The paper discusses the concept of integrative design classes (IDC) within practical modules of courses on Building Construction and Environmental Science. It explores the concept of Biophilia, which aims to connect humans with nature and improve well-being. In interior design, natural world characteristics are brought into built spaces, such as water. The paper also explores the complex ecologies of next-generation learning practices and the respondent interior design practices that facilitate and enhance these practices.
The paper also discusses the temptations of technology to mastery, waste, exuberance, exploration, and exploitation. It also examines the effects of physical environment design on the dimensions of emotio. The paper’s main goal is to identify ways to evaluate the environmental impact of buildings and the interaction with Interior Design practices.
The paper focuses on analyzing interior characteristics for an educational building and proposing alternatives for alternative designs. The findings suggest that sustainable development in interior architecture can be enhanced by drawing inspiration from ancient cultures. Many designers create spaces that are not only beautiful but also sustainable and regenerative.
In conclusion, the paper highlights the importance of integrating sustainable design practices into the construction industry to create more environmentally friendly and sustainable spaces.
📹 WHAT IS SUSTAINABLE INTERIOR DESIGN ALL ABOUT? | Sustainable Interior Design
WHAT IS SUSTAINABLE INTERIOR DESIGN ALL ABOUT? How to design more sustainably? In this video I share with you …
📹 What If We Could Design Our Buildings In A Way That Was Healthy For Both People And The Planet?
The ‘Living Places’ concept rethinks our understanding of buildings in a new way through sustainable solutions and practical …
One test is better than a thousand expert assumptions- why aren’t there people living in these model homes, trying them out? Real families, with kids and dogs and patio furniture, experience four seasons, finding out that the deck is way too hot in the summer and too cold and windy in the winter. perusal the sunlight move across the walls is a romantic architectural favorite, but has little to do with livability.
I love the approach you have to this. It’s rare to find an environmentalist cause that doesn’t feel like it is coming at the viewer from an ivory tower. The designs are executed with the mental health of the dweller in mind, and I love the attention paid to the quality of light inside the house, and the blurring of indoors and outdoors by bringing that light in, and that garden-to-table aspect, which a lot of people seem to ignore these days. I’m nowhere remotely nearby, but one day I would love to call a house like the one in this project home.
I would like to inspect the floorplans for better analysis and here are my considerations: 1) How much time do typical Danish people spend inside their home? This affects the need of space. 2) How social are they? How much do they value private space? How soundproof are the houses? If I play guitar in my room, does it disturb family members? Do Danish really communicate closely with their neighbours? 3) Open plan. How loud is the dish washer? Does the noisepollution affect my playing? 4) Kids playing around. Kids make too much noise. Home is the place for quiet and relaxation. How can this be acquired? 5) Rain. It rains a lot in Danmark. How can one access transportation without getting soaked? 6) Green spaces. Is there any possibility to increase the grassed areas without compromising the terrace path?
Healthy housing is simple just build out of pumicecrete Pumicecrete is by far the best building material on the planet Pumicecrete is a mixture of pumice cement and water mixed and poured into a set of reusable forms walls are poured from 12″to 24″ thick pumicecrete is fireproof termite proof rust rot and mold proof non toxic and has a high R value and good sound attenuation solid poured walls means no critters can live in your walls Pumicecrete can be built for a fraction of the cost and time and pumice is one of the few building materials that can go directly from the mine to the job site ready to use without any additional possessing and zero waste Google all the walls of my house are made of pumicecrete Take care Ray
The article looks nice, sounds nice, but explains only a little. So many questions are left… up to three times a sentence about the sun moving. Yes, I know that sunlight moves through the day. Great. But, how is the heating in this house? Cooling? Not only by natural ventilation I hope? Nothing is said about the materials used, the isolation, wiring, solar power, wind, energy storage… besides, not everyone feels like living in a community with everyone looking inside your house through large windows, listening to yelling playing children everywhere. To me it’d feel like a prison. Like someone said before: It feels more like a kind of advertisement and not like an in-depth explaination of a new invented way of building houses and living. Maybe that’s something for a future article? Thanks for reading, I know my English isn’t very good.
No mention of cost because this whole article is created by wealthy people in wealthy corporations intended for an audience of their equally wealthy friends and colleagues. The purpose is to do something to brag to their friends about and sell a product. Their sales goal is to sell this product to governments and politicians who will shift taxpayer dollars to their company. Everyone in this promotional article is out of touch with real people and real budgets.
This feels very greenwashed and full of buzzwords. The design seems to be more concerned with sunlight on a wall than the utilisation of green solutions for actual benefits. Why build a house to be easily dismantled, if you can just build it long lasting, multipurpose and beautiful, so people want to use it at its present location for a long time? But for that the design would have to be practical which it isn’t: – the flat rooftop is prone to leakage and accumulates snow in the winter – the double hight space above the kitchen is wasted space that makes the lower floor difficult to heat in winter and the cooling updraft in summer can just as easily be achieved with a window in the stairwell – the window placement has no pleasing order on the outside and does not seem to take the passive heating possibility of the sun into account – if you only allow for communal outdoor space the main benefit of a detached single family house (a private garden all around your house) is negated and a terraced house or even a low density apartment block would surely be more eco friendly.
