[Greenbuilding] Open Building

[David Bergman]

Hello John,

Thanks for the comments and sorry for the slow 
response. I'm afraid I'm among the brainwashed 
favoring modern design, though in my defense, I 
recall telling a college application interviewer 
(when I was 17) that I didn't understand the 
point of ornamentation. (And I'd hadn't yet heard of Loos!)

David

At 04:59 AM 3/6/2012, you wrote:
>Bonjour David,
>
>some comments below
>
>Cordialement
>
>--
>John DAGLISH, B.Arch,1984
>Paris, France
>
>
>
>Friday, March 2, 2012, 7:24:37 PM, you wrote / vous ecrirez:
>
>DB> When researching for my book, I found
>DB> surprisingly little in print or online. Tedd
>DB> Benson seems to be the primary advocate, at least
>DB> in the US. See http://bensonwood.com/innovation/whitepaper2003.pdf.
>
>DB> It's more conceptual than what I think you're
>DB> looking for, but here's a link to the
>DB> illustration we created for my book, based on a
>DB> combination of Benson, Stewart Brand and Philip
>DB> Proefrock's writing on the idea.
>DB> http://cyberg.com/building%20layersnew.jpg . Here's my accompanying text:
>
>DB> Durability or Planned Obsolescence?
>
>DB> In light of the amount of material and embodied energy
>DB> invested in every building, a clear element of sustainability
>DB> is ensuring that it has a long life. With few exceptions
>DB> (such as temporary structures), building for durability is
>DB> one of the basic tenets of ecodesign. But creating a structure
>DB> that will endure over the years is not just a matter
>DB> of designing it with long-lasting materials. One perhaps
>DB> obvious point: the building must be valued by those who
>DB> use it. If the design does not result in a building that functions
>DB> well and is pleasing, then it is likely to be renovated
>DB> or demolished sooner.
>
>It is interesting to note that public opinion surveys indicate that
>the grand public prefers traditional looking architecture. Architest's
>who undergo 5 or more years of brainwashing prefer modern
>architecture.
>
>The grand public prefers pleasing buildings...
>
>
>A problem is that most architects coming out of
>university do not kow how to compose well a traditional / vernacular /
>classical building and that builders have mostly have lost the tradition.
>
>But not all... the tradition is still alive and making a bit of a
>comeback in the US.
>
>Simarly urban structure, the foundation for our towns and  cities,
>which probably wont change much over 400 years, has deviated in the 20C
>from the "traditional" to low density urban sprawl with
>seperated, car necessary, functional zoning.
>
>
>DB> If a building is to last, then it needs to be able to adapt
>DB> to changes in usage, technology, and cultural patterns. In
>DB> other words, it needs to be durable and flexible. “Design for
>DB> deconstruction” is one way to achieve flexibility and provide
>DB> for the eventual need to replace the building. The industrial
>DB> design world has for a while been at work on design for
>DB> disassembly (DfD, which can also stand for design for deconstruction).
>DB> One high-profile example involves the office chair;
>DB> several manufacturers have engaged in a kind of competition
>DB> to design the chair that can be disassembled the fastest
>DB> and with the fewest tools. The objective is to make recycling
>DB> more economically viable by designing so that materials are
>DB> readily separable at the end of the product’s life.
>
>There is a difference between adaptability and flexability. A 17c
>traditional building with well sized rooms has adapted over centuries
>to various uses. Much of the flexible buildings arising from archigram
>et al (the British high tech contingent) in the 
>20c have not been a great sucess.
>
>DB> Buildings, of course, are more complicated than
>DB> office chairs. And they should last longer—or at least parts
>DB> of them should. Stewart Brand, in How Buildings Learn,
>DB> describes how buildings should be thought of as having
>DB> six layers, ranging from the site, which is timeless, to the
>DB> skin and structure, which may last generations, to furnishings
>DB> that are frequently changed.6
>
>DB> The application of this concept has become known as
>DB> open building, and it can lead to a fundamentally different
>DB> way of understanding buildings in which these layers are
>DB> independent.7 To a degree, modern offices do this already
>DB> with non­load bearing, demountable partitions and
>DB> mechanical cores. But more often than not, an office renovation
>DB> or a home remodel involves brute force removal
>DB> (destruction, really) of building materials. Imagine if the
>DB> walls of our homes were built so that wiring and plumbing
>DB> could be easily accessed for repairs and modifications—
>DB> without cutting holes in walls, perhaps without encountering
>DB> obstacles, and then without patching and painting
>DB> (or, for instance, if windows could be replaced without
>DB> entailing interior and exterior damage). The key lies in
>DB> separating the layers so that the less durable layers can be
>DB> altered without interfering with the others.
>
>You have to be carefull balancing all the 
>factors. Flexible electrical skirting
>trunking around a room gives great flexability, but creates EMF
>(electromagnetic field) problems.
>
>DB> Open building also relates to the concept of futureproofing:
>DB> designing and constructing buildings to anticipate
>DB> the future. If, for instance, PV panels are not in the
>DB> budget but may be added eventually, run conduits to the
>DB> roof and provide support structure so that the panels and
>DB> wiring can be accommodated later with minimal disruption
>DB> and cost. Similarly, a gray-water system may not be
>DB> allowed by current code, but if you provide the necessary
>DB> plumbing at the outset, it can be implemented by simply
>DB> opening a valve when the code catches up.
>
>Its all so necessary to look at the life cycle analysis of self
>sufficient solutions. Household rain water 
>harvesting often has a greater impact
>than taking your water from the network.  But local quarter harvesting
>could be interesting.
>
>DB> David Bergman  RA   LEED AP
>DB> DAVID BERGMAN ARCHITECT / FIRE & WATER LIGHTING + FURNITURE
>DB> architecture . interiors . ecodesign . lighting . furniture
>DB> bergman at cyberg.com    www.cyberg.com
>DB> 241 Eldridge Street #3R, New York, NY 10002
>DB> t 212 475 3106    f 212 677 7291
>
>DB> author - Sustainable Design: A Critical Guide
>DB> adjunct faculty - Parsons The New School for Design
>
>DB> At 12:26 PM 3/2/2012, Jason Holstine wrote:
> >>Can anyone point to a nice succinct resource on
> >>Open Building techniques?  The idea that the
> >>walls are built without the conduits inside, so
> >>they can be more easily maintained, changed,
> >>moved, deconstructed, etc?  Thanks.
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>Greenbuilding mailing list
> >>to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> >>Greenbuilding at bioenergylists.org
> >>
> >>to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> >>http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listin 
> fo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Greenbuilding mailing list
>to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
>Greenbuilding at bioenergylists.org
>
>to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org


David Bergman  RA   LEED AP
DAVID BERGMAN ARCHITECT / FIRE & WATER LIGHTING + FURNITURE
architecture . interiors . ecodesign . lighting . furniture
bergman at cyberg.com    www.cyberg.com
241 Eldridge Street #3R, New York, NY 10002
t 212 475 3106    f 212 677 7291

author - Sustainable Design: A Critical Guide
adjunct faculty - Parsons The New School for Design  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20120309/6aeb9db6/attachment.html>