Human
comfort is determined by various climatic parameters, most importantly by wind,
heat and humidity. Construction
standards require architects to conform to a prescribed atmospheric condition
for each space to provide human comfort to most occupants. Building climates are thus controlled by
centralized mechanical systems that consume much energy, and lack individual control. Architects must seek innovative
methods of providing human comfort within the built environment.
People are unique, and therefore it is
impossible to satisfy everyone with a homogenous climatic condition. Architects have therefore established that an
acceptable interior climate needs to agree with eighty percent of the
occupants. While this standard may seem
reasonable, the plethora of information and technologies available today render
it possible to include the remaining twenty percent.
Human
comfort can enhance the experience
of space, increase concentration and performance,
and improve occupants’ health. Consequently, human comfort affects the
individual, the economy, and our society at large.
The
first area architects must reconsider is the exterior envelope. Our hermetically
sealed buildings do well to separate us from extreme climatic conditions, yet
compromise the potential to reduce energy by utilizing exterior temperature,
wind, and humidity when climate permits.
Biological systems, including our own skin, offer viable examples of
envelopes that are able to simultaneously reject and embrace elements according
to their desirability. Building
envelopes can further utilize climatic conditions to generate electricity and
reduce the energy load of the building.
Secondly,
architects must reconsider the organization of
interior areas. Energy flows through spaces to achieve
equilibrium, warming colder areas and humidifying drier areas in the process. Certain interior spaces are naturally humid
and warm, including greenhouses and bathrooms.
These areas can provide necessary humidity and heat to adjacent spaces
to achieve comfort. Such a method will
require architects to rethink the boundaries of each space to allow only the
desired amount of humidity and heat to penetrate adjacent spaces. Excess humidity can cause the building fabric
to disintegrate and rot, and humans to develop sickness. Biological organisms, including various
plants, offer us examples of how to manage such boundaries.
Thirdly,
architects should reconsider the sensual experience of
climatic conditions. Although our body does not provide us an
accurate sense of the climate, it is able to identify whether a space is humid,
dry, cold, or hot. Greater understanding
of climate can be achieved through employing materials that evidently react to specific
parameters, for instance through changing colours or shape according to the
humidity level and temperature of a space.
These materials will increase the perception of space and understanding
of the individual’s comfort zone.
Finally,
architects must find ways to let individual control the climate of areas they
inhabit for extended periods of time. As
our spaces become increasingly shared and open, it will not be possible to
solve this problem by surrounding each individual zone with walls. Areas would have to be climatically
controlled via an open space. Smart
materials and technologically advanced sensors may be able to assist us in
reaching this goal.
The
study of biological organisms, smart materials and advancements in technology
can contribute to the creation of responsive interior climates that are energy
efficient, individually controlled, and which increase our sensual experience
of space.
It is becoming fairly evident that many of the students are relying on a finite scope of books that likely are from previous seminars. This is fine for now but it is expected that students will move from this shallow depth of understanding into something far more robust and individualized. The wording on some of the strategies is rather tepid such as "architects must reconsider...", instead a more overt sense of intention should come across in the statements.
ReplyDeleteIf the fundamental position, in a rather grossly oversimplified manner, is that you believe architecture can now accommodate 100% of its occupants in terms of atmospheric comfort, then your strategic responses are appropriate.
It might be worthwhile to ask yourself if you are trying to envelope more than required in each strategy. For example, the first strategy makes sense (though the wording is weak) but is it not perfectly fine to deal with the exterior envelope and its notable issues such as biomimetics and energy generation. Perhaps you could reorganize elements to make strategies less complex. Remember that the idea is that there is some greater universality that makes life ease
Everyone should be extremely wary of using the term "solve" in the context of their architectural theses. Architecture rarely "solves" anything; as some of you may recall from other courses, architecture is always representational, even at its completion and therefore cannot be necessarily validated as "solving" an issue.