I think the key to success for projects like this is efficiency, like will it keep me warm during the winter and chilled during summer, will it have enough outdoorsy feeling to not feel choked up but also closed enough to feel cozy and not feel as if I had the whole outside world with me in my bedroom, will it be durable and handle bugs and just other problems…etc
Really curious what the footprint is going to be when you use hemp instead of wood and plastics for boards and planks and cork for insulation or as a structural component. I see nothing to harvest sun/wind energy in these buildings which is kind of strange. You would think that a company like Velux invests heavily in harvesting solar energy with their windows and other glass systems.
It would be great to see initiatives focused on creating massive, vertical, affordable, and sustainable housing, with cleverly designed small living spaces and rich communal areas. Additionally, increasing the number of green areas full of trees within cities to cool them down. Giving back big areas to nature is the path to sustainability
These houses are full of natural light reflecting in a living space that is so inviting..clean lines that are uncluttered..the grouping together of this project connected with decking and garden spaces is so very attractive for anyone wanting a complex of two or three providing for an extended family or a small business..they are a beautifully designed construction….well ✅ done
This type of sustainability is just a form of escapism. Just come to Asia and see what is a carbon footprint in reality. Come to Africa or South America. (Even North America) How this plywood village could help? Really guys, it looks great, no doubt, but what’s the point? You are the best in your field, but it seems like you barely know what the world need.
I love the idea and the spaces created were novel. Much better than a concrete jungle. However, the focus was on building, rather than the connecting spaces. Maybe a good landscape designer with knowledge in managing natural resources, would be the icing on this impressive cake. As having grass and rain gardens to manage the water run-off, would use less building resources required for a patio, while enhancing the natural space embracing the buildings, more. The gardening spaces were a good starting place, but without proper water management, the wooden patio will rot because of those beautiful spaces that require watering. Still maintain that central walkway as the main access footpath between buildings, but allow a rainwater garden (usually built with rocks that won’t rot) to manage water on the site – and have grass for kids to run on too. The only other thing I would add is how to build accessibility into the design for the mobility challenged? Have the storey’s for those able to use them, but where is the design to incorporate the mobility challenged into the same community?
These are beautiful homes, as Scandinavian architecture and homebuilding has always been. BUT it is too sad that the lunacy of “carbon footprint”, CO2 emissions and sequestration, are featured so prominently. These are a sham designed to harm humans. The homes are incredibly beautiful and likely very, very expensive. They would not suit to life in Texas where it is both insanely hot for months and extremely cold. The Passivhaus concept is not a new one, either.
as an architect i loved the idea of thoughtful material design, the sunlight travelling across the walls, and the veggie gardens. as an introvert i felt that the lack of privacy, my own outdoor space (outside my own house) that i need for recharging, and constant presence of people right outside of my ground floor windows was giving me a panic attack. some people will thrive in this environment, but this “intensity” of community isn’t for everyone.
The success of this model depends upon all members of the community sharing a mindset. It wouldn’t work otherwise, as the spaces are too close together. Introverts like me would feel trapped, confined, and resistant to the notion of “community” as depicted in this model. Need to consider the human elements and the variety of personalities and mindsets. I do like the idea but know I couldn’t really live in such close quarters to others.
You have literally no grass, grass replaced by some fancy outside wooden floor or whatever the hell that is named. So no grass = destroying soil, wooden floor instead = more wood from forests. How is impact from such type of buiiding positive for planet environment? Please explain how it works opposite.
Please be careful with your language. Humans were not designed. We Evolved and we have a lot of flaws. We also all come from less than 5,000 individuals, as a species we fell beneath the minimum survival rate, we are increadibly homogenous. And we came from the sea & river shore. All creatures have to fit rules around energy managment. Like most species we have multiple brains, in our case we have 3: a small one round the heart, a bigger one that operates our gut & the biggest our brain in our heads. But to get that brain to grow meant we had to take neurons from our guts. Thus as our guts got shorter we became more intelligent. But the price of that was needing the very mineral & Vitamin rich foods we had a long the coastline & much of the vegetables we eat today ate costal albeit heavily modified by humans to remove their protection systems against getting eaten such as poison. Yes humans increasingly moved onto the savanna but that was later and we have never been predators we ate a scavenger species like Hyenas. We produce far too many offspring to be predators besides we like our meat to have been killed a month before, fresh kill has no taste. Humans have a very complex place in nature’s cycle of life, one we have ignored far too long. The massive destruction and scars we have wrought on the planet through grain based agriculture that has for the last 10,000 years has brought increasing climate change, that have changed our own physiology for the worse. Please go read about permaculture & the amphibious ape.
