RFP Magazine

Eco-oriented architectural schemes are gaining design acclaim but often not getting realised. Deborah Erwin attempts to uncover the reasons why such progressive plansare being shelved or dismissed.

P.18-22 Issue 51: Ecobuild therme

Throughout human history famous inventors, visionaries and entrepreneurs have for the most part been the warriors and catalysts of change; battling conventional thinking in order to improve how we live. With increased awareness of climate change, the industries of the built environment are now actively pursuing greener ways of thinking , however many champions of sustainability have been actively preaching a message of lessened environmental    impact for years. It is through the efforts of these individuals that we are learning viable ways of designing, constructing and managing our buildings.

Green alternatives to traditional construction – restorations, retrofits and eco-oriented new builds – are prevalent and feasible. Conscientious, environment-minded architects, designers, urban planners and governments are providing some hope that real change is possible.
However, a full commitment to realising these ideas is essential, rather than simply subscribing to them. This applies to everyone: end-users, clients, developers, architects, designers and governments.

Public pressure?
“Unfortunately, the public is still relatively ignorant on this topic,” says Robert Allender, Managing Director of Energy Resources Management. Today’s consumers are not communicating a demand for greener and energy conscious buildings; this is one contributing reason to why they sometimes fail to materialise. “Until it becomes a priority for the majority, little will be initiated by developers,” he adds. “I’m sure developers would be more than happy to implement energy efficient concepts if there was an attached incentive or penalty, and if it could be made a selling point,” he says.

“The vast majority of developers are not opting for greener measures because of financial reasons,” Allender believes. “There is already plenty of technology and money around, the latter is apparent since building owners are spending money on energy bills for inefficient usage. For some reason this technology is not being used and lower operation costs are not a major concern.”

“The missing element is the drive and decision-making from top management,” says Allender. “Hong Kong’s new building energy code for example, is a step in the right direction. But since new buildings only comprise one percent of the built environment it may take 40 years before we see any positive impacts due to the code,” he adds. Allender goes on to encourage the public to “pressure the government since bad publicity is a good motivator.”

Future proofing?
Richard Wohaska, Managing Director of Environmental Resources Management shares insight on the subject by saying, “Future proofing is one concept that is talked about by some developers where the understanding is that all buildings of the future should be green. Therefore, constructing a new building that is not green means that it may be outdated sooner and as a result may have a lower value in the future”.

This paradigm shift will no doubt take time, but is well worth the investment. “The value proposition is that green buildings cost less to own, operate and have less impact in terms of energy carbon. Green buildings also provide a focus on a better indoor environment through improved indoor air quality, for example. The reduced operating cost will translate into higher overall rental fees which translate to higher value for the owner. Some potential tenants are also demanding that their spaces meet minimum green building standards, which is likely to act as a driver for more green buildings in the future,” explains Wohaska.

Crises of confidence
Some exemplarly green projects are being jeopardised by financial short-sightedness. The question for those haning in the balance with forecasted ground-breaking dates is: are we willing to think green, even in a global economic downturn? “The future for eco-design projects remains optimistic. Green design is something that all of us must eventually confront,” says Ken Yeang, Principal of TR Hamzah and Yeang. His rallying cry is shared by SL Ong, Chairman of RICS Asia, who insists: “Most clients are adopting green building, and I don’t see the credit crunch derailing that agenda.” It would seem that despite the uncertainty of particular projects as markets and funding is affected, green building is here to stay.”


The Green Flagship that never was:
‘Sketched and Rejected’
 
Louis Vuitton, high-end purveyor of leather goods, recently had the chance to be an environmental vanguard forretail’s nosebleed echelons. Propelled either by peer pressure or a whim, this French design house took it upon itself to explore greener building schemes for a potential flagship store in Japan (Tokyo, says word on the street) by holding a design competition which lured Dutch heavy hitter UNStudio.

