the 
firm’s projects are designed in their totality from the 
inside out, in harmony with their environment. Günter 
Behnisch’s basic principles are reflected in his build-
ings: respect for humans and nature; adaptation to the 
individual needs of the users; democratisation of the con-
cept; putting the ‘apparatus’ into question; multiplicity 
within unity.11 From the 1990s onward, Stefan Behnisch 
furthered his father’s social goals with ecological meas-
ures, which were often developed in close collaboration 
with the engineering firm Transsolar. The research in-
stitute in Wageningen, completed in 1998, was one of 
the first buildings in Europe where energy strategies 
and material selection had been rigorously examined. 
The firm gained international stature as a result of this 
project. James Steele12 and Peter Blundell Jones,13 two 
British architecture critics with a longstanding focus 
on ecological architecture, have emphasised the impor-
tant impulses of Behnisch and Partners, now Behnisch 
Architects. 
ECONOMIC AND ECOLOGICAL
SUSTAINABILITY
After the foundation of the Rocky Mountains Institute in 
Colorado in 1982, the alternative energy strategies de-
veloped by the environmental activist Amory B. Lovins 
and his wife L. Hunter Lovins attracted more attention. 
They gained fame after the publication of Factor Four, 
a 1995 book they authored together with the German 
scientist and politician Ernst-Ulrich von Weizsäcker, 
the founder of the Wuppertal Institute for Climate, En-
vironment and Energy. What does Factor Four mean? It 
refers to the quadrupling of resource productivity, that 
is, Doubling Wealth – Halving Resource Use. In this re-
port to the Club of Rome, the authors were not content 
with delivering a situation report as in The Limits to 
Growth. They offered 50 concrete suggestions for solu-
tions from all sectors of the economy, including many 
in the building sector: thus, the passive-house concept 
by Wolfgang Feist is one of the examples described in 
the report. 
This was followed shortly after by the publication of a 
book that suddenly – if only in approximation – translated 
resource consumption into a language understandable 
by all with the help of the term ecological footprint. The 
authors were two economists: the Swiss Mathis Wacker-
nagel and the Canadian William Rees.14 They estimated 
that 1.8 hectares were available globally to each person 
on Earth (gha) and described how humankind had sur-
passed bio-capacity threshold of the Earth in the 1980s. 
The situation has deteriorated every year since then. The 
WWF, which publishes updated data by location every 
year in its Living Planet Report,15 adopted the concept. 
In the 2008 report, the ecological footprint had reached 
9.5 gha (that is, more than five-fold) in the United States, 
roughly 4.8 gha in the European Union, 1.3 gha in Asia 
and Oceania and 1.1 gha in Africa. Globally, we are cur-
rently consuming renewable resources 50% faster than 
the planet Earth is able to renew them sustainably.
THE SUSTAINABLE MODEL OF
VORARLBERG
Sustainable architecture must not focus on ecological 
and economic aspects alone; it must also take social 
and cultural factors into consideration. The gains for 
society can be observed in the example of Vorarlberg.16 
This small Austrian state, poverty-stricken for a long 
time and now economically successful, has the greatest 
social capital17 in Europe and is also the most sustain-
able region in the union.
2 POSITIONS
16
Vorarlberg generates the amount of power the region 
requires. Some communities have achieved energy au-
tonomy thanks to a combination of hydropower, solar 
collectors, geothermal power and biomass. The public 
transport network reaches even the smallest of moun-
tain villages. Grocery stores sell rural products from the 
many local organic farmers, and the workers and crafts-
men who built the Baroque churches and monasteries 
on the shores of Lake Constance have been famous for 
the quality of their work since the 18th century. Build-
ing components produced in the region, such as wood-
based materials, ventilation equipment and steel fittings, 
are renowned around the world. Thanks to the engage-
ment of the architects in Vorarlberg, it was architecture 
that paved the way for this dedicated and hence success-
ful transformation of the region towards sustainability 
in the 1980s.
Every year, the region attracts more than 10,000 players 
in the building sector from around the world. In Klaus, 
they visit the first passive-house school in Austria, de-
signed by the firm of Dietrich and Untertrifaller. They 
admire the Factor-10 renovations carried out by Helmut 
Kuess, who creates social housing schemes that boast 
less than 15 kWh/m2a in annual heating requirements. 
Another oft-admired project is the community centre 
in Ludesch, a masterpiece by Hermann Kaufmann. The 
building, with its sophisticated energy technology and 
near power autonomy thanks to 350 m2 of photovoltaic 
modules, was constructed, among other materials, with 
221 m3 of local silver fir and 5.5  tonnes of sheep wool, 
and contains only half of the embedded energy of a com-
parable building (less than 18 kWh/m2).
What is the recipe for success? The implementation of 
a participatory democracy, great transparency in the 
political sphere and the courage of the local representa-
tives at the local and regional level are among the chief 
factors. Yet in addition to historical, economic and so-
ciocultural factors, the attitudeof the local architects 
also contributes to the success. Although their buildings 
are renowned around the world, they exhibit none of the 
airs and graces of star architects. They regard them-
selves first and foremost as service providers and are 
concerned with the needs and desires of their clients. 
They have been practising integrated planning for a long 
time, involving engineers from the very early stages of 
creating the first drawings, and work hand in hand with 
craftsmen and labourers. There is no competition among 
them but competitiveness, and they are open and com-
municative with regard to both their positive and their 
negative experiences. This feedback, which is among 
other things disseminated through the communication 
work of the local architecture and energy institutes, 
explains the rapid and decisive steps that Vorarlberg 
has continued to take towards sustainability for several 
decades. Together, the agents of building have found the 
right balance of low-tech and high-tech, tradition and 
innovation for their regional context. Two of the build-
ings presented in this book were realised in Vorarlberg 
or by architects from Vorarlberg: Rauch House in Schlins 
and the Sunlighthouse.
05 Olympic stadium Munich 
 (Germany), Behnisch & 
 Partner in collaboration with 
 Frei Otto, 1972
06 Administrative centre for the 
 Landesgirokasse bank (now 
 BW Bank) Am Bollwerk, 
 Stuttgart (Germany), 
 Behnisch & Partner, 1996
2 POSITIONS
17
SMALL SCALE, BIG CHANGE
Given its climate conditions and the high user demand 
for comfort in summer and winter alike, Europe has con-
centrated predominantly on energy: the passive house in 
Germany and Austria, MINERGIE® in Switzerland. But 
other important factors also have to be taken into consid-
eration. In a globalised world, which, responding to the 
pressure exerted by international conglomerates, focuses 
on the use of concrete, steel and high-tech, material 
selection should be subjected to critical examination.
A new generation of architects is trying to follow a dif-
ferent path with the use of local, renewable and recy-
clable building materials. These young colleagues, who 
set their ego aside, find their fulfilment under the motto 
more with less. They emphasise the authenticity and 
beauty of vernacular architecture and expose the nega-
tive sides of using building materials and technologies 
from industrialised countries: the high levels for embed-
ded energy in construction and transport, the unsuit-
ability of concrete blocks for warm climates, the loss 
of identity. The proponents of this nouvelle vague have 
become known in recent years through nominations for 
the Aga Khan Award or the Global Award for Sustainable 
Architecture18 and are supported by the LOCUS-Founda-
tion.19 They are given a place in exhibitions in leading ar-
chitecture galleries and museums around the world. In 
2010, the Museum of Modern Art in New York featured 
this new, socially engaged architecture in the exhibition 
Small Scale, Big Change.20
LOW-TECH OR HIGH-TECH?
These young architects, who wish to introduce more 
sustainability and humanism into the built environment, 
include the German Anna Heringer, the Chinese Wang 
Shu and Li Xiaodong, and Francis Kéré from Burkina 
Faso. They are represented in this volume by the 20K 
House by the American Andrew Freer (Rural Studio) and 
the Quinta Monroy by the Chilean Alejandro Aravena 
(ELEMENTAL). Most are at home in two cultures: some 
hail from the southern hemisphere and have studied in 
the West; others were born in Europe or North America, 
but have lived for many years in the south. Like the trail-
blazers of the 1970s, they see themselves as citizens of 
the world – open to that which is different, be it people 
or cultures.
Whether they are built in adobe, wood, concrete or 
with recycled materials, the works of these responsible 
young architects meet not only ecological and econom-
ic criteria, but also high social and cultural standards. 
They not only build for but often with the public in a 
participatory process that gives labourers new compe-
tencies and provides women and children participat-
ing in the build with a new sense of their own worth. 
Architectural intelligence, humility and empathy are 
often unified in these projects. The beauty of these 
extraordinary buildings also lies in the balance of 
low-tech and high-tech that is in harmony with the 
context. Indigenous materials such as mud bricks and 
bamboo are often enhanced through the purposeful
08 Community centre in 
 Ludesch, Vorarlberg 
 (Austria), Hermann Kauf-
 mann, 2005
07 Primary school in Klaus, 
 Vorarlberg (Austria), 
 Dietrich Untertrifaller, 
 2003
2 POSITIONS
18
use of modern technologies, some of which have previ-
ously been tested in European laboratories. The result 
is a meaningful transfer of know-how: a win-win situa-
tion for all participants.
CARTESIAN VERSUS HOLISTIC THINKING
The Cartesian approach, which has dominated Western 
culture for nearly four centuries, is based on a rational 
analysis of facts and linear, compartmentalised think-
ing. To overcome the problem of our age, we need more 
humility, more openness and also more empathy! A ho-
listic worldview has strong links to nature and gives 
free rein to intuitive thinking – derived from Aristotle’s
axiom: ‘The whole is more than the sum of its parts.’ 
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, who was equally a poet 
and a scientist and devoted himself passionately to sci-
entific phenomena, was also a proponent of this philoso-
phy. More and more people see the future of our world 
in this interdisciplinary, integrative and open conduct, 
which is found in all fields where sustainable think-
ing and action are required: in pedagogy, in medicine 
– where body, mind and spirit cannot be separated – in 
agriculture, where natural and healthy food should be 
produced in a resource-friendly manner. 
Architects and city planners have also embraced this ho-
listic approach. The organic architecture of Frank Lloyd 
Wright is based on an ideal, the teaching of which is in 
his view ‘so much needed if we are to see the whole of 
life, and to now serve the whole of life [...].’21 Integrated 
planning, which has spread through the English-speak-
ing world in recent years, is the methodical implementa-
tion of an approach that is rather philosophical in origin. 
It is the integration of knowledge and the networking of 
sub-sectors, which are growing more numerous by the 
day. Architects, city planners and landscape designers 
as well as engineers in all disciplines are called upon 
to bring more than technical skills to the table. They 
should also be willing to work together closely and con-
structively as a team of experts, to incorporate impulses 
provided by sociologists or economists and, of course, 
to respond to the needs and wishes of clients and users.
THE KEY TO PARADIGM CHANGE
The holistic process provides us with the opportunity
to master ever more complex tasks. To this end we 
require both sides of our brain, more than ever before, 
in order to think differently in a new world. The creative 
and empathetic right brain should complement the ana-
lytic left brain. Albert Einstein had already warned us: 
‘You cannot solve a problem from the same conscious-
ness that created it.’ The necessary paradigm change 
that will lead to a sustainable society requires close 
09 Sandgrubenweg (residential building), Bregenz (Austria), Wolfgang Ritsch, 2007
2 POSITIONS
19
collaboration between individuals, institutions and 
corporations. Given the numerous problems we have 
to surmount within a short period of time, conclusive 
examples and know-how within the industrialised 
countries, where great differences still exist, must also 
be disseminated throughout the southern hemisphere. 
It is our responsibility to prevent the developing coun-
tries from reproducing our mistakes. That responsibility 
begins with admitting these errors, attemptingto rec-
tify them, as far as possible, and pursuing a different 
path in a rigorous and exemplary fashion. Today, we 
have not only sophisticated technologies at our disposal, 
but also many insights into a modern use of traditional, 
locally available, renewable building materials. All that 
is lacking is the will to question conventional, waste-
ful practices and to implement new, more sustainable 
practices with rigour and consistency. The key lies 
with humans, not with technology.
FOOTNOTES CHAPTER 2.1
 1 Genesis, 1 Mo 1:28. ‘[...] and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every 
 living thing that moveth upon the earth.’
 2 René Descartes: Discours de la méthode pour bien conduire sa raison et cherecher la verité dans le sciences, Leiden, 1637.
 3 Henry David Thoreau: Walden; or, Life in the Woods, Boston, 1854.
 4 Theodor Roosevelt: Seventh Annual Message to Congress; December 3, 1907, online on: www.academicamerican.com/progressive/docs/TRonConserv.htm, 
 (accessed: May 2011).
 5 Hassan Fathy: Gourna; a tale of two villages, Cairo, 1969.
 6 Donella H. Meadwos, Dennis I. Meadows, Jorgen Randers, William W. Behrens III.: The Limits to Growth; A Report to the Club of Rome, 
 online on: http://www.clubofrome.org/?cat=45 (accessed: May 2011).
 7 Serge Latouche: Survivre au Développement. Paris, 2004 and Petit Traité de la décroissance sereine, Paris, 2008.
 8 Ivan Illich: Tools for Conviviality, London, 1971.
 9 Thomas Herzog: Philosophy of the Practice, online on: www.herzog-und-partner.de, ((accessed: May 2011).
10 Peter Blundell-Jones: Peter Hübner. Building as a Social Process, Stuttgart/London, 2007.
11 Dominique Gauzin-Müller: Behnisch and Partners. 50 Years of Architecture, New York, 1997, Berlin 2007.
12 James Steele: Ecological Architecture. A Critical History, London, 2005.
13 Peter Blundell-Jones: Günter Behnisch, Basel/Boston/Berlin, 2000.
14 Mathis Wackernagel, William Rees: Our Ecological Footprint Reducing Human Impact on the Earth, Gabriola Island, BC, Philadelphia, PA, 1996.
15 Chris Hails: Living Planet Report 2008, online http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/all_publications/living_planet_report/, (accessed: May 2011).
16 Dominique Gauzin-Müller: Ökologische Architektur in Vorarlberg. Ein soziales, ökonomisches und kulturelles Modell, Berlin/Heidelberg, 2011.
17 Edwin Berndt: Sozialkapital. Gesellschaft und Gemeinsinn in Vorarlberg, abridged version of a study commission by the Office for Questions of the 
 Future (Büro für Zukunftsfragen), Vorarlberg, 2003.
18 LOCUS-Foundation, Paris, www.global-award.org, (accessed: May 2011).
19 LOCUS-Foundation, Paris, www.locus-foundation.org, (accessed: May 2011).
20 Andres Lepik: Small Scale, Big Change, New York, 2010.
21 Frank Lloyd Wright: An Organic Architecture. The Architecture of Democracy, Cambridge, MA, 1970.
2 POSITIONS
20
DESIGNING
The definition of design in the Internet encyclopedia 
Wikipedia reads in part: ‘A specification of an object, 
manifested by an agent, intended to accomplish goals, 
in a particular environment, using a set of primitive 
components, satisfying a set of requirements, subject 
to constraints. [...].’1 Architectural design is thus a 
complex process, which requires specific prerequi-
sites: a solid knowledge of architecture and construc-
tion, analytical thought and design faculties. Location 
and landscape, urban context, functional require-
ments are the most important parameters, as well as 
the given constructional options. The task is to con-
ceive and invent form and content within a specific 
context. Designing is never creation out of nothing. 
Nor is designing a break with the past, and it is never a 
completely new beginning. 
PARADIGM CHANGE
Topics such as global warming, demographic changes, 
globalisation and the possibilities of re-organising 
megacities will determine whether humankind has a 
future worth living. At the onset of this millennium, 
the interconnectedness between human action and ex-
isting environmental problems became tangible. For 
the first time, we are taking note that there is causality 
at play. The transition from fossil fuels into a post-fos-
sil age will lead to migrations on a larger scale due to 
climate change and hence social unrest with far-
reaching political consequences.
The complexity of climate change is great; we can only 
guess at the consequences, as yet unquantifiable in 
absolute numbers. Scientists speak of a possible global 
warming by considerably more than 2 °C by 2050 and 
a possible rise in sea level of 2 m and more. CO2 is the 
main cause of global warming. Yet greenhouse gases 
are generally neither visible nor noticeable by smell; 
they manifest only gradually and we can therefore 
barely perceive them directly. Most building experts 
and many interested citizens are aware that 30 – 40% 
of all CO2 emissions are generated through construc-
tion. It is also a known fact that the construction and 
operation of buildings worldwide account for approxi-
mately 40 – 50% of the total energy consumption and 
that an enormous savings potential exists in this field. 
Why is change in behaviour so agonisingly slow? Is hu-
man consciousness not as highly developed as we be-
lieve or hope after all? Despite all the faith in technology 
of our time, no one can in good conscience insist on 
having things under control and being able to continue 
to do so! Might it not be opportune to analyse our 
socio-political behaviour and to adapt it accordingly – 
combining this with an implementation of the latest 
research and technology? Why, then, do we not act 
with greater awareness and efficiency? Do people fo-
cus more on what they are losing than on what they 
might gain?2 Is our unbroken faith in continued (eco-
nomic) growth playing an evil trick on us? These are 
all simple questions for which there are, however, no 
simple answers. 
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
‘Sustainable development is development that meets 
the needs of the present without compromising the 
ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ – 
states the report of the U.N. Brundtland Commission 
from 1987.3 Today we understand sustainability as a 
three-pillar model that balances the ecological, eco-
nomic and social demands of a project. Architecture is 
unquestionably capable of developing concepts that 
correspond to all of these demands.
SUSTAINABLE DESIGN. 
A STATEMENT
BOB GYSIN 
2 POSITIONS
10
00
 B
C
60
0 B
C
20
0 B
C
20
0 A
D
60
0 A
D
10
00
 A
D
14
00
 A
D
18
00
 A
D
22
00
 A
D
26
00
 A
D
30
00
 A
D
34
00
 A
D
38
00
 A
D
O
il 
C
on
su
m
pt
io
n 
(Q
ua
ds
)
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0
21
Yet measuring and assessing sustainability is a highly 
complex process, and experts throughout the world are 
engaged in exploring this task in the context of devel-
oping sustainability labels for buildings. Hence, sus-
tainable design requires that the designer bring a critical 
awareness of society and the pressing problems of cli-
mate change and environmental destruction to the ta-
ble by contributing both intellectually and creatively. 
The designer will then quickly reach the conclusion 
that a completely new approach to thinking is neces-
sary in architecture and especially with regard to con-
version and new building projects.
SUSTAINABLE BUILDINGS – 
SUSTAINABLE ARCHITECTURE
What distinguishes sustainable buildings from normal 
buildings? One could argue as follows: architecture is 
sustainable when it is something other than mere build-
ing, that is, when it has special design qualities, is tech-
nically up to date and socially compatible. Creating a 
technically optimal building that fails to satisfy the aes-
thetic, design and societal requirements is simply not 
enough. Architecture is always linked to the cultural 
identify of a society – it is, one might say, society’s mirrorimage. Sustainable buildings contain aspects of archi-
tecture that are closely linked to the ethics of our crea-
tive work. 
SUSTAINABLE CITIES – 
SUSTAINABLE PLANNING
It is an enormous challenge to invent a sustainable 
model of the city that ensures a high quality of life for 
all citizens on this earth and is not just suitable for a 
few privileged Western cities. Meeting this challenge 
requires not only an uncompromising attitude among 
architects and urban planners, but also rigorous poli-
tics. Megacities, in particular, will present us with tre-
mendous problems in the coming decades. Scarcity of 
resources will create economic, ecological and social 
tensions. We will have to deal more extensively and in-
tensively with the issue of how we want to handle our 
(European) agglomerations or conurbations. Even in a 
small country like Switzerland, valuable arable land
was consumed at the rate of more than one square 
metre per second – resulting in a steady decrease in 
biodiversity, a despoliation of the landscape and a con-
stantly increasing need for mobility.
Studies in smaller cities such as Zurich have shown 
that 100,000 additional inhabitants could easily live 
within the same urban perimeter through proportion-
ate densification – without diminishing the quality of 
life. In other words, nearly 25% more people could live 
and work in the same area than is the case today. Al-
though these figures have been calculated for Zurich, 
it is reasonable to infer that the same parameters could 
be applied to many European cities. This means that 
sustainable growth in the coming decades can be 
achieved mainly through careful and qualitative den-
sification of our cities.
But what is the nature of the city? The city is a living 
organism, compact and dense, open and wide, with 
nooks and crannies, with differing degrees of public 
and private spheres and a mix of uses that far surpass-
es pure commerce. A comprehensive cultural diversity 
evolves on the basis of a high-performance traffic sys-
tem and the specific geography, integrating old and 
new structures. A city cannot be created through effi-
cient planning tools alone. People must make the city 
into what it is – alive.
SUSTAINABILITY AS OPPORTUNITY
In the past, the field of sustainable building was given 
too little weight and remained without noticeable suc-
cess for a long time. Past visions and utopian ideas of 
green cities were no longer capable of being embraced 
by a majority. But visions are also always opportunities 
for the future – and in the best scenario, they become 
catalysts for fundamental change. Increasing resource 
costs, diminishing resources of raw fossil fuels and the 
gradually visible and palpable climate change accom-
panied by its potentially devastating side effects finally 
brought about a gradual mass awareness with regard 
to opportunities for sustainable development. Is this 
not an opportunity for architects to make up for the 
lost ground over the past decades?
Some architects today are bemoaning the supposed loss 
of freedom in design, instead of embracing the role as 
generalist and designer. Sustainability must be under-
stood by the architecture profession as a contribution to 
good architecture, not as a hindrance! It is an illusion, of 
course, to imagine that a rapid change in awareness can 
be achieved. Nevertheless, we should embark on the 
hopeful path of making a small, but perhaps decisive 
contribution toward solving the environmental prob-
lems through a sharpened awareness and improved 
collaboration between architects, engineers, ecologists, 
economists and the construction industry. 01 Peak Oil – fi niteness of fossil energy sources
2 POSITIONS
22
We don’t have a choice. However, we are confronted 
with the urgent question whether technological possi-
bilities alone are sufficient and will truly advance us in 
the long term. Changing our lifestyle will determine 
success – ultimately we must assume responsibility 
collectively as a society.
MAINTAINING AN OVERVIEW
Can an architect today be solely responsible that the 
project he or she is building is in fact sustainable? An 
increasingly common complaint is that the architect is 
gradually being deprived of his competencies, that too 
many specialists are involved in the building process, 
and that no one has a comprehensive overview. Is the 
demand for more sustainability in building responsible 
for the loss of having an overview? But these demands 
are not the primary cause of the complexity of building. 
The complexity is also a result of the nature of the task 
itself. Statutory requirements and ever more demand-
ing technical demands for the created structure are 
often compounded by the investors’ requirements for 
maximum return on investment. In addition, complex
geometries are used to render a building unique – 
architecture as branding. Given this focus on many in-
dividual areas, there is indeed a risk that no one has a 
complete overview anymore.
If the societal, social demand is to be taken seriously, 
other agents must be part of the building process: poli-
tics, administration, clients, users and the specialists 
and colleagues involved in the planning. The degree of 
sustainability in the building sector is determined by 
the relationship of society, politics and planners and 
their complex interplay. Critics who have bemoaned 
the arrogance of architects since Modernism may be 
right in the sense that some architects overestimate 
their own abilities if they believe themselves capable 
of covering all aspects of this broad field on their own. 
Improved forms of collaboration will have to be estab-
lished.
INTERDISCIPLINARITY
Architects can no longer deliver on all that is required, 
and have been unable to cover every discipline of plan-
ning and building for some time. Specialists such as 
structural engineers and building systems planners 
have been joined by building physicists, energy spe-
cialists, facade builders, traffic experts, sociologists 
and legislators. In view of the many specialists we are 
easily wont to forget one participant, who influences 
many aspects, and that is the client and his or her 
representatives. They are responsible for many of the el-
ements that make the difference between architecture 
and building. 
This does not mean that architects should be relieved 
of their responsibility. As generalists, they must shoul-
der the conceptual responsibility of planning the entire 
structure. This includes a broad general knowledge. 
Unfortunately, far from being an eye opener, the word 
sustainability is a thorn in the eye of many colleagues; 
sustainable building is seen as a hindrance rather an op-
portunity. For new requirements are added to existing
ones. They define how much energy may be consumed 
and how the energy is to be utilised. More importantly: 
the greatest potentials for energy conservation exist 
in building, and they are possible through innovate 
projects and not only through the implementation of 
technology. There is a need for improved models for 
the planning process and coordination, as well as the 
progressive involvement of the participants at the right 
level. This will make it possible to conserve resources 
on a large scale and to reduce the burdens on the en-
vironment.
02 Fossil energy sources – and their impact
2 POSITIONS
23
ARCHITECTURE CRITIQUE
What is the contribution of the trade press to the rela-
tionship between architecture and sustainability? Al-
though an exploration of the meaning of Modernism 
and a critical analysis of it began in many European 
countries as early as the 1950s, in Germany, the pro-
ductive forces were almost exclusively occupied with 
reconstruction of the bourgeois society. Captive within 
this process, the only possible response to the resur-
gent European debate on architecture was one of aver-
sion: a complete rejection of anything that had a whiff 
of the avant-garde. German architectural journalsbegan to open up and engage in a discourse oriented 
towards the future only later on, albeit without the abil-
ity to initiate any trends themselves.4 
The crisis in the medium of the journal since the turn 
of the millennium has aggravated the situation: glossy 
images have replaced theoretical discourse and de-
bates. For the most part, editors have neglected cur-
rent themes of architecture and sustainability. Star 
architects are often celebrated and environmentalists are 
treated with derision, lip service is paid to speculation, 
a superficial interpretation of architecture and won-
drous technology – an attitude that is hardly conducive
to inspiring architects as a whole to think in a differ-
entiating manner and to disseminate new approaches 
to solutions in building. In contrast to information, 
criticism is notable for expert knowledge and linguistic 
ability, combining description, analysis and evaluation 
according to comprehensible criteria. A contemporary 
critical theory of architecture would therefore need to 
incorporate not only society as a whole, but also the 
whole of ecology into its evaluation of the existing built 
environment and the potential for future development.5
In other words, criticism should embody less a neutral 
theoretical content than an ethical-political position. 
One ethical aspect of a contemporary critique of archi-
tecture must be to take a good look at the condition of 
the world and the contribution to that condition of the 
object that is being critiqued. For the built environment 
shapes the society. Or, in the words of Rem Koolhaas: 
‘It is the task of architecture to create a plausible rela-
tionship between the formal and the social.’6
THE ARCHITECTURE COMPETITION
For some time, the architecture competition has been 
a familiar instrument for augmenting quality. But it 
not only serves to discover qualitative architecture, it 
also reduces the risk of nepotism in how commissions 
are awarded. In our region, one can hardly conceive of 
projects without an architecture competition – in many 
European cities and even worldwide, it has led to im-
provements in architecture and urban planning. The 
theme of sustainability is part of the competition.
When sustainable buildings are part of a competition 
brief, the parameters must be stated clearly and unam-
biguously, so that they can be assessed. There is a lot of 
catching up to be done in this area. Too many competi-
tion programmes still fail to include a call for sustain-
ability, or if they do, the requirements are stated with 
insufficient clarity and are too loosely defined. Require-
ments are described without providing the appropriate
context and the effort is sometimes insurmountable 
for the authors of the brief. Worst of all, however, both 
first-round examiners and expert jurors are often over-
whelmed by the task. When sustainability aspects are 
primarily examined and evaluated individually by 
specialists, an essential factor is lost: whether or not 
a project is sustainable as a whole, is not determined 
by the use of technology alone. In most cases, it is the 
interaction between innovative architecture and innova-
tive technology that makes the difference. The manner 
in which evaluations are undertaken is frightening at 
times: individual aspects are assessed with no consid-
eration for the interplay between architecture, economy 
and ecology. There is a great need for improvement: new 
examination and evaluation processes for sustainability 
Today
Goal 2000-Watt Society
Source:
Novatlantis, ETH Zürich
Consumer goods
and food
1500
1250
1000
750
500
250
0
Infrastructure Electricity Car Air travel Public transport
W
at
t
Infrastructure
03 Switzerland – great potential in buildings
2 POSITIONS
24
are urgently needed if the aforementioned three-pillar 
model of sustainability is to be effectively applied to 
competitions. 
DEVELOPMENT THROUGH 
SUSTAINABLE DESIGN
To what degree does sustainable architecture change 
the design of buildings and the image of cities? Does 
sustainable architecture impede or hinder the design 
of our environment? Many different factors change the 
built environment over time: new construction meth-
ods as a result of new materials; changing needs and 
requirements on the part of the users; social, cultural
and political change. Last but not least, there are 
the new digital planning instruments with enormous 
IT capacities, which are now available to the designer 
opening a window onto new design possibilities. In-
ternet access also influences design and architecture. 
Sustainable building is but one element of many that 
influence and change architectural design. A celebrat-
ed demonstration of energy efficiency in buildings is 
no guarantee that the described sustainability model 
is indeed fulfilled. Sustainable design does not require 
an expressive formal canon. 
SUSTAINABILITY AS COMPREHENSIVE
SYSTEM
Sustainability is not a technical process applied to a 
building after the fact but an integral part of every solu-
tion, beginning with the first design sketch. Sustainable 
building aims to minimise the consumption of energy 
and resources during all stages of a building’s life cycle 
– from planning to construction, from use to renewal, all 
the way to demolition – and strives to achieve the least 
possible burden on the environment. Understanding the 
building as a comprehensive system over the course of 
its entire lifetime is thus the prerequisite for a viable 
building that can be operated in a sustainable manner in 
the long term. The decisive course is already set during 
the conceptual stage in order to ensure that total energy 
consumption will be low through purely passive meas-
ures. Building systems are only addressed once these 
parameters have been set. Once again the focus is not 
on solutions for individual problems, but on the over-
all system in relation to the architecture. Architectural 
expression, variety in the interior, operational require-
ments, quality of living and work spaces, flexibility and 
de-coupling of systems, internal climate and technical 
concepts ultimately form a finely calibrated whole that 
is more than the sum of its parts.
What is true for an individual building can by translated 
onto the urban level with synergies and interactions 
between buildings. Planning decisions notable for their 
grasp of the city as a construct that is subject to constant 
change are even more far-reaching. What is called for 
is therefore not a planning approach with a goal that is 
aesthetically and functionally motivated as was the 
case in Modernism, but a definition of robust rules of 
the game, which leave sufficient room for play, take the 
genius loci into consideration and are thus able to create 
local solutions for global problems.
04 Global Footprint – biocapacity versus resource consumption
10 ≤ x < 11
9 ≤ x < 10 
8 ≤ x < 9
7 ≤ x < 8
6 ≤ x < 7
5 ≤ x < 6
4 ≤ x < 5
3 ≤ x < 4
2 ≤ x < 3
1 ≤ x < 2
0 ≤ x < 1
No data
10 ≤ x < 11
9 ≤ x < 10 
8 ≤ x < 9
7 ≤ x < 8
6 ≤ x < 7
5 ≤ x < 6
4 ≤ x < 5
3 ≤ x < 4
2 ≤ x < 3
1 ≤ x < 2
0 ≤ x < 1
No data
2 POSITIONS
25
CONCLUSION
Sustainable design does not hinder good architecture. 
Architecture has always dealt with aesthetic, function-
al and economic challenges. Climate change has added 
a new dimension, presenting architecture with major 
new challenges and will bring about a change in our 
societal and political systems: planning increasingly 
requires alternative thinking, not either – or but either
– and; differentiation rather than conformity can lead to 
new developments. To this end, we need to understand 
the complex problems of climate change, recognise the 
societal consequences and the political transformation. 
The attitude of the architect and the entire planning 
team, the clients and the authorities, is key to making 
sustainable building reality. Better models of collabo-
rations that are adapted to the new requirements are 
calledfor, and are essential. For architecture will only 
contain sustainability a priori if all participants assume 
their responsibility and if the significance of sustain-
able architecture becomes manifest and natural – only 
then will it become part of a superordinate model for 
society and culture that is viable for the future. 
2 POSITIONS
05
07
08
09
06
11
1213
10
27
THESES – BOB GYSIN
1. Architecture has always changed in the course of history and in step with cultural and technological developments.
2. Sustainable building is not a new invention. Managing available resources efficiently was a necessity for many peoples for 
 the sake of survival. 
3. Various factors determine architectural expression. Sustainable building is just one of these.
4. The architect’s attitude toward society and the environment is key.
5. Clients and building authorities must shoulder their responsibility, and commission and enforce sustainable architecture.
6. Efficiency measures are only sensible if they are also effective; in other words: doing the right things and doing things right.
7. The question of sufficiency must be discussed and established in politics and in law.
8. It does not matter whether a building is no-tech, low-tech or high-tech. What does matter is the quality of the architecture 
 and the interplay between technology and the environment in order to realise sustainable buildings.
FOOTNOTES CHAPTER 2.2
 1 Wikipedia: Design, online on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design, (accessed: Sept. 2011).
 2 Richard Sennett: Respect in a World of Inequality, New York, 2004.
 3 World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. The Report of the U.N. Brundtland Commission on Environment and 
 Development, Greven, 1987.
 4 Niklaus Kuhnert and Anh-Linh Ngo: Editorial, Arch+ 200, (October 2010), p. 94, Berlin, 2010. 
 5 Ole W. Fischer: Architektur zwischen Gesellschaft und Form, Arch+ 200, (October 2010), p. 120, Berlin, 2010.
 6 Rem Koolhaas and Sarah Whiting: Spot Check. A Conversation between Rem Koolhaas and Sarah Whiting, Assemblage 40, (December 1999), p. 50, Cambridge, 
 Massachusetts 1999. 
2 POSITIONS
PART 1:
SUSTAINABLE ARCHITECTURE.
BASICS AND STRATEGIES 
3 | FUNDAMENTALS OF SUSTAINABLE DESIGN 30
 3.1 Sense and sensibility of sustainable design 30
 3.2 Systemic approach 32
 3.3 Sustainable design is contextual design and process orientation 33
 3.4 Aspects of sustainable design 34
4 | THE BUILDING AND ITS CONTEXT 44
 4.1 Impact: the building’s infl uence on context 44
 4.2 Building performance: the effects of urban design and the physical 
 environment on the building 49
5 | ARCHITECTURE AS A PROCESS 54
 5.1 Designing holistically 55
 5.2 The building and its life cycle 64
6 | ASSESSING SUSTAINABILITY 70
 6.1 Use and application possibilities of a sustainability assessment 70
 6.2 Strategies and methods of sustainability impact assessments 73
 6.3 The housing quality barometer – development and methodology 77
30
«»Less Bad is Not Good.1
William McDonough und Michael Braungart
FUNDAMENTALS OF 
SUSTAINABLE DESIGN 
3.1 SENSE AND SENSIBILITY OF SUSTAINABLE DESIGN
The Building and Its Context, 
see chapter 4.1 
Historically, there were only a few eras when building 
in general and architecture in particular had a central 
meaning for society and how it saw itself. Although 
remnants of the built environment of many cultures 
seem to suggest that architecture played an important 
role in the social life of the time, a review of the last 
century reveals that architecture tended to diminish in 
importance while other forms of discourse – politics, 
economy, film, technology (IT and communications 
technology), media – had a more definitive impact 
on the culture. Looking to the future, however, and 
a new orientation towards sustainable development, 
architecture has the potential of becoming a key dis-
cipline. Currently, this is more a hope than a trend, 
but the hope is fed by two sources: for one thing given 
the documented scale of resource consumption associ-
ated with construction, the built environment plays a 
key role for the sustainable development of society as a 
whole; for another, cities and buildings can be seen as 
microcosms, a potential testing ground for models of 
the ecological renewal of society as a whole. 
Building construction and operation contribute 
greatly to the resource consumption and emissions 
of a society. In Europe, building climate control alone 
accounts for roughly ›40 % of the total energy con-
sumption. When the effort required for construction, 
maintenance and demolition is added, it is safe to 
assume that roughly half of the overall energy con-
sumption can be attributed directly or indirectly to 
buildings. Moreover, the bulk of material consump-
tion is also related to building. According to estimates 
nearly half of all raw materials are employed in build-
ing, and a staggering 60 % of all waste is the result of 
construction and demolition. The great significance of 
building and dwelling is evident in the place the build-
ing sector occupies in the national economy.2 Private 
households spend roughly one third of their disposable 
income on housing.3 In Germany, 86 % of fixed assets 
are invested in real estate.4
The large contribution of building to resource con-
sumption is highly relevant, not least because optimi-
sation potentials are equally great in the same sector. 
Thus, legislated standards for the energy consumption 
of buildings have improved by a factor of five to ten 
since 1984. This enormous improvement leads one to 
hope that significant advances are also possible in other
aspects of sustainable building. 
In the history of architecture, important innovations 
were always tied to two factors: progress in technology 
and social change. The inf luence of classical Modern-
ism on the history of architecture was profound be-
cause both aspects were at play. It was driven by new 
construction technologies such as reinforced concrete, 
glass facades, and new production and calculation 
methods. At the same time, it represented a vision of 
a new society in which industrialisation would provide 
all people with access to a healthy living environment. 
The discourse on sustainability can have a similar in-
f luence on the evolution of architecture. The progress 
is dramatic: passive houses, plus-energy houses, new 
environmentally-safe building materials, renewable
energies and raw materials. This technological pro-
gress is accompanied by social change: a departure 
from material consumption and a turning towards 
conscious experience. More and more people endorse 
the vision of a sustainable society in harmony with its 
environment. In the food sector, sustainability and 
environmental compatibility are the key factors that 
drive consumer behaviour. What began as a niche 
market with small health-food stores in the 1980s has 
since become the fastest growing retail sector, forcing 
even the great chains and discount stores to carry or-
ganic and fair-trade products. The food sector owes its 
cachet as a frontrunner to the fact that consumers 
draw a direct link between (food) consumption, health 
and wellbeing. Does sustainable architecture not have 
the same or an even greater opportunity to be a leader 
in this context? 
Modern humans are rarely inclined to base their 
actions upon a higher understanding or sense of re-
sponsibility towards others; nor do they have a sense 
3 FUNDAMENTALS OF SUSTAINABLE DESIGN 
31
01 Architecture without architects – Granada
Assessing Sustainability, 
see chapter 6
of obligation towards society, the environment or fu-
ture generations. Even the select few who express a 
commitment to social or ecological responsibility are 
unable to conduct their lives consistently according 
to these principles, motivated solely by nothing else 
than theirsense of responsibility. But sustainable ar-
chitecture is more than simply readjusting consumer 
behaviour to a scale that is socially and ecologically 
responsible, and it also delivers a greater value than 
simply satisfying consumer desires more efficiently 
and sustainably than in the past. Sustainable archi-
tecture translates into a noticeable increase in quality 
with regard to use, aesthetics and comfort, and herein 
lies the unique opportunity for the discipline: sustain-
ability criteria once again place the user at the centre 
of the architectural debate. 
Over recent decades, architectural debates became in-
creasingly disconnected from people and their needs 
and desires. Modernism forced human beings into a 
standardised corset of scale and reduced to building 
products suitable for industrial manufacture. Build-
ings whose declared aim had been to turn the user into 
a better and healthier human being through light and 
air fell far short of the comfort they promised. Post-
modernism, which saw itself as an alternative to the 
void in context and meaning, developed an abstract 
system of historical references and a pseudo-symbolic 
pictorial aesthetic. Architecture engaged in a self-ref-
erential discourse on form, style and aesthetics, which 
are irrelevant to the social life and needs of the indi-
vidual. 
Each architect has on several occasions found him- 
or herself engaged in a debate with laypeople, who 
declare that they prefer to live in old buildings and 
that the last century of architecture has produced lit-
tle to please them. If the average user were asked to 
decide which architecture corresponded to his or her 
needs, most would choose a building that ignores the 
last hundred years. What lies behind such statements? 
Ignorance and lack of understanding of the issues at 
hand? In large part, yes. But that assessment ignores 
a more significant realisation: architecture has lost 
its ability to deliver a better experience for the user. 
This is especially dramatic because architecture is not 
a liberal art that can seek meaning independently of 
usefulness. To a large extent, architecture is an ap-
plied art that is only as good as it is perceived and 
experienced to be by its users. At this point, some like 
to draw a fine line between architecture with a capi-
tal ‘A’ and building construction, which – unrelated to 
art and the academy – simply produces built environ-
ments for people’s everyday needs. But architecture 
with a capital ‘A’ only exists today in a vacuum that 
is disconnected from usefulness and meaning. Sus-
tainable architecture would be architecture for people 
and not architecture by architects for architects. We 
support architecture that is useful and has meaning 
for the individual because it offers pleasant spaces, 
because it gives aesthetic expression to the society, as 
the result of its common effort, and creates an identity 
for the society. This does not signify reduction to use-
fulness and functionality. Such an approach would be 
an inappropriate simplification because usefulness is 
f luid: it changes over time and according to the per-
spective of each user. 
When we look at the ›sustainability criteria presented 
in this book, which in essence match those applied in 
systems for assessing sustainability throughout the 
world, it is evident that many pertain to the user’s 
needs: thermal comfort, which ensures that tempera-
tures in the interiors are comfortable in summer and 
winter; and visual comfort, which ensures that rooms 
are pleasantly lit. But requirements for privacy and 
exterior spaces for common use are also experiential 
qualities from which the user benefits on a daily basis. 
In this context what we identify is less an opportunity 
for sustainable design to become a success story with-
in the discipline than an opportunity for it once again 
to create a closer relationship between people and 
architecture, which is so fundamentally connected to 
their desires and needs. If the buildings truly deliver 
a better experience and quality of use, then this could 
lead to greater appreciation among users and the pub-
lic as a whole. 
3 FUNDAMENTALS OF SUSTAINABLE DESIGN 
32
We have an unique, historic opportunity not only to 
rediscover architecture on its own merits; but also to 
launch a new era in architecture, characterised by a 
genuine dialogue with society and the individual and 
hence once again becoming an expression of how 
people view themselves and their relationship with 
nature and culture. 
3.2 SYSTEMIC APPROACH 
If we were to express the sustainability of a building 
in a mathematical formula we would need a series of 
factors, which we describe in the assessment system 
presented in this book. But these factors would not be 
added or given as an average of all individual values 
– they are multiplied; when one of these values tends 
towards zero, the entire result tends towards zero. In 
order to achieve the best result possible, it is therefore 
necessary to achieve ›consistently high values in all 
the individual factors. This is fundamentally different 
from most discussions on sustainability. For current 
debates in the literature, journals and symposia often 
give the impression that sustainable design is a richly 
laden buffet, with every participant walking past and 
loading their plate with a selection of treats accord-
ing to their whims, only to wax eloquently afterwards 
on how well these go with each other and with his or 
her idea of sustainable architecture. Given the variety 
of relevant topics, nearly all experts see themselves 
ref lected in the discussion on sustainability: one or 
another aspect seems important or valid to them and 
corresponds somehow to what they have always said, 
known and practised. Perhaps some aspects of sus-
tainability can indeed be improved in this manner. 
From our perspective these are important and valu-
able contributions, which are above all necessary in 
order to explore and define the terrain of sustainable 
design. And the focus on individual aspects has also 
produced important pioneering achievements, which 
evolve into standards in the relevant field. We need 
these individual achievements and innovations in or-
der to reduce the energy consumption of buildings, to 
conserve resources during construction and to reduce 
land use. 
At the same time, we believe that these discussions 
of individual aspects are also misleading, as the ap-
plied strategies often focus on too narrow a goal. For 
example, if the goal is to reduce the annual heating 
requirement, to improve the internal climate or to re-
duce greenhouse emissions, then these are all partial 
goals and important individual aspects of sustainable 
design. But they are no more than parts of the whole. 
Energy reduction for heating and ventilation on its 
own is not a strong indicator for resource consump-
tion or the environmental impact of a building. The 
building may still occupy a large area resulting in in-
frastructural costs that must be borne by society; it 
may still be careless in terms of utilising the living 
space, thus further increasing the area requirements 
per person; it could be manufactured from non-recy-
clable building materials that are harmful to the envi-
ronment, thus representing a living environment that 
is harmful to its inhabitants and to future generations. 
Similar problems can also arise with zero-energy or 
eco-houses, climate-neutral buildings or plus-energy 
buildings. 
In a lecture, Werner Sobek, the founder and president 
of the German Sustainable Building Council (DGNB),
commented that he could no longer stand the term sus-
tainability because his hope was that five years hence 
sustainable building would be a matter of course, com-
parable to structural integrity or fire protection.5 This 
idea fails to take the complexity of the challenge into 
consideration. Sustainability is not a technical chal-
lenge that can be fulfilled irrespectiveof task and 
context. Sustainable architecture is a vision and an 
idea and is therefore always utopian in character. It 
is useful at this point to differentiate between energy-
efficient building and sustainable building, because 
these terms are often used interchangeably even in 
discussions among experts. While energy efficiency 
is a purely technical and quantifiable requirement, 
sustainability encompasses a far greater number of 
aspects, some of which are rather more subjective 
or at least not quantifiable. Energy efficiency is an 
important aspect of sustainability; it is an indicator, 
closely related to many other aspects such as environ-
mental impact, comfort and operating costs. 
It is only when we expand the perspective to include 
the social, cultural and economic aspects of sustain-
ability that we can fully grasp that broader strategies 
are necessary to design and construct architecture 
in a comprehensive manner. The real challenge is to 
optimise the building as a whole, as a system. This 
means that all factors need to be taken into considera-
tion in a suitable manner. And it is this perspective we 
wish to foster in this book. Sustainability is a systemic 
approach whose goal it is to look at the causal relation-
ships of all factors. 
The individual criteria and aspects of sustainable 
design, all of which we cannot enumerate and explain 
in this book, are highly integrated and can be opti-
mised only through a comprehensive look at the issue. 
Many of the aspects related to the cultural and social 
impact of building are difficult to objectify. They do 
not represent problems that can be solved in a literal 
sense. For sustainability also encompasses subjective 
issues related to wellbeing, identification and aesthet-
ics. If culture has any meaning at all, then it lies in 
the fact that these questions are posed and answered 
anew over the course of centuries; it is therefore nei-
ther possible nor sensible to frame and record them in 
guidelines and standards. 
This book nevertheless presents an evaluation or rating
system for describing the sustainability of buildings. 
By establishing this rating system, we are pursuing 
Integrated design, 
see chapter 5
3 FUNDAMENTALS OF SUSTAINABLE DESIGN 
33
several goals; we also intend to emphasise that it is al-
ways the comprehensive perspective that determines 
the result. The project examples illustrate how indi-
vidual aspects of sustainability have been handled 
and the effect of the prioritisation within the projects 
on other aspects. The diagrams serve the same pur-
pose by providing a visual representation of the focal 
points, strengths and weaknesses of individual solu-
tions. Since this book is also intended as a handbook 
for architects and planners, the rating system also 
serves as a guideline with which the results of the 
process can be evaluated and optimised. The rating 
system focuses on recording only those aspects that 
can be assessed with relative objectivity. In other 
words, no attempt was made to evaluate the aesthetics 
of the buildings or their cultural value. In studying 
the project examples, our focus was on their impact 
on people because the architectural debate has, as 
mentioned, moved too far away from people and the 
experiential value of architecture. But there is an im-
portant distinction: we consider people to be part of 
a comprehensive system, giving rise to a special re-
sponsibility vis-à-vis nature. 
Our approach creates a fundamental link between the 
building and its context. Buildings and context inf lu-
ence each other in a reciprocal system of effects. The 
expression used for this kind of reciprocal depend-
ency is ‘systemic’.6 While the process of recognition 
is based on isolating individual phenomena and linear 
processes in classic physics, Bertalanffy’s systems
theory explores complex systems and reciprocal 
effects within such systems. This kind of description 
requires dynamic models that interpret the organisa-
tion of the system as one of continuous change and 
reciprocal exchange. 
The mechanistic-linear patterns of thought we have 
been taught bring us up short when we attempt to 
master the complexity of these problems. As far back 
as 1975, the systems psychologist Dietrich Dörner 
conducted experiments to research the human capac-
ity for solving complex problems.7 Expert planners – 
his observations and analysis of their actions revealed 
– demonstrated recurring errors in thought and plan-
ning when dealing with complex systems. The most 
common errors include focusing on individual topics, 
which hinders the perception of other problems; gath-
ering large volumes of data without organising them 
into a meaningful construct; and an approach that, 
although linear-causal, fails to analyse side effects.
In order to find solutions for complex problems, it is 
essential to identify the various parameters of each 
system and to recognise the connecting structures 
and relational networks instead of merely reacting 
to symptoms. A desire to solve the problems that are 
recognised first tends to lead to a displacement of 
the problems rather than to a true elimination of the 
causes. The structure and character of a system are 
defined as much by its components as by how they re-
late to one another. Systemic methods of analysis and 
ways of thinking can help to ascertain the role of the 
individual factors in the system and identify leverage 
strategies to create synergies.
The challenge lies in defining the relevant goals with-
in this complex catalogue of criteria and to find the 
right balance between requirements that are some-
times contradictory. Goals and requirements cannot 
be defined a priori, but emerge iteratively from the 
analysis and design process. Planning begins with 
formulating common goals and defining compulsory 
requirements. In the next step, all relevant aspects 
of sustainability must be identified and studied with 
regard to completeness. Assessing the interactions 
through a systemic analysis of effects reveals possible 
strategies and approaches. The ideas and concepts de-
veloped on this basis must be examined with regard 
to established goals and requirements, optimised if 
necessary and then examined anew. It is sensible and 
necessary to run a risk analysis over the course of the 
project and to check whether relevant design param-
eters have changed. If necessary, the chosen strategy 
must be adapted. 
3.3 SUSTAINABLE DESIGN IS CONTEXTUAL
DESIGN AND PROCESS ORIENTATION
If one were to summarise the idea of sustainable de-
sign at the core of this book in a single phrase it would 
read as follows: sustainable design is contextual
design. The significance of this deceptively simple 
statement can be grasped only through a more precise 
definition of the term context.
Context also encompasses the complex effects of the 
construction and operation of the building on the en-
vironment, the society and the culture.
The systemic context creates a requirement for the 
modus operandi in the creation of sustainable archi-
tecture: it is the result of a process, an open dialogue 
that is capable of integrating the conditions and forces 
of the context and of iteratively and continually adapt-
ing and changing the outcome.
In our view, context is not only the sur-
rounding environment. It is the manifold 
spatial, temporal, social, ecological and 
economic interdepencies within which the 
building exists.
The Building and Its Context, 
see chapter 4
3 FUNDAMENTALS OF SUSTAINABLE DESIGN 
34
Although this corresponds de facto with the over-
whelming practice in architectural studios, it is nev-
ertheless an attitude that seems to contrast with the 
traditional role of architects. Architects do not regard 
themselves as observers of and mediators between 
contextual forces and programmatic requirements. 
They see themselves as inspired creators who trans-
form material and light into a higher order out of the 
nothingnessof a concept. Their task does not lie in 
bringing this order into harmony with external forces; 
rather, they understand their task as protecting this 
order against being disrupted and polluted by ugly 
reality, thereby ensuring the realisation of a pure and 
unspoilt beauty. This attitude is based on the enlight-
ened interpretation of the individual, the epistemol-
ogy of which goes back to Descartes: the world can be 
interpreted and understood with the help of reason. 
This realisation gives rise to a higher level of laws and 
out of it results an order that underlies the natural 
chaos of things. In many ways architecture attempts 
to bring this kind of order into the world of things. 
However this order functions only in a linear manner 
and its impact is unidirectional – from architecture 
onto the world. To maintain the order and to avoid 
impeding the process of realisation or the creative act, 
it is necessary to exclude the context and its complex-
ity. Thus, a boundary of the system architecture is 
defined: an inside and an outside, not in the sense of a 
space, but in terms of an order, a methodological con-
Architecture can only be 
sustainable if it is not an end 
in itself.
02 The purity of architecture – Barcelona pavilion, 
 Mies van der Rohe
trol and a structure. It is only through exclusion that 
a degree of certainty can be achieved allowing for ab-
straction to simpler fundamental principles, no longer 
examining recursive correlations or systematically 
analysing effect and countereffect, but arriving at 
finite facts. The result is architecture that has no need 
to change or adapt, architecture that is self-contained 
and separate from its context. This is often mistaken
for creative freedom and glorified as individual 
autonomy. In truth, this attitude invariably leads to a 
noticeable reduction of the context. The buildings are 
no longer in active dialogue with their surroundings, 
history and nature, but in opposition to it. 
By this method design is liberated from the context. 
The author creates his or her own rules of the game, a 
system within which he or she can operate more freely. 
This has advantages: the most imposing buildings were 
not created by fitting them into a context but by making 
daring choices. At this point, it is important to remember 
that city and context can emerge and grow only when 
they are courageously developed. Architecture cannot 
be derived from context alone. It must also retain a cer-
tain level of autonomy. This follows from the fact that 
each context was once formed in the first place and then 
developed over the course of time. And this gives new 
buildings the opportunity to contribute to the further 
development of their context and to improve their sur-
roundings. Spaces, identity and orientation – all these 
can be created through the targeted and clever place-
ment of buildings that make a positive contribution to 
their environment. Given the complexity of the themes 
linked to sustainability, old and new must be weighed 
against each other in a differentiated manner.
We emphasise the contextuality of sustainable build-
ings because we are convinced that these are the very 
aspects that are neglected in many projects due to the 
modernistic modus operandi of architecture and the 
ubiquitous forces of globalisation.
3.4 ASPECTS OF SUSTAINABLE DESIGN
Local versus global
Over the past 150 years the actions and interactions 
have changed dramatically as a result of industrialisa-
tion and globalisation. The availability of raw materials, 
goods and energy has developed to such a degree that 
virtually all products and services can be accessed at 
every location around the world. When Philip Johnson
3 FUNDAMENTALS OF SUSTAINABLE DESIGN 
35
introduced the broad American public to modern ar-
chitecture with his 1932 work entitled The International 
Style: Architecture Since 1922 at the Museum of Modern 
Art in New York, globalisation was still a remote idea 
suggested in a few product examples and not yet fully 
formulated as a concept. However the foundation for it 
had already been laid in the form of highly standardised 
industrial production. It is unclear to what extent the 
title of Johnson’s work may also have been intended as 
an ironic allusion to the globalisation fantasies that the 
protagonists of the movement entertained. Yet he would 
have been hard pressed to find a more fitting descrip-
tion to explain the intent of the modern movement. Ap-
plying industrial production methods to architecture 
and building construction was one of the basic tenets 
of the International Style. The other was the adoption 
of repetitive anthropological parameters of architec-
ture. One example is Le Corbusier’s modulor, on the 
basis of which he aimed to develop a universal system 
of scale and proportion. In the interest of unification of 
the building style, Le Corbusier not only established a 
system of scale for modern buildings; he also created 
five simple rules for design and construction that would 
allow anyone – even someone with only limited know-
ledge – to realise similar buildings. From our perspec-
tive, it seems astonishing that few contemporaries 
noticed to what degree this approach tolerates an undue 
simplification. 
On the basis of universal rules and parameters, the sub-
sequent years saw the development of an architecture 
that was reproduced around the world – without con-
sideration for context, social and cultural parameters or 
climate conditions. Buildings in the International Style 
can be found in East and West with astonishingly few 
differences and were constructed from Moscow to Rio 
across all geographical latitudes.
Today, this architecture seems like the counterpart to 
the retail and entertainment world of international con-
glomerates. The same goods and packaged experiences 
are sold around the world; their production is highly 
standardised and can easily be outsourced to the loca-
tion where production costs are lowest. But this logic 
of globalised, industrial production neglects regional 
traditions, local enterprises and resources. At the same 
time, the identity of a location is defined by how it dif-
fers from other locations. An International Style inevita-
bly leads to non-specific buildings that do not respond 
to the local climate and can therefore be operated only 
at the cost of high energy consumption at odds with 
local conditions. Even though the International Style as 
such has been replaced by subsequent styles, this inter-
nationalisation has become a component of globalised 
architecture production.
Modernists pursued an important goal through the 
standardisation of building: for the first time, industrial 
production, which is far more efficient than hand-craft-
ed methods, was to provide the broad public around the 
world with access to affordable housing supplied with 
light and air in equal measure. It was a socialist vision 
expressed in the language of architecture.
After the Second World War millions of apartments were 
built within a short span of time in war-ravaged Europe, 
providing relief for the threatening housing shortage. 
In this sense globalisation and industrialisation have 
also had positive effects: on the one hand, many people 
gained access to products that had been the privilege 
of a small elite in earlier centuries. Washing machines, 
which we simply take for granted in every household, 
spare us from hours of the strenuous labour of doing 
laundry by hand every week. On the other hand, world-
wide communication provides us with the opportunity 
to pass on and disseminate new ideas and methods with 
ease. We gather information about distant places and 
foreign cultures; we develop a global awareness and 
know about problems in other parts of the world. This 
information exchange is the first prerequisite for global 
solidarity. We have the opportunity to do the right thing 
only if we are able to become informed about the conse-quences of our actions.
But globalisation also externalises the consequences of 
our actions – in our case the production and operation of 
buildings. Harmful effects are rarely evidenced directly 
at the site of action; instead they appear at a distance 
in space and time. The full impact of climate change, 
which is the result of emissions produced by the indus-
trialised countries over the past 150 years, will only 
emerge in the coming decades. And the most affected 
regions will be those whose contribution to the prob-
lem was non-existent or minimal: South Sea islands that 
will disappear beneath the rising sea level; steppes and 
savannahs in Africa and Asia that will turn into deserts. 
Even the negative social consequences of globalisation 
are geographically separated from the locations where 
the cheaply produced wares are consumed. 
The disconnect between cause and effect makes it es-
pecially difficult for us to make the right decisions. The 
global scale renders it more difficult for the individual 
to feel personally responsible. Each individual decision 
only contributes to the problems in a very small meas-
ure, which is why there is a tendency to wait for others 
to take the first step.
This attitude is completely incompatible with the 
shared responsibility for planning and execution that 
participants in the building sector bear. Nor can this 
responsibility be passed on to clients or to society at 
large. Buildings are created with considerable effort, 
large volumes of material are dedicated to their crea-
tion and they must be maintained and operated over a 
long period of time. What is at stake here is an invest-
ment for decades to come. This special professional 
responsibility has consequences not only for the envi-
ronment, but also for the people who have to live in or 
with a building.
3 FUNDAMENTALS OF SUSTAINABLE DESIGN 
36
not evolve out of a higher understanding but was sim-
ply the necessary consequence of limited availability 
of energy resources and raw materials. 
The call for contextual design is not a statement in 
favour of a backward-looking vernacular style, which 
reconstructs archetypes of regional building methods 
in order to evoke a cosy regionalism. Modern build-
ings fulfil other requirements and are constructed 
with modern technologies. Of necessity these will also 
produce a modern and different architecture. However, 
in expression it will be site-specific and unique, tak-
ing local parameters and resources into consideration. 
This site-specific architecture will be sustainable not 
least because it makes sense locally and is capable of 
creating identity.
And yet the contextuality and the local resources create
connections with the past. Traditionally, the materi-
als used were predominantly local because the trans-
port of building materials was usually too elaborate 
for most building tasks. Historic buildings are there-
fore most often characterised by building materials 
found in the region. A renewed and increased use of 
such materials today creates a link between contem-
porary architecture and the historic buildings. The 
buildings are of a kind both materially and visually. 
This connection to the people and their traditions
on site creates a potential for identification and 
acceptance. Regional traditions in working with ma-
terials are continued and local economic structures 
are strengthened by virtue of tapping in to the added 
value of the site. At the same time, unnecessary trans-
ports are avoided, lowering energy consumption and 
emissions.
It is questionable whether sustainable architecture 
necessarily translates into a different architectural 
vocabulary and, if so, what it might look like. We 
deem it not only desirable, but also necessary, that the 
integration of a multitude of new aspects also creates 
a new architecture. However, this cannot evolve into 
an architectural style that might be defined by formal 
aspects. Rather, the differences in location, use, con-
struction and regional building culture must lead to 
different results for each site and each building task. 
This is also reflected in the breadth covered by the 
buildings presented in part two of this volume: there 
is no sustainable style in architecture. There are only 
methodological parallels between projects, albeit par-
allels that result in a very differentiated architectural 
expression. This approach produces a special quality 
common to the buildings: sustainability is not a style, 
but it generates a visible and tangible quality in the 
buildings. This differentiation is also decisive with 
regard to the cultural significance of the architecture. 
People can identify with cities and buildings only when 
a specific expression is present.
The examples in this book are international in scope 
because the goal was to examine which commonali-
As described in chapter 3.3, architecture that is not 
conceived and developed in an abstract and schematic 
manner, but out of the specific context, counteracts the 
disconnectedness of cause and effect. Thinking in sys-
tems leads to sustainable results because the correla-
tions between cause and effect can be understood and 
influenced in a specific fashion. In principle, it is feasi-
ble that global strategies could also achieve a sustaina-
ble way of living. However the prerequisite for success 
in that case would be a comprehensive understanding 
of the global correlations and a consensus with regard 
to the goals for a sustainable development. Both have 
proven impossible in the past.
Vernacular buildings offer important insights into a 
contextual integration of architecture. For centuries 
houses were constructed with locally available mate-
rials in a way that offered their inhabitants optimum 
shelter from the elements and the best possible com-
fort. Compact building methods that expose little sur-
face to wind and snow evolved in cold regions. In arid, 
hot regions, traditional building methods that have 
large storage masses and small windows with shad-
ing elements are predominant. In subtropical regions 
buildings are designed in a manner that allows a con-
stant f low of air and wind through the interior. 
Technical possibilities as well as requirements for 
comfort and use are subject to constant change. Con-
temporary architecture can therefore not be a repro-
duction of a traditional building method. The sustain-
ability of traditional regional architecture styles did 
03 Indigenous architecture – Wissa Wassef Center, Cairo
3 FUNDAMENTALS OF SUSTAINABLE DESIGN 
-68%
37
ties of sustainable building exist beyond the bound-
aries of countries and cultures. The synopsis shows 
the variety of contexts, requirements and needs. 
Aside from local references, knowledge transfer and 
cultural exchange are of decisive importance for cul-
ture in general, and architecture in particular. Thus, 
building styles and techniques were and still are im-
ported and adapted from other locations. The Greek 
temples, which were further developed by the Romans 
and then newly interpreted in Classicism, are still ref-
erenced around the world today. Culture is precisely 
this discourse. And sustainable architecture must not 
turn its back on this discursive quality. Globalisation 
provides the opportunity for people to come together 
through common interests and ideas. Sustainability 
must not look backwards and take its cue from the 
past. The pre-globalisation medieval scarcity society 
may have been sustainable, but it was only capable of 
nourishing very few people at a mean level. Sustain-
able architecture should not shy away from absorbing
global references. Concepts that are viable for the 
future must always function on both a local and a glo-
bal level. This is also ref lected in the requirements 
formulated in this book: many of the aspects (green-
house potential, resource consumption etc.) are meas-
ured on a global scale and would be irrelevant for a 
local study. Our emphasison local aspects and direct 
context derives from our conviction that the trend in 
social evolution clearly points towards increasing glo-
balisation and a growing devaluation and devolution 
of local contexts.
The temporal dimension of architecture 
The systemic approach can be applied not only to the 
spatial dimension of a building, but also to its temporal 
dimension: hence, a building must not be understood 
as a static unit; it must be capable of responding to 
changing parameters and requirements as part of a dy-
namic system. It is seen in terms of its entire life cycle. 
This encompasses the time during which the building 
is erected and used and also the time people spend in 
the building as well as the time during which a build-
ing continues to dwell in people’s memory long after it 
has ceased to exist. 
Yet planning processes generally focus only on the 
construction of buildings, for the intentional hori-
zon of many planners unfortunately ends with the 
completion of the building. This short-term vision is 
insufficient for the sustainability of a building. Lon-
gevity of the materials and building components play 
an important role. The costs and emissions must be 
studied and optimised with regard to the life cycle. 
The usefulness of a building can also only be assessed 
from a long-term perspective. How users interact with 
it, how adaptable the building is to new users and 
changed user requirements, how it responds to differ-
ent weather conditions: all this can only be evaluated 
when the entire life cycle – construction, operation 
and maintenance as well as demolition and disposal 
– is examined.
Other factors for the optimisation of the planning and 
design stage emerge through the life cycle study: what 
is the effort required for operating the building dur-
ing its entire life cycle? How often do building com-
ponents require maintenance, repair and upgrading? 
Wear and tear of the building components through use 
and external factors such as climate must be taken into 
consideration in the context of the durability of the 
building materials. Life expectancy and accesability 
for maintenance of the building components must be 
translated into a construction hierarchy that allows for 
simple replacement of building components that wear 
out quickly and have a short life expectancy.
Consideration of the life cycle is fairly uncommon 
among architects. Clients usually demand a projection 
of the effort required for operation, maintenance and 
repairs, and the designers usually neglect it. As a result 
of rising energy prices, operating costs have, however, 
become the object of debates among experts, and of 
legal guidelines. The reason for this intensive focus is 
that these aspects cause a large portion of the life cycle 
costs and environmental costs in conventional build-
ings with high energy consumption. Improved building 
methods can noticeably ameliorate these factors. But 
they also translate into a greater effort in building con-
struction (construction, maintenance and demolition).
In buildings with very low energy consumption, 
material streams and emissions for construction, main-
tenance and demolition can therefore have a markedly 
greater influence on the life cycle balance sheet. The 
›entire life cycle must be examined in order to imple-
ment a comprehensive optimisation. The European Un-
ion is planning an initiative according to which all new 
buildings will be required to generate the energy they 
consume as early as 2019. 
The building and its life cycle: 
economic and ecological analyses, 
see chapter 5.2
EnEV 2007 = 65 kWh/qm*a
-30%
KFW 70 = 46 kWh/qm*a
-100%Zero energy = 0 kWh/qm*a
Operation
Maintenance
 