It is incredibly amazing how far wealthy European people are from understanding the reality! Real climate change challenges are located in a part of this planet filled with very poor people, that face huge and very real struggles every day…. Like hunger….. extremely hot weather and extreme corruption! Do you really believe that this planet will be saved by building warm homes for 1% of this planet’s population? There will never be sustainability on planet earth while most of it’s population is at least 1000 years away from the most basic social developments!
We can design in an environmentally and socially friendly way, it’s called traditional architecture. Beautiful buildings made of local, natural materials in local styles, arranged in a proven, traditional urban fabric. Such a thing cannot be completely, globally described in this comment. There are so many different traditions around the globe, and they are all valid for their regions. Why should we assume the solution for Britain would be the same for Singapore, for instance? Why should we insist on reinventing the wheel instead of using that which is proven to work?
Carbon foot print is much more than just the materials that go into a project: heating and cooling; electricity and water usage. You can have a bright and airy home without direct heat gains beaming down through the skylight. I like the look of the project and the idea about material reuse but I feel like they are missing the mark.
While I like the light in the interiors, it would be really difficult to open that skylight. I have single-story velux windows that I never open as they are so difficult with the pole. Also risky with the showery weather we typically have in Summer. We cannot get hold of the electronic openers here as there as there has been global shortage. The outside of the houses is likely to cause neighbourhood disputes due to the shared responsibility and lack of privacy. The only way I could envisage that working is if it’s an extended, multigenerational family that owns all the houses in the block.
the problem with your presentation is that you are using all brand new materials to talk about the possibility (in 100 years?) of deconstructing the building and reusing the materials. why not practice what you preach and construct your exhibition prototype community with reused materials in the first place? why do very few architects and sustainability experts do this? because it is very costly in terms of labor? and very difficult to make this materially consistent aesthetic, which is probably necessary to gain mass appeal? it seems like you guys are using sustainability catchphrases to sell a pretty traditional type of construction, and at what looks to be a quite expensive build.
on the one side: awesome! but … there are some parts i don’t get: – a kitchen as a center piece is great, but what about smells going everywhere. not always good. – the “chimney”-effect allows for fresh air… rly, how? how can cold/fresh air come down if the room is ventilating upwards (aka chimney effect)? – the playful sunlight on the walls are nice, … in winter. but during summer this is a heat source cooking everybody sitting in such spot – how to avoid that? the design is nice, i like the wooden walls a lot – not so much the external (water and electric) pipework – this could be inside the walls and still disassembled, i guess.
I used to read Pop Sci and Pop Mechanics and I remember reading about projects like this and getting very excited for the future. Unfortunately all of these firms do the same thing. They live in big cities and “show their work” through computer models. Notice they have nothing to actually sell on their website, and nothing that would actally be available for the average person. Who is funding all this pie-in-the-sky shit? Make real homes people can buy or get out of my algo.
Very beautiful concept that is not sustainable because the materials used have a 8-10 years longevity. Sustainable house is when once built, it’s roof, walls and the structure last 100 years without repairs. I don’t know any year round climate in which these materials would work well. The maintenance to keep these materials from demise would be ongoing and high. In the long-run the cost of building such a house would not be any lower than building a house using the traditional, well time tested practices. Using brick, not plywood/soft-cheep wood/plastics is the way to build sustainably. Again, it is a very pretty concept, but pretty is just enough. This project looks like a typical useless experiment financed by the tax payers. Pretty… very very pretty….
The quintessential sustainable endeavor, capable of leaving an indelible mark on our planet, lies far beyond the confines of the modern developed world. Picture this: even if, by some miraculous overnight transformation, both Canada and the United States were to wholeheartedly embrace a 100 percent green, zero-carbon lifestyle, the unfortunate truth remains that their efforts would hardly make a dent in stemming the tides of environmental damage. The grandeur of the best course of action, the one capable of revolutionizing our planet’s trajectory, lies in a seemingly unrelated corner: ensuring equitable access to pristine, flowing water for every individual across the vast African continent. Consider the transformative power of this initiative, both immediate and far-reaching. As the life-giving streams of clean water cascade into the lives of those who have long been deprived, the repercussions ripple across the globe. It is an extraordinary phenomenon to behold, as the provision of this fundamental resource, so often taken for granted in developed nations, ignites a profound change in the mindset and behavior of the recipients. Suddenly, a once unimaginable wellspring of opportunities emerges. Intriguingly, this intervention not only addresses the immediate challenge of water scarcity but also begets a far more consequential outcome—the birth of a greener, more sustainable future. It is a testament to the interconnectedness of our world. As the African population gains access to clean water, their newfound security and abundance motivate them to make increasingly environmentally conscious choices.
