except that you've got this reversed...

wow you want to explain all of that in a college course? is this just one semester?

How long have you practiced sustainability? I don't know how many offices claim to be "sustainable" but have no recorded leed certified buildings, I guess I'm not going to contribute much here since i know how people actually practice sustainability, and i don't want to distort your thread. you got to remember that being sustainable does not start when you begin drafting with computer programs, these days it gets a little more complex with the mechanical systems used, which brings in the so called "commissioning" people, don't even get me started on that. Though if you a little more thought was put into the preliminary design, mechanical systems required can be minimized.

The most important thing your course will need is students well versed with the pros and cons of Sustainability and well educated in history.

ah, that is interesting...

are there any points in particular that you feel highlight that concept?

In my eyes, sustainability starts with thought an analysis, not certification, computer software or mechanical systems.

Certification calculates based on certain factors, and even though they might not make sense in the real world, they make perfect sense within the realm of the calculation method - like building bicycle sheds in dubai, for instance.

Computer software always is a means to an end, not a goal in itself. It starts the teaching process at the wrong end, I believe: it's nice to know the program, but if you don't know what you are geared towards, it tends to get tricky.

The same goes for mechanical systems: by putting some high-tech gadgets into a unintelligent and unsustainable building, it can appear to be a sustainable solution. But the bottom line is that the building itself is still not cleverly aimed at the problem: you're just adding another fancy spoiler to an ugly car.

I think the key to sustainability lies in an integral approach. Actually thinking about the problem at hand, getting all actors in at the right tome to come up with a logical solution, might mean that you don't need all that high-tech mumbo jumbo.

Other than that, I think the lecture that OMA has on it's website might show some interesting insights into a slightly different approach of sustainability: http://www.oma.eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=132&Itemid=25

it will be overwhelming for them, to be sure. but my intent isn't to make them use technology in a flashy and superficial way or with a false sense of security

rather, the intent is to:

1) ensure that they have a proper overview of the subject, not just a facet, but in its complexity and a sense of its trajectory

2) begin to think about implementation and how it relates to the other design and development tools and methods they are using

3) see it not as an added layer but as something as essential as getting the size of stairways and doorways or number of exits correct

4) emphasize that it is foundational, but not the totality of design per se, that is, they still have to push the form and concepts until the break and then again and again and refine and refine until they end up with something that is both technically and conceptually rigorous

I may introduce the material in one or two dense lectures where I make them take extensive notes --- it will be tough for them and overwhelming

but then I give a few clearly defined expectations, offer generous support in meeting those as a base, and anything they do beyond that is up to them

it is not comprehensive and the focus of the studio is not sustainability

but that is my point --- it is foundational no matter what you do, this is the implicit lesson

and to bounce them off the rails, so to speak, between concept art and an engineering mind frame and make them look for the middle ground

with respect to the comments about process and collaboration, teaching the collaboration I can handle on some level, and which is why I will introduce them to similarities with IPD and other referenced standards, I may have them break into groups and each group defines an OPR that another group has to provide the BOD for, and this will be an early, essential part of them starting concept design

but you're right, it may be good to get an ME or EE or GC or CxA into the class

I don't know about the rest of you, but everything you just described above i got from my Barch, and i didn't have to take a course that tried to bunch up all these things into one course it took 5 years, and more importantly i have learned so much more on my own since college.

you want to teach them that IPD is somehow related exclusively to Leed or sustainability? you got to remember that IPD is strictly speaking is just another form of project delivery, more specifically it is a one point source of responsibility, which in my opinion arose from general contractors and developers trying to control Architects. As a matter of fact in this country i don't believe that there has been more than a few true IPD projects, if any. Everyone is still too scared to do a real IPD project. IPD basically works on the notion that GC's, MEP & structural Eng's, Developers, Architects, and consultants, (which includes a whole bunch of professions encroaching on the Architects responsibilities), will be one big happy family. Last time i checked in our country the USA, no one gets along with people outside of their comfort zone. It might work 30 or 40 years from now when the Architectural profession will be the equivalent of todays Interior designers, it might become standard, because by that the title Architect will be just a title nothing more.

I don't know about the rest of you, but everything you just described above i got from my Barch, and i didn't have to take a course that tried to bunch up all these things into one course it took 5 years, and more importantly i have learned so much more on my own since college.

you want to teach them that IPD is somehow related exclusively to Leed or sustainability? you got to remember that IPD is strictly speaking is just another form of project delivery, more specifically it is a one point source of responsibility, which in my opinion arose from general contractors and developers trying to control Architects. As a matter of fact in this country i don't believe that there has been more than a few true IPD projects, if any. Everyone is still too scared to do a real IPD project. IPD basically works on the notion that GC's, MEP & structural Eng's, Developers, Architects, and consultants, (which includes a whole bunch of professions encroaching on the Architects responsibilities), will be one big happy family. Last time i checked in our country the USA, no one gets along with people outside of their comfort zone. It might work 30 or 40 years from now when the Architectural profession will be the equivalent of todays Interior designers, it might become standard, because by that the title Architect will be just a title nothing more.

sorry it posted twice,

good luck Jmanganelli, what college are you teaching at?

the intent is to teach them to see larger trends implicit in LEED, IgCC, IPD, CxA, Passive House, AEDG, etc

if they see larger trends, then the name of the standard or procedure of the day can be seen in context and hopefully they won't get hung up with a particular set of definitions or methods but see it as fluid, evolving and seemingly coalescing on some core principles

by larger trends, i mean:

1)
a)
the shift from the master architect/builder/engineer to the team approach --- though this is now obvious, it bears repeating as somehow students heads can still be filled with ideas of FLW & H. Roark
b)
that a collaborative approach is essential b/c the rate of change of building technology, of project delivery, of context and of usage is such that it is difficult for solid rules of thumb to form and stay relevant, thus we are more reliant on our approach/process, including how we collaborate with others, and on documentation
c)
that this collaborative approach is essential b/c design teams are multi-generational and often skillsets break down along generational lines --- younger designers know how to use the latest tools but not put project together or manage project, etc, older designers know the latter but may not be as quick with the latest tools or other trends, such as the latest green standard everyone is jumping on or the latest design trend that everyone comes out of school primed to reproduce

2)
for such an approach, a facilitator or facilitators are essential

3)
commissioning/validation, already very common in industrial and health care architecture, is becoming essential in all bldg types due to the compressed design and construction timelines, the increased complexity of the total (whole building) system and the need to ensure that buildings actually perform as they were designed to perform

4)
sustainability is becoming a part of the code, it is part of our role in managing risk and cost for the client and optimizing the usability of the space and is not an additional or special service we provide ---

they will get a sense of LEED or passive house, etc, hell, I'll probably throw in the orange mode,cradle to cradle and michael reynolds' earthships, and juxtapose these notions of efficiency and sustainability with those implicit in the design for the pompidou center, with rogers inmos microprocessor plant, with fuller's dymaxion homes, with culkin's house, eame's residence, kieran & timberlake's work, etc

the point is to have them question, what is efficiency, what is sustainable, what is the current context, where might it all be going and then, when someone teaches them about LEED or the IgCC, or 189.1, they will see it in context

So you are teaching them to be followers which falls in line with my prediction that in the future Architect will be nothing more than a title.

You got to remember that Leed is still in its infancy, and largely unregulated it is whatever suits the person talking, as for commissioners, they are a bunch of engineers who see an opportunity window to kick us architects while we are down. Never mind that the mere idea of a third party checking building systems, is an admittance of breach of contract.

Ps. whats wrong with FLW? fountainhead ? I never read fantasy sorry. Please dont take my comments to mean that i am yelling at the top of my lungs, there is no need for that.

We do sustainability with pencil and paper in my class. We start with the psychometric chart and then talk about comfort and the three ways heat is transferred. We have this HVAC primer that I found at Prairie Avenue. It's for contractors. It's brilliant. It has quizzes and is easy to follow.

Then we start on conductance and do wall sections of typical local frame and masonry to find out what the temperature is inside the wall at different points in summer and winter. Why is the roof R value higher that the walls? What side does the vapor retarder go on? Why? Do equations to show it to me both ways showing the temperature at the vapor retarder and the dew point. They'll never make that mistake again doing the calcs by hand.

Only then do start on Sun, Wind and Light...

So we do the energy side of sustainability. We scratch the surface in 1 semester. Bringing software into it?

WHY?

if i am teaching them to question standards and definitions, to see them in a historical context and to look for underlying themes, how does that equate to me 'teaching them to be followers'

i am saying the exact opposite

i want them to be skeptical of all 'received knowledge'

but i want that skepticism to be based upon a ruthlessly thorough (and objective as possible) engagement with it

i do not want them dismissing anything out of hand

rather, to scour all 'received knowledge' for useful nuggets and potential themes without necessarily subscribing to any of it

Where do you teach?

No offense but if you cannot use a psychometric chart, you have no business talking to anyone about sustainability.

I would start with basic literacy and then move up from there. You're right about no believing all of the LEED/Greenwash stuff out there.

I don't see how you can bring ecotect into it at this stage.

clemson

okay, thanks, i take that as a vote for having them determine dew point and location in cavity as foundational

that in addition to the comments above about collaboration with other disciplines is very helpful

will bring in consultants i used to work with for mock collaborative conceptual design meeting to address the collaboration suggestion --- and will have design teams perform role of owner, designer and facilitator with respect to establishing OPR & BOD as per ASHRAE Guideline 0

calculating solar path and shading angles can also be reinforced

using gh to calculate dew point and have insulation in cavity auto adjust could be interesting use of gh in a very practical way

suppose this can be done in revit as well

for references to gh+ecotect integration, go here:

http://www.grasshopper3d.com/page/search-results?cx=007988927381198593803%3Apfxs7pwjraa&cof=FORID%3A10&ie=UTF-8&q=ecotect&sa=Search&siteurl=www.grasshopper3d.com%252F&siteurl=www.grasshopper3d.com%252F#1018

make, just saw your post about calculating by hand --- thanks, very interesting --- what is the name of the HVAC primer you use?

i learned with Norbert Lechner's, Heating, Cooling, Lighting

The first year accounting class here at DePaul in Chicago does not allow the use of Excel. The profs make the students do everything by hand. I think it's wise.

make, i can't agree more with you. I met many people using ecotect without knowing their input and their result.

jmanganelli, I would suggest ASHRAE Handbook-Fundamentals as your additional reference.

"No offense but if you cannot use a psychometric chart, you have no business talking to anyone about sustainability."


It's psych_R_ometric chart.

Grey,

¡Danka!

;-)

And I am looking for the HVAC primer...

I'll post the title next week.

thanks!