Demolition
Production 
Sum 
0,00%
4,80%
4,53%
90,66%
100%
Life cycle assessment (40 years): total energy consumption [MJ]
Zero energy house, 2018
 
Passive house = 15 kWh/qm*a
-68%
Energy
consumption
[MJ]
4.000.000
3.000.000
2.000.000
1.000.000
0 Use [a]0 0 0 0
04 Life cycle study allows for comprehensive optimisation 
 of emissions
3 FUNDAMENTALS OF SUSTAINABLE DESIGN 
38
than other components, they are also subject to the 
vicissitudes of fashion and taste. Improving or ex-
changing these building components must be simple. 
Building systems, in particular, must be replaceable 
or upgradeable because the state of technology is con-
stantly improving. For this reason, parts of the techni-
cal building equipment are often exchanged for more 
efficient or high-performance parts even before the 
end of their life expectancy. This fact is rarely taken 
into consideration especially in housing construction. 
Repair shafts and accessible cable ducts are employed 
for laboratories and office buildings. But they are 
often hidden and difficult to access, which renders 
the effort of making adaptations unnecessarily high. 
Consequently, adapting or upgrading the building 
equipment in many existing buildings is associated 
with extensive intervention into the building fabric. It 
is therefore sensible to create a hierarchy based on 
service life and life span for the building construc-
tion, to ensure that longer-lasting components will 
not need to be demolished in order to replace those 
with shorter life spans. Separating functions, such as 
finishes and supporting structure, is especially useful 
for adaptable concepts, because this approach allows 
for fundamental interventions in the spatial concept 
with less effort in terms of construction.
The cradle-to-cradle concept was developed on the 
basis of this kind of life cycle analysis of products: 
how should a product that is manufactured, used and 
recycled in a closed energy and material cycle be con-
stituted? At the start of production there are only ma-
terials and components that are renewable or can be 
extracted from the product itself once it has reached 
the end of its life cycle. The product can be fully recy-
cled – it does not consume resources or produce waste. 
If buildings could be constructed and operated solely 
with renewable resources, which are replaced during 
the life span of the building without compromising 
nature (through renewal or recycling), then it would 
be possible to erect any number of buildings without 
causing any problems. Unfortunately this concept has 
been successfully implemented only for products of 
a simpler nature, such as T-shirts, trainers or office 
chairs. A building is far more complex: land is devel-
oped and sealed. Enormous volumes of a wide range 
of materials are inextricably linked by connections 
that are usually non-detachable. It seems that we have 
a long way to go before a cradle-to-cradle concept can 
be implemented for individual buildings, and it seems 
entirely unrealistic to replace the vast mass of build-
ings worldwide with cradle-to-cradle buildings.
We have only begun to contemplate an important fac-
tor in optimising the life cycle of buildings, namely 
the issue of detachable connections in building. The 
current development gives rise to concerns that waste 
volumes will increase in the future because the life 
span of buildings is steadily diminishing and a greater
variety of materials are increasingly joined and inte-
To achieve even further reduction of the energy con-
sumption over the life cycle in buildings of this kind, 
the building construction will have to be evaluated and 
optimised. 
The opportunity for the planner to have an influence 
rapidly declines as the project progresses. Most deci-
sions are made in the early project phases. Accordingly, 
the consequences of the planning decisions must be 
taken into consideration in these early phases. However
it should be noted that few suitable planning methods 
are available to do so.
In addition to the life cycle, the building is also tied to 
other temporal cycles. It must be analysed and devel-
oped in different temporal dimensions: the first are the 
cycles of use. Not all rooms are utilised to the same de-
gree, and thereforethere is a potential for identifying 
synergies and savings potentials in the use and accli-
matisation of individual rooms. The changing weather 
and light conditions over the course of a day and year 
must also be taken into consideration.
The ›usage concept and its architectural implementa-
tion have tremendous inf luence on the sustainability 
of a building. Buildings are often designed specifi-
cally for the needs of the first user, but little thought 
is given to how much effort might be required to 
adapt the building for other another use. Pondering 
the possibilities of other types of use as early as the 
planning stage makes sense. Even within the same 
typology of use such as housing, for example, user 
requirements differ considerably. And expectations 
change even more drastically over the course of time. 
Family constellations change. Desires and needs are 
in constant f lux. It is naïve to assume that a real es-
tate object will not experience reuse and conversion 
during its entire life cycle. Hence it is the planners’ 
task to facilitate future adaptations and conversions. 
After all, the success of the typical bourgeois apart-
ments from the turn of the 19th century is not least 
of all a product of the tremendous f lexibility, which
their spatial layout affords. A structure of this kind-
can accommodate different housing concepts and com-
mercial uses without requiring major interventions. 
Another planning strategy is spatially to overlap uses 
that are rarely required with other uses, thereby 
achieving a more intense use of the rooms and lower-
ing the area requirement. Temporal planning strate-
gies of this kind can be utilised on differing temporal 
scales to integrate uses spatially while separating 
them temporally: the course of a day, a week and per-
haps even a year characterised by uses that change 
with the seasons.
Design that takes life cycle, adaptability and f lexibil-
ity into consideration must begin by organising the 
different life cycles of building components into a 
hierarchy. Surfaces and finishes wear quickly; more 
Architecture as a process, 
see chapter 5
3 FUNDAMENTALS OF SUSTAINABLE DESIGN 
39
grated in construction: composite building materials,
for example, consist of a great number of source ma-
terials, which are glued together with non-soluble 
bonds into a mountain of future hazardous waste. 
This generation of waste imposes a burden on society 
and the environment that is equal to the simultane-
ously necessary production of new building material, 
which in turn leads to energy and raw material con-
sumption. Sustainable buildings must be constructed 
in a different fashion: the individual building compo-
nents would need to be joined with soluble bonds and 
building layers would have to structured in a way that 
allows for individual maintenance and replacement 
because strain and wear and life span are different.
Identifying the basic parameters (cause and 
leverage) instead of optimising and minimising the 
negative effects (end of pipe)
Given the multiplicity of factors inf luencing a project 
and its sustainability, it is vital to prioritise within the 
complex configuration of effects. There are two rea-
sons for this: the requirements that follow from the 
individual aspects of sustainability are often contra-
dictory. Accordingly, partial aspects must be weighed 
and quantified in the planning process. More im-
portantly, most factors are also characterised by a 
cause-effect correlation: some basic parameters have 
a greater inf luence on both the overall result and a 
multitude of other parameters than others.
For example, space efficiency determines the size of 
a building. Nearly all subsequent factors depend on 
it: effort for construction, operation and maintenance, 
area use and many others. The energy consumption of 
the building is largely dependent on the cubature (vol-
ume and A/V-ratio). To optimise the total impact (im-
pact and performance) of a building it makes sense to 
begin by optimising the basic parameters for greater 
leverage. It is only once optimisation has taken place 
on a higher plane that adaptation or compensation on 
a dependent plane should be pursued. This hierarchy 
of cause-effect correlations shows that it makes more 
sense to set out by changing the basic parameters 
with greater leverage within the cause-effect con-
struct. Leverage applied to a lower level often has less 
impact. Adaptation to subordinate levels, which can 
be described as end-of-pipe strategy, usually leads 
to a greater effort in the optimisation. However this 
hierarchical approach assumes that the planner al-
ready knows at the beginning of the planning process 
which parameters are decisive for the design and how 
they must be treated in order to develop a holistically 
sustainable building.
The energy consumption of the building is another 
example. On the superordinate level, volume, com-
pactness and insolation of the building fabric are the 
most important factors for heating losses. However 
clever window placement can improve solar gains and 
ensure natural lighting for the rooms. Yet if the ur-
ban situation is unfavourable, there is little room for 
play. Once the volume has been defined and the fa-
cade fully developed, the transmittance heat loss can 
be improved through the construction of the building 
components (U-value and light transmittance). Once 
these options in terms of construction have been ex-
hausted as well, attempts have to focus on covering 
the remaining energy consumption in the most effi-
cient manner. The technical effort required for this 
will, however, be noticeably less if the transmittance 
heat loss has been reduced at the outset.
The importance of numeric processes must be em-
phasised in this context. Although no satisfactory 
calculation methods and tools are available in many 
areas, especially for the purpose of simulating results 
in early design stages, we feel that the use of simple 
estimation calculations can help to achieve a more 
objective evaluation and assessment of variations. To 
this end we present a simple evaluation matrix of sus-
tainability aspects relevant for housing, which offers 
an overview of the multiplicity of criteria and aspects 
and which could be used to create a comprehensive 
representation of a design and to optimise the overall 
result in a planning process. 
At this time there are few methods, models and tools 
for analysing the planning in an early design phase. 
Planners also lack experience in working with the to-
tality of requirements and their dependencies in or-
der to guide decisions early on with a view toward an 
optimum end result. Indeed, one of the core goals of 
this book is to contribute toward developing just such 
a method of an holistic design.
Planners have to define other fundamental parameters, 
in addition to those that relate directly to the build-
ing: what are the goals of the project with regard to 
its use and building concept? Is the site suitable for 
the intended use? Does the spatial programme make 
sense for the use and is it logical? Will the planned 
usage concept last throughout the entire life cycle of 
the building or should one anticipate frequent adap-
tations to new uses and conversions? Are the budget 
and finishing standards realistic and appropriate? 
The architects must bring their knowledge into play
and answer questions from the clients that precede the 
actual design. A comprehensive analysis of site and 
spatial programme can also be used for a critical exami-
nation – and, if necessary, a modification – of the brief. 
3 FUNDAMENTALS OF SUSTAINABLE DESIGN 
40
is relatively small by comparison with other build-
ing types (for example, manufacturing, laboratories 
and hospitals), they too follow the universal trend 
towards the preponderance of technology. This trend 
is enhanced because comfort requirements have 
steadily increased. In the past, not all rooms were 
heated year roundand users responded to unfavour-
able interior temperatures by wearing appropriate 
clothing and limiting the use of some space, there is 
no tolerance today for either low or high temperatures. 
This trend is most evident when one looks at how the 
cost distribution for building projects has shifted: 
whereas costs for technology were rather low in the 
past, percentages such as a quarter of the total cost 
have now become standard. The growing cost factors 
are a ref lection of higher comfort requirements as 
well as building concepts that are often clumsy and 
unsuitable. However when problems in many areas of 
life are solved with the help of technology, new prob-
lems invariably result and these are in turn solved 
with yet more technology.
The example of climate change shows that this strat-
egy often falls short. Even though many problems can 
be solved with technology, there is always the risk 
that the technology will have undesired side effects 
that may only come to the light of day later on and 
at different locations. Braungart and McDonough de-
scribe this type of technology as brute force, because 
it acts upon the inner forces of the system with might 
and power instead of working with the forces. This 
should by no means lead to the conclusion that the 
technology is the problem. However as a result of this 
technologizing of buildings, technology is employed 
to compensate for many wrong decisions in the plan-
ning and design, as well as shortcomings with regard 
to developing a meaningful building concept. More-
over, our love affair with technology has defined one 
of the most successful architecture styles of the 20th 
century. The high-tech architecture that emerged in 
the 1960s took its cue from the aesthetics of space 
technology and science fiction films. The buildings 
became technical devices that magically fulfil all 
needs and desires of the user at the push of a button 
or with intelligent automation. Even today the high-
tech aesthetic is the most often cited genre for many 
building tasks such as office buildings and airport 
terminals. This attitude is supported by a positivistic 
way of thinking, which assumes that all problems 
can be solved by implementing the appropriate tech-
nology. As exciting as these ideas may be in the 
abstract, it is equally evident that buildings of this 
kind presume that the technology will function with-
out a hitch. Everyday experience teaches us otherwise: 
every technology is inherently capable of malfunc-
tion and functional failure. Heating systems break 
down; air conditioning systems fail to operate. The 
experience in recent decades has shown that high-
tech buildings are very susceptible to malfunctions 
and are not necessarily user-friendly. In addition to 
operational malfunctions, the primacy of technology
Low-tech versus high-tech
The presence of technology increased drastically 
over the course of the past decade. Much effort was 
invested in being able to operate buildings with com-
fortable interior temperatures with the help of heating, 
ventilation and cooling systems, independent of the 
external climate. Electrical lighting made it possible 
to illuminate interiors independent of daylight. Build-
ings could thus be operated more and more independ-
ently of external conditions. The lifestyle to which we 
have grown accustomed has become possible only 
thanks to technology. Providing the great number of 
people who populate the Earth with humane living 
conditions is possible only through the targeted use 
of technology for the generation and distribution of 
energy, food production and building climatisation.
Despite all the advantages that technology has 
brought to the life of building residents, the negative 
corollary is that buildings can be constructed and 
operated only with enormous technological effort 
if they fail to utilise the energy resources available 
in the immediate environment properly: in cold and 
temperate climate zones, poorly insulated buildings 
consume unnecessary energy for heating. In warm 
and hot climate zones, buildings that are insuffi-
ciently protected from insolation must be constantly 
cooled. The consequence of deep f loor plans and 
unfavourable facade design is that interiors require 
artificial lighting even during daylight hours. Even 
though the technical effort for residential buildings 
05 Zoning of interior uses according to solar path
» «
Technology is the answer – but 
what was the question? 
Cedric Price
 