Great article and attractive design. I have many questions: 1. how does snow not collect on the upper windows and flat part of the roof? Clearing it would be huge hassle. 2. In our climate the sun is over head in the summer which would give strong direct summer sun in the middle of summer. Do the sky lights vent to remove heat build up? 3. I’ve done some porches. That porch is as expensive as one of the houses. Why so much porch? It looks nice, but I would be curious about how cost, maintenance, and livability would be practical in the long run.
I love this style and design for certain climates. But what if the outside isn’t great? what if the air isn’t “fresh?” What if you need filtration and protection from the environment? I see that the area around the houses is built purely as decking with some focused garden space, but don’t you feel that there needs to be more green space to allow the ground to absorb and hold water? On either side of these homes is asphalt roads. This is concerning. Also, in regards to rain water, do you incorporate water capture technologies that would allow people to capture rain-water for house-hold use?
I would recommend you extend the wonderful ecological intention in the building into the gardening. The gardens look like the type of neat minimalist planting that an architect or garden architect favors as a foil to the hard landscaping and not the type that an ecological gardener would build who understands how to liberate the ecological building material in living plants that is found in permaculture, syntropic, regenerative but above all wildlife gardening. If you are concerned about the human footprint, one of the largest footprints of human habitation is removing habitat from other creatures, and thus decreasing biodiversity. This does not have to be so. Your good design for low carbon footprint can also include preservation of biodiversity. There is so little area allocated to greenery, and trees need their leaves to fall on well mulched soil to support pupating caterpillars….A real living garden will also improve the living conditions of the community. That is truly healthy for the planet
So amazing and Beautiful! I am bioclimatic Architect, I Just made a trip to visit green architecture and I have to say that there are very few places like this to visit. I visited the city some weeks ago and I am sad that I didn’t know they existed😅 I hope to see them one day. That would be also interesting to see how they perform in winter! Thanks for the article!
It’s crazy how after a century of capitalism every revolutionary industry is basically just proposing to go back to what humanity use to do before industrialization. Having a community that actually shares a communal space for coworking and children to be albe to play in instead of segmenting neighbourhoods into grids with streets for a car dependent infrastructure society is what we’ve been doing for a long time. Crazy to put into perspectivo how the modern way of living is just an experiment gone wrong in the grand scheme of history.
These concepts are very good and hopefully will someday be put into practice. In the US at least, for projects like this to succeed, many changes within the construction industry and city regulators would have to happen. Projects like would never be able to be built here as they would be cost prohibitive and suffer design compromises to comply with the crippling regulations we have here. Another issue is this does not address is how such projects can occur in densely populated ares where multi unit and low income construction needs to happen. I do very much appreciate these ideas, but projects like this to me seem to follow a more utopian ideology which doesnt seem realistic. In the US at least, these projects would only be obtainable to a select few who had the money and space to execute them.
Looks like a shed in tropical Australia. At least there is triple glazing. But doubt this will not work anywhere where you have -5C winters. I do not see any insulation. Indoor walls are plywood. I just imagine the echo and lack of sound insulation. This house is nightmare to live in for more than 1 person. I can imagine how easy it is clean those top windows. And those skylight windows are pretty much a target for crows that like to drop rocks on skylight windows just for fun. So much focus on architecture, not so much focus on reality. Delusional architecture, just like brutalism.
I love the interplay on light and the seemingly simple designs. I agree that materials are key to more sustainable building practices, whether or not we use wood, or pumice, sheep’s woool or hay bales to insulate to create better buildings. For my fine art masters degree I researched alternative materials for casting pieces of sculpture. So instead of contrete I used slaked lime (NHL 3.5 and 5), which is traditionally also used on old buildings as mortar and lime wash. Despite be told many times that I could not cast using this material (I mixed sand and sometimes pumice in with it). It did work but it needs to cure for much longer. I hope I can continue my making and research one day-I have had to go back to work as I need to find a secure home. Here in the UK despite many houses being built the fiscal cost is so high to have a roof over your head, let alone an environmentally friendly one! 14:43
A very interesting concept. Maybe the most important aspect is the design for disassmebly. I think they showed perfectly, that this doesn´t contradict a good looking interior design. There is no need for perfekt plain white walls in every room. In fact, I would prefer the wood-look of these houses over every standard architecture. But I think this concept misses another big possibility to lower the carbon footprint, that is inevitable for the future: Make the houses smaller (and even more affordable)! Because I think, it is essential to show, how worth living smaller spaces can be, if they are designed intelligent. In the last 70 years the square meters per person increased from something between 10-15 m² to over 40 m² (data for Germany). That is a trend, we should invert somehow. I can understand the need for wide and bright rooms. But the Tiny-House-Movement shows, how this can also be realized with less square meters. This doesn´t mean, we should all live in 12 m² Boxes. But what about a happy medium between both? These ideas combined with the design shown here could be the key. And imagine, how wide spread suburban areas would have to be, if the houses and open areas outside would be as big as shown in the film, if they should offer enough space for millions of people in the big metropolitan areas worldwide. Every year more and more people move to the cities. We need a concept like shown in the film, but fitting to big urban agglomerations with a working public transportation system.
