Having long wanted to attend the Solar Decathlon, the U.S. Department of Energy’s collegiate competition that challenges student teams to design and build full-size, solar-powered houses, I was excited to learn last year that it was going to be held in Denver, where I reside. As the event drew closer, I signed up for two volunteer roles, working one shift as a greeter and a few as a docent, in order to attend.
While some "Legacy" volunteers were NREL or other federal employees, the larger body of volunteers was what you might expect, architects and engineers for instance, along with those you might not, like commercial lawyers or health information technology analysts. Nevertheless, we all shared a passion for energy efficiency, renewable energy, and sustainable design.
The Decathlon was hosted at the future site of Peña Station NEXT, Denver, a new neighborhood set at one of the last stops on the new(ish) commuter rail line, just before the airport. Peña Station NEXT is a master-planned, smart, solar "city" to be. As advertising in the Decathlon Visitor's Guide reminds, it is the "New West." The adjacent, commercial lots are home to the US office of Panasonic's CityNOW, a smart city initiative. They are also the “major tenant and smart and sustainable general contractor for this living lab,” according to George Karayannis, executive director of Real Estate Development Solutions at Panasonic.
Peña Station NEXT is only one part of a Denver Smart City program implementing “holistic, scalable” solutions for three challenges: mobility, safety, and health. It is also connected to Denver International’s Aerotropolis plans to center new development around the airport, in order to take advantage of the location, access to markets, and economies of scale.
There were a number of aspects new to the 2017 competition. One of the 10 contest categories was a new juried focus on water (conservation, use and reuse) — fitting for its location in the high-dry, Mountain West. Cash prizes of up to $300,000 were also introduced and it was the first year that a Triple P (Public-Private partnership) business model was used. The event was organized and implemented with the help of a technology and management consulting firm, a subsidiary of VSE Corporation. Another unique moment, was the Decathlon’s first-ever snow day, which created some extra challenges for teams and the technology.
While fundamentally a workforce development program, public outreach is key to building the consumer demand and market. In addition to the contest, there are educational events, an expo and workshops with topics ranging from ‘Energy Efficiency’ and ‘Solar 101’ to ‘Energy Star’ and ‘Passive House.’
Decathlon team size ranges from 40-200 people and the competition requires, at least, a two year commitment. Some teams are solo affairs while others are multi-institutional; for instance, the Swiss team—NeighborHub, which built a community center focused on flexible, meeting, play or work-space—was comprised of a trio of Swiss universities.
The look of the homes varied greatly among the teams. SILO from Missouri University of Science and Technology drew on traditional farmhouse architecture and featured motorized clerestory windows and a large door as a movable green-wall. On the other hand, Sinatra Living, the project from University of Nevada, Las Vegas, references a mid-century, Mid-Mod ranch. Designed for boomers, it applies universal design concepts for an aging-in-place twist—the most visually striking component of the home being a large solar thermal water system. Crete from Washington University St. Louis used a panelized concrete fabrication methodology that offers durability, fire-resistance and thermal control and resulted in a modern, raw, look that extended to the interior.
The imagined occupants of the homes also varied greatly. reACT (University of Maryland) was designed for a young couple living in the Denver area who are registered members of the St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin and is intended as a prototype for sustainable, self-sufficient Native American housing. Enable from Northwestern University focused instead on boomers who, based on market research, care more about looks and usability than energy efficiency or sustainability. Constructed with SIPs, the project leverages a photocatalytic surface treatment along with other technologies to address indoor air quality issues.
Some of the teams specifically targeted affordability. Although RISE from UC Berkeley/University of Denver presented one of least traditional homes with a distinctive wave pattern and moss covered facade, it utilized movable walls to offer a flexible floor-plan. It was also less expensive than 72% of homes in its market city and designed as just one unit of a three-story, urban infill, building. Selficient from HU University of Applied Science Utrecht was designed to adapt across different phases of a homeowner’s life and achieved affordability through a deconstructable, modular wall-panel assembly.
Others responded to specific environmental issues. OUR H2OUSE from UC Davis was a response to the terrible drought facing California and used various forms of data visualization and user interface design to shape water usage. surviv(AL), designed by the team from University of Alabama and Calhoun Community College, was a reaction to the 2011 Tuscaloosa–Birmingham super tornado and incorporated a thermoplastic and steel safe room able to withstand winds up to 250 miles an hour. Extreme weather events became a more immediate concern for the team behind BEACH House, a home designed for coastal/subtropical retirees. The work of students from Emory-Riddle University and Daytona State College, the home almost didn’t make it to Denver due to hurricanes Harvey and Irma.