 
 
 
 
 O
f
ce
 G
ard
en 
 
 
 
 T
er
ra
ce
 
 
 
 L
iv
in
g 
ro
om
 
Gue
st
 b
ed
ro
om
 
 
 
 U
til
ity
 ro
om
 D
ining room
 
W
ar
dr
ob
e
 Cupboard
Laundry room
Bathroom
 and toilet
B
edroom
 B
alcony
 Sun protection
 Laundry / drying room
 
 E
nt
ra
nce
 / s
tairwell
Children’s bedroom
North
Summer
Winter
Storage room
3 FUNDAMENTALS OF SUSTAINABLE DESIGN 
41
also translates into a steady effort for manufacture, 
maintenance and operation of the building. And the 
conditions for operating such technical systems have 
changed drastically in recent years as a result of dimin-
ishing resource, rising energy costs and climate change.
High-tech solutions are usually brought into play at 
the end of the process (end-of-pipe strategy). But 
reduction or prevention make more sense than ef-
ficient provision for a (technological) requirement 
that was created. Instead of installing and operating 
a highly efficient lighting technology, it is better to 
arrange workstations in such a manner that they are 
optimally supplied with natural lighting during the 
hours of use. Good building insulation or utilisation 
of passive solar energy is simpler than an efficient 
heating system. Lower water consumption through 
water-conserving sanitary installations and fittings, 
such as waterless (no-f lush) urinals or vacuum toi-
lets, makes more sense than efficient water treatment. 
In this book we have compiled a series of examples 
that drastically reduce the requirement for technol-
ogy, energy and other resources through very simple 
architectural and structural design options. With an 
intelligent building concept, energy consumption can 
easily be reduced by a factor of 5 to 10. This is an 
indication not only of the tremendous progress with 
regard to efficient building design, but also how far 
we have distanced ourselves from a sensible degree 
of technology.
The opposite approach to the high-tech strategy is to 
optimise the building through passive measures or 
low-tech solutions. Intelligent concepts for volume, 
facade and construction alone make it possible to 
operate buildings at most locations and for the better 
part of the year with less technology and energy con-
sumption. These low-tech strategies deliver a string 
of advantages: utilising environmental energies at 
the site is free and reliable into the future. Although 
technical malfunctions can never be excluded entire-
ly, they are less frequent. Any technical installation 
with moving parts and electronic circuits is by defini-
tion more susceptible to glitches than a wall or a win-
dow. As a result of the lesser complexity of the systems, 
unwanted internal and external consequences are far 
less likely with low-tech solutions.
We do not wish to promote a return to the low stand-
ards of the past. A complete abdication of technology 
results either in insufficient comfort conditions in the 
buildings or to a senseless augmentation of the ef-
fort required for the construction. A building without 
any heating supply is unthinkable in locations with 
cold winters if healthy internal temperatures are to 
be maintained. But technology should not be the first 
solution in building; it should be the last resort once 
the low-tech and architectural options have been ex-
hausted. This prioritisation is also supported by a life 
cycle assessment of the systems. Technical systemstend to have a shorter life cycle than the building fabric.
According to Hegger, Fuchs, Stark and Zeumer, the op-
eration of a building from the perspective of energy 
(requirements) can be organised into to five themes. 
The low-tech measures are listed in the first column, 
with the high-tech measures in the next column to the 
right: Neither one nor the other approach can be em-
ployed as a panacea. What matters in each instance is 
a careful analysis of context and requirements on the 
basis of which the appropriate means are selected. 
There are building tasks where a high-tech approach 
makes sense due to extreme requirements, just as 
there are building tasks where only a low-tech ap-
proach is possible and promises success.
The questions that need to be posed are: which 
technology is necessary and appropriate? Which 
technology can be employed without problems in the 
long term?
For most building tasks the answer is: a useful combina-
tion of high-tech and low-tech elements. Concepts where 
the technology completes and enhances the building. 
Strategies such as passive houses or zero-energy houses 
(also zero net energy houses) are only thinkable with 
a combination of high-performance construction and 
highly efficient building systems. Once again it is im-
portant to understand the building as a system in which 
the individual components complement and enhance 
one another. Interdisciplinary teams can successfully 
implement integrated designs of this kind. The pre-
requisites are that the architects engage more inten-
sively than before with the technical trades and that 
engineers are involved in the planning and design at 
an earlier stage.
ENERGY 
THEMES
REDUCE ENERGY 
REQUIREMENTS
LOW-TECH
OPTIMISE EN-
ERGY SUPPLY
HIGH-TECH
Heating Preserve heat Efficient heat 
generation (gain)
Cooling Avoid overheating Evacuate heat 
efficiently
Air Natural ventilation Efficient machine 
ventilation
Light Utilise natural 
lighting
Optimise artificial 
lighting
Power Utilise power 
efficiently
Decentralised 
power generation
06 The ten building blocks of energy-effi cient building
 according to energy themes
3 FUNDAMENTALS OF SUSTAINABLE DESIGN 
42
The third strategy is the sufficiency strategy, which is 
rarely discussed and even more rarely implemented: 
it is aimed at changing user and consumer behaviour 
and is thus also the most uncomfortable. Before we 
ask ourselves how housing demands can be met most 
efficiently and economically, we can also ask our-
selves how much living space makes sense in the first 
place. The aforementioned constant rise in area use 
per person is a direct result of two phenomena: higher 
expectations and smaller households. In addition to 
the growing number of singles households, new pro-
fessional profiles characterised by mobility increase 
the demand for more secondary residences. For exam-
ple, in Frankfurt the average household size dropped 
from 2.85 people per household in 1939 to 1.77 peo-
ple per household in 2003. Overall, the average liv-
ing space per person has increased steadily since the 
war. While the average living space per person was 
calculated as 19.4 m2 in 1960 in Germany, this value 
has risen to 42.5 m2 in 2010. And in the United States 
the current value is a staggering 68.1 m2 per resident. 
The decrease in household size is a ref lection of an in-
creasingly fragmented society. Although it is no doubt 
desirable that the development of new forms of hous-
ing should also promote new ways of cohabitation, the 
impact of architecture on society and how people live 
should not be overestimated.
Housing standards and area use promise a far greater 
potential for optimisation. Large apartments are often 
a rather helpless attempt on the part of the architects 
and the residents to compensate for deficiencies in 
the quality of the units. ‘Generous’ is a popular at-
tribute for apartments. But does a generous apartment 
really have to be large? The same quality could also 
be achieved in a smaller apartment through clever 
f loor-plan layout and lighting. However we should also 
question whether all the rooms in an apartment really 
have to be big. Could certain rooms such as bedrooms 
not exude a pleasant atmosphere of intimacy precisely
if they were smaller? Carefully thought-out scales 
for areas assigned to specific uses and hierarchical 
arrangements of rooms can often create tensions and 
contrasts within a living concept that are lacking in 
apartments with larger rooms. Finding the correct 
scale for rooms and objects has a unique atmospheric 
appeal. A sense of comfort and wellbeing arises more 
easily in apartments of this kind. 
In addition to the scale of individual rooms, it is also 
useful to question their intensity of use. Many apart-
ments contain rooms that are rarely or never used, 
such as empty children’s rooms, fitness rooms, or 
basement workshops. It may be possible to do without 
these rooms from the outset.
While the efficiency strategy tends to come into play 
at the end-of-pipe stage of the systems and usually re-
sults in high-tech solutions, the sufficiency strategy is 
effective at all levels of the project. The un-built space 
is always the most efficient space. And the nega-watt is 
Efficiency, consistency, sufficiency
We can differentiate three superordinate strategies: 
efficiency, consistency and sufficiency. They are 
adopted from business economics and can be applied 
to all issues related to sustainability. 
The efficiency strategy seeks to detach demand from 
consumption. One of the major problems of building 
is its high resource consumption. If demand can be 
covered with utmost efficiency, fewer resources are 
required to construct and operate buildings. More 
efficient construction projects consume less material 
while delivering equal performance (loadbearing ca-
pacity, storage capacity, insulating capacity). Energy-
efficient buildings can be operated with less energy 
without compromising comfort.
One problem of this strategy is the so-called rebound 
effect: the increase in efficiency leads to greater 
availability of resources (for example, because fewer 
resources are consumed or prices are reduced). The 
result is that demand increases and any savings are 
overcompensated for by increased consumption. The 
automobile industry is a case in point. Constant im-
provements to engines and drive systems have led to 
engines that are far more efficient. At the same time, 
cars have become heavier due to ever new comfort 
and safety features, which means that the f leet con-
sumption of all cars is in fact increasing. This is com-
pounded by the fact that consumption is by definition 
increasing: in the case of buildings this is demonstrat-
ed by the constant increase of living area per person.
It is at this point that the second strategy comes into 
play: the consistency strategy focuses on reducing ma-
terial f low and reusing material and energy. In build-
ing, longevity and durability of the construction are 
the most important factors for the consistency of a 
building: the suitability of the materials for stresses 
imposed by climate, building physics and use. But 
energy conservation, utilisation of lost or waste heat, 
wastewater reuse, light construction and material re-
cycling can all be employed to reduce the resource 
consumption in the operation of the building. The use 
of renewable resources and the substitution of non-
renewable resources are also part of this strategy, 
because materials and energy sources are used that 
can regenerate or are renewable. In Cradle to Cradle, 
Braungart and McDonough formulate the vision of an 
economy modelled on natural material cycles, where 
resource consumption is reduced to zero by closing 
the material and energy cycles, thereby making it com-
pletely sustainable. Although there are some doubts 
with regard to the applicability of the cradle-to-cradle 
concept for complex systems such as buildings, the 
consistencystrategy can make important contribu-
tions to individual aspects and select areas. In principle, 
there is no clear separation between the strategies 
described here. Optimal results in the design process 
can be achieved only through an intelligent combina-
tion of these strategies. 
3 FUNDAMENTALS OF SUSTAINABLE DESIGN 
43
the most economical and environmentally-friendly kilo-
watt hour: energy that was saved from the beginning.
Doing the right things and doing things right 
At this point we may ask whether sustainable building 
is not a contradiction in terms. Building is by definition 
not sustainable. Even the most environmentally friendly 
buildings consume enormous amounts of resources. All 
discussions about sustainable development take place 
against the backdrop that resource consumption contin-
ues to increase, at times dramatically so, despite good 
intentions and efforts to the contrary. Energy consump-
tion and greenhouse gas emissions are also constantly 
rising. In truth, humankind is closer to an accelerated 
increase than to a reversal of this trend. On the one hand, 
this is caused by the continued exponential growth of 
the world population. On the other, a greater number 
of people expect higher standards of living, leading to 
dramatic growth in demand especially in the thresh-
old countries (China, India, Brazil, Middle East). In the 
past, the paradigm of growth that is the foundation of 
capitalist economies has been questioned on multiple 
occasions without testing other economic options.8 One 
alternative could be to separate the growing demands 
of the growing population from resource consumption 
and environmental destruction. The success of this ap-
proach will determine whether or not we will achieve 
sustainable development. 
However, this fundamental discussion is not relevant 
for the goal sought through the discourse in this book. 
We want to ensure that architects and designers will 
pose the right questions and find answers within the 
framework of their professional responsibility. Given the 
«
»Martin Luther King Jr. didn’t stir people 
to action by proclaiming, ‘I have a night-
mare...’ 9 
Anthony Giddens
amount of resource consumption in the building sector 
and the high potential for optimisation, the discipline 
can make a great contribution towards defusing the 
goal conflict between growth paradigm and sustainable 
development.
All of the above reveals that our definition of profession-
al responsibility is very broad. We feel that architectural 
expertise should be utilised to query the fundamental 
project parameters in a critical and constructive manner 
as well: is the site suitable for a specific use? Is the spa-
tial programme sensible and appropriate for the desired 
use? From an optimistic viewpoint, one could hope that 
a sustainable building has a positive effect on people’s 
attitude and also influences decisions in other areas of 
life in a positive manner. The consumer who purchases 
organic food may expand the desire for a healthy, en-
vironmentally friendly life expressed by this gesture to 
other areas of life. Buildings with which users interact 
in a more intense manner, in particular, can become an 
expression of a sustainable lifestyle. Architects must 
learn to show the advantages of sustainable buildings 
and to demonstrate them through built examples. Sus-
tainable development on a broad scale is possible only 
through such a positive perspective.
FOOTNOTES CHAPTER 3
 1 William McDonough, Michael Braungart: Cradle to Cradle, San Francisco 2002.
 2 Gross value added in Germany, 2006: total EUR 389 billion, percentage of real estate in gross added value: 18.6 %. Real estate factor in GDP 2007: total 
 EUR 520 billion, or 21 % of GDP. Source: Zentraler Immobilien Ausschuss e.V. (German Property Federation), www.zia-deutschland.de/daten-und-fakten/ 
 (accessed: 21 December 2010). 
 3 Federal Statistical Office in Wiesbaden: Press release no. 343, 24 September 2010. In Germany, private households spent nearly one third of their consumption 
 budget (32.6 %) on housing, energy and upkeep in 2008. www.destatis.de/jetspeed/portal/cms/Sites/destatis/Internet/DE/Presse/pm/2010/09/PD10__343__6
 32,templateId=renderPrint.psml (accessed: 21 December 2010).
 4 In 2006, real estate assets including land stood at EUR 9 billion, real estate assets without land stood at EUR 6.6 billion. Real estate as investment assets amounted 
 to a total of EUR 4.9 billion, or 86 % of total investment assets in Germany. Source: Zentraler Immobilien Ausschuss e.V. (German Property Federation), 
 www.zia-deutschland.de/daten-und-fakten/ (accessed: 21 December 2010).
 5 Werner Sobek, Director, Institute for Lightweight Structural Engineering & Conceptual Design, University of Stuttgart, Germany at the Holcim Forum 2010 
 (Zurich, 16 December 2010), dedicated to Re-inventing Construction: ‘Frankly, I can no longer stand the word sustainability. Architects brag about making 
 sustainable buildings as if this was something special, whereas by now sustainability should be as essential as fire safety and structural stability. I hope that in 
 five years it will no longer be necessary to speak explicitly of sustainable construction.’
 6 Ludwig von Bertalanffy: Zu einer allgemeinen Systemlehre, in: Biologia Generalis, 195, New York/Cambridge 1948, pp. 114 – 129.
 7 Dietrich Dörner: Die Logik des Misslingens. Strategisches Denken in komplexen Situationen, Hamburg 1989.
 8 Meadows, Donella H. et al.: The Limits to Growth. A Report for The Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind, New York 1972.
 9 Anthony Giddens, Politics of Climate Change, London 2009.
3 FUNDAMENTALS OF SUSTAINABLE DESIGN 
44
This book analyses the interaction between buildings 
and context. However, it deliberately focuses on identi-
fying desired goals and potential negative impact, be-
cause a more comprehensive presentation of the urban 
planning aspects involved in sustainable architectural 
design would be too elaborate for this publication. The 
assessment system presented in ›chapter 6 can be used 
to qualify and quantify the individual aspects based 
on existing projects. This also explains the assessment 
criteria for specific features of urban planning that are 
relevant to sustainability. The interactions have been 
described from two different perspectives. The first 
focuses on the effect the building has on context; the 
second examines how the building can best respond to 
the context, or, how the building performance can be 
optimised for both the environment and the user.
4.1 IMPACT: THE BUILDING’S INFLUENCE 
ON CONTEXT 
The global consequences of building 
Humans have occupied vast areas of the earth and are 
having a massive impact on global and local ecological
cycles. Building is not only a manifestation of this 
human occupation, but also the reason for the dras-
tic transformation of nature into cultural space. The 
use of land for residential developments, as well as 
for taking resources, has transformed a large percent 
of the earth’s surface. This transformation is a prob-
lem, because it destroys the fundamental balance of 
the ecosystem and hence, the very essence of human-
kind’s existence. The biodiversity is in decline. The 
earth’s natural sustainable cycles and its atmosphere 
are being destroyed. Building is humankind’s most 
environmentally damaging activity. Surfaces of the 
earth are sealed and parts of the natural environment 
are destroyed in order to make buildings. Construc-
tion involves great amounts of material and energy. 
Resources are consumed not only when necessary, 
but also constantly, because interior spaces have to 
be heated or cooled, building components have to be 
serviced, maintained and replaced. The construction 
industry’s particular responsibility can be measured in 
the amount of resources it consumes and the emissions 
it produces. Below is a list of the figures involved in theconstruction, running, maintaining, and demolishing 
of buildings:
- About 78 % of land use in Germany is caused by the 
 expansion of cities.1 
- The construction sector is responsible for approxi-
 mately 40 % of current energy consumption.
- It consumes approximately 50 % of the total 
 consumed materials
- Construction is also responsible for 60 % of waste 
 according to weight.
These numbers vary according to the frame of reference 
and specific time period studied. There are discrepan-
cies in the energy consumption calculation, since for 
example production industry is often counted as being 
a separate sector from construction. And yet a portion 
of the energy consumed by production industry is also 
used to produce building materials. In any case, this 
resource consumption and emissions exceeds both the 
ecosystem’s natural ability to regenerate as well as the 
available resources, and it is increasing. The growing 
consumption is driven by two developments that over-
lap and reinforce each other: first, the world popula-
tion is expanding exponentially, and, second, the UN 
does not predict this to slow down until at least 2050.2 
But, in addition to the growth in population, consump-
tion is going up at virtually the same rate. 
And in developing countries this figure will increase at 
an even more alarming rate, because growth in these 
countries is developing more dynamically. The only 
hope is to separate the increase in population from the 
increase in consumption.
It follows that destroying the environment, coupled 
with unbridled consumption of non-sustainable energy,
will bring changes to our society and transform our 
style of life. At the moment we are still in a position 
to make a choice between crafting a change that will
THE BUILDING AND 
ITS CONTEXT 
see
chapter 6
4 THE BUILDING AND ITS CONTEXT
45
60 000
80 000
20 000
40 000
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 
European Cities
A
nn
ua
l g
as
ol
in
e 
us
e 
pe
r 
ca
pi
ta
 fu
lly
 a
dj
us
te
d 
to
 U
S
 p
ar
am
et
er
s 
(M
J,
 1
98
0)
(E
ne
rg
y 
co
ns
um
pt
io
n)
USA
Los Angeles
San Francisco
Detroit
Washington DC
Chicago
New York
Boston
Phoenix
Houston
Denver
Toronto
Australien
Hamburg
Paris
London
Wien
Zürich
Brüssel
München
West-Berlin
Tokyo
Stockholm
Kopenhagen
Amsterdam
Singapore
Moskau
Hong Kong
Wien
SydneyAdelaide
Melbourne
Brisbane
Perth
Urban density (person per ha)
1950 2010 2050
Rural population urban population
100
80
60
40
20
0
D
is
tr
ib
ut
io
n 
[%
]
have a mild impact for society and the individual or 
allowing this change to be triggered by environmental 
catastrophes, hunger, migration, social unrest, and 
war.3 A prerequisite for a productive change is a para-
digm shift to which the construction industry and 
architects, planners, and investors will have to make a 
make a significant contribution. 
The city as a model of the future
More and more people in the world are moving to the 
city. The United Nations predicts that 68.8 % percent 
of the world’s population will live in cities by the year 
2050.4 This percentage ranges between 86 % in devel-
oped countries and 66 % in less developed countries. 
In any case, cities are the future of humankind, for bet-
ter or worse. 
The examples of sustainable architecture presented 
in this publication prove that locations such as these 
can also be used for sustainable living, under the con-
dition that the buildings are developed from and in 
accord with the context. People living in rural areas 
can lead autarkic and sustainable lives by taking 
advantage of agricultural production and by using 
local resources – as was the case up until 150 years ago 
in industrial countries. Perhaps yet to be developed 
efficient systems for supplying integrated energy and 
water will make autarkic building methods and settle-
ments, supported by rural living and self-sufficiency, 
possible again in the future. The great distances be-
tween the places where goods are consumed and the 
places where they are produced is already a negative 
factor in this day and age, especially concerning food 
supplies – which is why efforts are being made to inte-
grate food production into the urban structure (urban 
farming).5 This would boost the local supply, balance 
the use of land, and create jobs.
 