Interesting, so how energy efficient are these homes? Are they built using geo thermal, solar, wind to heat, and cool? One of they biggest challenges for future designing to meet the climate extremes coming our way globally. We have essentially passed the tipping point. We are going to have to re think how everything is designed, not just housing but infrastructure as well. Point of use energy production will have to be on the table. Material performance in temperature extremes will have to be considered. Also there is not enough green space, you designed a house for “nature”, humans well being is better served by the feeling of a “wilderness “. I absolutely love the cradle to crave materials concept, that is how it should be. I do like the house design, good for both solar and low profile turbines..Thank you for sharing your concepts
Gorgeous design. The use of plywood is lovely, and is also a sustainable, low carbon footprint material, and one that serves to connect the interior with nature. How can these concepts be expanded to service low income, dense communities that don’t have access to such things as natural light and open space? How do you build community and draw people to engage together in the outdoors in spaces such as that?
The architectural idea is interesting, but the authors have not disclosed, in fact. It is not clear what exactly is efficiency and how carbon emissions are reduced, a lot of beautiful and meaningless words. Lots of light is good. But there are many unthought-out and not convenient solutions for a person – housing on two and three levels becomes burdensome over the years, the steps of the stairs are steep and there are no railings – the walls will be grated, it is not clear how to maintain the upper windows.
Great concepts and ideas but they only work when humans are introduced and they are tested. Unless you have like minded people sharing the spaces it may just be a dream. The grumpy grandparent may not like the intrusive noise of the kids playing for example. Or the shift worker needing sleep in the day. People are the unpredictable component.
Concept yes…what is reflected here…NO…not at all… I’m weary of the words “sustainability” when I see architecture like this… It’s all more “smoke and mirror” (aka greenwashed) to…”sell something”… Or, does it just make some designer, PE, or architect “feel good” about something that is not real at all but rather made to look…” natural and sustainable”… Just putting up something “made of wood” does not make it “natural” or even “sustainable” in context… I love the concept they present, but I don’t see it in practice in architecture at all… I see plastics, I see massively industrialized wood, and other heavy industry materials…just like most modern architecture… They never once reflected upon the foundation which I would wager was massive modern industrialized OPC concrete which is one of the largest polluters in the construction industry…
Interesting project with many many useful guidelines. Just not to ignore the elephant in the room, CO2 footprint is not the problem: there are a lot of other values and factors that actually are the problem. Like the beautiful “white lines” that you can see in the sky just above these houses. If you grow your greens, bet on sunlight and on sustainability but you ignore those highly impactful global factors, the final result will be zero. Literally. Love your buildings, love your intentions, love this article, but I cannot speak this: CO2 is just a game. Do we have eyes to see? Do we ever watch our skies? Do we know what falls into the ground where we grow our food? Let’s start from the basics. And be real. Thanks for your work. Wish you all the best.
This is such a fantastic showcase of how sustainable design can really change the way we live! On my Building Green podcast, we often talk about the importance of using natural materials and designing for adaptability, and this project is a great example… Excited to see projects like this scaling up and leading the way!
I like the general ideas and concepts. But i think this is to niche. Who is gonna afford this? How many people can live in that space? Try and transfer your ideas to a bigger scale like a whole quarter/district of a city, for 200-500 households. It has to be safe for earthquakes, floods, storms etc. because they are increasing. If there’s water damage or a fire, what impact would that make? I live in a “green city” (it’s a touristic thing) and still have no direct sunlight, i hear everything around me, i’m always cold even in the hottest days, we still heat with gas. There is no rooftop or balcony, only the street full of cars. And this is really a green city where i’m living. So i guess every bigger city is much worse, at least ecologically. We need solutions for this (i know there are, but still most new buildings are ordinary concrete monsters). Stand alone houses create the problem of suburbs with high surface sealings, big infrascruture (like sewers, pipes, electricity, traffic, even if it’s by bike, someone needs to pick up the trash, lot’s of movement just to buy a bread lol). They are not bad in general, but not the best solution either. We should keep the already standing stand alone houses running, repair them for as long as possible. Renovate as much as possible.
I love how they are thinking in two different levels of architecture, the architectural building but also urbanism, because they are thinking how to build a sustainable community in a city. That is very important. Some of my professors say that one of the most important things when you are planning an architectural project is to analyse the context. Very well done.
I visited the place last friday. It turns out it was the day the project team was celebrating the publication of the “Living Places” book. The Hygge House that you see in the article here is just unbelievable. You feel well the moment you enter the house. i would buy it right away 🙂If you happen to be in Copenhagen it’s definitely worth a visit.