Past Decathlons have included a few multi-story entries but single-story is by far the most common. This year, UC Berkeley's RISE entry was unique in addressing issues of density and did so by employing stackability—an urban infill solution for missing-middle housing. The Swiss entry suggested an alternative more communal, cooperative lifestyle—not exactly a traditional baugruppen, but perhaps a piece of the puzzle. Most of the other homes, however, took a lower-density approach though they could easily be clustered as villages of sorts.
There are numerous ways one could judge the success of a competition like the Decathlon. Certainly, some have noted the expense of the competition and wondered: is this the highest and best use of all that money? Though participants and staff acknowledge this concern, they argue that it is simply one of the challenges of being first and of prototyping in general; they also assure that costs will come down with scale. Reported costs (excluding donated time, utility hookups, real estate fees etc.) range from a low of $205,949 to a high of $638,300. One of the cheapest this year was RISE, a multifamily solution designed for scaling up.
In previous years, the DOE announced the location of the next Decathlon during the closing weekend; however, as of yet, they have still not made any official announcement save for a newsletter assuring they "are busy starting to prepare for the next U.S. Department of Energy Solar Decathlon 2020!” and “will be in touch." More broadly, the program doesn't appear to fit with the overall agenda of the current administration. But, if nothing else, the continued internationalization of the program seems a given with partnerships and plans underway for Decathlons in Africa, South America and the Middle East.
Another way of answering the question about "success" is to look at marketability. The first place winner this year was the Swiss Team, which earned a perfect (100 points) score in all three categories: Architecture, Engineering and Energy. Second place went to the University of Maryland and third place to the local favorite UC Berkeley/University of Denver. Selficient, aka Team Netherlands, won the first time People’s Choice award and the Student’s Super Awesome House Award (the collective opinion of the thousands of middle-school students who visited) went to Northwestern University's, Enable. What, does any of this say about the competition itself or the current market for sustainable design?
While the Swiss team took home first place, they came in last for Market Potential. Enable, which emphasized that their market research showed boomers cared about looks and usability more than energy efficiency or sustainability, however, won first place in that same category. Nevertheless, by the end of the contest, a number of the homes had indeed already been sold. This included Northwestern’s, bought by a couple in their target demographic, and RISE, purchased by Denver's Habitat for Humanity.
One should also remember that Decathlon is primarily a workforce development program. In a 2015 report, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory examined Solar Decathlon competition entries in eight areas: 1. Home Automation and Smart Home Technologies, 2. First-of-a-Kind Installations for Materials and Products, 3. LED Lighting, 4. Solar Photovoltaic Technologies, 5. Structural Insulated Panel Construction, 6. Prefabrication for Residential Construction, 7. Efficient Solutions for Small Spaces (HVAC and Heat Pump Water Heaters) and 8. Building-Integrated Vegetation. Researchers found that in each category, "students regularly demonstrate new technologies (or new applications) five to ten years ahead of market adoption."
This study certainly makes the case for the competition's viability at influencing market adoption. And indeed, following the Decathlon, the DOE hyped a recent report demonstrating "just how much the 18,000-plus students who have participated in the U.S. Solar Decathlon may have influenced the market adoption of some once-futuristic technologies that are now readily present in our homes" and argued for a "connection between the Solar Decathlon and market transformation and diffusion of new technologies."
Some of these—LED Lighting, for example—have fairly successfully penetrated the consumer market. Similarly, when the Decathlon started 15 years ago, teams had to develop boutique one-off, battery back-up/off-the-grid solutions. Now, they are able to leverage off-the-shelf technology from Tesla et al. Other categories, like Home Automation and Smart Home Tech, are still making their way through market adoption and social application. Beyond technology, these homes are also indicators of new housing types and the desire to optimize density in sustainable ways. As the Smithsonian recently noted, "from granny pods to morphing apartments, the future of shelter is evolving"—for which, many of this year's Decathlon entries are perfectly positioned.
An ex-liberal arts student now in healthcare informatics, I am a friend of architects and lover of design. My interests include: learning/teaching, religion(s), sustainable ecologics/ies, technology and urban(isms). I was raised in NYC, but after almost two decades of living in North Florida I ...
19 Comments
Seems like form making has died in recent years and environmental engineering took over.
Orhan, certainly no homes in 2017 were as outré in appearance as the 2011 entry from SCI-Arc/Caltech's - CHIP. I would also share that one NREL employe, pointed out that both this year and in previous years, all winning entrees had a few common characteristics; they presented a compelling public exhibit, used distinctive architectural strategies and most importantly had reliable performance/technology.