At the moment, however, entanglement and dependency 
are the dominant trend. The most problematic concept
is that which attempts to combine the advantages of 
the city and the country: working in the city and living 
in a green suburbs. This very popular style of life has 
created a series of urban sprawls in close proximity 
to urban centres. These low-density residential areas 
are expanding into the countryside and devouring land 
surfaces and natural spaces. Single-family homes con-
sume the lion’s share of surface areas used for build-
ings in Germany.6 Life in suburbia – the urban sprawl 
that originated in the United States – is the most com-
mon popular way of life in the world. The mass of com-
muters creates a need for transport, which, because 
of poor infrastructure, can usually only be fulfilled 
by motor vehicles. The energy consumption required 
for this transport increases exponentially with the de-
crease in building density, as Newman and Kenworthy 
pointed out as early as 1989.7 Because not only do the 
distances increase with decreasing density, but the 
density of available supplies also decreases. Low-den-
sity American cities with extremely poor public trans-
port will have to be restructured in the near future. 
01 Percentage of urban population compared with the 
 overall population 1950, 2000, 2050
02 Relationship between population density and energy
 use for transport
4 THE BUILDING AND ITS CONTEXT
46
This dependence is evident in most decentralised city 
models (such as La Ville radieuse by Le Corbusier, 1927; 
Broadacre City by Frank Lloyd Wright, 1932), which are 
all based on highly developed concepts of transport 
such as raised expressways or personal aircraft. This 
is a dependence that has proven f lawed, not only be-
cause of limited resources and environmental impact, 
but also because many of these streets have become 
hazardous places dominated by motor vehicles. Jan 
Gehl proved that the quality of life in and around the 
metropolitan area could be greatly improved in cities 
like Copenhagen, Melbourne and New York if these cit-
ies were returned to the people and to environmentally 
friendly methods of transport such as trams and bicy-
cles.8 We are also convinced that the city as a future 
model is possible only if housing can be developed in 
such a way as to require less land and less transport. 
The urban project models in this book show that city 
structures have advantages regarding resource con-
sumption – and hence, with good planning, can be 
considered good models for the future. In addition to 
housing, people need work places, food and drink, the 
arts and entertainment – and above all, other people. 
All of this is concentrated in cities. Supplying this need 
would not only be easier and less expensive, but also 
more efficient and less environmentally damaging 
if these cities were planned responsibly rather than 
designed as monstrous hybrids that aspire to be an ur-
ban/bucolic idyll. 
Denser structures can be built using fewer resources, 
because each square metre requires less foundation, 
facade and roof surface – which are often the most cost-
ly and complicated parts of the building. These advan-
tages affect not only the building’s production, but also 
its operation and maintenance throughout its entire 
life cycle. Here the comparably decreased effort also 
translates into less environmental impact. Ultimately, 
larger, compacter forms of buildings are more energy 
efficient on a day-to-day basis than smaller buildings: 
a building with a larger volume and the same propor-
tions also has a better A/V-ratio, whichmeans it uses 
less energy.
Cites are also places of cultural identity. They are the 
sum of a wealth of forms, spaces and structures that 
have created a dialogue throughout the centuries be-
tween different generations and phases of a culture. 
Compared to other forms of culture such as literature, 
visual art, or music, the city is an integral element of 
our life. We experience it day to day and are an active 
part of its whole. This gives the city an extraordinary 
significance, and us an unique responsibility. The city 
is not the product of just one author; it is an orches-
tra of ideas, concepts and forms that have taken shape 
over decades and centuries and are subject to constant 
transformation. The city is the ultimate ‘open work’9 
(and could have been Umberto Eco’s best example) 
with many authors, a work of art that has transcended 
the gap between recipient and producer. 
In the end, cities are ultimately places of social encoun-
ter, of exchange and being together. Not every human 
encounter is necessarily a pleasant one, but basically, 
humans are social animals that feel more secure and 
happy in a community than in isolation. Day-to-day en-
counters with other people is also an important basis 
for the development of a basic democratic understand-
ing of life. Thomas Sieverts points to the fact that the 
everyday encounter with people of all levels of society, 
which inevitably and frequently occurs in cities, is a 
foundation for social solidarity. This does not happen 
for those in suburbia who travel in private cars to their 
controlled work places and shopping malls, avoiding 
contact with people other than their own kind.10 The 
needs and day-to-day realities of others can only be un-
derstood if they can be experienced on a tangible level. 
But densely built cities also have disadvantages. In-
creasing density leads to fewer unbuilt spaces like 
parks and playgrounds. There is also a larger risk of 
conflict between users, residents, and street traffic. 
The concentration of buildings and human activity 
emits high levels of toxins (particulate matter, ground-
level ozone, SOx, NOx), “heat islands and light”. The 
natural water supply and microclimate is also affected 
considerably. Hence, planners are asked to work ho-
listically and systematically in order to make the best 
use of the dense building situation and to minimise the 
disadvantages. 
The effect building has on the environment 
Buildings shape the urban environment. The edges 
between buildings are the city’s most important fea-
ture for urban planners, and traffic is influenced by the 
city’s spatial layout and how its buildings are arranged. 
This is also a type of reciprocity between buildings and 
environment. The sum of buildings defines the city-
scape, and in turn the city structure has an effect on 
the buildings. There are various ways in which build-
ings influence the environment (city or landscape): in 
their immediate proximity they create a microclimate 
that is influenced by lighting, ventilation, vegetation, 
acoustics, and noise emission, as well as colours and 
materials.
Lighting and shadows 
Buildings create shadows and can block light from oth-
er buildings and outdoor spaces. Hence, many building 
ordinances prescribe specific regulations for distance 
and building density, which are supposed to limit the 
unfavourable impact that a building might have on 
neighbouring properties. On the other hand, shadows 
might actually be a desired effect in warm countries. 
Shadow studies can be used to determine the effects 
on the surrounding environment. However, because 
the course of the sun varies at different times of the 
year according to the geographic width in question, 
and the effect and significance of sunrays changes – 
for instance in summer there will be overheating, while 
in winter solar gain can be harnessed – it is necessary 
to carry out a differentiated analysis.
4 THE BUILDING AND ITS CONTEXT
47
Urban Ventilation 
The natural exchange of air is inf luenced by the build-
ings. This makes it important to make sure that local 
heat islands or insufficiently ventilated areas with too 
little air circulation do not develop. Flow simulations 
can be used to evaluate the effect of buildings and to 
optimise the urban space and building structure. 
Urban building block: the building as added value for 
the urban environment
The urban structure is greatly influenced by buildings. 
They shape the urban space, create spatial edges and 
views, and restrict open space. In this way, different 
useable spaces are created such as public space, which 
is mainly used for street traffic, but also city squares 
and green areas. The buildings define private interi-
or and exterior spaces that should be protected from 
noise emission and undesired visual access. The build-
ing performance and outdoor design gives the city a 
structure that differentiates areas of use and to link 
them in specific ways. 
Buildings and their immediate surroundings can also 
positively effect the urban environment. Moreover, if 
outside and inside spaces are open to everyone, and not 
only the residents, they will function as a spatial and 
functional extension of the city. Just as the building form 
and its spatial references can be based on and planned 
to harmonise with the context, the building can also be 
designed as an integral element of the urban environ-
ment. A best-case scenario of this would create synergies 
between, for instance, commerce and potential customers.
However, it is also possible to design residential spaces 
to include common rooms or meetings places that of-
fer residents different degrees of privacy. One example 
here is the courtyard of ›Dreieck in Zurich that is open to 
Dreieck’s residents as well as the city. These are precisely 
the moments of urban life in which the density of peo-
ple and facilities for the individual as well as society as a 
whole create an added value to be exploited. The city is 
more than a functional unit; it is also a vibrant space full 
of experiences, where we can be together and encounter 
and exchange with others.
The water cycle
Buildings and sealing the earth’s surface disturbs the 
natural water cycles. In nature’s biological cycle, most of 
the precipitation evaporates through vegetation or the 
earth’s surface. The earth absorbs the rest, which in 
turn feeds the ground water supply. Most buildings 
hinder both the evaporation process and the ability of 
the soil to absorb precipitation. 
The residents of a building need clean drinking water, 
which they then soil. Precipitation is mixed with house-
hold wastewater and channelled and collected by a cen-
tral water system. This technology was developed in the 
19th century to supply clean drinking water to the popu-
lace, and to fight the spread of illnesses and contagions 
caused by mismanaged wastewater. Unfortunately, this 
technology also has many disadvantages. Because pre-
cipitation is no longer evaporated or absorbed into the 
earth, it is removed from the natural water cycle where it 
is needed to regenerate the ground water supply and 
nourish vegetation. Heavy rainfall and melting of snow 
leads to a temporary increase in wastewater. This extra 
wastewater is channelled directly into the receiving wa-
ters, because the storage capacity of the overall network 
of buildings, sealed ground surfaces, and sewage sys-
tems is very low. This makes it impossible to control the 
speed of the wastewater flow adequately. The increase in 
floods over recent decades is due not only to climate 
change but also to the increased discharge water of pre-
cipitation in cities.
POSITIVE NEGATIVE 
Reinforcing the urban spatial structure 
Simulation und evaluation of the effect of the building on 
the urban climate 
Urban ventilation Heat islands in the cities due to sealed surfaces, dark roof 
surfaces, and poor urban ventilation 
Fresh air corridors and cool air and cold air productionLocal toxins through particulate matter, nitrogen oxide 
and other emissions 
Biotope network No or small areas of green surfaces and natural spaces 
›Das Dreieck, 
see chapter 7
4 THE BUILDING AND ITS CONTEXT
48
POSITIVE NEGATIVE
Buildings shape an urban space that harmonises with the 
dimensions and character of the locality
Structuring the public and private: differentiating urban 
spaces 
Creating useable inner and external spaces as spatial and 
functional expansion of the urban landscape
Introverted buildings that have no spatial or functional 
relationship to their environment
Buildings’ suitability for use, environment and locality Unsuitable external spaces and buildings 
Analysis and optimisation of the effects of the building on 
the environment (shadows, uses, external spaces)
Casting undesired shadows on other buildings or outdoor 
spaces 
Creating a spatially open and inviting ground floor level that 
is flexible regarding use and which animates and expands 
the urban milieu. 
Conflict of uses, disruption of the privacy or sensitivity of 
the residential or commercial tenants.
Most of the sewage systems are outdated and leak. 
There are no precise statistics, but the initial studies 
suggest that for example 37% of the systems in Ger-
many display heavy to medium damage (rated from 0 
to 3). Leaky pipes are a great problem because waste 
water escapes, is absorbed by the soil, and eventually 
contaminates the ground water. Sewage pipes in Ger-
many were replaced after the Second World War, 
which means they are in better condition there than in 
countries with older systems. Nonetheless, the Deut-
scher Städtetag (German Conference of Local Authori-
ties) predicts that repairing the sewage system and 
keeping it in top condition will cost up to EUR 4.6 
billion a year.11
Collective disposal of wastewater and rain water does 
generally not make sense. Precipitation could be col-
lected and used for washing clothes, or watering 
plants, which would greatly reduce the consumption of 
water. Supplying clean drinking water to the public 
and agriculture is a massive problem in many regions 
of the world. Here, locally treated meteoric and grey 
water would be the best starting point for a decentral-
ised water system. In regions where water is plentiful, 
surplus meteoric water should be allowed to return to 
the natural water cycle by either evaporating into the 
atmosphere or being absorbed by the earth locally and 
in this way be returned to the natural water cycle. Sys-
tems such as the biotope habitat used for the ›Ecohotel 
project can make the outdoor area more attractive and 
improve the microclimate. Household water, which 
accumulates separately in low but steady levels from 
precipitation, can also be processed centrally or 
decentrally. It contains valuable raw materials such as 
nitrates and phosphates that can be extracted and 
used for agriculture as fertilizers. However, most cen-
tralized communal waterborne sewage systems are not 
able to separate wastewater from grey water thorough-
ly, because they require a certain f low rate to function. 
This f low rate, in turn, is contingent upon a certain 
level of water, which cannot be satisfied at all time by 
household water alone. For instance, household water 
is decreasing in Dessau because of the declining popu-
lation; hence the authorities have to f lood the sewage 
system with fresh water just to keep it functioning.
It would make much more sense to supplement the ex-
isting method with decentralised systems such as 
small-scale sewage treatment plants, compost and vac-
uum toilets, which are a productive and efficient way of 
separating the f low of wastewater. This would also be a 
way to retain important raw materials. The most inno-
vative systems today can even make use of residual 
heat or fermentation processes for the building. The 
question also arises here, as previously regarding 
energy consumption, as to how much longer the semi-
public sewage system monopoly will be able to hold out 
against more efficient, modern decentralised systems. 
A large percentage of restructuring the system could 
be paid for by monies that are now spent to service and 
maintain outdated sewage networks, added to the costs 
incurred by f loods that are, at least in part, the result 
of poor management of precipitation.
For International Bauausstellung IBA in Hamburg, 700 
apartments were built in the district of Wandsbek, on 
an area of 35 hectares, formally the site of the Lettow-
Vorbeck Barracks. It was a model project that used the 
above-mentioned innovative method of managing the 
water f low.12 The first and most important process is to 
separate precipitation, grey water, black water, and 
yellow water, so that they can be used appropriately. 
Precipitation is channelled into open gutters and cas-
cades and eventually forms a central pool. This adds an 
attractive quality to the city and improves the microcli-
mate. The black water is not only treated but also used 
as energy source: first, heat exchangers convert the 
residual heat into energy and second, the black water 
Ecohotel in the Orchard,
see chapter 7
4 THE BUILDING AND ITS CONTEXT
49
POSITIVE NEGATIVE
Ground water regeneration Surface sealing
Meteoric water evaporating or being absorbed 
by the earth
Sealing of open surfaces and outdoor areas 
Decreasing consumption of water (Recycling, water-saving 
taps and appliances)
Separating, collecting and using precipitation to substitute 
drinking water (watering the garden, washing machine, 
toilet flushing)
Using drinking water to water the garden, to flush the 
toilet, and for the washing machine 
Decentralised recycling and treatment of precipitation and 
wastewater on the property in question
Separate disposal of waste and local and local reprocessing 
of yellow and black water (compost toilets, vacuum toilets, 
constructed wetland water treatment plant, small-scale 
sewage treatment plants, microfiltration, energetic use, 
recovery of reusable material in the wastewater)
Mixing and collective disposal of precipitation, yellow, and 
black water 
Green rooftops to abate the amount of precipitation and to 
delay the flow 
A fast channelling of wastewater with a high risk to the 
local environment (leaks, flooding) 
can also be used in a biogas plant to generate energy. 
Today’s state of technology for the individual conver-
sion, use and treatment of the water f low can be best 
applied in suburban or housing development situations, 
where several buildings can be connected to the sys-
tem at once. This forms efficient local networks that 
can make use of collective water treatment and avoid 
the downfalls of long transport distances. 
4.2 BUILDING PERFORMANCE: THE 
EFFECTS OF URBAN DESIGN AND THE 
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT ON THE 
BUILDING 
Site factors and urban structure (macro level) 
The ›assessment method presented in chapter 6 rates 
the building, but also contain a series of criteria for 
the site. A comprehensive analysis of the site should 
be performed before beginning any project. The loca-
tion and its accessibility determine how well the site 
is connected to facilities, local recreation areas, and 
long-distance routes. An holistic observation could 
reveal that, under certain conditions, the induced traf-
fic would be a decisive factor regarding environmental 
impact. Comparing a suburban site with the ›Minimum 
Impact House in the inner city proved that traffic was 
responsible for the largest percentage of energy con-
sumption and greenhouse gas emissions. 
Assessing Sustainability, 
see chapter 6
Assessing the site can serve two different objectives: 
if different plots are in question, or if purchasing a 
plot for the planned use is under consideration, a 
site analysis will be necessary to guarantee that pre-
liminary studies or variant comparison are reliable. 
If the plot and use have already been established, a 
site analysis is nevertheless essentialas an iterative 
optimisation of the possibilities and objectives of the 
planning process.
If it is not possible to reconsider an alternative site, 
the objectives and requirements can still be adapted 
and optimised as regards the possibilities of the site, 
its location, infrastructure, energy supply, and local 
resources. A plan to optimise the type and form of use 
(size of apartment, quality standards) can be devised 
using information gathered from the site analysis. 
Future f lexibility of uses can also be planned for the 
long term. Even if the architect is not the person re-
sponsible for project development, he or she can still 
use the site analysis to reduce any risk of a conf lict 
of objectives between the site and the scope of work 
– which can, at worst, either endanger the success of 
the project, or, more often, create additional work 
and costs for replanning. This consequence can also 
result from costs or marketing objectives not being 
properly checked or verified.
Minimum Impact House, 
see chapter 7.2
4 THE BUILDING AND ITS CONTEXT
50
The onsite energy supply is the starting point of devel-
oping an energy concept. One should study the inter-
action of the sun’s rays on the plot at certain times of the
day or year. In addition to infrastructure for the plot, 
which consists of different media (electricity, water, 
gas), one also needs to clarify the availability of renew-
able energy sources. Are there geological and water 
prerequisites for the use of geothermal energy? Can 
the sun’s rays on the building or plot be used? Can oth-
er energy sources be used, such as biogas or biomass? 
Analyses such as these can be applied to determine the 
advantages and disadvantages of a site, which can in 
turn be used to define more precisely the building’s 
requirements.
Linking the building to the urban structure 
There are many advantages for buildings and the envi-
ronment in densely built urban structures: less land is 
needed, motorised traffic is kept to a minimum, and 
there is a wealth of social and cultural facilities. More 
compact and larger architecture and buildings also 
have better A/V-ratios. This results in lower consump-
tion of energy and a less complex and, hence, less cost-
ly construction, because the building’s shell is the 
most costly part of a building and also poses the great-
est environmental impact. However, in densely built 
structures, conflicts can also arise between the build-
ings themselves or between a building and its environ-
ment. For this reason, every building should be 
planned to ensure good ventilation and lighting, good 
views to the outside, and offer sufficient space for the 
privacy of its residents. It is necessary to consider and 
weigh up the numerous and sometimes incompatible 
requirements.
There is more freedom of design for individual buildings 
located in less densely built structures. The necessity 
to integrate the building into the urban environment is 
reduced, as is the need to weigh up potential conflict-
ing interests systematically. 
This book emphasises the importance of addressing 
the context, because we believe that a basic analysis of 
the above-mentioned factors and of the history of the 
site and its culture, will help a building to be more than 
just formally or physically integrated into the existing 
context. It can also create many different layers, such 
as volumetry and urban space, use, material and colour 
– relationships, interrelationships, and exciting mo-
ments of suspense, which together create a dialogue 
between the new and the existing. There are also 
necessary moments of fissure and a continuously 
POSITIVE NEGATIVE
Analysis of the context (urban space, buildings, history, lo-
cal building traditions, resources, uses, culture etc.)
Design with no regard for context
Mixed uses and flexibility Mono-functional structures
Site-appropriate use concepts Conflicting uses (noise, emissions)
Using local resources and energy Disposal with non-renewable energy and materials
Creating common and public spaces Gated communities
Local recreation facilities Unacceptable shadows onto other buildings and outdoor 
spaces
Linked to existing infrastructure (transport and social 
establishments)
Building on sites that can only be accessed by individual 
transport.
Concepts of use and integration of public transport Using public space for stationary traffic 
Improving conditions for bicycle and pedestrian traffic Urban spaces with heavy automobile traffic
4 THE BUILDING AND ITS CONTEXT
51
developing structure by means of new buildings, which 
makes this relationship organic and multifarious. 
Hence, the essence and identity of a city, a district, or 
urban space is greatly influenced by individual build-
ings – they shape the space, give the city a face, and 
hence create identity.
Important parameters can be drawn from the urban 
setting: the A/V-ratio, building depth, lighting and 
shadows, and possible concept for the infrastructure. 
Even the structure and the construction are influenced 
by the building’s geometry. Conflicting requirements 
have to be iteratively optimised. The requirements are 
contingent upon the climatic frame of reference: in 
cold regions, heat loss is reduced by means of the 
building’s shell, and solar gain is improved. In hot, 
sunny locations, the building is protected from over-
heating by an effective shadow concept.
Effects of the urban building structure and ground plan
The building’s volume and form have a direct influence 
on the spatial quality, use and comfort of the interior 
space. The arrangement of use areas in the building 
responds to the environment. How the building is 
placed in relation to the directional orientation how the 
interior spaces are lit and establishes the times of day 
POSITIVE NEGATIVE
Dense housing developments High consumption of land
Re-greening Destruction of natural environment
Using conversion areas Expanding land use and city areas
Critical integration into existing contexts (spatial / 
functional / structural)
Disturbance of urban structures and spaces 
Developing the urban network Solitary and not rooted in context and lacking urban plan-
ning qualities
Using local resources (energy, materials, use) Wasting resources and energy
Low A/V-ratio Compact to the disadvantage of spatial and design quality
Optimisation of climatic conditions for the building 
(sunshine, lighting, ventilation)
Use concepts and a demand for comfort that do not 
comply with the site (like skiing in Dubai)
Analysing the different seasonal requirements and effects 
on the building
Standardised use and comfort demands
Entrance areas that are easy to identify, are well lit, secure 
and accessible
Entrance areas that are not easy to identify, are narrow 
and dark
Useable outdoor areas for recreation, children playing, 
or planting
Outdoor areas are merely residual spaces lacking attrac-
tive amenities or landscape value
the building is subject to direct sunlight. Thermal 
comfort can also be influenced, because a great amount 
of solar gain can be derived from strong sunlight, 
which could, on the other hand, lead to overheating. 
The predominant wind directions, the building’s ge-
ometry, and its facade design all affect the natural 
lighting of the building. The orientation of spaces and 
buildings began to play an essential role in the archi-
tectural discourse in Modernism, because creating 
housing that was well lit and ventilated was one of the 
Modernists’ declared objectives.
Global factors mesh with local factors: spatial refer-
ences are created by the environment. A view of the 
urban panorama, of a favourite part of the city, a park 
or a garden can greatly increase the quality of the inte-
rior space. And equally, disagreeable influences such 
as noise emissions or an unattractive environment can 
have negative effects. The building can respond to situ-
ations such as these if the sides of the property that are 
subjectedto such influences are closed. Another alter-
native is to design the building to be oriented toward 
an enclosed courtyard or garden, which would create 
attractive outdoors areas as a reference point for the 
interior spaces. It should be noted here that all of the fol-
lowing is based on locations in the northern hemisphere. 
4 THE BUILDING AND ITS CONTEXT
52
POSITIVE NEGATIVE
Analysis of external influences (visiting the site and 
observations, inquiring, research, measuring) 
Building and ground plan that do not consider external 
influences, for instance, all sides are the same
Examining the interferences in possible volumetries 
(sun studies, Energy Mapping, shadow studies)
Variant studies of different solutions, weighing up the 
advantages and disadvantages using a matrix of criteria
Arranging the rooms according to orientation and the 
course of the sun, zoning the building according to the sky 
and other influences
Conflicting uses between the interior spaces and 
emissions (noise, smells)
Bedrooms in quiet areas of the building Conflicting uses between surrounding buildings and uses 
Living rooms placed in well-lit areas and in relation to 
outside spaces (visual references, balcony, garden) 
Arranging the living rooms so that they look out onto 
other buildings or have no optical privacy from outside 
Auxiliary and service rooms as buffer spaces (hallways, 
stairwells, bathrooms, storage rooms, kitchen without 
residential functions)
Protecting the privacy of the residents (views, noise, traffic) Creating conflicts between users 
Erecting buildings on dangerous sites (earthquakes, 
floods, storms, natural disasters) 
Sun and shadow studies can be used to devise the 
building’s volumetry, but also to design the facade, the 
inner zoning of the building, and the ground plan. For 
the student design course of the Department of Design 
and Energy Efficient Building at Darmstadt University 
of Technology, we developed a simple method called 
Energy Mapping for students to examine different vol-
umetries in their spatial and urban contexts. Using a 
simple volume model, the sun’s movement over the fa-
cade is simulated and mapped. The mapping creates 
different brightly coloured areas that indicate how 
many hours of sun each part of the facade receives at a 
certain time of year. This process is carried out for 
three seasons: winter, spring (or autumn), and summer, 
because the sun’s course and its effect vary (overheat-
ing in summer or solar gain in winter). There is a com-
paratively simple model that roughly illustrates the 
f loor levels inside the building and helps to determine 
the areas of the ground plan that receive direct sun. 
The amount, colour, and most importantly the radiated 
energy content does in fact vary greatly throughout the 
day and year, which is why it is impossible to derive 
reliable, quantitative data about solar energy gain from 
the procedure. Nonetheless, Energy Mapping is a good 
tool, which can be employed to iteratively optimise the 
building’s volumetry, facade concept and ground plan 
at an early design stage. 
There can, however, be conflicting requirements for 
the rooms and the building. For instance, windows that 
are necessary for views, lighting and ventilation also 
mean that people can look into the building, which 
compromises the residents’ need for privacy and inti-
macy. A process similar to Energy Mapping can be ap-
plied by analogy for other impacts, for instance to 
examine noise emissions or views into the space. This 
can help to optimise zones inside the apartment, in 
order to observe the different interferences and 
requirements better. It is important to make qualified 
decisions, based on the studies and analyses, which 
comply with the use concept and the needs of the users.
As a rule, architects choose to structure the uses verti-
cally, because there is often a conflict of interests 
between the residents’ desire for privacy and an im-
provement in quality that seeks to retain the urban 
essence by means of spatial references in the building. 
Public and commercial uses are located on the ground 
f loor, which serve as a visual and functional extension 
of the street and enliven the space. The apartments, 
which should be protected from noise and the eyes of 
other visitors, are located on the f loors above. 
Designing holistically, 
see chapter 5.1
4 THE BUILDING AND ITS CONTEXT
53
03 Energy Mapping: Shadow studies of facades and fl oor plan levels
March/September 21st
1
2
3
4
5
S
o
u
th
m
ax
. 
7
 h
ou
rs
 
E
as
t 
m
ax
.
4 
h
o
u
rs
N
o
rt
h
m
ax
.
2 
ho
ur
s
W
es
t
m
ax
. 
5 
ho
ur
s
1
2
3
4
5
S
o
u
th
 
m
ax
. 
11
 h
ou
rs
E
as
t 
m
ax
.
8 
h
o
u
rs
N
o
rt
h
m
ax
.
5 
h
o
u
rs
W
es
t
m
ax
. 
9 
h
o
u
rs
June 21st 
1
2
3
4
5
S
o
u
th
 