Nice utopia idea, now in real life the parameters are widely different, every time you hear these word “the community” from architects which is all the time their own take on how people behave which is unfortunately biased. Although the work on material is a good progress, i would like to see the energy consumption in winter😅
Carbon footprint is item really complicated. I had read article that Danes had bought around 70% of pristine forests from private owners in Romania. I do not know if it is true or fake news. Each wooden house contains around 30 m3 of wood so it is around 30 trees at least 80 years old. Assuming each year 10 mln new houses are erected, humankind would need 300 mln m3 of wood!!! Each plywood contains glues and resins which are chemicals. High roof is not energetically effective and requires around 40 cm of insulation according to Knauff leaflet. Each window in cold climate is place of loss of heat. Roof windows are cold in winter and hot in summer. Speaking frankly this film is promotional material and greenwashing.
I really like what you have done in terms of environmentally sensitive and sustainable building. I would be interested to go further though and understand how, if one is building a community project, and I do appreciate that this is not necessarily a final layout – you noted that too – you envisage things like privacy, individual expression, and conflict resolution be handled in an environment like this. And there are more questions that I have such as maximum potential population density, etc. It’s a great idea, and I like it very much, however, it does trigger a host of questions that I think need to be answered as well. The good thing is that the ideas that you are sharing here are attractive, thought-provoking, and frankly, disruptive, which is great. Thanks for sharing,
A delightfully sunny article. Perfect in theory and I don’t doubt the integrity and capability if the designers here. Nothing was said about these buildings/materials responses to extreme weather. The flow dynamics of the interiors only spoken of in terms of ventillation and in Northern Europe, for most of the year, climate control centres around required heating systems. Domestic architecture evolves slowly and industry, sadly, only adopts materials and building systems from which it can make money. Recycling? Well, construction will not begin to engage with this without statutary requirements and financial incentives. I’m sorry if this is viewed as cynical. It’s not. It’s human nature and the momentum of the market driven capitalism that runs the world. Good luck turning that around.
While I think the goal and intent behind the project is admirable, but would I actually want or choose to live in the houses they showed? No. They lack a few things that are critical for the human experience, or at least for my human experience. Though I suspect many may feel similarly. These houses lack beauty, character, and feel quite sterile. It was as if they were a science project or architectural project, then it was a people-oriented effort to make a place that people want to be, where they feel relaxed and comfortable. Its not something that is easy to explain, but these feel like houses produced by data, and numbers, and science than by a person.
Lol. Rich people over complicating things. I’ve been a carpenter since 2008. Some of your ideas are cool. Some of them fail to understand how life with family works. How life poor works. Poor people keep and use something they own until it’s unusable. And sometimes past that. The clear plastic panels on your green houses need to be replaced every 10ish years. And it’s not cheap enough that the average household can afford to do something like that. I love working for rich people because they can afford to make nice things like this. But poor people force me to cut every corner possible. I work regularly for both groups. Rich and poor. You guys are clearly idealists. But their is no such thing as sustainable housing for poor people. They flat out can’t afford to take care of nice homes like this that will be destroyed though just living in them. All houses are destroyed just by living in them.
This is an appealing philosophy. I wish I shared your optimism about people’s desire to live in community and share outdoor space. When I dream of building a home distance from others is at the heart of my desire. I grew up on a rural island in the American Pacific Northwest with a lot of community sentiment because people had space to choose when they participate. My grandparents farmed there but as time as passed only the very wealthy can afford to stay. I’ve lived in Seattle where 200 units in a downtown condominium were filled with people who loathed hearing each other through the walls. (Here the drug users steal the copper pipe off the exterior walls and break into cars in the garage repeatedly. The homeless sneak in to sleep in the stairwells in the cold months or on the roof when it’s warm.) I’ve lived in Barcelona where a dozen or a few dozen families shared a building but still don’t mix and everyone feels a target for robbery, even in their homes, which isn’t paranoia because it does happen so often. The robbers are let in when they say they are the mailman, that they’ve come to fix the elevator, that they’re delivering for Amazon to a neighbor who doesn’t answer…Thieves boldly knock on doors and pretend they are cold-calling because they want to buy your unit if you are home. Also, tenants move out of their units with the light fixtures, appliances and anything else not nailed down. It seems you’d need to choose the people as carefully as you choose the materials.
Im sorry but I don’t see that this is an effective marriage of human homes, community and natural landscape. I find this quite sterile. Where are plants, water, stones, TREES?!?! I live in a home surrounded by growth and dynamism – plants, animals, trees – our home is 900 odd sq. ft w solar panels and a covered outside space that serves as our connector to our gardens. Its not perfect but it is greatly admired by almost all our neighbors. Camping in a place for awhile and listening to how life works in that place is a great prelude to design and living alongside a place. I hope this helps you.
