Introduction to Architectural Science the Basis of Sustainable Design

Abstract

Four chainsof thought led to the idea of thisbook and to the definition of itscontent: 1. It can no longer be disputed that the resources of this earth are finite, that itscapacity to absorb our wastesislimited, that if we (as a species) want to survive, we can’t continue our ruthless exploitation of the environment. Where our actionswould affect the environment, we must act in a sustainable manner. There are many good books that deal with the need for sustainability (e.g. Vale and Vale, 1991; Farmer, 1999; Roaf et al., 2001; Smith, 2001; Beggs, 2002). This book assumes that the reader is in agreement with these tenets and needs no further persuasion. 2. Architecture is the art and science of building. There exists a large literature on architecture asan art, on the cultural and social significance of architecture – there is no need for discussing these issues here. 3. The term ‘bioclimatic architecture’ wascoined by Victor Olgyay in the early 1950sand fully explained in hisbook ‘Design with climate’ (1963). He synthesised elements of human physiology, climatology and building physics, with a strong advocacy of architectural regionalism and of designing in sympathy with the environment. In many wayshe can be considered as an important progenitor of what we now call ‘sustainable architecture’. 4. Architecture, as a profession is instrumental in huge investments of money and resources. Our professional responsibility isgreat, not only to our clientsand to society, but also for sustainable development. Many excellent books and other publications deal with sustainable development in qualitative terms. However, professional responsibility demands expertise and competence. It isthisnarrow area where thiswork intends to supplement the existing literature. The book isintended to give an introduction to architectural science, to provide an understanding of the physical phenomena we are to deal with and to provide the toolsfor realising the many good intentions. Many projectsin recent timesare claimed to constitute sustainable development, to be sustainable architecture. But are they really green or sustainable? Some new terms started appearing in the literature, such as ‘green wash’ – meaning that a conventional building isdesigned and then claimed to be ‘green’. Or ‘pure rhetoric – no substance’, with the same meaning