m
ax
. 
4
 h
o
u
rs
E
as
t 
0
 h
o
u
rs
N
o
rt
h
0
 h
o
u
rs
W
es
t
m
ax
. 
4 
h
o
u
rs
21. Dezember
March 21st June 21st September 21st December 21st
FOOTNOTES CHAPTER 4
 1 Umweltbundesamt Dessau (Federal Ecological Agency Dessau, Germany): Data on the environment, resource consumption and waste management, subtopic: 
 biological resources, indicator: land consumption. It states that: Between 2003 and 2007, the consumption of surfaces areas for the expansion of residential and traffic 
 demands increased 113 ha per day. Expanding areas for residential use accounts for 78 % of this growth (88 ha per day), and for traffic, 22 % (25 ha per day). 
 www.umweltbundesamt daten-zur-umwelt.de/umweltdaten/public/theme.do?nodeIdent=2898 (accessed: 04.02.2011). 
 2 The UN calculates that the world’s population will increase to 10,46 billion by 2050. Quoted from: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung (Federal Germany Agency for 
 Political Education), www.bpb.de/files/MUEY95 pdf (accessed: 02.01.2011).
 3 Jared Diamond: Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, New York 2004.
 4 United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division: World Urbanization Prospects The 2009 Revision, New York, 2010, http://esa.un.org/
 unpd/wup/index.htm (accessed: 04.03.2011). 
 5 Dickson Despommier: The Vertical Farm: Feeding the World in the 21st Century, New York, 2010.
 6 Umweltbundesamt Dessau: Zunahme der Siedlungs- und Verkehrsflächen vom Jahr 1993 bis zum Jahr 2009 (Increase of residential and transport surfaces from 1993 to 
 2009) www.umweltbundesamt.de/rup/veroeffentlichungen/zunahme.pdf (accessed: 10.26.2010).
 7 Peter W. G. Newman, Jeffrey R. Kenworthy: Cities and Auto Dependency: A Sourcebook, Aldershot, UK 1989.
 8 Jan Gehl: ‘Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space,’ in: Jan Gehl et al.: New City Life, New York/Copenhagen 2006; ibid.: Cities for People, Washington 2010.
 9 Umberto Eco: The Open Work, Harvard 1989. 
10 Thomas Sieverts: Zwischenstadt. Zwischen Ort und Welt, Raum und Zeit, Stadt und Land (The intermediate city, between place and world, space and time, city and 
 countryside), Berlin 1999.
11 Deutscher Städtetag: Repairing the sewage system is a never-ending job. Results of a DWA questionnaire regarding the state of sewage systems in Germany. 
 www.staedtetag.de/10/presseecke/pressedienst/artikel/2010/11/11/00754/index.html; complete questionnaire: www.kanalumfrage.dwa.de/portale/kanalumfrage/
 kanalumfrage.nsf/home?readform (accessed on: 12.10.2010).
12 Kim Augustin, Henning Schonlau: Der Hamburg Water Cycle am Beispiel der internationalen Bauausstellung in Hamburg, (The Hamburg water cycle based on the 
 International Bauausstellung in Hamburg) in: RWTH Aachen, Institute for Environmental Engineering -ISA- (ed.): 2. Aachener Kongress Dezentrale Infrastruktur am 
 28. und 29. Oktober 2008 im Eurogress Aachen, Aachen 2008.
4 THE BUILDING AND ITS CONTEXT
54 5 ARCHITECTURE AS A PROCESS 
Buildings are primarily perceived and developed as 
spatial objects; their temporal dimension often recedes 
into the background.They are thought of as static 
structures (property) and exist in this frozen, ideal 
state only in the imagination of the designer. In real-
ity the building is subject to changes taking place on 
various timescales; it is less a state and much more 
a process. This observation applies not only to the 
design and construction of a building. Architecture 
is also constantly changing during the rest of its life 
cycle – through aging and use, as well as extension, 
conversion and demolition. 
Buildings regress from a state of higher order into one 
of the greatest possible disorder, the greatest possible 
entropy.1 The higher the entropy of a system, the more 
even and random the distribution of energy and mate-
rial within the system becomes. Buildings weather and 
fall into disrepair until they reach a state of equilib-
rium with the surrounding system. This process can 
be halted or slowed down only by the continuous input 
of energy and materials, by carrying out maintenance, 
repairs and refurbishment – or by transforming the 
building to a higher state of order through the use of 
materials and external energy. 
In addition to the structural dimension, which is gov-
erned by the laws of physics, architecture also has a 
non-material, cultural and social dimension that con-
forms to other laws. The idea of a building survives 
even if the materials of which it is composed dete-
riorate and dissolve in a state of higher entropy. The 
stones from which the Greek temples were built decay, 
but the idea of the temple remains and even goes on to 
grow through further development and transformation. 
The idea of the Greek temple thus re-emerges in the 
humanist ideals of the Renaissance, just as it does in 
the classical themes of the Enlightenment.
ARCHITECTURE AS A PROCESS
Architecture can evade this loss of order by other 
means: by widening the frame of assessment and con-
sideration to include the building’s use and its users. 
Change, then, is not defined as loss of order, but rather 
as an inherent part of the process in which external en-
ergy is incorporated into the system to achieve a higher 
and more complex order. This paradigm shift requires 
that architecture not be seen as a deterministic process
ending with the iconic photography of the still-virgin 
and unoccupied building. Only if architecture is able 
to include and use the existing forces can it free itself 
permanently from inevitable and insidious decay.
The prerequisite for this is a willingness to think about 
the building over its whole life cycle: not only on a ma-
terial level in the form of energy and material f lows, but 
equally on its emotional, functional and social levels.
Functional and social mean here the specific needs 
that architecture has to fulfil. It must be user oriented, 
usable, and adaptable to changes in needs while allow-
ing room for interpretation and appropriation, in the 
sense of adopting as one’s own, as well as foreseeable 
and unexpected changes. Emotional, on the other hand, 
means that architecture must be relevant. It constructs 
identity and moves people. Its structure must be dura-
ble and strong enough to come through changes, and 
its qualities greater than economic pressure.
Strategies other than the familiar linear methods of 
planning and design are required to avoid drowning 
in the complexity of this approach. This process does 
not start with the singular idea of an architectural gen-
ius. The development of a project does not take place in 
Architecture is a dynamic process and as 
such it is neither immobile nor static. Only if architecture is not independent of 
buildings, but lives primarily through 
buildings, will it be able to use this trans-
formational force for itself.
555 ARCHITECTURE AS A PROCESS 
5.1 DESIGNING HOLISTICALLY 
Integrated design 
The ability to define the objectives and requirements 
of a project, include all the relevant aspects and assess 
the interactions between them, calls for different per-
ceptions and ways of seeing the issues from everyone 
involved in the process. The challenge in controlling 
planning and design is to bring together the different 
points of view arising out of the different perceptions 
and combine them into a holistic way of looking at the 
problem. Only if all the interested parties are aware of 
the goals can any process be efficient and achieve its 
objectives. For this reason the early inclusion of the 
parties, and the consistent and continuous references 
to interrelationships and dependences are crucial for 
the development of holistic projects. The influences of 
society and culture and the patterns of behaviour en-
trained into students in schools and universities favour 
an object-oriented solution to any problem. ‘The visible, 
the facts, the objects [are] easy to recognise, while the 
connections and links often seem to be invisible at first 
glance and in our perception. Consequently our soci-
ety promotes uni-dimensionality and specialisation 
because this generally leads to greater recognition.’
– Frederic Vester 2 
In today’s interdisciplinary and multi-member design 
teams, the architect plays a different role than he or 
she did earlier. The traditional image sees him or her 
in the role of captain, who – eyes fixed firmly on the ob-
jective – uses authority to keep control of the planning, 
design and construction process. It is much harder
to maintain control over today’s more complex se-
quences of events. To avoid loss of authority, architects 
often make decisions without checking adequately or 
against their better judgement. Conflicting objectives 
and problems are denied instead of solved. Complex 
design processes cannot be mastered and controlled. 
They demand the knowledge and the capabilities of a 
helmsman, who guides and leads rather than directs. 
The difference between the management styles of a 
helmsman and a captain is that the former allows the 
planning and design process to be open-ended and 
amendable. The person behind the wheel is prepared at 
any time to re-examine decisions and, if necessary, to 
change or correct the direction. The way is not defined, 
just the objective.
The usual method of distributing the time and work 
content between design phases adopted in most of to-
day’s professional fee scales for architectural services 
(AIA, RIBA, HOAI, SIA etc.) impedes an early and com-
prehensive analysis of design variants, as a majority
of the design decisions are scheduled for later in the 
process when all the fundamental decisions have al-
ready been made. The ability to influence the result 
diminishes disproportionately the further the design 
progresses.
To have sufficient time and capacity during the 
preliminary and final design phases for a detailed 
investigation of the variants, studies and simulations, 
the weightings of the individual design phases need 
to be adjusted to the changing realities. In some pilot 
projects, such as the design of the CO2-neutral Masdar 
City in Abu Dhabi, these adjustments were already im-
plemented in the formulation of the contract, and the 
ratio of the fees for each design phase was changed in 
the favour of the first phases. In Europe as well, many 
investors and clients expect more certainty of design 
and costs at an earlier stage of a project. For this rea-
son it is worthwhile and necessary to discuss matters 
with suitable specialist companies at an early stage, 
and to keep residents and authorities informed over the 
progress of the design.
D
eg
re
e 
of
 in
fl
ue
n
ce
 o
f 
th
e 
in
it
ia
l
an
d 
su
bs
eq
ue
n
t 
co
st
s 
[%
] 100
80
60
40
20
0 0
100
80
60
40
20
To
ta
l c
os
ts
 [
%
]
D
em
an
d 
pl
an
ni
ng
D
em
ol
it
io
n
U
se
C
on
st
ru
ct
io
n
 p
h
as
e
Cost control 
Cost plan
P
ro
je
ct
 p
la
nn
in
g
P
ub
lic
 t
en
de
rs
E
xe
cu
ti
on
splendid isolation to the exclusion of those who have 
interests in or are affected by it. The process starts witha detailed analysis of the objectives and requirements, 
the needs and constraints, taking into account all 
shareholders and stakeholders, the interrelationships 
in the spatial and societal context, and the formula-
tion and prioritisation of common objectives. At every 
iteration of the design, this information is checked, 
analysed and referenced again to the most important 
parameters and actors. The success of the process 
depends crucially on the transparency and compre
hensibility of the methods applied. Planners and de-
signers keep others informed, and are themselves kept 
informed, of the results of each step through continu-
ous communication. Systematic methods of thinking 
and design require the inclusion of all parameters rel-
evant to the system and those specifically linked to the 
variable, time.
01 Infl uence on the overall cost as the design process 
 progresses
56
Alexander Mitscherlich determined that ‘the increase 
in human population [has] not changed the fact that 
the basic needs of individuals at all stages of their lives 
remain principally the same.’4 Abraham Maslow de-
fined the hierarchy of human needs and motivations 
in his pyramid. According to Maslow, we first seek to 
satisfy the needs on the bottom level of the pyramid, 
before we tackle those on the next higher level. As long 
as the needs on a lower level remain unsatisfied, we do 
not worry about needs on the next higher level. Only 
after the need is satisfied does motivation increase. 
The needs on the lower levels, which are summarised 
and described as deficit needs, have to be continuously 
satisfied: food, drink, safety.
In Europe, the ever-increasing requirement for wider 
participation in major projects and more opportunities 
for codetermination for those affected will provide fur-
ther stimulus to the call for models for participation.
In the last 20 years, the first and often gruelling ex-
periences with user participation procedures from the 
1970s and ’80s have been overlaid with new and prom-
ising developments. Countless numbers of new groups 
promoting joint building ventures or particular build-
ing projects have sprung up all over Germany. At the 
same time, neighbouring countries have also seen the 
growth of this type of community building and living. 
Switzerland has rediscovered the cooperative housing 
association as an organisational form for regeneration
projects such the ›Das Dreieck in Zurich. In addition 
to the growing demand for communal living, a parallel 
development, ‘communal design and build’, has been 
under way. ›Das Dreieck, Quinta Monroy and 20K-Houses
projects are considered in this book as representative 
of this development. 
The task. Definition of requirements and qualities
Defining the requirements and qualities of a building 
takes place at the start of every design project. In the 
context of a holistic understanding of architecture and 
design, this is not just a matter of the utility or user 
value. In addition to realising the explicitly required 
qualities and functions, an important part of the 
designer’s task is to satisfy the implicit needs of the 
residents. What are these needs? 
02 Das Dreieck cooperative housing corporation 
 development 1990, Zurich
03 Pilot project in Masdar City, UAE: Swiss Sprinter Building, Bob Gysin + Partner BGP Architekten
›Das Dreieck,
see chapter 7.1
›Das Dreieck, Quinta Monroy 
and 20K-Houses,
see chapter 7.1, 7.4 and 7.15
5 ARCHITECTURE AS A PROCESS 
57
The top levels are described as growth needs, which go 
beyond the basic needs. Unlike deficit needs, they can 
never be completely satisfied. There is a natural limit 
to the amount of food a person can consume, and only a 
certain number of rooms can be used in a home. On the 
other hand, social and egocentric needs, such as rec-
ognition, prestige, and the desire for self-realisation,
have no upper constraints. Therefore, some people 
own luxury homes with a whole series of rooms that 
are practically unused and unvisited and serve merely 
as status symbols. They are the driving force behind 
our never-ending desire for growth, the constant striv-
ing for more. 
The development of the history of architecture has par-
allels to the development of human needs described by 
Maslow. The primitive hut is the architectural expres-
sion of the elementary need for shelter. The analysis of 
autochthonous building typologies clearly shows that 
individual building elements are an expression of the 
social standing of the resident and therefore extend 
beyond the fulfilment of deficit needs. Even today, the 
fulfilment of our basic needs represents a fundamental 
requirement for residential buildings, but increasingly 
lags behind the satisfaction of our growth needs – the 
wish for recognition, social status and self-realisation.
If we assume that housing requirements can be derived 
from human needs, then the question arises of what the 
resulting living qualities and living values are. Living 
value and living quality are terms with a rather unclear 
boundary between them. According to Sigrid Rughöft, 
living conditions are interrelated with the desired liv-
ing standards of the residents. Living conditions are 
seen as features of a house, building and the surround-
ing environment. Desired living standards result from 
the cumulation of living needs and the concrete re-
quirement for space and describe the requirements of 
the user for the home, building and surroundings. The 
‘quality of living’ is defined as the level of conformity 
between the desired standards and actual conditions of 
living.5 Weeber and Bosch use the terms ‘living value’ 
and ‘living quality’ almost as synonyms.6 ‘Living value’ 
includes the possibility of comparability in the context 
of an equivalent in respect of benefits of material and 
non-material type. The authors differentiate between 
four categories of living value: 
A Utility value and utility benefits. Includes the practi-
cal suitability for purpose, healthy living and appropri-
ate durability.
B Emotional value (self-perception of the living situa-
tion). This covers aspects such as feeling well and lov-
ing my home.
C Prestige (third-party perception of the living situa-
tion). A home is intended as confirmation of personal 
success.
D Protection and social quality of space. This means 
protection from detrimental external physical inf lu-
ences, disturbance of privacy and communication 
space. The balance and the ability to select between 
protected private sphere and informal eye contact.7
In a wider sense, Weeber and Bosch also include 
organisational, living surroundings (district, neigh-
bourhood, development) and the location (village, 
countryside, infrastructure) in living value.
05 The triangle of needs after Abraham Harold Maslow
06 Main architectural themes of the 20th century
04 Typical house in Indonesia. The size of the long gable is a symbol of the status of the 
 family in the village community.
Physical needs 
Security
Social relationships 
Social recognition
Self-
realisation
1900
Society
Economy
Environment
1920 1940 1960 1980 2000
5 ARCHITECTURE AS A PROCESS 
58
vironment and nature. Some of the most radical and 
innovative construction projects discussed in this book 
would not have been possible without the adjustment of 
feelings of entitlement of comfort and desired ›ways of 
living of the future residents. 
Consideration of requirements and objectives, critical 
examination and highlighting of alternatives are es-
sential parts of the project brief. Here, the architect 
is asked to be designer as well as advisor. He or she 
must point out and explore solutions, informing clients 
and others of the relevance of particular aspects and 
themes. Various methods and tools can be called upon 
as support in this task. The extension of the quantita-
tive objectives based on costs, energy and living space 
to include qualitative aspects such as orientation, in-
timacy, peace,centrality, atmosphere and materiality 
with the help of assessment matrices allows further 
discussion of individual desired living qualities and 
needs of the user. 
Further tools, for example the ›Modules for the house 
of the future developed as part of a research project at 
Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts, can 
be used in addition to help to improve communication 
between clients and designers and define agreements 
on objectives.
Clients often confront architects with contradictory 
requirements or requirements that cannot be fulfilled 
within the framework of the provided budget or on the 
site available. The result of the first design phase can 
therefore certainly be a redefinition of the brief to take 
the new boundary conditions into account.
The objective of the process should be the creation in 
dialogue of an individual objective and requirement 
catalogue that takes into account specific needs and 
requirements, such as spatial, economic and legal con-
straints on the project.
From idea to design
Creativity lies at the heart of the architect’s work. It 
is also key and indispensable in an integrated un-
derstanding of architecture and design; however, a 
systematic approach requires an extension of the 
meaning of creativity. In addition to design capabilities, 
creativity must also include analytical and scientific 
processes. The idea that creativity is only necessary for 
artistic or design tasks is outdated and misguided. De-
sign is not the antithesis of science, from whose chains 
it must free itself. Design and science share the same 
origins. Otl Aicher said this 30 years ago: ‘The virtue
of science is transferred to design. The virtue of science
is curiosity, not knowledge. We design because we seek,
not because we know.’10 
From the synopsis of the projects highlighted here 
comes the knowledge that there is no standardised 
method of sustainable design. The design methods are 
as unique and specific as their contexts, tasks, and 
‘Housing quality’ is a multilayered construct of objective 
factors and individual needs and values. If architecture 
is to fulfil an integrated expectation, then sustainable 
building cannot be reduced to quantifiable and meas-
urable aspects but must be considered with the broad 
spectrum of human needs.8
However, the satisfaction of human needs cannot jus-
tify a business-as-usual strategy. Different models for 
living based on individual patterns of behaviour and 
cultural imprinting exist in our society. However, a 
general trend can be discerned, which our Western 
patterns of thought and behaviour have imbued with a 
system of values and in which we define the possession 
of goods as a primary symbol of our happiness. ‘I am 
what I have and what I consume.’9 In the context of the 
consideration of the realities of our society, the change 
from having to being described by Erich Fromm has not 
(yet) run its full course. Our society appears to stagnate 
on the fourth level of Maslow’s pyramid. Social recog-
nition, status and prosperity are the key aims in society 
and politics.
The change to a society oriented towards sustainability, 
towards being, does not represent a new direction for 
the patterns of behaviour in our society and culture but 
rather the logical further development, the next stage 
in the development of our human and social needs. In 
terms of the requirements for building, as well as an in-
crease in the efficiency of use of energy and materials 
and the creation of closed material cycles, this change 
means one thing above all: sufficiency. In other words, 
the critical examination of established and traditional 
patterns of behaviour and consumption to bring to an 
end the overuse of resources and energy. A majority 
of all conceivable improvements have to succeed in 
the establishment of objective and priorities. Changed 
boundary conditions and new paradigms demand 
buildings that do not conform to the usual patterns, 
but explore new ways, link with new concepts for use 
with better technologies, or require the participation 
of residents and users. 
Our consumer society has led to our no longer defining 
ourselves primarily as citizens but as consumers. The 
consumer believes that, beside an obligation to con-
sume as much as possible, he or she has only rights. 
Citizens, on the other hand, see themselves as active 
participants in society. In this role they recognise 
that they have rights as well as obligations, and accept 
responsibility for their actions. Sustainable develop-
ment can be achieved only with the participation of 
everyone on the basis of civic self-conception. The 
willingness of the user to re-examine traditional stand-
ards of comfort is one of the most effective measures 
of reducing the consumption of resources. Adjust-
ment of individuals’ behaviour and the daily change to 
climatic conditions and different seasons has been a 
constituent part of our culture until recent decades. The 
cultural richness and cohesion of traditional societies 
continues to result from this vital dialogue with the en-
Ecohotel in the Orchard, 
Wall House and 
Lakeside House,
see chapter 7.5, 7.6 and 7.9
Modules for the house of 
the future
see chapter 6
5 ARCHITECTURE AS A PROCESS 
59
creativity itself. Nonetheless there are common as-
pects in these methods: iterative processes replace 
deterministic premises. Defined objectives and methods
take the place of imagery. The analysis becomes an 
integrated part of the design process, breaking the con
vention of a Cartesian separation of observation and 
conclusion. Fundamental ideas and strategies can be 
developed in the first phases using analytical methods. 
The architectural form results from the design and 
analysis process. It is the visible expression of specific 
requirements and individual qualities. Why should dif-
ferent principles, objectives and qualities be hidden 
behind the same facades? The hesitant do-as-little-dif-
ferent-as-possible approach is the design equivalent of 
less-bad thinking, which only seeks to reduce harmful 
effects and not to develop positive alternatives. Lack 
of independence and architectural banality without a 
design vision are the reason for the often attested in-
compatibility of design quality and sustainability.
The frequent question of whether architecture has to 
look different is basically the wrong question. Archi-
tectural quality arises not from its separation from 
existing images but rather from the development of 
its own language and expression. The relationship 
between form and content, between design and pur-
pose, is fundamental for sustainable architecture. 
Independence develops not from the avant-garde 
search for the new or different, but rather from the dis-
covery of the specific; originality is based on an active 
committed dialogue and not on opposition. Diversity 
is not the objective; it is much more the result of an 
ecological, evolutionary process, similar to the devel-
opment of a new species.
A design concept can be derived from an analysis and 
further developed and transformed through overlay-
ing with other elements and parameters. The basis 
for creating the idea or a concept can also have typo-
logical origins. Various basic types are selected, com-
pared, evaluated and checked for their suitability. Out 
of this crystallises the most suitable type, which then 
is adapted and adjusted to suit the specific conditions.
In addition to the similarities between the methods 
used, an analysis of the projects examined in this book 
shows that general principles of architectural form and 
design can be identified. All concepts are multidimen-
sional. As the investigation deepens, the strategies 
used become more complex. A decision is seldom made 
in favour of using a component or material on the basis 
of a single reason or function. 
07 Design as a process – the idea as the product of the analysis
5 ARCHITECTURE AS A PROCESS 
60
Multifunctionalityand multi-meanings are common 
themes running through all the projects. Although the 
decisions are justifiable and comprehensible in most 
cases, the attribute of rationality can be assigned to 
the buildings only to a limited extent. Reflection on the 
design decisions made requires a deliberate examina-
tion of the designs – but not without sensitivity and in-
tuition as determining elements of each design process.
Fundamental questions about what determines design 
quality arise at this point. We firmly believe that qual-
ity rests in the ability of the artefact or building to com-
municate. Even if beauty and aesthetics are individual 
and subjective, their cultural value lies in the variety 
of ways a work of art or a building appeals to or en-
gages with different people. Therefore there is a close 
connection between the aesthetic value of sustainable 
architecture and its complexity and multidimension-
ality. Because it is invested with or influenced by so 
many aspects and ideas, it enters into a dialogue with 
the observer on many levels. 
From design to building. Detail design and construc-
tion phase
Linear deterministic design methods generally assume 
that the problems are sufficiently known at the start of 
09 Design as a process – development of the facade of the Minimum Impact House
08 Design as a process – concept models and design studies for the Wall House
the design. Throughout the process, problems and ob-
stacles have to be eliminated in order to keep as close 
as possible to the initial draft. Success is the degree of 
consistency of the finished building with the original 
draft, which may have been – as in many architectural 
myths – sketched out on a serviette in an Italian restau-
rant during the first meeting with the client. 
Iterative design processes have their own dynamic. 
Recursive procedures allow continuous checking of a 
project against the superordinate requirements of the 
objectives. In this way, problems can be recognised 
and tackled at an early stage. This iterative process 
achieves a higher degree of design security if the way 
ahead is unclear at the start and if the additional infor-
mation leads to adjustments and changes that can be 
put in place in subsequent design stages. This is best 
done with an open-ended process. Design decisions 
must also be audited and revised if it turns out that 
they have disadvantages in other areas.
An important method is the study of alternatives. A 
robust assessment of variants requires the areas criti-
cal to the project to be examined to a greater design 
depth as early as possible. Fundamental parameters of 
construction, the building envelope, and the resources 
5 ARCHITECTURE AS A PROCESS 
61
10 DGNB assessment report
and building services concepts must be extensively 
investigated at an early stage. A wider repertoire of us-
able design tools and methods is required for success 
in this task. Various design and evaluation tools are 
available for an integrated assessment of alternatives 
and variants.
The Pearl Building Rating System (PBRS) is a tool 
developed for the sustainability evaluation system 
ESTIDAMA (UAE) that allows the user to check the 
concept in each phase of the design. As well as providing 
status reports and a precertification tool, the German 
DGNB assessment system gives a comprehensive assess-
ment of a building in the preliminary stage of a project. The
MINERGIE®-ECO tool (CH) can be used in a similar way.
There a number of different ways of assessing variants 
on a concept or building component level. A sustain-
ability assessment and simplified life cycle analysis of 
individual components can be performed with the help 
of publicly available databases on the Internet or using 
some simple ›software programs. Daylight and thermal 
modelling are used to compare energy and lighting 
concepts. The Housing-Quality-Barometer (Wohnwert-
Barometer) for assessing projects in this book can be 
used for a holistic assessment of variants for new and 
refurbishment housing projects. 
Consulting and involving experts and specialists is 
of great use in innovative design approaches. Design-
ers often lack enough knowledge of new materials or 
›manufacturing methods to be able to produce tailored, 
individual solutions. 
Quality management systems and documentation 
of the building processes are currently still highly 
neglected areas of the design process. Blower door 
tests carried out to check the airtightness of buildings 
are able consistently to reveal more serious faults in 
the construction of the building envelope. The intro-
duction of extensive checks on airtightness and the 
thermal quality of the building envelope and the moni-
toring of buildings over several years could contribute 
to achieving the simulated energy quality in practice.
The documentation of the specified materials and 
those actually used in the construction of the building 
is usually rather fragmented. A comprehensive check 
and documentation of the source of manufacture and 
quality of all the installed materials are required as 
part of an assessment under the MINERGIE®-ECO or 
the DGNB certification systems. The creation of a com-
plete production and processing chain, like the one 
established in recent years in the food-manufacturing 
industry, cannot be expected in the foreseeable future 
in the field of construction.
From completion to use. Putting the building into 
operation 
Some of the problems during the use of a building do 
not arise from its design, and nor are they caused by 
malfunctions of the building’s technology. Poor com-
munication and information during the handover of the 
building to the user and resident are frequent causes. 
Where should my bedroom be? When and why is it sen-
sible to close the blinds in the morning before leaving 
the house? Do I have to adjust how I ventilate my home 
and what measures can I use to optimise the natural 
ventilation of the building?
Buildings designed to manage with less technology re-
quire users to become involved with the house and to
Minimum Impact House
and Sunlighthouse, 
see chapter 7.2 and 7.3
Sunlighthouse 
and Wall House, 
see chapter 7.3 and 7.6
Global warming potential (GWP) 
Overall grade: 1.38
Quality of the location: 1.97
Process 
quality
Ecological 
quality
Economical 
quality
Socio-cultural and 
functional quality
Technical 
quality
Ozone layer depletion potential (ODP) 
Photochemical ozone creation potential (POCP) 
Eutrophication potential (EP)
Risks for the local environment
Sustainable use of resources/Wood
Non-renewable primary energy demand
Total primary energy use and the share of 
renewable primary energy
Demand for drinking water and 
production wastewater
Land use
Life cycle costs of the building
Adaptability for different functions
Thermal comfort in winter
Thermal comfort in summer
Indoor air quality
Acoustic comfort
Visual comfort
User control options
Quality of exterior spaces
Safety and break down riskAccessibility 
Adaptability
Public access
Usability for cyclists
Quality of design and urban development
through design competitions
Public art
Fire protection
Quality of building envelope of in
terms of heat and humidity
Ease of cleaning and maintenance
Ease of dismantling and recycling
Quality of project preparation and management
Integral design process
Optimisation and complexity of the planning method
Documentation of sustainability aspects in
procurement and contracts
Creation of conditions for optimal use and management 
Construction/construction process
Quality assurance of the construction
Systematic inspection, maintenance, and repair
5 ARCHITECTURE AS A PROCESS 
62
understand the basic parameters for creating an indoor 
climate. Residents must engage in an active dialogue 
with the building; like steering a sailing ship, which 
also requires greater f lexibility and a deeper under-
standing of the determinant and limiting factors com-
pared tosteering a motorboat. In the case of buildings 
with sophisticated technology, the architect should 
inform occupants during the handover of the need for 
these systems to be precisely regulated, and that fur-
ther adjustments may be necessary from time to time. 
It would be even better to point this out throughout 
the design and construction process to avoid the users 
being initially disappointed after moving in. The con-
tracts with the building companies should include the 
obligation to react quickly to problems and difficulties 
in the early phase of occupation.
An effective means of ensuring that the future occu-
pants are prepared to use the building correctly is to 
inform them about their role and achieve an agreement 
in the early stages of the design. A handover and de-
tailed instructions or a user manual can be crucial to 
user satisfaction.
In some cases, considerable discrepancies occur 
between the energy simulation and actual energy con-
sumption. There may be many reasons for this. Often 
the simulation methods are not precise enough for 
some more complex concepts with different tempera-
ture zones. A dynamic thermal simulation may not be 
possible or worthwhile for a single-family house. But 
as deviations often arise from inappropriate user be-
haviour or the inadequate settings on the equipment, 
a simple and conclusive check of the causes is possi-
ble only if enough information and data are available. 
Therefore separate heat and electricity meters are 
absolutely necessary for each residential unit, zone 
and building services system component (ventilation, 
heating, pumps, hot water pump compressor). A posi-
tive influence on user behaviour can be achieved if be-
haviour and effect are linked. Careful use of electricity 
and heat should be reflected straight away in the next 
energy bill. Even so, action and reaction are always too 
far apart in time to produce a learning effect. Room 
thermostats showing the current room temperature or 
information and control units acting as interfaces with 
building technical services systems can create a direct 
feedback link between individual actions and their 
effects. In the way that a fuel consumption indicator 
in cars encourages drivers to drive more economically, 
similar displays in buildings could exert a correspond-
ing influence on user behaviour.
Many schools have found that students are more aware 
of resource consumption if the real-time output from 
the school’s installed photovoltaic panels and energy 
consumption figures are displayed in prominent po-
sition. The often-encountered reservations over the 
introduction of visible technology into homes are 
understandable but unsubstantiated. Similar technolo-
gies made their entry into our cars decades ago and 
familiarity with the use of laptops and smart phones 
is not longer confined to a minority. There is great po-
tential to dismantle the present barriers of scepticism 
and bring the advantages to the forefront. Intelligent 
interfaces between building services technology and 
the user can contribute in a relaxed, informal way to 
changing our behaviour and lead to direct success.
Detailed monitoring of climatic conditions inside and 
outside the building is still seldom carried out. However,
the verification of assumptions and models would be an 
important part of the learning process, particularly in 
the development of innovative building concepts. With-
out this feedback, it is difficult to judge whether the 
concept developed has had the desired success, and 
what the reasons are if not. Detailed monitoring and 
assessment of the results based on scientific principles 
are indispensable for the findings to be transferable, 
especially for the energy consumption. This is very im-
portant in respect of the great and seldom discussed 
uncertainty associated with the existing calculation 
methods and simulation procedures. Using the same 
input, different programs may arrive at very different 
results, which in turn may deviate greatly from the 
actual results obtained in from the operating building. 
Improvements are also called for here. More energy-
efficient buildings require better simulation methods. 
These and the associated regulations can be improved 
only if they are continuously updated with the data 
from completed buildings.
11 The development of innovative design strategies through 
 the close cooperation of the design participants 
 (stonemasonry project Das Dreieck)
5 ARCHITECTURE AS A PROCESS 
63
Perhaps still more important than quantitative analysis 
and checking is the examination of the designed build-
ing, contemplation of the results of the planning and 
design process. It is therefore often necessary to spend 
time in the building. Whenever possible, Hein-Troy 
Architekten agrees with its clients the option of spend-
ing at least a day and a night in the finished building. 
At Atelier 5 the usual practice is to rent an apartment 
for at least one month after completion to collect a 
realistic impression of what it is like to live there, and 
be able critically to assess the development. If possible 
the analysis of the building should be limited to a brief 
period before its occupation. For many architects, see-
ing the building after several years is a sobering expe-
rience. They are confronted with the physical state of 
the houses or with the extensions and alterations intro-
duced by the residents on their own initiative. The ma-
jority of the illustrations in this book are photographs 
of buildings in use and inhabited. The analysis of the 
building was augmented by a visit on foot, observations 
on site and interviews with users and people involved 
in the design and construction, not only on the basis of 
photographs or drawings. The analysis does not show 
contrived, abstract architecture but tries to represent 
the qualities of the building as a whole. A house unin-
habited, without an occupant, is incomplete, an empty
shell. Quality emerges only after the introduction of 
furniture, hanging of pictures, and appropriation by 
the inhabitants. And only when the first alterations and 
extensions are necessary and something unexpected 
happens is it revealed whether the original thoughts 
were only convincing as ideas or whether they had 
any claims to be holistic design. Buildings that have 
been able to assert themselves rather than threatening 
to sink into mediocrity through these transformation 
processes are the living witnesses of previous epochs. 
Non-uniqueness and integrity of the work are the cri-
teria that decide the value of a building. The living 
dialogue, the capacity to adapt, the continuous con-
firmation of the spatial, structural and architectural 
qualities in the long process of maintenance, taking 
personal ownership and high regard of the building by 
its occupants and users represent a model almost fully 
ignored in architectural discourse for the integrated 
assessment of qualities of an architectural work.
13 Intelligent interface between building services 
 technology and the user 
12 Monitoring the energy requirement of the Forum 
 Chriesbach – Checking the calculations and simulations 
 in operation, Zurich
Current Plan Minergie-P Minergie Laws
300
250
200
150
100
50 
0 
Grey energy
Electricity
Cooling energy
Heat energy
Primary energy needs kWh/m²a
5 ARCHITECTURE AS A PROCESS 
64
5.2 THE BUILDING AND ITS LIFE CYCLE 
This book is based on the consideration of buildings in 
relation to their › life cycles. This consideration is not 
limited to technical and constructional aspects, but 
also includes questions of usability, adaptability, iden-
tification and appropriation by the users, as well as the 
cultural and personal significance of the architecture. 
A building that is appreciated by its users and society 
remains in permanent use, is cared for and adapted to 
future requirements, creating and maintaining long-
term economic and cultural value.
This chapter cannotdeal with all the tools and methods 
of life cycle planning. It seeks instead to convey an 
understanding of the basic context and the great 
importance of considering the life cycle for the sus-
tainability of a building. 
Previous production methods in architecture took 
almost no account of the temporal dimension of the 
building. There are reasons for this. History shows 
that buildings considered as high-class architecture 
(Architecture with a capital ‘A’) tend to last longest. 
Many churches and palaces as well as historic secu-
lar buildings were constructed over many generations. 
Some of them are still characteristic features of our 
cities today, which further underlines the impression 
of resilience. Architecture was built for eternity and 
remains a symbol of human defiance of the passage of 
time, a sign of permanence and strength. To consider 
the eternity and changeability of a building would have 
contradicted the concept that earlier architects had of 
themselves. However, the life expectancy of buildings 
was drastically reduced during the second half of the 
20th century. This may have been due to some of the 
lower-quality materials and building methods used 
in the post-war period, or the design of the buildings 
being inadequate for the future and the rapidly chang-
ing requirements imposed upon them. In any case this 
trend is continuing. Buildings are increasingly torn 
down earlier, completely refurbished, altered or con-
verted to other uses. 
Adaptability and f lexibility of use are values directly 
at odds with the traditional design process. A design 
process aims for certainty and clarity. Unambiguous 
information is essential for realisation of the design in 
the construction process. Uncertainty, diversity and 
variability are unbearable in a building design. There-
fore, many designers find it difficult to think in terms 
of variants, options and developments. The problem is 
made more acute by the abundance of possibilities fac-
ing them during the design. To remain effective in their 
role, designers systematically have to exclude variants 
and resolve dependencies. This is above all necessary 
because the options are mainly linked linearly and 
each variant of a single decision generates a host of 
variants on the secondary design levels – a diversity 
that the designers find unmanageable because they 
have to produce unambiguous information. They have 
to make decisions and eliminate variants. The possi-
bilities for development are systematically narrowed 
down in the traditional linear design process. The 
building is perceived as a static object. From this point 
of view, it is possible only with difficulty to consider 
and incorporate temporal information. As in Alberti’s 
time, the designer creates a set of plans showing all 
the components in their final positions. This method of 
representation does not show the building process and 
many site problems result from the designer’s taking 
inadequate account of the sequence of construction. 
Traditional design methods do not cover the operation 
and maintenance of the building either. The designer 
decides intuitively whether to consider or ignore the 
cost of cleaning and servicing, and the feasibility of 
repairing building components or surfaces. Often the 
relevant design decisions are overlaid by a variety of 
other aspects and factors that gain acceptance because 
of poor data and lack of knowledge about building op-
eration and maintenance. Cost planning also considers 
investment costs only and not life cycle costs – and this 
is also clear from the historical perspective. Until the 
oil crisis in 1973, energy costs were so low that they 
played no role in life cycle analysis. The labour costs 
of cleaning and maintenance could also usually be 
ignored. 
Only through the considerable rises in the prices of 
energy and wages were tools developed for making a 
meaningful comparison of the life cycle costs of build-
ings. In a period of scarcity of resources and intensify-
ing environmental problems, consideration of the life 
cycle has gained in importance and has been expand-
ed to include several new aspects. Three objectives 
emerge in the context of the sustainable development 
of buildings: 
 – Minimisation of life cycle costs 
– Minimisation of environmental effects and resource 
 consumption over the life cycle
– Long-term usability of the building 
The building life cycle: economic and ecological anal-
yses 
In contrast to a static consideration of a building, car-
ried out at a specific point in time, a life cycle analysis 
is the sum of the effects over the whole life of the build-
ing and includes the production and disposal of the 
materials. There are two kinds of life cycle analysis:
life cycle costing, which includes the costs of manu-
facture, maintenance and operation; and life cycle 
assessment, which summates the environmental 
effects in the modules of manufacturing, maintenance, 
operation and disposal.
Life cycle costing (economic)
Life cycle costing takes into account the fact that most 
buildings cost more to operate during their life (heat-
ing, cooling, lighting, servicing, repair, cleaning and 
maintenance) than they do to produce. For designers, 
Life cycles, 
see chapter 3
5 ARCHITECTURE AS A PROCESS 
65
life cycle costing is an important tool for convincing 
investors and clients of the economic advantages of 
adopting higher standards. In some circumstances, 
higher capital costs can be quickly amortised by re-
duced ongoing operating costs.
The operating cost proportion is significantly higher 
for non-residential buildings than for residential build-
ings. This is due to the lower level of technology in resi-
dential buildings and the fact that many costs are not 
economic to collect and evaluate. The occupants them-
selves usually clean residential buildings and these 
costs are not included in the owner’s cost analysis. 
The same applies to minor repairs and maintenance. 
However, operating costs are also rising in residen-
tial buildings, especially energy costs. While hardly 
any reference was made to these costs in the past, the 
second rent, as operating charges are referred to in 
Germany, is increasingly important today. This is also 
where the first market effects can be seen. The emerg-
ing trend is that buildings with low energy standards 
and high operating costs command lower rents and are 
more difficult to rent out because of the demand for 
properties with lower overall costs. The ecological rent 
table implemented in Darmstadt used for determining 
appropriate rent levels, which takes into account the 
energy standard as a relevant factor in establishing 
the legal basis for rent rises, is an example of this 
development.
There are also qualitative advantages. Homes with a 
higher standard feel noticeably snugger and offer more 
comfort. No draughts, less overheating or uncomfort-
ably low temperatures, better air quality and acoustic 
comfort. These advantages are discerned by more and 
more users and alter the focus of demand.
If the property is not for owner-occupation, the inves-
tor can enjoy the competitive advantage from these 
savings, because it will be leased quicker, stand empty 
for less time, and bring in a higher rental income. Low-
er ancillary costs means the cold rent – the rent exclu-
sive of heating costs – can be higher because the tenant 
judges alternatives based on the total rent, i.e. includ-
ing the proportion charged for heating. A possible 
leasing model which is referred to as contracting could
offer properties including building operation (room 
temperatures) as a service, allowing the building op-
erator to profit directly from the savings. However, the 
danger here is that building users have less incentive 
to contribute to saving energy by modifying their own 
room heating and cooling behaviour. Therefore it is 
still sensible to allow the users a share of the savings. 
Life cycle assessments 
Lifecycle assessments, which depict the whole life cycle
of a building, allow costs and effects to be analysed 
together with their environment consequences. As the 
cost of life cycle assessments is currently very high 
and an exact cost analysis can be produced only after a 
precise definition of the building components and mate-
rials, there are only few buildings that have been newly 
planned on the basis of a life cycle assessment. 
This was a declared aim of the design for the ›Minimum 
Impact House project, which proved to be very time 
consuming and expensive because parts of the detailed 
design had to be cycled through many iterations. The 
designers required tools that would allow them to estimate
the environmental effects, holistically and at an early 
stage in the design. EcoEasy11 is a web-based method 
that designers can use to assess the environmental con-
sequences of a project even in the early planning phases. 
The data become more accurate with increasing detail, 
culminating in a complete life cycle analysis. These as-
sessments and feedback allow the design process to be 
guided from the beginning towards holistic optimisa-
tion, in which production, maintenance, disposal and op-
eration are all considered together. However, to manage
a design and its environmental consequences effectively 
requires not only the development of new instruments 
but also better trained and educated designers. Just as 
designers develop a feeling over the course of their ca-
reer for the types of construction that are more or less 
expensive and complex to build, they could also learn 
which constructions are environmentally friendly, pro-
vided the designers receive the appropriate information 
during their work or training and are open-minded to-
wards this sort of knowledge. At the very least, some 
level of ecological optimisation should be sought for in a 
building’s life cycle out of a sense of idealism or respon-
sibility. However, a trigger for this optimisation is the 
integration of life cycle assessment in a sustainability 
evaluation system (e.g. BNB/DGNB), which has a posi-
tive effect on the marketing chances of a property.
The basic problem of any ecological optimisation is that 
the prices of almost all current products and services do 
not reflect the actual cost; a considerable proportion of 
the cost is externalised. Environmental consequences
14 Production and operation of different building types over 
 their life cycle
Minimum Impact House, 
see chapter 7.2
500
400
300
200
100
0
10 20 30 40 50 60
Year
Construction
Use
H
os
pi
ta
ls
In
do
or
 s
w
im
m
in
g 
po
ol
s
Fa
ct
or
ie
s
Office
 build
ings
Residential buildings
O
pe
ra
ti
on
 [
%
]
5 ARCHITECTURE AS A PROCESS 
66
in particular are usually only inadequately included, or 
completely excluded from the price calculation. Since 
economic costs will appear at some point, it could also 
be said that the economic view is the short-term one 
and the ecological view takes a long-term perspective. 
It would be interesting to see how a market economy 
in which environmental costs were included in prices 
would look. In such a framework there would be no 
contradiction between an ecological and an economi-
cal analysis. There would also be an economic incen-
tive to optimise products and buildings specifically 
with regard to their environmental consequences. One 
possible way, for example, would be to introduce an 
obligation upon producers to take back building com-
ponents and materials, like the scheme for the automo-
tive industry in Germany.12
As well as economic amortisation, buildings should be 
analysed in the context of energy investment and yield. 
Embedded energy, the energy used in production and 
disposal, is compared with energy performance. Insu-
lating components save operating energy. Active build-
ing components, such solar collectors or heat pumps, 
extract heat from the environment. These components 
have an energy amortisation period, which is the time 
they take to save or produce an amount of energy equal 
to that required for their production.
Construction in the life cycle 
The building construction plays a key role in life cycle 
costing. First, it determines the cost of production and 
maintenance, and second, the quality (performance) of 
the construction influences the cost of operation.
 