Nice ideas, but sadly more of a middle class utopian dream world that does not exist in the real world. In the UK there is currently a housing crisis on two fronts. First demand is outstripping supply, second the vast majority of existing housing stock is not fit for purpose and is directly contributing to fuel poverty. In the the inter war years large amounts of social housing was constructed with the laudable aims of eradicating slum living, providing inside bathrooms and large garden spaces for each property. Unfortunately most of these properties are no longer fit for purpose and cannot economically be upgraded. In the 50s and 60s huge numbers of high rise blocks built from pre fabricated concrete panels were the answer to the baby boom, these are often in need of extensive remedial work. In private housing the problems are still evident but not so acute, owner occupiers tend to invest in ongoing improvements. We probably need to create whole new communities with integrated live / work arrangements. Changing people’s current habits is going to be difficult. Just 40 years ago, when I first started work, the workplace was local, most walked, cycled or used public transport to get to work. Now the workplace is increasingly located around the road transport links, having a vehicle to get there is essential. Lessons can be learned from the mistakes of past housing schemes, people’s expectations have changed, but in some respects there has to be some push back on those expectations to create a more equitable society.
If the outside temperature is 90-110 in the shade, week after week you’re cooked. This works for climate where the architects designed the building. Also…where is all the wood coming from? Oh yeah, cut more trees down that should stay in the ground to cool and clean the air around the globe. I had a wood house and it burned then I built a home that couldn’t burn.
What’s the point of building all this if no one is going to live inside? Even if it’s a prototype, it’s real materials. If the goal is sustainability, there’s no point in wasting all that wood and other materials for nothing. Typical action of rich countries… Nothing better than doing a test that can be tested. Since they don’t expect to make any money from it, at least they could donate it to families or people who don’t have the possibility of owning their own home. It’s very important that they are rethinking architecture in a more sustainable way. But they never seem to fully understand what sustainability means….
All this natural light is lovely, but please remember to put blockout curtains or blinds on all those windows for when someone with photosensitive migraine is in the house? Like a lot of ableism in designs, just because you forgot that other people have illness and disability doesn’t mean those people magically don’t have accessibility needs!
I can’t help but notice they aren’t in the garden. Even the woman who is seems to be doing all she can to not actually touch any plant – or dirt. I don’t believe the Director and the architects want to live there. This is a pitch deck for these companies to get tax dollars. I think it’s looks kinda cool, but if they don’t like it, why should I?
I LOVE the smaller, communal-based design. Another major contributor to building emissions is that the size of the average home has dramatically increased. People who live in single family dwellings want all the amenities for “entertaining” friends and family, while catering to a host of personal needs and desires under one roof: sleeping, cooking, eating, leisure, cleaning, working, exercising, and more. With that larger footprint comes a huge carbon price, in addition to the massive utility bills that it takes to run and power a house of 2000+ sq feet, especially on heating and cooling the space. What’s nice about this design is that the footprints are much smaller, while not compromising on the feeling of space, light, and privacy. But the idea of placing a central multi-purpose structure in between the houses is genius. You could work from home, or create a satellite office that gets you out of your personal home for a few hours. You can entertain, but your guests stay in a room that is just adjacent to your home. You have a built-in community of neighbors who share in the landscaping and use of the property, instead of trying to maintain a sprawling lawn and outdoor gardens. There’s no fences separating you from the people around you, but you still have a comfortable space to retreat to. And the last major selling feature for me is the impermanence of the design – the ability to build, deconstruct, and rebuild again like Lego bricks to suit the needs of whoever moves in. We have built edifices that are institutional, immoveable, and permanent, which demands conformity and prohibits the free movement of people throughout the area.
How about extending your design concepts to include subtropical and tropical climates, subject to high winds? Nothing here could be used in Florida….neither the designs or the materials. Termites would eat through that wood in 2 years. These would only be good in far northern climates that are far away from burning forests.
Beautiful houses lovely concept but really out of touch with most people’s actual living needs and their need for a car all this community chat is bs it just takes 1 bunch of clowns to ruin things for everyone else the hippy playing with the lettuce had me lmfao but the architecture and finish of this project is awesome.
What an incredible company. The core principles are exactly that of the business of the future. Vertical integration of material and maintenance of the home over the duration of its lifetime. And what it will do for people returning to a more social domestic space and one where people can learn to and take advantage of the ability to grow food which upon mass adoption would reduce strain on the main food supply chain. I could go on and on, these folks have obviously put in an incredible amount of thought and effort behind this and have good core values to see it though. Best of luck to them, may i one day have the opportunity to stay in a community more like the one this is trying to be.
It is obvious that your products have an influence on the final result and I am not sure that it is ecologically better, because you have based your choices of exposure/roof slope in relation to your products and not in relation to the laws of the nature. I am convinced that your products are of high quality, but I am not sure that you are using them here in the most ecological way. You try to present it to us in a tech way, so I guess your clientele is people with money, with a green mentality (but not too knowledgeable on the subject) So I’m sure you’ll find customers, but you’re not going to save the planet, you’re going to give a false good conscience to people who have the economic means and you know it.
