ROTOLO n.3 – Heritage and Energy Performance (inspired by @MIncontri):

Real case-study to explain how current energy codes are lethal for good buildings and our pockets.

Follow @Polemicarc for more –
#sustainability #energy #building #bureaucracy

@MIncontri PROTECTED rural building, dated from late XVIIth C. (with typical belgian add-on)
DEMOLISHED and rebuilt anew.

@MIncontri A simple but very decent detail-rich building, typical of rural Flanders.
With a heavy retrofitting was possible -in theory- to satisfy the requests of contemporary standards and clients, but this option was not chosen.

@MIncontri The codes determine the behaviour of the people with their buildings.
In this case 2 norms combine maliciously:
If lowering VAT to 6% for a refurbishment is good, then considering “refurbishment” leaving 1 wall standing IS NOT. 🔴 covert demolition

@MIncontri The codes create a milieu which favors radical changes of the built environment, and wicked class dynamics that change face to whole cities.
This corner has been "transformed" for good, not the ones in the centre owned by rich people...

But even then...

https://twitter.com/polemicarc/status/1131502895092916225

@MIncontri Then, a building would require more expertise and have stricter energy requirements, which in turn raise the costs in terms of involved work/materials .
There’s a recent proposal to “must reach the pace of 1-3% renovations per year” (emphasis on “must”).

@MIncontri The previous building was sustainable and still standing. Demolitions use energy, produce waste and pollute as well as a new construction. Most modern materials are also not sustainable and often produced from non-renewal sources.

@MIncontri Our proposal was: retrofitting of the previous building in order to achieve comfort/performance, AND preserve its heritage/historical value, THEREFORE increasing the valu€ of the building.
DISCARDED…

@MIncontri …in favor of DEMOLITION + REBUILDING of a “style-pimped-replica”, architecture without past and future (this new building won’t last 100 yrs). Also expensive.
Here some scrap plans.

@MIncontri Typical wall section: blocks 14cm + PUR insulation 12cm (already obsolete by requirements' update!) + air chamber + brick veneer 9cm
Roof in standard lightweight plywood trusses 8/23, with rockwool in-between.
#building #architecture #polemic

@MIncontri The energy performances are "good", as the code frames it, but they will “worsen” as soon as the code gets stricter!
This doesn’t count embedded energy, carbon/water footprint, etc.
The building risks overheating (the skin is too lightweight) although ± no impact on the score.

@MIncontri Solar panels, heat pump, floor heating, domotica, dynamic sun screen adjusting…
You’re not exactly forced to have all this, but they make it extremely “advantageous” to have. It’s the lock-in temptation, and it’s using a lot of energy while attempting to save some.

@MIncontri Look at the very first (prudent!) cost-estimation, demolition excluded!
With half of the money we could have retrofitted the previous building AND saved demolition costs.

@MIncontri So, I tried to show you how historical buildings are erased and our wallets dried-up with the eco-friendly renovation fever.

Thanks for having followed my roll until the end. Follow @polemicarc for more polemics!