The life cycle of the components 
Achieving the desired useful life of the components 
and structures is an important aim of the design. 
Greater risks of liability means that avoiding building 
defects is a principal interest of the designer. This is 
made more difficult by the increasing complexity of 
building construction. Even if used properly, building 
components undergo aging and wear. In choosing the 
materials and types of construction, which must be 
as durable as possible and satisfy not only technical 
but also aesthetic requirements, the designer should 
15 Life cycle assessments identify different areas within the assessment to be investigated over the life cycle of the building
be aware that the components are not just installed, 
but may be modified, replaced or serviced many times 
during the life cycle of the building. These activities 
often involve damage to coverings or adjacent layers 
and components in order to reach the items behind 
them. Construction should not be seen as a one-way 
street; nothing can be built without some thought of 
how it could be dismantled without causing damage. 
It must be simple to upgrade or replace components. 
Technical requirements may change in the future, 
more efficient components may be developed and 
out-of-date technology replaced. Windows with lower 
insulation are one example of this.
Building services plant must be easy to access and refit 
because technology is always advancing in this field 
and components are replaced with more efficient or 
high-performance versions. This trend is very rarely 
taken into account, particularly in residential build-
ings. Inspection chambers and services trunking with 
removable covers are used mostly for laboratories and 
office buildings. Exposed pipes and cables are usually 
undesirable in residential properties from an appear-
ance point of view, so any upgrading of the building 
services technology in an existing building will mean 
considerable intrusion into the building’s fabric. It is 
worthwhile establishing a hierarchy based on useful 
life and expected life so that more permanent compo-
nents do not have to be disassembled to allow short-
lived ones to be replaced. 
Separable connections and hierarchical construction: 
design to disassemble 
Waste can be expected to increase in the future with 
the continuation of current trends in the design and 
construction of buildings, because the life expectation 
of buildings is shortening and different materials are 
more integrally connected with one another. The use 
of non-recyclable materials gives rise to large quan-
tities of waste, which leads to pollution of the envi-
ronment and stress on society from the production of 
replacement construction materials and the associated 
consumption of energy and raw materials. Sustain-
able buildings must be designed in a different way: the 
joints between components must be made using sepa-
1. Production 2. Operation 3. Maintenance 4. Demolition 5. Mobility 6. Water
5 ARCHITECTURE AS A PROCESS 
67
rable connections: design to disassemble. By adopt-
ing a hierarchical construction, the designer can avoid 
work on one component or layer affecting adjacent 
items or the rest of a system. A further worthwhile 
measure would be to join the components with sepa-
rable connections. Simple threaded or plug-in connec-
tions can be easily separated and structures designed 
like this can be dismantled partially or completely. 
Components can be serviced, repaired or replaced, and 
the construction around them put back together again.
This approach makes particularly good sense inholistic
life cycle costing, in which not only the lowest produc-
tion cost but also the lowest possible subsequent costs 
and minimum environmental consequences are the 
criteria. 
Demolition, reuse and recycling
At the end of their life cycle, all that remains of most 
buildings is a large heap of rubble. In developed 
countries, there are already incentives for separating 
materials to allow more efficient recycling and sepa-
rate disposal. Disposal costs for mixed building wastes 
are higher than clean, sorted building rubble or timber 
waste. As most buildings are not designed or built to 
allow easy separation, reuse and disposal, the conse-
quences are not only the use of huge quantities of ma-
terials in production but also an equally large heap of 
waste at the end of a building’s life. 
The cradle-to-cradle concept13 suggest that products 
are produced, used and recycled in a closed energy 
and material cycle. Braungart and McDonough dif-
ferentiate between technical cycles (technisphere) 
and natural cycles (biosphere). For both systems, the 
authors describe a closed material cycle as one which 
is waste and resource neutral. Two similar strategies 
come to mind for architecture projects.
A low-tech strategy based on the use of regenerative or 
renewable resources: wood, bamboo, loam. A prereq-
uisite for returning materials to the natural material 
cycle by rotting or decomposition is that they have very 
low levels of inorganic residues, to avoid polluting eco-
systems. If buildings can be built and operated com-
pletely out of regenerative resources that are replaced 
over the lifetime of the building without detriment to 
nature (by regeneration or recycling), then any number 
of buildings can be built. Unfortunately this concept 
can be successfully implemented only for much sim-
pler products, such as T-shirts, shoes or office chairs. 
A building is considerably more complex: land is built 
over and the ground sealed. Enormous quantities of all 
kinds of materials are joined to one another mainly by 
inseparable connections. 
The high-tech strategy is based on components that 
can be reused in technical cycles. In the ›Loblolly House 
the loadbearing structure consists of an aluminium 
skeleton with separable threaded connections at the 
member joints and is capable of being completely dis-
assembled without incurring any damage. Technical 
recycling can be done at the component level through 
the reuse of whole components; however, this almost 
never happens, because of differences in the installed 
situation and dimensions. If the material can be identi-
fied and reliably sorted, then old components can be 
used as the raw material for the manufacture of new 
components. Provided the cost of recycling is low, this 
approach can help conserve resources and protect the 
environment. Here as well, an obligation to take back 
components at the end of their lives would encourage 
manufacturers to make their products easier to sepa-
rate, identify and recycle. Additional measures could 
include a universal method of material marking and 
identification using RFID smart labels, which would 
work even on installed materials. 
The building in changing times 
Temporal dimensions
In the same way as buildings can be assessed by their 
spatial dimensions, they can also can be seen in terms 
of their temporal dimensions. These provide different 
frames of observation and time, some of which have a
cyclic character while others are linear, non-repeating.
The use phase of a building is an important segment of 
its life cycle. Changes of user or of use generally lead to 
building alterations or aesthetic repairs. These meas-
ures are performed irrespective of the technical con-
dition of the building. Components are often replaced 
for aesthetic or functional reasons because the users or 
aesthetic tastes change. When maintenance, usage in-
tervals and technical advances are superimposed as well, 
the result is a complex pattern of replacement cycles.
The location and nature are responsible for a series of 
cycles affecting buildings: climatic conditions change 
over the course of a year, weather, temperature and 
light over a day. The building’s use also f luctuates in 
temporal rhythms.
Loblolly House, 
see chapter 7.12
16 In the Loblolly House project, the loadbearing structure 
 consists of an aluminium skeleton with separable threaded 
 connections at the member joints and can be completely 
 disassembled without incurring any damage
5 ARCHITECTURE AS A PROCESS 
68
Users change their behaviour throughout the day. They 
sleep, get up and use hot water for personal hygiene. 
Usage requirements change when they leave the build-
ing or visitors arrive. Similar f luctuations also occur 
over the course of a week. Below we show, on a tempo-
ral scale, the effects of changed requirements and uses. 
A building with great potential for f lexibility scores 
very positively in a life cycle costing analysis. In par-
ticular, the usage concept and architectural imple-
mentation have a large influence on the sustainability 
of the building. During the design, thought should 
be given to the possibility of other uses. Buildings 
are often designed specifically for the requirements 
of the first user and not much consideration is given 
to how the building could be adapted to suit those of 
subsequent users. Even buildings constructed gener-
ally for the same purpose show considerably different 
use requirements, depending on the users. Ideas and 
intentions switch even more rapidly over time. Family 
groups change, wishes and needs are in a state of con-
tinuous f lux. Architects should design buildings from 
the very start so that they can be adjusted or modified 
as easily as possible. When looked at from temporal 
standpoint, three strategies come to mind for making a 
building usable in the long term. The first concentrates 
on short-term adaptation through the use of modifia-
ble components and rooms, the second on long-term 
flexibility of use through construction changes made 
possible by technical specifications insisting on ease 
of conversion of the building fabric. The third strategy 
relies on designing rooms capable of being used for 
many purposes without the need for physical changes. 
Short-term flexibility of use: 
A building can be adjusted to the requirements of users 
over a usage cycle. Movable partition walls, switchable 
rooms and mobile installations enable the building to 
react to short- and medium-term demands without the 
need for conversion. If necessary, facilities for particular
uses can be retained communally and made available to 
more than one housing unit. In ›Das Dreieck in Zurich 
all the apartments share one guest room, which can be 
used by any tenant for a small fee. There is no need to 
provide each of the apartments with a guest room that 
would be used on only a few days per year. Uses can 
also be overlaid spatially upon one another, resulting 
in the space being used more intensively, the building 
more efficiently and a decrease in the f loor area re-
quirement. These temporal design strategies can also 
be deployed on different temporal levels to integrate 
uses spatially but separate them by time. Rooms fulfil 
different purposes during the course of a day, a week 
and perhaps also a year. At times when rooms are not 
occupied for one use, they are available for another. The 
most common example is the home office, which can 
also function as a guest room. The traditional Japanese
house is an extreme example. It is really just one empty 
room that is divided according to use and time of day 
by sliding walls and utilitarian furniture: a table for 
eating, tatami mats for sleeping. All uses in a space 
are staggered in time. The rooms can be separated and 
combined with light sliding walls.
Long-term constructional flexibility of use 
It would not be too difficult to argue that a conversion 
of an existing building has considerable advantagesover building a new one. In most cases resource con-
sumption is considerably less, no new ground is sealed, 
the infrastructure is normally already in place and can 
be reused. Even a complete refurbishment saves one 
third of the costs of a new loadbearing structure. Many 
buildings have social and cultural value and have char-
acterised their surroundings for many years. Therefore,
working with existing building stock is particularly 
important to sustainable development. Designers 
must learn to think about buildings in terms of their 
changing uses and requirements and in this way in-
crease their expected life span as well as cultural and 
financial value. By incorporating the physically f lex-
ibility into buildings to allow the widest variety in 
the division of a home, the designer can ensure that 
the homes can be adjusted to the needs of the various 
users. Housing layouts, room sizes and sanitary instal-
lations can be refurbished or altered. A change in the 
type of use, especially a commercial use, can directly 
determine future methods of working (e.g. remote or 
home-working).
The period of time between consecutive changes of 
tenant or owner is the most important cycle of a resi-
dential building. Usually, only fixtures, surfaces and 
furniture are changed with a change of use. Changes 
in the spatial structure can have serious effects on the 
physical state of the building. The increase in useful 
f loor area per head leads to rooms being merged and 
a demand for more spacious housing. The standards 
demanded by users are rising, particularly with regard 
to sanitary rooms. While up to 100 years ago, virtu-
ally no washrooms were built into houses, since then 
the number, size and equipment of bathrooms has been 
continuously on the increase. 
A change of use is a significant trigger: if a residen-
tial building is to be put to commercial use there are 
often changes to be made to its layout, entries and 
exits, along with the installation of additional building 
services plant. With a change of use of other building 
types to residential buildings, sanitary installations, 
exits and entrances, and kitchens need to be upgraded. 
Adaptability and f lexibility may be considered in de-
sign and construction now. There are simple concepts 
and construction principles that can permit a building 
to be physically adapted within an overall system. The 
separation of the fitting out and primary construction 
(skeleton construction or loadbearing external walls 
instead of loadbearing internal walls), a practice which 
has gained in popularity since the beginning of mod-
ern architecture, allows partition walls, usage units 
and rooms to be formed by relatively simple means and 
without large-scale interference with the fabric of the 
building. The connection details and adjacent com-
Das Dreieck, 
see chapter 7.1
5 ARCHITECTURE AS A PROCESS 
69
ponents must be considered in the areas of the f loor, 
ceiling and facade in order to ensure acoustic require-
ments are fulfilled. Following this principle ensures 
that most of today’s office buildings retain their f lex-
ibility of use. As the technical fitting out of such build-
ings has a comparatively short life expectancy of only 
20 years, installations and services cables and pipes 
should be grouped together and kept separate from the 
structural components.
Neutrality of use 
Today’s success of the typical buildings constructed 
during late 1800s is based on their great neutrality 
and f lexibility, which offer layouts with evenly sized 
rooms of useful f loor area and good proportions. They 
can be adapted to suit different housing concepts and 
commercial uses, without the need to alter the basic 
structure substantially. Floor layouts capable of being 
adapted in this way can be used for various housing 
concepts, user groups and usage types. 
In view of ongoing demographic changes, the build-
ing’s suitability for people with limited mobility should 
always be considered at the design stage, because the 
requirements of this group may only be implemented 
within suitable building structures and with minimum 
dimensions for rooms and corridors. In the context of 
long-term usability and social justice, it would also
FOOTNOTES CHAPTER 5
 1 Entropy is a measure of the disorder of a system.
 2 Frederic Vester: The Art of Interconnected Thinking. Ideas and Tools for tackling complexity. Report to the Club of Rome, Munich 2007.
 3 Alexander Mitscherlich: The Inhospitality of Our Cities. Theses for the City of the Future, Frankfurt am Main 1965 (in German).
 4 Abraham Maslow: A Theory of Human Motivation, Psychological Review 50, 1943, 370 – 396, reprint June 2001.
 5 Sigrid Rughöft: Building Ecology – the Principles, Stuttgart 1992 (in German).
 6 On the meaning of the term ‘living value’ see Hannes Weeber, Simone Bosch: Sustainably good living quality. Exemplary single-family houses in high 
 density development, Stuttgart 2004 (in German).
 7 Dammaschk, El Khouli, Keller, Mahal, Nawaz, Petrov, Spitzner: Living value barometer (Wohnwert-Barometer). Recording and assessment system for 
 sustainable living quality, Hegger, Stuttgart 2010 (in German).
 8 Ibid.
 9 Erich Fromm: To Have or to Be? New York 1976.
10 Otl Aicher: The world as design, Berlin 1994.
11 The research project EcoEasy undertaken by the Department of Design and Energy Efficient Construction at Darmstadt University of Technology, 
 Beibob Medienfreunde, Darmstadt, and Drexler Guinand Jauslin Architekten.
12 German Federal Ministry of Justice (BMJ): Ordinance on the Transfer, Collection and Environmentally Sound Disposal of End-of-life Vehicles (End-of-Life 
 Vehicle Ordnance – AltfahrzeugV), www.gesetze-im-internet.de/altautov/BJNR166610997.html (accessed: 08.04.2011).
13 William McDonough, Michael Braungart: Cradle to Cradle, San Francisco 2002. 
appear practical for the majority of residential build-
ings to be developed in this way. In some cases how-
ever, the room layout and building sizes are so small 
that this type of development is impossible. 
At this point it must be stressed that good or sustain-
able architecture is not achieved by maximum flex-
ibility and adaptability alone. Even if the advantages 
for long building life and conservation of resources are 
substantial, with highly f lexible designs there is the 
danger that the buildings appear impersonal and lack 
spatial differentiation. It would be desirable to create 
the technical requirements for the f lexible long-term 
use of a building without detrimental effects on the 
spatial quality and differentiation of the building’s 
internal or external attributes. A building’s contextual 
integration, cultural significance, acceptance of and 
identification with the building by the user are equally 
important for it to be successfully sustainable. A build-
ing with high spatial and aesthetic qualities can have 
a long life, assuming the users wish to continue enjoy-
ing these qualities. However, the lesson of recent dec-
ades of built reality is that fewer and fewer buildings 
meeting these requirements are being built. A grow-
ing number of architects are convinced by these ar-
guments and become caught up in a need to innovate, 
which pursues uniqueness as an end in itself and is 
mistaken for skilfulness. 
5 ARCHITECTURE AS A PROCESS 
70 6 ASSESSING SUSTAINABILITY
ASSESSING SUSTAINABILITY
There has been a noticeable rise in the number of build-
ing and sustainability assessment systems over the last 
years. They deal with the issue of ecological and sus-
tainable architecture as well as the changing demands 
on architecture in general and, more specifically, the 
notion of the home and how we live in it. This has cre-
ated a great, economically and ecologically powered 
demand for practical, easy-to-use instruments for as-
sessing and certifying buildings.1 However, architects 
and planners often have major reservations about these 
assessments for two basic reasons:The complexity and the cost and work involved for such 
an evaluation stokes fears and insecurities, because 
the shear scope of the qualities and aspects to be as-
sessed is so broad. The mix of increasing demands and 
requirements, combined with a decrease in the time 
available for planning and building, is in clear conflict 
with the increased financial pressures of architects’ 
and planners’ fees. The torrent of issues, criteria and 
objectives makes planners aware of just how great the 
gaps and deficits are and how much work is required to 
fulfil expectations. The further and additional training 
necessary for this task is still in the development stages
or is specifically directed towards energy efficiency. 
Moreover, it means time and added expense, which is 
difficult for most small- or medium-sized architecture 
practices to afford. This is where national and regional 
architectural associations could step in to create quali-
fied and applied courses. It is necessary to subsidise 
further education facilities such as these and invest 
long term in a better qualification of the people who 
will translate desired objectives into built reality. The 
second reason for this tangible reticence stems from 
the comprehensive demands of many sustainability 
assessment systems – a point that raises the question as
to whether certain architectural aspects, such as qual-
ity of design or how well it suits its urban context, can 
be assessed at all, and if so, to what extent. Contrary to 
energy efficiency and eco-labels, which are restricted 
to rating only very specific aspects, sustainability la-
bels such as LEED,2 BREEAM,3 or DGNB4 are widely 
believed to represent a more comprehensive picture 
of architectural quality. This impression is sometimes 
deliberately cultivated by the label’s developers, in or-
der to spark the interest of investors and users and to 
accelerate the label’s popularity. However the build 
architectural reality demonstrates that these certified 
buildings are not necessarily excellent or even good 
examples of design or spatial planning – an observa-
tion that suggests that such applied systems do not 
adhere to their own standards, and that the results of 
their assessment systems might even be misleading. 
This improper conclusion stems from false and unclear 
expectations as to the use and possible applications 
of sustainability assessment systems. A rating system 
must focus only on particular aspects. And, because 
they are easier to describe and compare than qualita-
tive, assessment systems analyse exclusively quantita-
tive criteria. Most do not evaluate the building’s design, 
or how it adapts to the urban environment, or its cul-
tural significance. 
6.1 USE AND APPLICATION POSSIBILITIES
OF A SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT
Sustainability assessment methods are not devised as 
instruments for a comprehensive assessment of archi-
tecture. Assessment systems or labels are primarily de-
signed to create an urgently needed level of transpar-
ency by revealing aspects and issues that are normally 
concealed or hidden. A label describes only a certain 
aspect of a product. Fair Trade or organic labels are 
not devised to test or assess the overall quality of a 
food product. Their purpose is to provide the consumer 
with information about aspects of the product, which 
the consumer is unable to evaluate him- or herself 
(place of origin, company, the conditions under which 
it was grown or caught, the social standards involved 
in producing the product, and so on). The cut or qual-
ity of work of a t-shirt made from Fair Trade cotton, or 
whether it suits the tastes of a specific target group, 
has nothing to do with being rated or even awarded a 
label. However, these labels are nevertheless important 
because they provide a consumer, who consciously 
wants to buy Fair Trade products, with a level of trans-
716 ASSESSING SUSTAINABILITY
parency that would otherwise be impossible. Combin-
ing these two aspects with analysing a product for 
certification would still not result in a comprehensive 
assessment of the product. It is more likely to weaken 
the authority of the label. 
The same is true for sustainability assessments of build-
ings, as they are not devised to assess the overall qualities
of a building. Design and spatial aspects, atmosphere 
and appropriateness are qualities that are either im-
possible or at best very difficult to assess in general. Of 
course, aspects such as the functional requirements of a 
building and its long-term adaptability are also difficult-
to-assess criteria. However, for these aspects, there are 
at least pre-existing factual criteria based on a build-
ing’s spatial geometry and architectural construction 
(supporting and dividing construction components), 
and that can be compared and ultimately assessed. But 
hard and soft criteria are not always easily defined. It is 
more imperative clearly to outline the essential require-
ments of sustainable development, and to identify areas 
that will require future intense professional debate and 
discussion, and that therefore cannot yet be illustrated 
within the context of a method of assessment. In or-
der to assess the qualities of a project, assessment sys-
tems can only be applied as a supportive or additional 
benefit methodology. They should not prevent or even 
take the place of a discourse about the quality of our 
built environment. We will continue to need well known 
and proven methods to evaluate architectural qualities, 
such as architecture competitions, studies, and active 
architectural criticism. This is why the assessment sys-
tem selected to evaluate the projects in this publication 
lacks certain core aspects of the architectural quality 
of a building, such as appropriateness, innovation and 
design. We believe that the projects we have analysed 
here are all above average or even extraordinary in this 
regard. Therefore, a comparable assessment within 
such a group would not produce substantial results. 
But what is the advantage of assessing sustainability? 
Architects often assume that sustainability assessments 
only highlight problems that would be solved anyway 
by means of simple good planning, and that in a couple 
of years sustainability will fall out of fashion and stop 
being a topic of concern because the requirements will 
of course be fulfilled. But this completely ignores the 
importance of the questions and planning efforts that 
accompany implementation.5 Structural engineering 
and statics were developed in the 19th century and inte-
grated as standard elements into the planning process. It 
would be absurd to assume that architects and planners 
have been aware of this issue for so long that it is now 
automatically integrated, without the need of any addi-
tional planning efforts. Even if no current discourse ex-
ists concerning the significance of structural planning, 
a major part of planning is dedicated to this aspect, and 
methods for calculating and building supporting struc-
tures are constantly being improved. At the same time, 
we also know that not every stable building with cor-
rectly calculated statics will also have an efficient, intel-
ligent or innovative supporting structure. Sustainability 
evaluations analyse only one principal and significant 
aspect of a building and help those involved in the plan-
ning to optimise it. Sustainable buildings usually fare 
well in sustainability assessments – at least when applied 
systems are sufficiently open and goal oriented in order 
to illustrate different approaches and strategies better. 
The assessments performed in this book are proof of this 
theory. The reverse conclusion – that is, automatically to 
rate a building good architecturally because it did well 
in the sustainability assessment – is unacceptable. If 
our planning methods are based on the model of sus-
tainable development, then it follows that buildings that 
rate poorly in the superordinate requirementsthey are 
obliged to fulfil, do not represent satisfactory solutions 
– which is why sustainability assessment methods are 
good tools for making a qualified selection of variations 
during the process, or a preliminary test in a competing 
procedure. They can define minimum standards to form 
the basis for a differentiated assessment and evaluation 
of the overall architectural qualities. They also provide 
an opportunity comprehensively to rate the sustainabil-
ity of existing buildings and thus promote the long-term 
methods, strategies and building methods that have 
produced good results. 
BREEAM
LEED
LEED CA
SICES
LEED BR
HQE
DGNB/BNB
TQ
MINERGIE-ECO
ESTIDAMA
LEED VAE
CASBEE
EEWH
LEED IN
Green Star
Green Star NZ
BREEAM
LEED
LEED CA
SICES
LEED BR
HQE
DGNB/BNB
TQ
MINERGIE-ECO
ESTIDAMA
LEED VAE
CASBEE
EEWH
LEED IN
Green Star
Green Star NZ
72
Assessing sustainability versus sustainable design 
Assessment systems and methods can be used in all 
stages of the design and planning process. As shown 
in chapter 5, an iterative and recursive approach rep-
resents one of the basic principles of a comprehensive 
design methodology. A reassessment of the results in 
relation to goals and requirements needs efficient and 
practical instruments, which provide sound conclu-
sions when assessing variations and alternatives in the
early phases of a project. This is when design and 
assessment methods are very closely linked. A success-
ful goal-oriented approach is not possible without the 
appropriate instruments for qualification and assess-
ment – moreover, these new assessment methods also 
have a complementary character. They serve as use-
ful tools that can be applied in addition to the usual 
strategies, which help planners to find solutions and 
make decisions. Choosing the most effective system 
for design and planning processes is based on para-
meters such as typology, building dimensions, plan-
ning phase, and the basic legal circumstances. How-
ever, because sustainability assessment is still a young 
practise, there are only a few systems available today 
that can be used in different countries or for a wide 
range of use typologies. LEED and BREEAM are doubt-
less the most established and widely used systems, 
and can be applied in over 60 countries. Both of these 
systems, as well as the German system DGNB, can be 
used as early as the pre-design phase to ensure sound-
er planning. At the moment, the DGNB system can be 
applied only for office and administration buildings 
(other uses are still in the development or prototype 
stages), while LEED and BREEM can already be used 
for a much wider range of typologies. However, each 
system is time-consuming and costly, which, (still) 
makes them less cost-effective for smaller projects. 
Moreover, the systems cannot be used for early analyses
or design phases. The Pearl Building Rating System 
(PBRS) by Estidama (UAE)6 is a simple and practical 
assessment that can supplement the planning process 
throughout all phases. However, the method is in gen-
eral more suited to larger projects. The Housing Quality 
Barometer7-system, which was developed by the Tech-
nische Universität Darmstadt and adapted for this pub-
lication, is especially suited to redevelopment projects. 
The system has been used as a potentials analysis for 
teaching and research activities on existing buildings. 
Assessing a building that will be re-developed allows 
the early diagnosis of potentials and weaknesses; it 
also allows us to define possible strategies and tar-
get values, and later to verify whether these have been 
successfully fulfilled. Because the system is simple to 
manage and takes less time to complete than others, it 
can be used to assess versions in new buildings as well.
The planning tool developed in the research project 
entitled Haus der Zukunft (House of the future)8 at 
Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts can 
be used to define goals; it also serves as an aid for 
recognising potentials and dependencies during the 
design phase while providing transparency for clients
and planning teams. When using this tool, it is ad-
visable to coordinate important design and planning 
decisions in the long-term planning phases, using the 
results of analysis that this planning tool provides. 
01 International sustainability assessment systems (selection)
6 ASSESSING SUSTAINABILITY
73
02 Analysis of potentials with the life cycle assessment: analysis of the present state (brown) and the defi nition of the desired 
 target values (blue)
Assessments systems 
Instruments for urban and spatial planning
Instruments for urban and spatial planning are de-
signed to establish a regionally or nationally compa-
rable, high standard in planning and development 
processes for sizable building and housing develop-
ment projects. They are usually used in planning and 
in competitions to aid political committees or competi-
tion juries in the decision-making process. Because of 
the comparative lack of data and information during 
the design phase, there is usually a general set of crite-
ria that can be verified using only few quantitative and 
qualitative parameters. Some examples of this form 
of assessment tool are the Swiss system Albatros9 and 
LES!,10 a system developed by the city of Linz.
Assessment systems for investors and users
Assessment systems for investors and users are devised 
to prioritise a transparent presentation of the results of 
certified buildings, in the form of various labels (for 
instance LEED: silver, gold, platinum) that provide us-
er-friendly and commercial marketing of the achieved 
standards. These systems are mainly used to assess 
finished buildings, but also often have a pre-design 
phase (BREEAM) that helps achieve realistic and com-
mitted agreements on goals at an early planning stage; 
they also provide a higher level of planning guarantee 
for planners and investors. The German system DGNB 
belongs to this category of systems, as does the British
BREEAM, the American system LEED, and the Japa-
nese CASBEE.11 Many energy standards, such as 
Passivhaus or MINERGIE®,12 also belong to this category.
Because there is increasing experience and knowledge 
available to build on, great advances in sustainability
assessment systems can be expected over the next 
few years. Moreover, in the future planning instru-
ments will play a greater role in providing architects 
and planners with less complex tools that are easier 
to handle. In the meantime, however, it will soon be-
come urgently necessary, for architects in particular, 
to close the existing gap in knowledge. At some point, 
sizable building projects will begin using subcontrac-
tors for sustainability consultation and assessment, 
which will ensure that the consultation remains in-
dependent. Nonetheless, it will still be important for 
planners to have a broad basic understanding of sus-
tainable building issues, so that they can participate 
in informed discussions with auditors and consultants 
concerning specific concepts and further develop-
ments. For small- or medium-sized projects, it will also 
become indispensable for planners to be knowledge-
able about planning sustainable buildings. This is the 
only way to develop a comprehensive architecture and 
planning culture and establish long-term standards.
6.2 STRATEGIES AND METHODS OF 
SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT ASSESSMENTS
Existing sustainability assessment methods follow 
different approaches and strategies. The choice of 
the appropriate methodology is closely related to the 
field in which it is to be applied and the particular 
target group. 
 1 Comfort 
 2 Flexibility 
 3 Spatial quality 
 4 Functional quality 5 Operation 
 6 User costs 7 Resource need
s 
 
 
 
 8
 O
ve
ra
ll 
im
pa
ct
 
 
 
9 
P
ro
ce
ss
in
g 
qu
al
ity
 
 
10
 A
cc
es
sib
ilit
y 
 
 11 Location
Renovation
Existingsituation
6 ASSESSING SUSTAINABILITY
74
The assessment process here often prioritises criteria, 
which are specific to the property in question, over
standard criteria. This, however, is to the disadvan-
tage of a comprehensive observation of all relevant 
aspects, because the most essential criteria here are 
ease of use, time efficiency, and how clearly the results 
can be presented. The restricted parameters of observa-
tion can yield unclear results that do not do justice to 
the comprehensive demands of a sustainability assess-
ment. For instance, far too many important community 
and socio-cultural factors are missing for it to be useful 
as an assessment tool to rate various aspects of living 
and residential quality for the user. 
Instruments for planners
Instruments for planers are devised to provide tools to 
accompany a design and project during the planning 
process. Their structure is oriented more toward the 
construction planning process (for instance, categories 
such as location, property, and process of the German 
system DNQ)13 than groups of criteria or protection 
goals. Then there is the necessity to restrict the breadth 
and depth of the observed criteria to a minimum, 
because, first, many of the aspects relevant to sustain-
ability, such as the emissions of construction materials, 
are not yet assessable during the concept and pre-design 
phase. Second, evaluating several alternatives would 
entail a detailed assessment of all criteria and a dispro-
portionate amount of time and money over the course of 
the planning phase. Examples here are the Pearl Rating 
System of the assessment system ESTIDAMA (VAE), and 
the planning tool Haus der Zukunft.14
Most systems – particularly the first assessment sys-
tems developed in the 1990s – were originally devised to 
evaluate new buildings after their completion, because 
they are relatively uncomplicated to evaluate compared 
to existing or refurbished buildings that, because of 
their often very specific contexts, make it difficult to 
compare solutions and to establish required bench-
marks. Moreover, the possibility exists for reducing the 
03 Planning tool Haus der Zukunft (House of the Future): defi nition of the planning objectives) 
04 Planning tool Haus der Zukunft (House of the Future): 
 Image of synergies and confl ict of objectives
6 ASSESSING SUSTAINABILITY
75
work involved in collecting data by making it possible 
to use comprehensive records from the planning and 
approval process. One can compensate for missing data 
by taking onsite measurements, instead of having to de-
velop unreliable, costly and work-intensive simulations. 
Over the last few years, there has been an increase in 
interest in existing buildings, which has led to an rise 
in the number of systems that are devised to assess ren-
ovated and unrenovated buildings. Often, the systems 
that exist for new buildings are adapted, reworked, and 
expanded upon (for instance by BREEAM, Green Star).15 
At the same time, more instruments have been created 
to assess buildings at an early stage in their planning – 
this takes into account that influence and optimisation 
potential is much greater if sustainability target values 
are implemented in the planning as early as possible.16 
The existing assessment systems can be classified into 
three basic categories:
 
Descriptive assessment systems
Descriptive assessment systems are not designed to 
quantify and evaluate the sustainability of a building 
or to compare buildings with each other. Rather, they 
are designed to describe sustainability as a whole in 
construction and to list criteria and target values for 
planning purposes (SIA 112/1, Leitfaden Nachhaltiges 
Bauen), or to illustrate strategies and approaches of ex-
amples of projects (DNQ). The purely descriptive char-
acter of this method, along with the lack of qualitative 
or quantitative assessment methodology, makes it pos-
sible to present a comprehensive approach to sustain-
able building. The greatest disadvantage, however is the 
poor level of presentability and communicability.
Quantitative assessment systems
A greater percentage of assessment systems work exclu-
sively with quantifiable and objectifiable data. This guar-
antees an arithmetic and clear assessment and rating of 
a building and, hence, also makes it easier to compare 
different projects. However, sustainable building has 
many more aspects to consider than merely areas that 
are relatively easy to quantify, such as energy efficiency 
and resources. Most of the other factors cannot be cate-
gorised according to characteristic values or parameters, 
and thus cannot be assessed. For this reason, assessment 
methods that work only quantitatively are restricted to 
fields such as energy consumption, Life Cycle Assess-
ment (LCA), and Life Cycle Costing (LCC). The standard 
labels or certificates are the most widely known energy 
standards, Passivhaus or MINERGIE®,17 but there are also 
more complex systems such as the 2000-Watt Society or 
life cycle assessment tools, such as Eco Easy.
Qualitative assessments methods
Most assessment systems (DGNB, LEED, BREEAM, 
WWB etc.) try to compensate for the weaknesses of the 
either exclusively descriptive or the exclusively quanti-
fiable systems by introducing point equivalents. Here, 
scales are developed for all criteria that assess either 
the quantitative values or the predefined qualities in a 
point or rating system (0 to 10, 1 to 3, 0 to 100 %) in or-
der to be able to compare the various data. This method 
makes it possible to analyse and rate a much broader 
scope of criteria and information – a basic requirement 
for the beginnings of a comprehensive sustainability as-
sessment system. However, a qualitative evaluation of 
many aspects is blurry at best and, at times, even con-
tradictory, because the relationships and effects are of-
ten unknown or not generally recognised. Most of the 
assessments can only be carried out reliably by special-
ists and in an intense onsite analysis, which makes it 
more costly and more time-consuming.18 
In order for a system to offer innovative and complex ap-
proaches, it is essential to question the extent to which 
the system should be restricted to purely establishing 
objectives, and whether the applicable methods and 
strategies are available. Some systems have compara-
tively strict guidelines that establish how objectives are 
to be reached, which ensures that assessing and com-
paring different projects remains relatively manageable. 
One example here is the Swiss MINERGIE®-ECO-Label 
(Version 2008). It defines technical standards, such as 
installing ventilation systems with heat recovery and 
the use of recycled concrete, which are both manda-
tory measures. However, this makes it impossible, for 
instance, to work with Slagstar Cement, which was used 
in the ›Sunlighthouse project – despite the fact that it 
reduces the primary energy content. Even a passive ven-
tilation concept, as seen in the ›Rauch House or ›Wall 
House projects, would not have secured the label. Using 
these systems can be restrictive when choosing the ap-
propriate concept, which sometimes makes it difficult to 
implement sensible and innovative approaches.
The advantage of this strategy, however, is that proven 
system solutions are available. A clear profile can be 
developed with the help of comprehensible and easily 
communicable systems, and buildings can be planned 
with a noticeably reduced consumption of resources 
with relatively little extra effort and cost in planning and 
production. If there are sufficient competing systems or 
labels offered by alternative approaches, a variety of 
concepts can be covered without disproportionate ad-
ditional effort and cost. The other groups of assessment 
systems, which include the Housing Quality Barometer) 
system we use, focus purely on goals and target values. 
The strategies and methods by which goals are reached 
remain open. Thisallows for a much wider scope of 
action and design for planners and architects. With 
ESTIDAMA, the target values, for instance, for primary 
energy needs that need to be planned in line with legal 
requirements in relation to a volumetrically identical 
reference building, are already established. A reference 
value of over 30, 50, or 70 is required to reach the ap-
propriate target values. The energy requirement can be 
calculated using a selection of different simulation pro-
grams, so that, even in cases of more complex energy 
concepts – for instance if there are different climate 
zones within a given building – more powerful dynamic 
simulation programs can be implemented in order to 
verify the desired energy savings. 
Sunlighthouse, 
see chapter 7.3
Rauch House and 
Wall House, 
see chapter 7.11
and 7.6
6 ASSESSING SUSTAINABILITY
76
05 Sectors diagram life cycle assessment, Wohnwert-Barometer research projects
The advantage of this method is that not all buildings 
have to fulfil the same absolute requirements, but rather
must present the relative optimisation compared 
with the legal guidelines of the decisive criteria. This 
means that buildings with unique spatial or monument 
preservation contexts will not simply fall through the 
cracks, whereas buildings with optimum conditions 
are subjected to higher requirements. This approach 
offers greater potential for using the system in other 
countries or climate zones, because adapting to local 
construction or energy standards is more important for 
the competitiveness and feasibility of the project. The 
disadvantage of this method is the higher cost and ef-
fort that the assessment entails, and the greater risk of 
watering down the methodology. Evaluating goals (for 
instance by means of a thermal simulation) is mark-
edly more complex than a simple checklist (insulation 
thickness, U-value of windows, ventilation system, and 
so on). Moreover, focusing on target values and quali-
ties should not be equated with an unclearly formulated
requirement. A criterion such as ‘access to public 
transport’ is difficult to describe and communicate if 
there are no clearly prescribed spatial or time-related 
distances to classify. Both approaches have advantages 
and disadvantages, and the sometimes great discrep-
ancy between the costs and effort involved make a par-
allel further development seem likely. Restricting the 
methodology makes sense for a large number of small-
er and more conventional projects, because it keeps the 
costs and efforts of the assessment to a minimum. The 
methodology should, however, be adapted to suit dif-
ferent use typologies, countries and climate zones. For 
innovative and larger projects, or with assessment sys-
tems that are legally binding, systems need to establish 
very clear goals without predefining ways in which to 
achieve this. It is the only way to avoid sustainability 
assessment systems from stif ling innovation, rather 
than increasing the overall aspects of the quality of our 
built environment. 
Scope and cost of an assessment 
The cost of assessing an existing or a new residential 
building needs to be agreed upon and stated in a con-
tract so as to keep the investors’ and operators’ thresh-
old of inhibition to a minimum. Many existing systems 
suffer from being too difficult to apply and from the 
related high costs and effort that are required. At the 
same time, it should be possible to develop a promi-
nent and target group-oriented presentation that illus-
trates the added value of a building in a simple and 
clear manner. These requirements should not, however, 
adversely affect a comprehensive observation. The sys-
tem implemented in this publication uses a method that 
always bases assessments on a worse-case scenario, 
which results in a simpler but less clear evaluation. A 
more detailed analysis often yields better results. This 
can set the basis for an added interest in dealing with 
problems in a more differentiated manner in order to 
increase the possibility of a better assessment. More-
over, it is possible to refer to a greater amount of data 
and information in the ongoing planning process (for 
example, surface area dimensions, fire protection re-
quirements, characteristic energy values), in order 
to minimise the extra cost of additional collection of 
data.19 In this context it is important to remember that, 
compared to other planning methods, sustainability 
assessment systems are still in the very early phases 
of development, and have been used widely for only ten 
1
2
3
4
5
K01 Comfort
K02 Flexibility and
multi-usage
K03 Spatial and
design quality
K04 Functional
quality
K06 User costs
K05 Operation
K07 Building’s
resource needs
K08 Building’s
overall impact
K09 Process quality
K10 Accessibility
K11 Location quality
and supplies
3.6
Gold
6 ASSESSING SUSTAINABILITY
77
years. Therefore, we can expect great improvements 
in assessment systems and methods within the next 
few years. One indicator of this is the fact that com-
puter-generated processes, which are typically used in 
construction (CAD, proposals, tendering, cost control, 
project management, structural design programs, FM 
systems), are not yet available for sustainability assess-
ment systems. Even tools used to calculate the ecological
consequences and life cycle costing of buildings are 
still in their initial phases. Moreover, there are no 
data on environmental consequences, production, 
waste control, or the recycling of construction materi-
als, components or building services. The industry is 
requested here to provide the foundations for a com-
prehensive assessment and planning. 
6.3 THE HOUSING QUALITY BAROMETER –
DEVELOPMENT AND METHODOLOGY
The system used in this publication is based on the 
Housing Quality Barometer mentioned above, which 
was developed by the Department of Design and En-
ergy Efficient Construction at the Technische Univer-
sität Darmstadt in 2009. The system, developed to as-
sess sustainable residential qualities in urban rental 
apartment buildings, was developed over a period 
of 18 months for the project entitled Erfassungs- und 
Bewertungssystem nachhaltiger Wohnqualität (Survey 
and rating system for sustainable housing quality) 
[Wohnwert-Barometer – WWB], in cooperation with 
the Department of Computer Science at the Technical 
University Darmstadt and the residential property de-
veloper Pirelli RE Germany. It was funded by the Fed-
eral Office for Building and Regional Planning for the 
Building and Housing Incentive Programme. The idea of 
developing the system stems from the realisation that 
existing assessment methods in residential construc-
tion evaluate residential qualities using a discrimina-
tory selection of subjective criteria such as living space, 
number of rooms, selected furnishing, or cost aspects 
– yet insufficiently conveyed comprehensive residen-
tial qualities. Many other important aspects such as 
location quality, social contact possibilities, resource 
need, spatial quality, or individual design possibilities 
were either taken only partially into consideration or 
not considered at all. Contrary to the described exist-
ing methods, the project aspired to develop prototypes 
for a comprehensive and overall assessment system for 
existing residential buildings in Germany. The project 
analysed more than 25 international certification 
systems including LEED, BREEAM, CASBEE, DGNB, 
WBS20 and Green Star and studied various sources to 
collect the criteria and goals of sustainable residential 
qualities. In the next phase, these data would be struc-
tured, assigned to goals, and completed by predomi-
nant basic conditions. A systematic procedure led to a 
comprehensiveness of criteria and an understanding of 
the way in which they interact.21 This produces various 
approaches to quantifying the criteria of the assess-
ment tool. At the same time, different existing assess-
ment and quantifying methods areexamined and their 
suitability for the WWB verified. 
The Housing Quality Barometer was developed for ques-
tions regarding the assessment of urban residential 
buildings in Germany. The criteria were selected and 
quantified according to specific legal, social and cul-
tural contexts. Therefore it is not possible, nor does it 
make sense, to apply this system directly to the broad 
scope of residential typologies presented in this book, 
or to specific regional and national particularities. The 
aim of the assessment, moreover, was not to compare 
15 projects directly, but to establish a transparent and 
comprehensive presentation of the concerns and ap-
proaches that are relevant to sustainability. The dia-
gram of individual criteria shows an additional source 
of information to provide a more detailed understand-
ing of the projects and their qualities. For this reason, 
and in order to prevent an unreliable simplification, 
we have not amassed individual assessments to form a 
clear overall result, apart from quantifying the individ-
ual criteria. The multi-dimensional illustration we have 
selected corresponds to the diversity of the presented 
task, reveals unfiltered strengths and weaknesses, and 
completes the presentation of the projects in the form 
of plans, images and analyses. The chart in this book 
at the end of part II also provides a cross-reference of 
criteria, as well as the search for design approaches 
and strategies, which are particularly strong in certain 
areas such as resource or area requirements.
Further information on the 
Housing Quality Barometer 
are available in German on: 
www.wohnwertbarometer.de
6 ASSESSING SUSTAINABILITY
78
06 Comparison matrix and/or affects matrix, Wohnwert-Barometer research projects
Development and structure of the criteria matrix 
The projects are assessed using a qualitative scale 
from 1 (below average/critical value) to 5 (exemplary/ 
best practice) based on 79 aspects that are divided into 
the following subdivisions:
– Location and maintenance 
– Accessibility 
– Process quality 
– Spatial and design quality 
– Functional quality 
– Flexibility and intermixture 
– Comfort 
– Resource needs of building 
– Overall impression of building 
– Building-related costs and life cycle
An overriding goal related to sustainability is estab-
lished for each of the 79 assessment aspects and the 
methodology applied to perform the assessment, as 
well as the unit at hand. The minimum requirements 
needed for a successful rating are clearly defined and 
correspond to five quality and rating levels:
– Exemplary/best practice 
– Innovative/target value 
– Above average/good 
– Standard/reference value 
– Below average/critical value
The assessment levels of the Housing Quality Barometer
were developed for the standard of residential build-
ings in Germany. The illustrated ratings are based on 
a central European standard. In order to assess build-
ings in countries with different construction standards, 
the ratings were adapted to those national and regional 
standards. A detailed presentation of the ratings of all 
projects is not possible within the context of this pub-
lication. For projects with individual aspects that are 
not relevant to the assessment (common open rooms in 
single-family homes, appropriability for hotels, and so 
on), the corresponding aspects were disregarded.
6 ASSESSING SUSTAINABILITY
79
FOOTNOTES CHAPTER 6
 1 See Dammaschk, L., El khouli, S., Keller, M. et al.: Wohnwert-Barometer. Erfassungs- und Bewertungssystem nachhaltiger Wohnqualität (report fort he research 
 project Housing Quality Barometer in German), ed. M. Hegger, Stuttgart 2010. 
 2 LEED: Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design: U.S. Green Building Council
 3 BREAAM: Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method: Building Research Establishment (BRE) 
 4 DGNB: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen e. V. (German Sustainable Building: German Sustainable 
 Building Council).
 5 Sobek, W.: Speech on the publication of Holcim Forum 2010, which was devoted to Re-inventing Construction, Zurich, 16 December 2010.
 6 Estidama: Abu Dhabi Urban Planning Council (UPC) 
 7 Wohnwert-Barometer. Erfassungs- und Bewertungssystem nachhaltiger Wohnqualität, see Footnote 1
 8 Robert Fischer, Peter Schwehr: Module für das Haus der Zukunft (modules for the House oft he Future), Lucerne/Zurich 2009.
 9 Albatros. Methodik zum Einbezug der Kriterien einer nachhaltigen Entwicklung in der strategischen Planung von öffentlichen Bauten (Methodology for in-
 corporating the principles of sustainable development in the strategic planning of public buildings): M. E. Perrette and M. J.-V. Pitteloud, Etat de Vaud, 
 Service des bâtiments
10 LES! – Linz entwickelt Stadt! Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie; BMVIT; Programmw line Haus der Zukunft and City of Linz, (Linz de-
 veloped city! Federal Ministry for Transport, Innovation and Technology, programme House oft he Future) Baudirektion, Geschäftsgruppe V – Stadtentwicklung.
11 DGNB: see Footnote 4, BREEAM Footnote 3, LEED Footnote 2. CASBEE. Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environmental Efficiency: Japan Green 
 Build Council (JaGBC) and Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
12 MINERGIE®: Verein MINERGIE® (MINERGIE® Association).
13 DNQ. Diagnosesystem Nachhaltige Qualität (Sustainable quality diagnostic system): Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt (DBU)
14 See Footnotes 6 and 8.
15 Green Star: Green Building Council Australia
16 Diagram taken from: Wohnwert-Barometer. Erfassungs- und Bewertungssystem nachhaltiger Wohnqualität, see footnote 1
17 MINERGIE®: Verein MINERGIE®
18 Diagram taken from: Wohnwert-Barometer. Erfassungs- und Bewertungssystem nachhaltiger Wohnqualität, see footnote 1
19 Diagram taken from: Wohnwert-Barometer. Erfassungs- und Bewertungssystem nachhaltiger Wohnqualität, see footnote 1 
20 Swiss Federal Office for Housing: Wohnungs-Bewertungs-System WBS, Wohnungswesen (Housing Assessment) series, vol. 35, Bern 1986.
21 Andreas Ninck, Leo Bürki, Roland Hungerbühler: Systemik. Vernetztes Denken in komplexen Situationen (Systemics. Networked thinking in complex situations), 
 Zurich 2004.
6 ASSESSING SUSTAINABILITY
80
TOPIC OBJECTIVESUNIT
The neighbourhood’s, town’s, or village centre’s facilities should be within reasonable distance from the residential area. These include shops 
for daily needs, work places, services, public administration, meeting places, and event venues.
The regional centre should be easily accessible by public transport.
A regional centre should provide: specialised services and shopping opportunities for goods needed occasionally; secondary schools, vocational 
and special schools; social facilities, nursing homes and hospitals, sports facilities, cinemas, libraries, museums and exhibitions, theatre and 
concert venues, restaurants and hotels; wide job opportunities, good public transport services and highway access.
Childcare and elementary schools should be within a close and safe distance from the apartment and along an attractive route. 
Secondary schools (primary and secondary schools, high schools, vocational schools) should be a reasonable distance from the apartment.
Universities, colleges, and adult education institutions should be located within a reasonable distance from the apartment.
A broad range of social service facilities should be available for different age groups within a reasonable distance. These include: crèches, 
nurseries, play groups, counselling services, such as maternity services, education and family counselling, and care facilities for elderly people, 
day care, outpatient and mobile emergency services 
Hospitals, medical centres and day clinics should be located within a reasonable distance from the apartment. 
General practitioners, dentists and pharmacies should be located at a reasonabledistance from the apartment.
The apartment should be close enough to the neighbourhood or housing estate playground to allow for a variety of individual and group 
activities for children, adolescents and adults.
Public parks or large gardens, as well as forests, are important places for recreation and play especially in densely populated areas. Such 
facilities should be within a reasonable distance from the apartment. 
Three recreational areas for children, adolescents and adults should be within a reasonable distance from the residential facility. They include 1: 
easy to get to local and regional centres, workplaces, educational institutions and recreational facilities – and therefore connects residents with 
their environment.
To be able to switch to vehicles that run on alternative fuels, there must be the appropriate offer available locally. Low-cost car-sharing schemes 
are a chance for low-income groups to become mobile. 
The workplace, utilities, educational institutions, recreation etc. are easily accessible by motorised private transport.
If local bicycle lanes and footpaths are easily accessible, it encourages people to make short trips by bike or on foot, which reduces motorised 
their environment. Public ease of access via thoroughfares should be guaranteed and access for non-resident use should be easy within the 
residential complex.
The integration and continuation of the main urban road system into and within the residential estate increases its accessibility and integration 
with its surroundings. At the same time it facilitates chance encounters between the residents, which promotes their coexistence in the local 
community.
Convenient parking located near the front door to make deliveries as comfortable as possible.
important for car owners that the sites are covered, can be locked, and are visible. The path from the car park to the house or stairway must be 
well lit to create a feeling of safety for the residents.
The aim is to give all people an equal opportunity to use the built environment. Wheelchair accessibility increases the value and attractiveness 
for all population groups, but mainly affects people with motor or sensory limitations. The objective is to create wheelchair accessibility in the 
common areas in most of the overall estate, so as not to exclude people with physical or sensory limitations from a social life outside their own 
homes, and to encourage the steadily increasing proportion of older home users to access and stay in their homes as long as possible. 
Distance in metres 
Journey times in minutes by 
public transport
Distance in metres 
Distance in minutes by public 
transport or on foot 
Distance in minutes by public 
transport or on foot 
Distance in metres 
Distance in metres 
(ground, not air travel)
Distance in metres 
Distance in metres 
Distance in metres 
Distance in minutes by public 
transport or on foot
Distance in metres 
number per hour, 
walking / minute
Alternative fuels: The 
availability or distance to 
car-sharing: walking minutes
Distance in km
Easy and direct access on foot 
and by bicycle
Degree of accessibility
Degree of integration
Number/distance
Qualitative properties
Percentage of age-appropriate 
apartments 
LOCATION QUALITY AND AVAILABLE FACILITIES
 Complete facilities 
 City centre
 
 Regional centre
 
 School and childcare facilities
 Childcare and elementary schools
 
 
 Secondary schools
 
 
 Colleges and adult education
 
 
Medical and social facilities
 Social services facilities 
 
 Hospitals and medical centres
 
 
 Doctors and pharmacies
 
 Play, local recreation, and open spaces
 Playgrounds and play areas 
 
 
 
 Parks and open spaces 
 
 Recreational areas
 
 Public transport and alternative transport concepts
 Public transport availability 
 
 
 
 
 Alternative transport concepts 
 
 
 
 Car accessibility
 
 Footpaths and bicycle paths 
 ACCESSIBILITY 
 Public accessibility 
 Public accessibility and 
 thoroughfares 
 
 Integration of transport 
 routes and roads
 Parking 
 Car parking availability and 
 accessibility
 Wheelchair accessibility 
 Wheelchair accessibility and 
 age-appropriate facilities
6 ASSESSING SUSTAINABILITY
81
DESCRIPTION/METHODOLOGY ASSESSMENT
5 Best Practice 1 Below average/limiting value
The distance between the residence and the downtown area of the district, town or small city centre is assessed. If 
there is only a reduced range of shops and service businesses, the assessment level is reduced.
The travel time by public transport from the station or stop near residence to the station nearest the regional 
business centre. The travel time of public transport is determined by the current schedule.
The distance between home and pre-school, or between home and primary school, is assessed.
There is a devaluation if the routes to the pre-school and school routes are not safe – such as no pavement on busy 
roads, dangerous intersections, complex situations etc.
The distance between home and secondary school is assessed.
The distance between home and university, college or adult education institutions is assessed.
The distance between home and three social institutions is assessed.
The three social institutions are assessed individually, and the average is calculated. 
 