Recently I remodeled my house after a flood. Now all of the plywood panels can be unscrewed, the insulation and the panels dried out and reinstalled if it floods again Hopefully the engineers in this project didn’t spend too long thinking about this as a solution…. This sounds a bit sarcastic of me. But there are so many people doing these sorts of things in the cover of darkness so that councils don’t see the changes that they’d not approve of…. I wonder how influential the building industry is on building regulations…..
Designed for disassembly is one of those nice ideas but I would have been more impressed if they had used recycled materials and 20 year old Velux windows as a starting point. They still need to sell new windows as a business so these are just ways to sell them. If they where focusing on how you could reuse old velux windows then that might have an impact but this felt light a bit of a green washing vanity project.
Interesting project. The designs certainly are beautiful. Like other commenters, I was surprised at the omission of solar panels. I know the house interior was kept minimal, but the one glaring omission for me was the lack of any stair railing.Was this intentional so as to not interrupt visual continuum of the wood walls? The young, old, and the weary need a safe place to grab onto when going up/down stairways.
Sounds nice in theory, but what these concepts, like 15 minute cities, don’t tell you, is that if you choose to live rurally, grow your own garden, live independently of others, then you will ultimately be forced (in the name of climate change of course!) to suffer a ‘managed retreat’ into these cities. When one becomes aware of what is actually going on (no evidence to show man is destroying the climate, massive asset transfers from private to public, 24/7 surveillance, etc), critical thinkers and freedom lovers would not want a bar of it. I’ll take your Great Reset and raise you a Great Awakening.
The design falls apart if there is no fresh air and/or the occupants have allergies. However if the larger goal is to reduce the carbon footprint caused by air conditioning, then don’t give the occupants air conditioning and instead give them masks and allergy pills when they buy their new home. If a person lives in a hot climate that endures wildfires, they should not pursue this design.
The houses look good, the ideals applaudable, however… not new and have not pushed the boundaries of sustainability, like the ability to disassemble easily and quickly has been around a long time . The first thing I noticed were large roof spaces with no solar panels. The second is that the garden space for the community was not large enough to feed a family much less a community – or space efficient. What about hydroponic gardens against the walls, bringing the outdoors even closer to the indoors and improving spacial, insulation and water efficiency? Or as walls, dividing the outdoor areas. It may also improve privacy issues (community is great but needs to be balanced with privacy and sense of personal space). Why not use recycled products? There are many out there that are becoming more cost effective with great insulative properties. Proof of concept is essential, but is it proof if there is no one living in them? I appreciate your efforts to make housing sustainable and I would like to see it taken further. Good luck
Hi, its an awesome design specially when I see the harmony with nature between in side and outside, its great! and how using the openings to increase the light and warm to home. I have one adding only which is the material color of the stairs because the same color or texture with walls that first make me I could not able to differentiate between them and if there is a different color or material will be more safe for people usage.
да стразу живите в бочках. зачем вам столько пространства. как диоген. вся ваша философия углеродного следа – не работает. вы ничего не меняете. и ни на что кардинально не влияете. я имею ввиду все кто принял эти смыслы. но только вы. если вы хотите чтобы было чисто на планете, то нужно на производствах и фермах внедрят технологические решения. а жить в ограничениях это не правильно. нужно жить хорошо. просто перестаньте пудрить мозги людям. это не правильно. вы не спасаете природу. вы вредите ей. потому что вы не разбираетесь в этом. и просто как попугаи повторяете бред. еще недавно все вы говорили еще и о перенаселении. наверное кто-то открыл карту и увидел,что самые большие города это точка на карте. в любом случаи люди с низким интеллектом – верят в эту ваши баки про экологию. то что вы делаете не решит проблему. она нагонит. тут нужен иной подход. и иное управление вообще. я этим займусь. а вы перестаньте вводить в заблуждение людей. и портить им их психологическое здоровье. вы не правы
im sure if building and living like this was affordable and more accessible everyone would choose it over the current way. the main issue is how incredibly expensive it is to build this way and to find a proper space to build in. seems the only ones who have the right, freedom, and access, are the rich ones. unfair
Why are the Danish and Dutch so good at this and the rest of us are wannabes? Changing the architecture is one thing, but behind that is politics, and behind that is economics, not to be able to build these, but the economic system that we accept and makes it so hard to make sustainability normal. If we want to fix this, change economics: neutral currency. Look it up.
Hi! Watched till the end. I have in the past listened to your Seo advice and you always make sense without over complicated methods I have recently gone back to Pinterest myself for my handmade products but just pinned from the Etsy shop directly ( although in the listing got long pins created by Canva) I will try again your method especially using keywords suggested by Pinterest which may make the difference Fingers crossed! Thanks ❤
I like the stated goals. I wonder if the principals can be applied to apartment living. Because I think single stand alone homes take up too much ground with our populations expanding we need all the ground we can to feed us, so apartments enable more people to be housed on the same amount of ground.