The 10-storey edifice, put forth by Ben van Berkel and his team, possesses a sculptural quality more typical of museums and sustainable inner workings worthy of industry applause. The building’s exterior features large perforated sections which give it the appearance of being an upended stereo speaker. Soft caresses and impressions on the facade suggest clay-like pliability. These external perforations and the street level’s fenestration naturally illuminate the interiors.

A simple leaf provided all the necessary inspiration for this project, lending its shape, proportion and texture to the building’s massing and aesthetics. While the leaf provided design impetus, it also influenced the structure’s intended operations. “I strongly believe in green ways of ventilating and cooling,” says van Berkel. For this project,”we use concrete core activation to cool down the building”. Even though UNStudio firmly adopts a green paradigm, he says, “I’m very angry to think how lighthearted we are in Europe regarding the integration of eco-friendly systems, in comparison to Asia.”

The terms ‘subtle’ and ‘bashful’ are not typically associated with the name Louis Vuitton. Nor its boutiques. Its head-turning shopfronts – comfortably residing in every developed major city – are usually glossy vitrines adornedwith lights and the iconic LV initials. At the close of the competition, LV bucked with tradition choosing to make a gutsy statement by not selecting the design for yet another glass box. However, even though this schemeclaimed the competition’s trophy, LV decided not to go ahead with realisation which begs the question: Why not? In a green-conscious era, erecting such an eco-paragon would not only be ‘doing good’ but would surely score serious corporate responsibility points. Perhaps its monograms did not appear enough times on the proposed walls, or they lacked ostentation?

The verdant highrise on hold
In 1998, Singapore’s Urban Redevelopment Authority
(URA) held its EDITT (Ecological Design in the Tropics)



competition. Co-sponsored by the National University of Singapore, this platform brought TR Hamzah and Yeang’s environment-oriented scheme, EDITT Tower, to the forefront of the industry. At the time, it stood out by goingbeyond the brief’s programmatic requirements and devising a green and sustainable alternative to the conventional highrise.

After assessing the site conditions at Waterloo Road and Middle Road/Victoria Street, Ken Yeang of TR Hamzah and Yeang, classified the lot as ‘zero culture’, meaning that it has suffered a devastated ecosystem with little remaining original top soil, flora and fauna. He sought to organically resuscitate the 838 sqm area by inserting a building that fully integrates foliage into its structure. Rather than just concentrating on street level landscaping, the firm injected greenery into each of the 26-storeys of the tower. The building’s skyward graduation of floors – all of which are substantially inhabited by indigenous plantlife – are all linked by a series of ramps for vertical continuity. Vegetated sections amount to 3,841 sqm of the project which translates to more than half of the gross floor area 6,033 sqm. Such extensive greening not only produces an attractive vertica l garden but also moderates the building’s surface temperature by absorbing radiant heat.

The original programme schedule involved the accommodation of retail units, exhibition space and an auditorium. However, with the intention of lengthening the building’s lifespan, Yeang opted for a flexible layout with modular elements, enabling spatial reuse in the future and thereby making it functionally sustainable. Therefore, the design employs removable flooring, modular partitions and mechanical joints, as opposed to chemical means of bonding. Its ‘sky courts’ may also be transformed into office space if needed.

Delving into the project’s more technical aspects, the design accounts for water reuse, sewage treatment and solar energy collection. The façade serves as a large-scale rainwater catchment, pooling precipitation in its recesses. Collected water is then processed through soil bed filters and stored in a basement reservoir. Once required, this supply is pumped into a higher tank for irrigation and toilet-flushing uses. Grey water is also reused, meaning that the building achieves 55 percent self-sufficiency. In an effort to minimise all waste generated, sewage is treated and converted into fertilizer for offsite use. Photovoltaic panels totalling 855 sqm also provide for approximately 40 percent of the estimated daily energy consumption of the project. For a fully intelligent composition, the design also addresses embodied-energy values of building materials and relies heavily on natural ventilation rather than airconditioning.

Unfortunately, despite this project’s meritorious composition, it has yet to be slated for construction and therefore, may be fated to another green castle in the sky.