The distance between home and the facilities is assessed.
The distance between home and a practical physician, dentist or pharmacy is assessed.
The distance home and the district or municipal playground is assessed.
There is a devaluation if the route to the playground is not safe to use – for example, no pavement on busy roads, 
dangerous intersections, complex situations etc. There will be a reassessment if more than one feature is present 
at the distance in question
The distance between home and the nearest major public park or forest is assessed.
The distance between home and the periphery or borders of the closest recreational areas is assessed for the three 
aforementioned areas.
The three recreation areas are assessed individually, and the average is calculated.
The proximity to public transport stops is assessed. The distances to intercity railway stations are assessed 
separately from those of local train, bus or tram stops. The availability and variety of alternate means of transport 
is also assessed. In addition, how well the lines connect (coordinated timing) at transfer points is also assessed. 
(Average walking speed approx. 5 km/h)
At the moment there are two main types of alternative transport concepts: vehicles using alternative fuels and car 
sharing projects. Alternative fuels in residential location: they include, for example, a power connector on the car 
park, or a petrol station that sells natural gas or provides LPG refuelling. In the future, there will be more vehicles 
with fuel cells that run on liquid hydrogen. Car sharing: the availability of local car-sharing schemes at the 
quickly available. The availability of at least one of the concepts at the site is assessed.
The distance to the nearest motorway is assessed.
The local accessibility to cycling and pedestrian pathways and the way in which they connect to the property is 
assessed. This includes how well they are lit.
If there are several entrances to houses, these are counted separately, and the average is calculated.
The accessibility of open areas of land and the presence of accessible non-resident use is assessed.
The public access possibilities of the estate and its connection to the main road system are assessed. The rating 
may be increased if there are dense urban conditions with little open space (back gardens) available, which are 
closed to the public. 
located in relation to the building’s entrance.
should easily be able to reach his or her house entrance, but other residents and passers-by should not be 
adversely affected. Other aspects of the assessment include whether the parkingspaces are covered, visible, and 
can be locked. It also examines the path from the car park to the building or stairwell.
The percentage of barrier-free and partially or fully wheelchair-accessible apartments in the total number of 
accessibility or wheelchair accessibility requirements without the need for interventions in the building, or 
thresholds, as well as the dimensions of baths/WC, installation of a lift or stair lift).
Up to 400 m
Up to 15 minutes
At least two facilities within 400 m, or at least three 
institutions within 800 m 
At least two facilities within 800 m or reachable in up to 10 
minutes by public transport or at least three facilities within 
1200 m and reachable in up to 15 minutes by public transport
At least two facilities within max. 800 m distance or reachable 
in up to 10 minutes by public transport or at least s facilities 
within a distance of 1000 m and reachable in up to 15 minutes 
by public transport
Up to 400 m
 
At least two facilities within 800 m. Or at least three 
institutions within 1200 m 
At least two facilities within 400 m, or at least three institutions 
within 800 m 
Up to 200 m 
At least one facility within sight, or at least two facilities within 
600 m 
Up to 1000 m or 12 minutes by public transport
 
Not more than 150 m (2 min) walking distance to nearest 
hour in one direction on a daily average
distance from the railway station not longer than 10 minutes
Electricity available in some parking spaces, the distance to 
the nearest petrol station that sells alternative fuel is not more 
than 5 km, or operator of the car-sharing scheme has vehicles 
available in the car park of the residential building. At least 
There is access to footpaths and cycle paths. The house 
entrance can be safely accessed at ground level. The access 
points are well lit.
Communal open spaces are accessible 24 hours a day and are 
free and open to the public. Facilities located in the house or 
residential estate (common areas, shops, cafe etc.) are also 
available to the public.
The estate is well integrated into the urban road system (cars 
private vehicles to be directed through the estate. There are no 
cul-de-sacs. The access areas are largely open to the public.
There are private parking spaces for the apartment or a public 
car park for all units is available in the immediate vicinity of 
the entrance door. 
spaces does not pose a danger to pedestrians. The car parks 
are clearly organised. The car parks are covered and the 
parking spaces can be locked. The path to the building or 
stairwell is lit.
The proportion of partial or full wheelchair-accessible housing 
is at least 20%. In 90% of all homes, community recreation 
areas are constructed barrier-free, or the proportion of 
apartments is at least 50%.
More than 1,000 m
mehr als 40 Minuten
No facilities within 1,000 m
 
No facilities within 2000 m or reachable in 
25 minutes by public transport
 
No facilities within 2000 m or reachable in 
25 minutes by public transport
 
More than 1000 m 
 
No facilities within 2000 m
No facilities within 1000 m
More than 500 m
No facilities within 1000 m 
More than 2000 m or more than 25 
minutes by public transport
Walking distance to nearest public transport
stop not more than 1000 m (12 min); fre-
quency of transport one or two per hour in 
one direction on a daily average (between 
The nearest gas station selling alternative 
fuel is greater than 15 km or car sharing is 
not available.
Distance to the motorway is 15 km or 
more
There is no access to footpaths and cycle 
pathways. 
Communal open spaces that are part of 
the house or grounds are closed to the 
public.
The estate is not integrated into the main 
urban road system (cars and motorised 
The access areas are not publicly 
accessible.
Private or public parking is available for 
less than 80% of the residents or it is 
located further than 5 minutes from the 
building.
Less than two requirements of assessment 
stage 5 are met.
At least 5% of all apartments are 
barrier-free, or at least 10% of all 
apartments have barrier-free facilities or 
can be upgraded.
6 ASSESSING SUSTAINABILITY
82
TOPIC OBJECTIVESUNIT
expertise have varying goals and needs that should be integrated with the interests of the users and operators at an early stage through a 
systemic approach toward the planning process.
Self-administration can help to care for the needs of the residents in various ways. This applies to daily agreements regarding processes or 
changes in redesigning the home.
appreciation of visual and communicative qualities. Appropriation requires different degrees of publicness.
The preservation of design or historical value of buildings contributes to the preservation and further development of regional architecture. As 
The integration into the urban context in terms of scale and building typology and respectful treatment of the existing environment will protect 
the existing town or landscape aesthetic and prevent urban sprawl. Selecting the right scale and respecting contemporary local building 
prevent disproportionate shadows being cast onto surrounding buildings.
Residential estates should offer various possibilities in order to increase the value of a dwelling and provide space for community events: there 
should be spaces for rent within a residential community that are separate from the apartment or house. There should be community spaces 
outside the home that can be used for leisure activities. Washing and drying rooms should be designed to allow each household one washday 
the residents in order to encourage them to be actively engaged in their home environment. 
The outdoor areas should be usable for different functions and have varied degrees of publicness. Differentiated spatial sequences of outdoor 
facilities should provide clear orientation.
The apartment should provide the residents with the highest degree of privacy and intimacy. The ability to see from outside into the apartment’s 
The arrangement of windows in all rooms should allow for a generous view from the apartment to an attractive environment in as many directions 
as possible.
[true]
[true]
[true]
[true]
[true]
Degree of integration 
Structure and design of the 
outdoor areas
Separation and differentiation 
of residential areas
Distance in m
Number and quality of views
 PROCESS QUALITY 
 Planungsprozess 
 Systematic planning and user 
 participation
 
 Assessment in the planning process
 
 Self-administration 
 
 
 Personalisation
 
Identity 
 Appropriateness and 
 building tradition 
 
Service quality 
 Addressing the user
 
QUALITY OF SPACE AND DESIGN 
External effect and integration into the urban environment
 Integration into the urban or 
 landscape environment 
 
 
Quality of community areas
 Communal facilities 
 Communal outdoor spaces 
 Spatial zoning and transitions
 Different degrees of publicness
 
 
 Design of the building’s entrance 
 areas 
 
 Zoning within the apartment 
The spatial qualities of the apartment 
 Privacy protection
 
 
 Private open space
6 ASSESSING SUSTAINABILITY
83
DESCRIPTION/METHODOLOGY ASSESSMENT
5 Best Practices 1 Below average/limiting values
Three aspects are to be evaluated: 
1. Integrative planning team: it is assessed as to whether an early integration of specialists in the design team and 
whether there was an iterative procedure in the planning process. 2. User participation: it is assessed as to whether the 
users were integrated into the planning process at an early stage and informed of the ongoing planning.
3. Public participation: it is assessed as to whether the public was informed early on in the planning and actively involved. 
Two aspects are evaluated: 
1. Identifying resource consumption: were additional assessments made of resource consumption in the course of 
and variant studies carried out in the course of planning with the help of sustainability assessmenttools?
Developing adequate forms of expression to illustrate the use and the architectural sophistication is the essential 
component of a contextual design approach. The assessment examines the extent to which local building traditions 
effect of the building corresponds with its use and appropriateness.
The assessment examines whether the users were systematically introduced to the building and briefed by means of 
residential estate? 3. Does the residential estate provide adequately sized washing and drying rooms?
The assessment examines play and recreational areas as well as the available areas outdoors. The entire area is 
communal space.
The structure and usability of the varied degrees of publicness of the outdoor spaces of the residential estate are 
assessed. 
number of persons in the affected households. The surface areas of open entrance halls or covered vestibules are 
counted as half points. The rating might be lowered if one has to climb steps to enter the lobby – meaning it is not 
enclosed private areas within the apartment are assessed.
The shortest distance between a transparent facade opening to the next neighbouring window or to the nearest 
top edge of a closed parapet are not rated. Windows are divided into four groups of varying visibility: 1. Complete 
the quality of the view. Then an average of the two separate scores is calculated. A special assessment is made for very 
apartment. At least one outdoor area should be directly accessible from the home. Directly adjacent areas are rated as 
outdoor area large enough to accommodate a dining table the size of which corresponds with the apartment. The 
assessment is reduced if this is not an option. The rating is reduced if the main outdoor space of an apartment is 
No specialists were consulted. Iteration 
No assessments or calculations were 
performed beyond the statutory 
requirements. 
There are neither tenant organisations nor 
apartment independently.
There are no areas outside of the home 
for the tenants to use or design. 
No integration into the existing 
architectural situation and the built 
building does not correspond with its use.
unclear who carries responsibility. 
The development is not integrated into 
the urban context. There are no 
references to existing typologies or the 
scale of the context.
No information
No information
structured. The privacy of the outdoor 
apartments is not guaranteed.
Communal and private areas in the 
apartment are on one level and not 
spatially separated.
openings: 17 m; openings with parapet 
buildings
Early integration into the planning team and an iterative 
approach to the planning process.
The users are integrated into the planning process at an early 
stage and informed of the ongoing planning.
The public was informed early in the planning and participated 
actively in it.
The planning process included multiple differentiated 
assessments on resource consumption.
Sustainability assessment methods have been applied in 
several stages of planning.
-
ly. The lease should also either include the option for tenants to 
a matter of home ownership.
a matter of home ownership.
Good integration into the existing architectural situation and 
the environment. The building expresses its use in a clear way 
and reinforces the identity of the environment.
The residents were informed about unconventional or 
there is a competent contact person who can be reached 
and refer to existing typologies and the scale of the context. An 
urban design analysis was performed.
The outdoor space is divided into differentiated spatial 
individual outdoor areas are assigned to different uses. 
Residents can manage the degrees of publicness visibility 
through structural elements.
Community and private areas in the apartment are on different 
spatial differentiation is possible. The apartment entrance is 
spatially related to the common area. The private sanitary 
facilities are located in direct proximity to the private spaces.
punch windows: 21 m
at least two directions;
view
6 ASSESSING SUSTAINABILITY
84
TOPIC OBJECTIVESUNIT
The communal areas in the apartment – cooking, living and dining areas – are the centres of social activities within the home. In order to extend 
meaningfully into the outdoors during summer, the apartment needs an allocation of enough outdoor space, which should also be visible from the 
apartment. The cooking area should also have at least one window in order to ensure good ventilation and lighting. This also allows a view of the 
communal facilities outside, or of the house entrance. 
Hallways and corridors should be well lit and spacious, in order to be multifunctional. The entrance area should be large enough to receive guests 
and to have coat-hanging space.
radio waves (wireless).
An intelligent and appropriate building technology (regulating heating, ventilation, sun protection) reduces the risk of faulty operation and use of 
reduced as well as the risk of operational errors.
Appropriate windows should be installed for natural lighting to be available in bath, shower and toilet facilities. Windows will still increase quality 
areas.
Each household should have a storage space outside but as close to the apartment as possible. If the spatial concept of the apartment has open 
connections between the cooking, eating, living areas, a smaller internal housekeeping area – preferably directly accessible from the kitchen – can 
provide additional storage facilities. 
The cooking area, sanitary facilities and storage rooms should provide enough space for furniture and moving around freely. It should be possible 
such as washing machine and baby changing facilities, and to storage spaces and corridors.
The building provides storage rooms necessary for bicycles and motor scooters, prams, cars etc., which should meet the following requirements: 
located at ground level without steps, near the entrance area, appropriate in size, covered, and well lit. The area for rubbish bins should 
preferably be located at ground level without steps and near the entrance.
Mono-functional use patterns should be avoided in order to create a lively and varied living environment. A compatible mixture of residences, 
employment and services is most desirable.
In order to respond to changing requirements and market situations and to allow for a long life cycle it should be easy to convert buildings, for 
residents with the ability to redesign and use the apartment for special occasions (holidays, guests etc.), quickly (in one day or night) and 
housing needs and changing family structures.
In order to meet changing user requirements, it should be possible to join or separate apartments or parts of apartments. This means the sizes of 
individual apartments can be changed, and additional uses bring additional value.
It should be possible to decide where in the home to share meals and spend time together. The way in which the dining area is furnished should 
allow for guests to be entertained.
Communal rooms should be multifaceted and able to be used and furnished well. The proportions of the room, as well as the point of access, 
The presence of natural daylight at different times of the day and year is a prerequisite for a bright apartment. User surveys reveal that this is 
one of the most commonly mentioned criteria for judging the value of a home in temperate climate zones. The presence of direct sunlight in the 
winter is also very important for the comfort level of residents.
Naturally lit access areas are more pleasant to spend time in, thereby increasing the possibilities of chance encounters. Natural lighting also 
as natural as possible.
Combination kitchen/dining 
area. Space, fenestration of 
cooking area
Usability of hallway areas
Media connections
Possible control
Windows that can be opened, 
equipment
Surface area in m² per person
Number of additional cabinet 
modules
Surface area in m² per person
Percentageshare of the largest 
group of apartments 
Percentage share of 
commercial area
Degree of conversion capacity
Number of room partitions or 
openings; number of rooms; 
number of walls
Percentage of apartments that 
Size of dining area; number of 
bed module positions in the 
room
Direct natural light
Direct natural light
 Relationship between indoor 
 areas and outdoor areas
 
 Entrance and hallways in the 
 apartment
FUNCTIONAL QUALITY 
 Media connections
 
 Equipment and service quality 
 of building systems
 Equipment quality of sanitary 
 facilities
 
Storage and utility rooms 
 Private storage rooms
 
 Utility space
 Communal storage spaces
 FLEXIBILITY AND VARIETY 
Use and apartment variety 
 Choice of apartments
 Variety of use
 Conversion capacity
 COMFORT 
 Visual comfort 
 Natural light in the apartment
 Lighting of access areas such as 
 hallways corridors, and stairwells
6 ASSESSING SUSTAINABILITY
85
DESCRIPTION/METHODOLOGY ASSESSMENT
5 Best Practice 1 Below average/limiting value
The assessment examines the visibility and path relationship between the communal area or the dining area and the 
outdoor area, as well as the location and type of windows in the kitchen area. Proximity and visibility relationships, 
and available windows in the cooking area are assessed individually and an average is calculated.
Proximity and visibility relationships: the assessment examines the proximity and visibility relationships between the 
communal or dining area and the outdoor area. Kitchen windows: the location and type of windows in the kitchen 
are assessed. Windows must be large enough and should be easily opened. The rating is lowered if the windows 
have a parapet height of more than 140 cm or there are skylights.
The assessment examines the width and quality of lighting of the primary hallway in the apartment and whether 
there are galleries and niches that can be used as work, play or storage areas, as well as the size.
The number of residential and individual rooms equipped with media connections is assessed.
The three aspects of heating, ventilation and sun protection are assessed consecutively, as follows: automatic 
control yes/no; tenants have the option to override the system yes/no; easy to use yes/no. Then the average of the 
three sub-grades is calculated. If an aspect is present it is not assessed.
The assessment examines the location and type of windows in the sanitary rooms required by the basic facilities. 
Sanitary rooms with windows and ventilation with heat recovery are rated higher. If there is more than one sanitary 
room, they are assessed individually and an average is calculated. 
The net areas of all private storage spaces belonging to but outside of the apartments are measured. Access areas 
are not counted. The total is divided by the total number of household members. Surface areas of storage areas 
outside the building count as half, as long as they are not more than 25 m from the house entrance.
A cabinet module is the measurement standard of additional storage facilities. It is 60 x 60 cm with an operating 
and manoeuvring space of 120 cm for the cooking area and 90 cm for sanitary rooms, storage room and corridor. 
The number of available modules that can be arranged according to need are counted. 
The surface area of shared storage rooms is measured. Heated spaces (such as for strollers) are counted as double 
points. The total net surface area is divided by the total number of household members. Covered bicycle storage 
spaces and storage areas in adjacent buildings are also taken into consideration. A devaluation can be expected if 
the spaces are not located at ground level or are not close to the entrance.
The percentage of the most represented housing group within an apartment house or at several buildings within the 
with up to 2 rooms; 2. Medium-sized apartments with up to 4 rooms; 3. Large apartments with up to 6 bedrooms; 
4. Very large apartments with more than 6 rooms.
The less effort needed to convert a building and the better it can be redesigned, the easier it is to evaluate its 
than 2.75 m; 2. If the ceilings can bear at least. 5 kN/m2; 3. If the external facade carries most of the load transfer, i.e. 
and facade of the building are of a modular construction; 5. If the primary and secondary structures of the building 
score of the checklist results in the evaluation.
the assessment. An average is calculates from the two scores: 1. Variable spatial relationships; 2. Neutrality of use; 3. 
Adaptable room layout. Variable spatial relationships: the number of movable partitions or openings provided for this 
purpose. The number of movable room dividers, such as sliding - folding or double doors is counted.
Neutrality of use: the number of rooms that can be accessed through several points that contain a surface module. The 
assessment examines whether a room is available that contains a spatial module larger than 14 m2. 
Variable space allocation: the number of removable, non-loadbearing walls and the possibilities for additional partitions. 
The newly created rooms must be at least 8 m² in size.
assessed individually and an average is calculated.
basic design determine the size of the dining area. If there are several spatial possibilities for a dining area, the largest is 
assessed.
The dimensions of a bed module serve as a measure of how much the room can be furnished, as well as other furniture. 
The surface area of the bed is 210 x 100 cm; the surrounding area needed for use and movement is 90 cm. The number 
of bed modules possible per room is counted. The bed module must touch least one sidewall. Each room is assessed 
individually and the average is calculated.
The assessment examines the availability of natural lighting in the apartment. The evaluation focuses on the 
communal rooms, in particular the living room. The requirements should be reversed for hot/dry or moist/warm 
climates are the requirements.
There is a direct visual connection between the communal areas 
and the open area and between the dining area and a second 
open area. One of the two open spaces provides enough space 
for a dining table of adequate size.
The cooking area is located on the exterior facade and has a 
window that can be opened. A view to the outdoors is possible.
The primary hallway has a continuous width of at least 180 cm 
and is lit directly, or there are directly lit surfaces in the primary 
hallway that are at least 200 x 160 cm in size and that do not 
overlap with the hallway area. The entrance of the apartment is 
at least 240 cm deep and 180 cm wide.
Media connections in all communal and private rooms.
All of the following requirements are met: automatic control, 
manual control for the user, ease of use.
The sanitary room is located on the exterior facade and has a 
window that can be opened.
Apartments with 1 and 2 rooms: shower and bathtub; 
apartments with 3 or more rooms: separate second bathroom/ 
toilet; facilities are of a high standard.
2.6 m²/person
2 modules/room
1.75 m²/person
The percentage of the largest housing group is less than 30%.
purposes, or 15% of the total land area is available for 
commercial use.
80% of the maximum evaluation points
More than 6 rooms: 5; more than 3 rooms: 3; up to 3 rooms: 2. 
More than 6 rooms: 5; more than 3 rooms: 3; up to 3 rooms: 2. 
More than 6 rooms: 5; more than 3: 3; up to 3 rooms: 2.
Dining area for 6: up 2 rooms: 300 x 240 cm; up to 4 rooms: 
360 x 240 cm; more than 4 rooms: 420 x 300 cm.
Rooms under 12 m²: 4 modules, about 12 m² rooms: 6 
modules.
The majority of the living space has natural light on at least two 
sides through windows that are exceptionally high. Neighbouring
the apartment has several hours of direct sunlight even in winter.
75% of access areas have direct daylight. The additional 
lighting used is of a neutral to warm colour spectrum.
The connection between communal area 
or the dining area and theoutdoor area 
runs through a closed room, or there is no 
private outdoor space.
The kitchen area is not located on the 
facade
There is no additional usable space in 
close proximity to the main hallway. 
No media connections in any room.
No manual control for the user 
The sanitary room is not naturally lit and 
cannot be ventilated.
Rooms that can be installed with at least 
one toilet with washbasin. Rooms outside 
standard.
Less than 1.7 m²/person
No additional storage space available
Less than 0.75 m²/person
The percentage of the largest housing 
group is more than 70%.
There is no space available for 
commercial use.
Less than 20% of the maximum 
evaluation points
More than 6 rooms: 0; more than 3 rooms: 
0; up to 3 rooms: 0. More than 6 rooms: 0; 
more than 3 rooms: 0; up to up to 3 
rooms: 0. More than 6 rooms: 0; more 
than 3 rooms: 0; up to 3 rooms: 0
structure does not allow any apartments 
Dining area is smaller than the minimum 
requirement.
Rooms less than 12 m²: 0 modules; more 
than 12 m² rooms: 1 module.
The vast majority of living space does not 
direct sunlight in winter.
The access areas have no natural lighting
6 ASSESSING SUSTAINABILITY
86
TOPIC OBJECTIVESUNIT
Preventing damage to the building and ensuring high thermal comfort while minimising energy consumption for air conditioning in summer.
Preventing damage to the building and ensuring high thermal comfort while minimising energy consumption for air conditioning in winter.
Structural sound insulation measures within the home increase the feeling of wellbeing and avoid stress. First, unpleasant noise may be 
reduced, and second, the transmission of sound should be prevented as far as possible. The acoustic zoning of the apartment and suitable 
within the apartment should have high sound insulation standards.
insulation measures should be made to minimise reciprocal impact.
The increased airtightness of the building envelope heightens the need for controlled mechanical ventilation. Manual window ventilation by the 
The subjective feeling of security will fundamentally contribute to people’s sense of wellbeing. Uncertainty and fear can restrict freedom of 
movement. Measures that increase the subjective feeling of safety generally also reduce the risk of being attacked by other persons.
See point 58
The reduction in per capita land consumption is a key component in avoiding further urban sprawl into rural areas and in conserving valuable 
ecological compensation areas. Minimise land consumption: reduce the ‘footprint’.
In addition to attempting to minimise the consumption of new land surfaces, the objective is to use the previously sealed surfaces more 
additional natural ground surfaces.
increases building density and makes better use of the technical infrastructure.
as little waste as possible. To ensure sustainability, it is vital to use materials that can be fully reintroduced into the materials cycle.
Sound insulation, outside noise
m²/resident
m²/m² and m²/resident
Degree of the development of 
new housing, the degree of 
redevelopment of urban 
Percentage of sustainable 
materials used
Years
 Thermal comfort 
 Thermal comfort in summer
 
 
 Thermal comfort in winter
 Acoustic comfort 
 Internal sound insulation and 
 acoustic zoning
 
 outside noise
 Healthy materials
 
 Security
 Security of the outdoor areas
 Security of the building
RESOURCE DEMANDS OF THE BUILDING
 Location as a resource 
 Utilisation
 estate and building
 Responsible use of materials and building structure
 Revitalisation and 
 redevelopment area
 Sustainable use of building materials
 
Intelligent and durable construction 
 Durability and dismantling
6 ASSESSING SUSTAINABILITY
87
DESCRIPTION/METHODOLOGY ASSESSMENT
5 Best Practice 1 Below average/limiting value
there are no data, there are individual 
complaints from the residents.
building regarding storage mass.
 
are not met. Obvious leaks around window 
and doorframes, or single glazing.
Heat dissipation by radiators and 
to regulate, such as storage heaters, gas 
stoves.
None of the previously mention 
No compliance with statutory sound 
complaints from tenants about the sound 
insulation between apartments.
All facades of the apartment are geared 
toward loud outdoor areas (such as busy 
roads, highways, commercial areas etc.).
The properties of the materials used are 
unknow, sporadic complaints from 
future problems (thermal bridges, no 
ventilation system etc.).
No controlled ventilation or only an 
The land/resident is more than 30% 
below the average.
The land area/resident is more than 30% 
below the average.
The ratio of useable surface area/gross 
area/residents is more than 30% above 
average.
The building is a new building and the 
building was erected on a rural or 
ecological compensation area.
after use (contaminated sites, construc
after use (contaminated sites etc.).
Durability <20 years. The majority of the 
outer shell is nondurable (softwood 
cladding), or the building and materials 
are nondurable due to a lack of structural 
protection (low roof overhangs, poor 
Durability <10 years. The majority of the 
interior is nondurable and changed 
laminate, wallpaper).
Mechanical ventilation system, regulation of night ventilation 
via indoor and outdoor temperature sensors, cooling or air 
conditioning of the air through regenerative passive / active 
system. 
located below the window, trench heating or similar in cases 
mechanical ventilation). 
rooms, or they are separated from the supporting base plate by 
impact sound insulation. The brackets that support the fresh 
water pipes in the building are rubberised. These waste water 
sanitary areas and are encased with sound insulation material. 
Interior walls and doors have an added sound insulation.
insulation.
(such as protected backyard, but also main building in a green 
area etc.).
The hallways and passages of the property are visible and 
naturally lit, the outdoor lighting illuminates more than 90% of 
the hallways and passages, does not cause shadows, and has a 
low light scattering, switching on and off of outdoor lighting is 
brightness regulated.
The clear arrangement of the hallway system in the building 
and the visibility of the access areas increase the subjective 
that help can be reached in cases of emergency, and also deter 
potential criminals. 
The land/resident is at least 30% below the average.
The land area/resident is at least 30% below the average.
90%. The living area/residents is at least 30% below the 
average.
The residential building was purchased in poor condition and 
residential building, or the property before the building was a 
be reused without much need for new resources.
The recycling of materials already used, or built materials can be 
reused without much use of resources (“reuse”: wood planks).
Durability >30 years. The majority of the outer shell is durable 
(bricks, masonry, solid natural stone), or the durability is greatly 
overhangs, good ventilation).
Durability >15 years. The majority of the interior is durable 
room, ability to dispel the additional solar heat from the room. Optionally, the detection can also be performed using a 
dynamic simulation of the heat balance in the room in summer.
Reducing solar heat: high scores are given to building design measures that reduce the heat gains into the room in 
summer. If no such measures were taken and there are no calculations or evidence for minimum thermal insulation, a 
survey must be carried out. If systems not previously mentioned achieve similar effects, any assessment score can be 
chosen.
Absorbing and dispersing solar heat: High scores are given when constructive and technical measures were taken to 
guarantee that heat is dispersed from the room in summer. If no such measures were taken and there are no calculations 
or evidence for minimum thermal insulation, a survey must be carried out. If systems not previously mentionedachieve 
similar effects, any assessment score can be chosen.
the windows and the positions of the heat radiators. 
Radiation asymmetry due to heat transfer: the asymmetry of heat gain into the room can be assessed simply according 
meaningful results.
noted that the construction efforts and costs to reduce acoustic interference or disturbance is subject to constructive 
relation to the prevailing outside noise level (road and courtyard location).
whether harmful substances are absent in general.
applies to both the materials themselves and related adhesives and coatings. Areas of less than 10% are not assessed.
as well as control functions such as window guards.
The clear arrangement of routes between public areas and the house entrance as well as the lighting of outdoor spaces 
are characterised by the how much they increase the subjective feeling of security, while minimising light pollution 
The clear arrangement of the hallway system in the building and the visibility of the access areas increase the 
give the feeling that help can be reached in cases of emergency, and also deter potential criminals. 
Footprint: this is assessed per resident compared to the regional average (reference value).
Property area: the land needs are assessed per resident compared to the regional average (reference value).
redeveloped and increase building density.
The objective is to minimise the amount of materials that need to be disposed of, reduce the amount of materials that can 
assessment must be consistent for the majority (>60%) of the materials.
types of materials used and structural design of the components used for the outer shell and interior construction, which 
consistent for the majority (>60%) of the materials or construction. The assessment rates the formation of structural 
design details and the durability of standard surfaces. 
6 ASSESSING SUSTAINABILITY
88
 Total energy demands for the use
 Primary energy demands 
 for mobility 
 
 Energy demands for room 
 temperature control
 Energy demands for electricity
 Proportion of renewable energy
 
Water management
 Generating water circulation 
 
 Reducing water consumption
 OVERALL IMPACT OF BUILDINGS 
 Ecological quality
 Environmental hazards of 
 technology
 
 Environmental hazard of 
 building materials
 Waste concept
 Waste sorting and composting
 Grey energy
 Primary energy content 
 of the construction
 
 BUILDING-RELATED COSTS IN THE LIFE CYCLE
 External costs 
 External costs
 
 
 Site-related costs
 Cost of mobility
 Building-related life cycle costs
 Building and property costs
 
 Maintenance and upkeep costs
 
 
 Energy costs
TOPIC OBJECTIVESUNIT
expected primary energy needs from mobility are lowered the closer and more extensive the range of existing relevant institutions are and the 
The reduction of primary energy requirement is a priority objective in terms of sustainable development and can be achieved through various 
Regarding sustainable development, the proportion of renewable energy needs to be increased in addition to decreasing the total primary energy 
Improving water circulation on site to reduce the effort and costs needed to produce drinking water and treat wastewater, and to avoid disrupting 
2), which 
are included in the life cycle assessments, the combustion of different fuels and different energy supplies releases varying amounts of heavy 
The aim is to avoid or reduce the use of substances and products that could pose a risk to the environment due to material properties or 
composition in relation to use, transport, processing on site, or the removal of potential risks to the environment in terms of groundwater, surface 
The cost of construction and maintenance for technical, social and transport infrastructure are a great burden for communities, especially in view 
Average of the total rating
Checklist
Checklist
Checklist
Type of heating system
Check list
Pei 
Type of building and settlement 
Assessment average
6 ASSESSING SUSTAINABILITY
89
DESCRIPTION/METHODOLOGY ASSESSMENT
5 Best Practice 1 Below average/limiting value
expected primary energy demands caused by mobility, which are dependant on location and the travel distance to 
The assessment examines the share of heating energy requirement covered by renewable energy and the use of 
systems), waste recycling by local plants and septic tanks, integration of these measures into the design of open 
The assessment examines the presence of substances and products in the construction and maintenance of the 
The assessment examines the possibilities for separate collection of organic waste that would otherwise be thermically 
The external costs must be calculated individually for social infrastructure, technical infrastructure, and transport 
The relevant qualities of the chosen site are assessed in order to calculate the relevance of site-related mobility for the 
criteria are divided into three groups by relevance:
Mechanical air supply system, intake of fresh air through an 
geothermal and ambient heat, cogeneration from renewable 
The household waste as well as waste paper and glass are 
biomass is used for renewable energy by fermentation, or the 
biological waste is composted on the property or a neighbouring 
Responsible reduction in the use of energy-demanding building 
and large multi-family houses in suburban areas
 
 
No regenerative coverage of the heat 
The building is heated exclusively by 
The household waste and waste paper and 
glass are separated and the organic waste 
is not collected separately from household 
building materials without the ability to 
recover or re-use
 