Nam, I am all for that what you said, our present and the future depends on it. Additionally, I would also like to see the imaginative architecture as a performance aspect. I think we need to start seeing that not as an extra or optional but as a cultural norm while we still can. Beautiful cities conduce better health, cultural sustainability and human relations. "Solar" had this reputation of not being so aesthetically pleasing since the seventies when it start to become more common. It still carries the residues of that.
Agreed!
One of the problems is the basic logistics of the competition. Shipping a home across the country (or overseas) is brutal on the structure. One year I saw a house that fell off the trailer -twice. The same year I saw a project that was innovative in its transportation strategy and form by association, but it leaked like a sieve.
The other point is that you often need to dumb the project down to allow access to a broad group- of students. The labor can be inconsistent, and not always fully engaged even if they're "smart."
Finally, the point of the competition was never about design. It's about illustrating innovation and creating entrepreneurial activities around energy, not so much architecture.
It is after all a DOE not HUD program...
Further to your point re: basic logistics of transportation, these basic limitations on form are also why most contestants have been single-story predominantly. One of the reasons I found RISE so interesting...
Three categories of the competition: Architecture, Engineering, and Energy. But maybe architecture is just a placeholder.
Architecture is the only non-quantifiable part of the competition and is treated as such. Further, if you can find a record of people invited to serve as judges for the architecture portion you'll see that their agenda is not in alignment with ideas about design so much as marketability.
Nam gets close to the point when he makes mention of it being a DOE program. But in many respects, it is what a HUD competition would likely look like and how it would be evaluated.
Nam, there have been other multistory entires, they've been made difficult by shipping and the allowable solar envelope. One year there was an entry that was intended to sit on the top of existing building in urban environments, but you'll note that the overall design of the entries assumes suburban construction in prairies.
I am not hypothesizing/interpreting anything nor tracing who the judges are. If they are using architecture as a category then I would like to see they are judging architecture for what it is. Otherwise they should not use the word or should make a disclaimer on architecture saying "for architecture, judging is for marketability only." Simply that.
So, if you want to attract a high level of design thought engineering or otherwise- which ideally will translate to innovative thinking- which translate into economic entrepreneurship around solar and micro grids, what term do you use?
If I understand your comment comment correctly, it should be called a housing or building competition. Which likely wouldn't attract architects, at least the teams they think they want. And that would cause a rumble among architecture students/programs because they don't want to be involved in building projects, because that's what tech and architectural/building science programs do. That could be the better fit, but the timelines and funding complexities could make that difficult, not to mention the innovation part.
Secondly, They do make that disclaimer implicitly at the least when you look at the jury history, and the descriptions of the specific criteria used for judging. Explicitly when they discuss the process internally in the team conference calls. The fact that there were separate awards for likeablity (or something like that)- jury and public vote- says a lot. And I'm not sure they need to place a banner on the front of the competition "Rated C for common folk," versus "A for serious architecture," because that never happens.
I don't have a problem with the name. the Decathlon is fine. I am not interested finding a correct name, I thought that was clear. I did raise an issue with a competition that uses Architecture in its content yet glosses over it. That doesn't help the public understanding of what our work is about.
I don't know if this is clear for you?
We are in agreement about decathlon and architecture.
I'm just saying:
1- The DoE has a specific sense of what architecture is- especially when it is concerned with the public (I'm not sure HUD would do better or would want to).
2- This is a competition about energy. Period. Everything else comes in line after that. When the teams sign on, they're aware of that.
3- The DoE is trying to shift the role of responsibilities that architects have with respect to energy and residential design (This is not necessarily a good thing).
4-They're trying to reach out to the broadest and best base of thinkers related to the built environment- including Architects- to create opportunities and economies (I'm not sure this is a bad thing).
So the DOE can't do that if it's just a building show. So they packaged things to attract accordingly. It's not pretty, but the folks who sign up are pretty clear about those terms, and do their best to leverage them to their benefit.
@Marc, were you on a team at some point?
05 and helped a little with a team in 07
It has been a series of institutionally critical and informative posts thank you Marc and thank you dear Nam for your continued interest and views on this program. As for me, I stand with my self-provoked views.
Pleasure.
Related: Over at FastCo Eillie Anzilotti argues that if The American Household Is Evolving–Our Housing Should Too and further "Why are we still building so many three-bedroom, single-family homes when most households in America can’t use them?"
Late update, although these photos (which I've been meaning to share) are from March, some contestants are still on site, as of when I returned to Denver last week.
So for now, still the future site of Peña Station NEXT, Mile-High living upgraded with Smart City Tech...
Yikes, that’s depressing...
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.