Single-family homes in rural areas
 
6 ASSESSING SUSTAINABILITY
PART 2
SUSTAINABLE BY DESIGN.
PROJECTS 
 1 | DAS DREIECK 92
 2 | MINIMUM IMPACT HOUSE 108
 3 | SUNLIGHTHOUSE 120
 4 | QUINTA MONROY 132
 5 | ECOHOTEL IN THE ORCHARD 144
 6 | WALL HOUSE 156
 7 | TOWNHOUSE IN LANDSKRONA 168
 8 | FEHLMANN SITE 178 
 9 | LAKESIDE HOUSE 190
10 | ISAR STADT PALAIS 200
11 | RAUCH HOUSE 214
12 | LOBLOLLY HOUSE 226
13 | HOLZBOX 236
14 | BLACK BOX 248
15 | 20K HOUSES 260
16 | SUMMARY OF THE ANALYSES OF THE PROJECTS 272
937.1 DAS DREIECK
The urban apartment block Das Dreieck resulted from a 
process beginning in 1986 as a open competition entry 
for a pilot project initiated by The City of Zurich. The 
project aimed to create an exemplary city renewal pro-
gram inspired by the International Bauausstellung 
(IBA) in Berlin. The competition brief stressed: Demon-
strating architectural and urban design solutions that 
combine the old with the new is worthy of being the aim 
of a competition. The project was completed in 2003 
and is not only an innovative contribution, from an 
architectural and urban design perspective, to the dis-
cussion about sustainable development. It is also an 
excellent example on a procedural, social, economical, 
and cultural level. The fact that the realised project is 
not the result of the competition announced in 1987, 
but actually the result of an initiative and the efforts by 
a group of former residents working against the goals 
and conditions of the original competition brief, is a 
remarkable statement in itself. 
Das Dreieck became a symbol of and the impetus be-
hind changes that took place in a section of Zurich, 
which had been long neglected: a change that did not 
purely focus on driving out the previous residents and 
existing variety use and structure, but rather on main-
taining and reinforcing the growing social fabric. 
DAS DREIECK, DAS DREIECK COLLECTIVE 
KEEP THINKING 
PARTIES CONCERNED
Client: Das Dreieck Collective
Architects: Fahrländer + Fries Architekten 
 (Anker 6, Anker 20, Zweier 42, 
 Zurich, Gartenhof 27 – new building)
 Bauplan (Anker 6, Zweier 42, 48, 56) 
 Albers + Cerliani Architekten, 
 Zurich (Anker 12 – 16, Zweier 50
 – new building) arc-Architekten, 
 Zurich (Gartenhof31, Hofgebäude), 
 architektur + landschaft (Hofgebäu-
 de) Zenaro GmbH Markus Huber, 
 Zurich (garden house canteen 
 interior architecture 27)
Landscape architect: architektur + landschaft gmbh
 landschaftsarchitektur, 
 Basla und Zurich
Energy planner: Dr. Eicher + Pauli AG, Zurich
PARAMETERS
Site: Zurich, Switzerland
Geodata: 47°22‘22.37“N – 8°31‘29.38“E
Planning period: 1988 (first study) – 2003
Construction period: 1997 – 2003
Renovations: 9 houses with a total of 43 
 apartments, 7 shops, 1 bar plus 
 garden buildings with commercial 
 spaces and a wash salon 
New buildings: 2 houses with a total of 12 
 apartments, 1 guest room, 
 4 offices, 1 shop, 1 library, 
 1 common room (canteen)
Apartment keys old buildings: 43 apartments: 1 x 5, 35 x 4, 7 x 3
Apartment keys new buildings: 4 apartments: 3 x 6, 1 x 5
 8 apartments: 4 x 1,5, 2 x 2,5, 
 2 studios
Users: appr. 130 residents and 
 60 work spaces
Plot size: 3,562 m2
Floor space: ca. 1,970 m2
Main usable area: 6,897 m2
Residential floor: ca. 4,714 m2 
Floor space Index: 2.5
Gross capacity: 33,703 m3 
Land use: 24 m2 plot size/resident 
 appr. 13 m2 floor space/resident
Living space: 36 m2/resident – average Zurich: 
 52 m2 (2003)2
Building costs: 15,900,000 CHF (incl. outdoor area)
 2,100 CHF/m2 main usable area 
 (only building)
 471 CHF/m3 gross capacity
 (only building)
»
«
You declared the area dead, because then you have the right to talk about reviving it, the 
right to make your plans. If you believe you need to invent new forms to make life here 
more worth living, then you completely disrespect the vibrant society we already have.1
Flyer for architects, February 1987
01 Site plan, scale 1 : 5,000
FROM SQUATTERS TO HOUSE OWNERS
The City of Zurich purchased all of the buildings in the Dreieck in the early 1970s, 
with the aim of building a new and wider road network. At the beginning of the 
1980s, the city changed its traffic policies and the planned roads were never con-
structed. Other uses needed to be found for the area and its buildings. At this point 
in time, most of the residents were foreigners, many, low-earning guest workers with 
restricted residency rights. A large proportion of the apartments were used by the 
city to temporarily house especially hard cases. The original provisional solution 
eventually became a permanent situation. The buildings were constructed between 
1877 and 1913 and most were in good condition, despite their poorly equipped inte-
riors and the fact that, after purchasing them, the city almost completely neglected 
their maintenance.
In 1986, The City of Zurich developed the first plans to revitalise the Dreieck. Under 
building laws, the property was to be handed over to the BAHOGE Building Coopera-
tive. The plan was to tear down a large number of the existing buildings to make 
room for new, low-cost housing projects developed as a result of a competition. The 
residents’ resistance to the city’s plans grew and grew. They felt excluded from the 
process and feared that they would not be able to have any influence on the planned 
development; they were also worried about their apartments and neighbourhood. An 
organised demonstration took place the day the architects involved in the competi-
tion came to view the buildings, and one of the empty buildings in the Dreieck was 
occupied by the residents. It was the first time that the Das Dreieck attracted the 
attention of the media. 
The competition management and its results were heavily criticised from many sides, 
and were largely unsatisfactory. The decision regarding which buildings to keep and 
02 The Dreieck
03 The Dreieck 1989 and 2006. Drawing and planning
957.1 DAS DREIECK
which to tear down was not a any apparent logic. The winning project had to be re-
worked several times because the city and the BAHOGE did not believe it fulfilled the 
expectations. At the same time, resistance from the residents became constructive. 
The Das Dreieck Association was established in 1988. Assisted by the neighbourhood 
newspaper, the residents and the surrounding area were kept up to date regarding 
the latest developments. Parallel to this, an alternative project was developed free of 
charge by architects sympathetic that was designed as a gentle redevelopment of the 
area. This plan was presented to the public in 1989. 
Based on this plan, the City commissioned the architects working on the alternative 
plan to finalise a more detailed study for a gentle redevelopment of the area. The 
study proved that the plan could be realised at a much lower cost than originally 
believed. In 1993, the City Council approved the redevelopment project, while the 
residents discussed the best forms of alternative self-organisation to help them suc-
cessfully implement the plan. The local council unanimously approved the lease 
agreement with the association a year later, and they immediately set up an office 
and a building commission to oversee the construction process. The first renovation 
work concentrated on stabilising the existing buildings. Community rooms, regular 
meetings, and a midday meal were established. In 1996, the Das Dreieck Collective 
was founded. Two years later, they had accumulated enough equitable capital for the 
right-to-build contract. 
A building site office established by the collective, which employed several of its 
members – a brick layer, a carpenter, and at times up to 15 unemployed residents. It 
took on much of the carpentry, roofing, and bricklaying work on the complete recon-
struction of the existing buildings, which greatly reduced the amount of work that 
had to be outsourced to external companies. Two empty houses on the site were used 
as temporary housing for the affected residents. The building procedure, coordina-
tion, and scheduling proceeded largely without problem, which meant the project 
remained within the budget established in the first study in 1990. 
Between 2000 and 2003, the two houses that needed to be torn down were replaced 
by new buildings. These projects were selected from an internal competition among 
the four architects who worked on the renovation plans for the existing buildings.
04 Site map: before the reconversion and today
Process quality
Systematic planning and user participation
 
Self-administration
96 7.1 DAS DREIECK
05
07
06
08
09
977.1 DAS DREIECK
More than one half of the 1996 residents still lived in the Dreieck when the reconstruc-
tion was completed in 2006. They had achieved the most important goal: to renovate 
the houses for the existing residents with their participation. A good nine years passed 
between developing the first ideas to signing the right-to-build contract in 1995, and 
then almost eight more before the project was completed. In retrospect, this time was 
not only necessary to overcome all of the political and administrative obstacles, but it 
also allowed the residents time to organise themselves, to grow together, to recognise 
and understand their desires and goals, and, to eventually translate shared objec-
tives into tangible reality. The one aspect of the results that might call for criticism is 
the lack of mixed-use for families, which had been an expressed wish. But there are 
relatively few children in the Dreieck compared with other residential projects, and 
therefore this problem is not purely the fault of unsuccessful planning but also due to 
the lack of quality schools and childcare centres. 
ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT
The idea of a gentle renovation of the Dreieck is not only a social vision. It embodies 
both an urban and an architectural ideal. The model formulated in the first study in 
1991 established a clear counter position to this perspective: a spare parts principle 
instead of a Tabula Rasa. Only the very corroded roof shingles would be replaced, 
rather than the entire surface reroofed; if one house needs to be torndown, then only 
this building will be replaced by a new one. The structural and architectural measures 
were restricted to the absolute necessary; they focus thematically on heterogeneity, 
the mixture of different materials, structural elements, buildings, and structures. Yet 
they nonetheless support and encourage a spatial and time-related differentiation of 
interventions. A design principle is developed from economic necessity. This basic 
concept continued to grow strong throughout the almost fifteen-year planning pro-
cess. But the basic concept was so solid and specific that it held through to the very 
end and, whenever a decision needed to be made, the necessity and appropriateness 
of every measure to be taken was constantly reviewed. 
The design concept consists of four basic aspects:
The urban design aspect 
Variety and relationships – omitting any internal, marked boundaries allowed the 
area to intertwine. Maintaining the existing architectural core and scale encouraged 
the urban situation to integrate with the context and uphold the architectural vari-
ety. The open-plan or closed architectural structures on the property were to remain 
and be given equal status. Building density and alignment of building height would 
be achieved by replacing buildings that needed to be torn down, and not by single 
consolidated measures. The open-plan construction concept allows for a high level of 
permeability and keeps the area open and accessible. Even the uses that are accessed 
via the courtyard are mostly open in character. 
The spatial aspect 
The spatial differentiation of the external areas was maintained in order to create a 
simultaneous coexistence and a use-specific zoning quality. All of the apartments 
were provided with a private outdoor space by extending the balconies, pergolas, and 
terraces. Communal terraces were also built for the individual households and for the 
Dreieck as a whole. All structures face the interior courtyard, including the new build-
ings, making the courtyard the central spatial element. 
The existing courtyard buildings were preserved. They create zones in the courtyard 
and form niches that allow for various simultaneous uses by different residents, and 
also create quiet spaces. Converting existing roof surfaces into common terraces or 
green roofs meant the residents could reclaim the built courtyard surfaces. Small 
businesses, a wash salon, a ground level communal room, and the omission of parking 
spaces all contribute to making the courtyard a lively and vibrant space. Because of 
the good availability of shopping and excellent public transport, only two thirds of the 
residents own a car. There are only 12 cars among the approximately 60 households 
in the Dreieck, and all are parked outside of the area.
Accessibility
Public accessibility and thoroughfares 
Integration of transport routes and roads
Process quality
Systematic planning and user participation
 
Self-administration 
Quality of space and design
Integration into the environment 
 
Communal outdoor spaces 
 
Private open space
Flexibility and variety
Variety of use
 
 
Building-related costs in the life cycle
Building and property costs
10
11
12
14
15
13
16
Impressions
997.1 DAS DREIECK
The use requirement aspect
Even the residential quality was improved by the reconstruction methods. The apart-
ments that existed before the redevelopment had flexible and use-neutral floor plans. 
But their sanitary facilities and building technology were problematic. The bathrooms 
– if there were bathrooms – were small and poorly equipped, the existing balconies 
were too small. Hence, the main objective of the reconstruction was to build larger 
balconies and new bathrooms in every apartment. The existing large kitchens were 
retained and specific solutions developed to build the bathrooms on difficult, unused 
areas of the floor plan. 
The variety of use aspect
The sizes of the existing apartment sizes in the pre-war buildings were restricted to 
3 and 4 rooms. In order to maintain a balanced mix of apartments that would suit sin-
gles, large families, or flat shares alike, additional forms of large apartments, smaller 
units, and studios needed to be created in both of the new buildings. Five and 6 room 
apartments were built in the new building on Gardenstrasse, while the new building 
on Zweierstrasse was given 1.5 and 2.5 room apartments as well as studios. The floor 
plans were redesigned. Open and flexible living areas were created to replace the 
floor plan typical of pre-war buildings, which consisted of closed individual rooms 
of similar size. One wish was to add small businesses to the existing apartments in 
order to create multi-usage: several shops and offices, a restaurant and a bar, a local 
library, a piano bar, a community centre that is used as a public canteen. It is obvious 
in the case of the shops and certain other third party users that the small businesses 
often sell products aimed at a very specific target group. This strategy was selected 
by the collective in order to create a greater product variety in the neighbourhood. 
The prerequisite is lower rents than in comparable locations in the area, which are 
established on the basis of the use desired by the Dreieck, and not primarily according 
to location. The highest rents are paid by the shop owners. Offices, apartments, and 
workshops are less expensive, because it would otherwise be impossible to set up a 
workshop in this area at the going rents.
ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT 
Merging the old with the new in regards design is the most impressive architectural as-
pect of the Dreieck. The old and the new were not staged as opposites, not compared. Ex-
isting and new buildings come together to form a fresh whole, on a functional and a design 
level. They were woven together without losing individual expression. The participating 
architects have different approaches but do not question this basic principle. The creation 
and respect of a shared methodology forms the basis of the construction, planning, and 
design process. Examples of this design principle can be seen in all of the buildings and 
on every scale.
 
Accessibility
Car parking availability and accessibility
Process quality
 
Appropriateness and building tradition 
Adressing the user
Quality of space and design
Communal facilities 
Zoning within the apartment 
 
Functional Quality
Equipment quality of sanitary facilities
Flexibility and variety
Choice of apartments
Variety of use
 
 
Maintenance and upkeep costs
100 7.1 DAS DREIECK
17 Gartenhofstrasse 27 apartments
18 Gartenhofstrasse 27 bathroom
The two new buildings assume the height and the volumetrics of the neighbouring 
buildings, but interpret the volume with staggered f lat roofs and terraces, instead 
of repeating the original roof forms. The principle of the pre-war buildings’ per-
forated stone facades was taken on but not reproduced. The openings are almost 
f lush with the facades and much larger. The change of scale makes the facades 
look understated and modern. The common terraces on the new and the old build-
ings on Gartenhofstrasse link the two buildings on a functional, social, and design 
level while creating a break between the new and the old. The new balconies on 
the pre-war building on Ankerstrasse 12-16 present are a bandied, self-supporting 
steel construction. The construction begins just below the eaves, rather than at the 
balustrades creates an immediate dialog between the old and the new. The cour-
age to not rely on standardising design tendencies makes the Dreieck a lively and 
impressive place. The facilities create variety in the communal. The structural unity 
of the urban and structural fundamental disposition makes any other architectural 
measures unnecessary.
NEW BUILDING GARTENHOFSTRASSE 27 
This building was conceived as a structure to replace the previous building, which, 
over the course of the planning phase,proved to be seriously damaged. In order to 
achieve a maximal efficiency of surface area, the house does not have its own stair-
well, but shares that of the existing pre-war building. An elevator was installed to 
allow barrier-free and direct access to all apartments. The individual rooms in the 
5 – 6 room apartments, all about 15 m2 in size, face east. Each three rooms with their 
own bathrooms form an independent group of rooms that can be accessed via a com-
munal foyer that is separated from the hallway. This additional forms a separation 
between the communal and the private areas within the apartment, hence creating 
more intimacy. The living and dining area is conceived as an open space lit from three 
sides. The terraces are directly adjacent to these and are shared with residents in the 
pre-war building. The community centre is located on the ground floor facing the 
courtyard. The Collective’s office and a shop face the street. 
NEW BUILDING ZWEIERSTRASSE 50
This new building was erected in a gap between other buildings. It houses the lo-
cal library and some offices on the ground and first f loors. The upper f loors are 
accessed via a pergola at the courtyard side of the building. The 2nd and 4th f loors 
contain 2.5 and 1.5 room apartments and two studios. There is also a communal ter-
race for the residents on the 4th f loor, as well as a guest room with a mini-kitchen. 
The pergola is the most important aspect functionally and as a design. The exten-
sions, which can also be used as balconies, the cascading stairs, and the large open-
ings in the living and dining areas toward the pergola make it a multifunctional 
element. It also serves as an outdoor extension of the private living areas as well as a 
space for communication and encounter, and hence, is an efficient use of space. The 
desired ambivalence of the pergola creates moments when public, communal, and 
private areas mix, because they allow views into the apartments. This makes the 
smaller apartments in particular seem larger and accessible. The living areas in the 
apartments face the courtyard. This aspect was given priority privacy.
MORE THAN A STRUCTURAL SHELL
Describing the structural elements of the Dreieck cannot alone convey its qualities. 
All of the architectural, spatial, and functional elements work hand-in-hand with the 
socially oriented objectives. Das Dreieck is conceived as an integrative element of the 
neighbourhood and not as a sealed-off, spatial and functional unit. 
The shops were selected according to their ability to provide a superior core func-
tion for the entire neighbourhood; the businesses and workshops in the courtyard 
give the environment is a good mix of residential and work uses. The guest room in 
the new building on Zweierstrasse 50 is rented to people within and outside of the 
community and is high in demand. The community centre room can also be rented, 
and it offers a public daily lunch. Communal parties and events such as a workshop
1017.1 DAS DREIECK
19 Floor plan 1st fl oor Gartenhofstrasse 27 and Zweierstrasse 42, scale 1 : 100
20 Sectional view 1st fl oor Gartenhofstrasse 27 and Zweierstrasse 42, scale 1 : 100
Zugänglichkeit
Öffentliche Nutzbarkeit und Durchwegung
Integration von Verkehr und Wegen
Parkkapazität und Erreichbarkeit
Qualität des ruhenden Verkehrs
Barrierefreiheit und altersgerechte Ausstattung
Process quality
 
Appropriateness and building tradition 
Quality of space and design
Integration into the environment 
Communal facilities 
Zoning within the apartment 
Visual references in outdoor spaces
Private open space
Functional Quality
Equipment quality of sanitary facilities
Flexibility and variety
Choice of apartments
Variety of use
Spatial flexibility of the apartment
 
Resource demands of the building
Spatial efficiency of residential estate and building
102
given by Swiss artists on the occasion of the 10th an-
niversary of the collective in 2006 complete the variety 
of activities available in the Dreieck.
Das Dreieck describes itself as a collective with people 
who have been members for decades, some even for a 
lifetime. The equitable capital of the members is 5,000 
to 15,000 CHF, which is much lower than the standard, 
but the rents are slightly higher. This is supposed to en-
courage greater social variety, and should attract a dif-
ferent clientel than most traditional collectives. However, 
there has been virtually no tenant turn-over. The wait-
ing list has been full since the project was completed, 
and those interested will have to wait many years before 
having a chance to move in. This is a clear sign that the 
residents are very satisfied and identify with Das Dreieck. 
21 Studio
22 2.5 room apartment
7.1 DAS DREIECK
1037.1 DAS DREIECK
23 Floor plan 3rd fl oor and cross sectional view Zweierstrasse 50, scale 1 : 200 (top: fl oor plan ground fl oor, scale 1 : 400)
ENERGY AND RESOURCE CONCEPT
A tight budget and high expectations were two contra-
dicting forces that needed to be overcome while develop-
ing the resource concept for in Das Dreieck. A concept 
was developed as an economically feasible compromise 
that, besides avoiding waste and the use of toxic or recy-
cled building materials, did not focus primarily on mini-
mising energy consumption. Using renewable energy 
for heating needs was not able to satisfy the relatively 
high need for residual heat with regenerative energy.
The pre-war buildings could not be insulated along 
the shell because of high costs and conservation is-
sues. Instead, the windows were replaced by double 
thermal glazing windows, and insulation was added 
to the ceilings of the cellars and to the roofs. Because 
it was not possible to sufficiently minimise the energy
needs by means of external insulation, the focus was 
shifted to planning and energy generation. 
Analysing local boundary conditions showed that the 
Dreieck was located above a layer of gravel that led to 
groundwater and was rich in geothermal potential. 
Instead of equipping building with a regenerative co-
generation unit as originally planned, an energy centre
was installed with a groundwater heating pump (thermal
performance: 120 kW) and a gas boiler to cover the 
peak heating requirements for the entire building 
complex. The groundwater maintains a temperature
of 8°C throughout the year. It is pumped to the sur-
face from a depth of 15 to 30 meters and used to cov-
er the heating and hot water needs by means of a heat 
pump. The groundwater is cooled to 3°C and then fed 
back into the deep currents via a seepage system. The 
entire annual heat requirement for the Dreieck is 890 
MWh (129 kWh/m2 – based on main usable area), which 
is within the current standards. An energy-servicing 
contract was given to the electricity power plant of 
the City of Zurich to plan, build, and run the system.
Both of the new buildings were erected in compliance with 
MINERGIE®-standards and comply almost 100 % with the
MINERGIE®ECO-standard. In 2009, an additional 80 m2 
of photovoltaic modules were installed on the flat roofs of 
both buildings to generate electricity. All of the stairwells 
and outdoor areas are equipped with energy saving bulbs 
that run on motion indicators and automatic time switches.
Sealing areas in the courtyard and roof surfaces was kept 
to a minimum. All of the flat roofs are used either as ter-
races or are green roofs. Rain or gray water is not used. 
The 3,562-m2 piece of property houses 60 work places 
and 130 residents. There is an average of 36 m2 per resi-
dent, which is 30 % under the Zurich average of 52 m2 
per resident, and still at least 20 % under the overall 
Swiss average of 44 m2 per resident.3 
Process quality
 
Adressing the user
Quality of space and design
Integration into the environment 
Communal facilities 
Communal outdoor spaces 
Different degrees of publicness
Privacy protection
Visual references in outdoor spaces 
Private open space
Relationship betweenindoor and outdoor areas
Entrance and hallways in the apartment
Flexibility and variety
Choice of apartments
Variety of use
 
Resource demands of the building
Sustainable use of building materials
Energy demands for room temperature control
Energy demands for electricity
Proportion of renewable energy
Generating water circulation 
Overall impact of buildings 
Environmental hazards building materials
Primary energy content of the construction
Building-related costs in the life cycle
Building and property costs
Energy costs
104
25 Detailed sectional view of the new Gartenhofstrasse 27 building facade24 Section facade new building Gartenhofstrasse 27
The decision to omit insulation on the facades is eco-
nomically understandable. But the choice seems more 
problematic from a structural and biological point 
of view. Installing new windows, while not installing 
facade insulation or a ventilation system causes mould 
to develop near the window reveals and corners of the 
building, meaning that the interior spaces of the build-
ing could eventually be damaging to one’s health. 
There have in fact been isolated cases of mould in the 
Dreieck. The collective is very attentive to the affected 
members and provides information at the regular meet-
ings regarding necessary changes to how on the build-
ing is used. However, because the annual primary energy 
requirement is merely average, there is much room for 
improvement here. Insulating the firewall and courtyard 
facades would have clearly reduced energy consumption 
and CO2 emissions, at relatively little effort and cost.
 
SUSTAINABLE LIVING
The current discussion on renovating our cities’ energy 
systems rarely delves deep enough. It does not often con-
sider strategies to develop a socially viable, social urban 
reconstruction, or a socially varied city with affordable 
apartments for all. While areas of many North and South 
American cities are becoming gated communities as an 
attempt to shield themselves from their environments 
by erecting physical borders, segregation occurs in 
European cities by means of much subtler borders 
drawn between wealthy neighbourhoods and financially 
and socially disadvantaged parts of the city. The gentri-
fication of ever larger and larger areas of our cities is in-
creasingly driving out entire sections of the population 
from central and attractive parts of the city. 
The goal of a sustainable urban renewal and the process 
of renovating urban energy systems is inevitably one of 
the reasons behind this situation. The justified demand 
to split the costs of renovation between building own-
ers and tenants means that rents are increased and that 
a certain part of the population is driven out of their 
homes. In the future, the sustainable urban development 
debate must be more closely linked to energy, economic, 
and social issues, and prove that these individual con-
cerns can in fact work well together. 
Das Dreieck is an innovative and seminal project in this 
regard. It provides concrete approaches and solutions 
for the challenges faced by a housing market in one of 
the most expensive cities in the world. Less than 0.2% 
of apartments in Zurich are empty.4 The basic rents (not 
including heating costs) rose 20 % between 1998 and 
Exterior plastering
Cement-bonded 
wood wool
Windows:
Wooden windows, dip-coat primed, 
painted white, double paned insulated 
glazing U-value 1.0 Wm2K
Bezel of chrome-coated 
stainless steel, linear transmission 
coefficients 0.053 WmK
Handles: Mega 32.235
Interior
Cellulose flakes
2 x FERMACELL 
12.5 mm
7.1 DAS DREIECK
 
1057.1 DAS DREIECK
26 Photovoltaic system on the roof of the new Gartenhofstrasse 27 building
2006 and now range from 13 to 26 CHF/m2 per month. 
Rents in new buildings are as much as 30 CHF/m2.5 On 
top of this is the sharp rise in energy costs. The rents 
in the Dreieck were fixed at 15.5 CHF/m2 when the col-
lective was founded in 1996. According to the building 
costs calculation in 2003 and again in 2010, the rents 
were able to be reduced another 5 %. Which means they 
are clearly lower than rents on the private market in the 
area of Kreis 4 (17.5 CHF/m2) and just above the average 
typical of collective apartment projects (13 CHF/m2).6 
Comparing Das Dreieck with other pre-war buildings 
with renovated energy systems or new buildings with 
MINERGIE® standards makes the difference even clear-
er. Moreover, the energy costs are well below average.
In addition, this project by a collective founded in 1996 
is an excellent example of how to build and run afford-
able housing. Eighteen percent of the apartments in 
Zurich are condominiums. A further 6 % are owned 
by the city. The first housing collectives were founded 
at the end of the 19th century as a reaction to the poor 
living conditions in larger Swiss cities. The market ex-
perienced a boom, particularly in Zurich, triggered by 
the first Eisenbahnergenossenschaften plus the housing 
shortage after the First World War. From 1945 to 1960, 
two different waves of start-ups began to emerge, and 
since 1951, the City of Zurich has been giving collec-
tives the building rights to buildable land reserves that 
are not needed for public use.7 The prices for collec-
tive housing are roughly one third lower than private 
housing. At the end of the 1980s, a new generation dis-
covered the concept of collective living and started a 
fresh movement. In addition to the Dreieck, new collec-
tives such as Kathargo and Kraftwerk were founded and 
created a number of similar projects. Unfortunately, this 
movement is a phenomenon that seems largely limited to 
Zurich, and has not yet spread to other regions in Swit-
zerland or neighbouring European countries, despite 
the fact that the model has proven successful again and 
again. This is due to Zurich’s unique tradition in this 
regard. Twenty eight percent of all collective apartments 
in Switzerland are located in cities, even though only 
6 % of all Swiss apartments are located in the Zurich.8
The collective model offers many advantages above 
and beyond purely cheap rents. There is the important 
aspect of participation, the possibility to be involved in 
the decision-making process, and the ability to take on 
responsibility are all equally as important as establish-
ing communal housing forms. There are, however, also 
the typical problems associated with these forms of 
organization, such as the oft large sums of money neces-
sary to purchase shares, makes this form of living ob-
viously impossible for those on a restricted income. 
Process quality
 
Self-administration 
 
 
Comfort 
Thermal comfort in winter
Healthy materials
Controlled fresh air supply 
 
Resource demands of the building
Utilisation
Spatial efficiency
Generating water circulation 
 
Building-related costs in the life cycle
External costs
Building and property costs
 0
10
35
50
75
100 %
10 60 220 365 days
 726 kW
126 kW
365 kW
hot water
Frequency of heating 
Average level of daytime 
heating of rooms
0
106
27 Interior courtyard of the Dreieck with communal roof terrace on the courtyard building with the new Zweierstrasse 50 building in the background
7.1 DAS DREIECK
4 5
1077.1 DAS DREIECK
28 Climate data for Zurich
GOAL
New buildings in MINERGIE®-standard; replacing windows and insulation of roofs and cellar ceilings in 
the pre-war buildings 
ENERGY PARAMETERS 
Qh: 129 kWh/m2 (based on main usable area)
Qp: 162 kWh/m2 (based on main usable area)
Qp/resident: 5,832 kWh/a 
COMPONENTS BUILDING SHELL
Pre-war
Roof: Tiled roofs, rafters insulated with 14 to 20 cm of insulation   
Outer walls: solid masonry walls, partially covered with insulating plaster   
Windows: insulated double-glazing with wood frames
New buildings
Roof: green, reinforced concrete flat roof with 24 cm insulation 
Exterior Wall: Plastered timber facade, insulation thickness 20 cm
Windows: insulated double-glazing with wood frames,U-value: 1.0 W/m2K
HEATING, VENTILATION, AND HOT WATER
Groundwater heat pump (local heating composite entire Dreieck), gas-fired condensing boilers, energy 
servicing contract wit h City of Zurich
ENERGY SOURCE SPECIFICATIONS 
Thermal power GWWP 120 kW
Total energy use 980 MWh
Heat requirements 890 MWh 
Das Dreieck has made the first step here by lowering the price of their shares. More-
over, the rents that were paid in 1995 before the renovation were still raised on an av-
erage of 100 %. The poorest suffered the most, and despite all of their efforts still had 
to move away. The existing concept would need to be further developed to make the 
model function also for lower income individuals and families. The Kraftwerk collec-
tive in Zurich has a small number of apartments available for social welfare recipients, 
which are partially financially by the collective.
The interesting aspect of the Dreieck regarding this publication is the way in which 
the concept brings a broad range of themes and methods together. It also manifests 
the principles and approaches of a contextual and procedural design and planning 
methodology: this is true for the precise analysis of the urban situation or the neigh-
bourhood’s social or functional use structures, as well as for the strategies developed 
to implement the planning concept with a construction company they founded them-
selves, which, in turn, employed jobless residents. It is also true of the architectural 
model of the spare parts principle. Das Dreieck presents systematic planning in real 
form. At the same time, it is a prime example of an idea that is not based on simply 
less bad. Moreover, its building impact can be measured in positives. It is a catalyst 
for the development of an entire neighbourhood; it is alive, it expands, it provides new 
perspectives, and it creates new offers. Das Dreieck actually gives, rather than just 
taking less away. 
1 2 3RATING LEVELS
Location quality and available facilities
City centre
Regional centre
Childcare and elementary schools 
Secondary schools
Colleges and adult education
Social services facilities
Hospitals and medical centres
Doctors and pharmacies
Playgrounds and play areas
Parks and open spaces 
Recreational areas
Public transport availability
Alternative transport concepts 
Car accessibility
Footpaths and bicycle paths
Accessibility
Public accessibility and thoroughfares 
Integration of transport routes and roads
Car parking availability and accessibility
Wheelchair accessibility
Process quality
Systematic planning and user participation
Assessment in the planning process
Self-administration 
Personalisation
Appropriateness and building tradition 
Addressing the user
Quality of space and design
Integration into the environment 
Communal facilities 
Communal outdoor spaces 
Different degrees of publicness
Design of the building’s entrance areas 
Zoning within the apartment 
Privacy protection
Visual references in outdoor spaces
Private open space
Relationship between indoor and outdoor areas
Entrance and hallways in the apartment
Functional Quality
Media connections
Quality of building systems
Equipment quality of sanitary facilities
Private storage rooms
Utility space
Communal storage spaces
Flexibility and variety
Choice of apartments
Variety of use
Conversion capacity
Furnishability
Comfort
Natural light in the apartment
Lighting of access areas
Thermal comfort in summer
Thermal comfort in winter
Internal sound insulation and acoustic zoning
Requirements for insulation from outside noise
Healthy materials
Controlled fresh air supply 
Security of the outdoor areas
Security of the building 
Resource demands of the building
Utilisation
Revitalisation and redevelopment area
Sustainable use of building materials
Durability and dismantling
Primary energy demands for mobility
Energy demands for room temperature control
Energy demands for electricity
Proportion of renewable energy
Generating water circulation 
Reducing water consumption
Overall impact of buildings 
Environmental hazards of technology
Environmental hazards building materials
Waste sorting and composting
Primary energy content of the construction
Building-related costs in the life cycle
Cost of mobility
Building and property costs
Maintenance and upkeep costs
Energy costs
SUBJECT RATING
Temperatures 
Jan
-5
 5
 10
 -10
 15
 -15
20
-20
25
-25
30
-30
35
40
 0
Feb March April May June July
Absolute min. °C
Absolute max. °C
Minimum °C
Maximum °C
Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1097.2 MINIMUM IMPACT HOUSE 
As a discipline, architecture is a mix of the scientific 
approach of engineering and artistic design practices. 
This ambiguity is precisely that, which makes it diffi-
cult for architectural research to establish a clear self-
image. The greatest advances in the discipline have 
come not from theoretical works for the most part, but 
rather from applied research, that is, practical experi-
ments on built, and often on unbuilt, designs and plans. 
The increasing complexity of requirements that the 
discipline needs to fulfil reveals the extent to which 
the scientific practice has to be further developed. 
Knowledge must be specifically developed and meth-
ods continually improved. However, conventional plan-
ning processes do not leave much scope for this and 
competitions have too little depth. The development of 
prototypes with accompanying scientific research is 
oriented towards architecture and engineering and, 
therefore, towards both dimensions of architecture.
The Minimum Impact House is the result of a research 
and development project on sustainable urban housing. 
From the scientific point of view, the focus was not 
primarily on individual aspects, but rather on the qual-
ification and quantification of a wide spectrum of 
sustainability aspects, to ensure that the information 
gained is applicable and relevant on the practical level. 
The Minihouse project analysed the production of the 
building, operational and locational factors such as 
urbanity and mobility, and optimised the aspects 
holistically.
MINIMUM IMPACT HOUSE, DREXLER GUINAND JAUSLIN ARCHITEKTEN
DEVELOPMENT OF A 
SUSTAINABLE PROTOTYPE
PARTIES CONCERNED
Client: Hans Drexler
Architect: Drexler Guinand Jauslin
 Architekten
Structural engineering: Warmeling Ingenieure, 
 Offenbach am Main
Timber construction: Fachwerk Patrick Ungermann, 
 Linsengericht 
Energy planner: Drexler Guinand Jauslin 
 Architekten 
Fire protection: Meides and Schoop Architekten, 
 Offenbach am Main
Scientific consultants: Drexler Guinand Jauslin 
 Architekten and Prof. M. Hegger, 
 Department of Design and 
 Energy-Efficient Construction(ee),
 TU Darmstadt
 
PARAMETERS
Site: Frankfurt am Main
Geodata: 50°6‘17.63“N – 8°41‘1.48“E
Planning period: 2006 – 2008
Construction period: 2007 – 2008 
Use: 1 – 3 residential units 
 (flexible floor plan) 
Users: 2 + 4 AP on ground floor 
 and first floor 
Plot size: 92.23 m2
Floor space: 29.2 m2    
Gross floor space: 203.1 m2   
Main usable area: 154.0 m2 
Energy reference area: 154.0 m2 
Occupancy index: 0.31
Floor space index: 1.66
Gross capacity: 666 m3 
Land use: 30.75 m2 plot size/resident 
 (value for 2 residents)
 9.73 m2 floor space/resident 
 (value for 2 residents)
Living space: 42.5 m2 RSA/resident 
 (value for 2 residents)
Building costs: 265,156 € 
 1,305 €/m² gross floor space 
 1,721 €/m² main usable area 
 398 €/m3 gross capacity
01 Site plan, scale 1 : 4,000
REDENSIFICATION OF EMPTY PLOTS
The current discussion regarding sustainable archi-
tecture is concentrated on the optimisation of build-
ings. The choice of location has a decisive inf luence, 
however, on sustainability. Here, redensification of-
fers many advantages within city centres: area use 
is decreased, use of existing infrastructure is inten-
sified, and the social fabric of the city continues to 
develop. Using gaps between buildings and other