On the subject of architecture and construction’s contribution to climate change, our existing building stock is coming under increasing scrutiny. While the United Kingdom recently announced a review into embodied carbon in buildings, thanks in part to the Architect Journal’s RetroFirst campaign, U.S. President Joe Biden has promised tens of billions of dollars in investment to retrofit four million buildings across the country.
Although new buildings, and the regulations surrounding them, are achieving ever-higher accolades for sustainability, 80% of the buildings that will exist in 2050 have already been built – many of which fall below the environmental performance standards needed to address the climate crisis. On Earth Day, we look at one example of how retrofitting old houses can offer benefits to inhabitants, streetscapes, and the environment.
In the Ravenswood neighborhood of Chicago, among the familiar two-story residential streetscapes of Midwestern suburbs, sits the city’s first certified single-family Passive House. Architects HPZS took one of the neighborhood’s original homes, built in the 1890s, and began a mission to create a replicable model for de-carbonizing the country’s existing housing stock. Following strict Passive House Institute US (PHIUS 2018+) building guidelines, the Yannell PHIUS+ House now sits as a demonstration that sustainable retrofitting can be financially, environmentally, and aesthetically rewarding.
The five-bedroom house uses an array of technologies to meet PHIUS’ rigorous standards. Superinsulation including R-48 graphite-infused continuous exterior insulation, closed-cell polyurethane interior wall insulation, and R-100 blown-in glass mineral wool attic insulation, result in an extremely airtight envelope minimizing energy demands. The transformed exterior features fiber-cement cladding and large triple-pane argon-filled insulated windows, while the roof hosts a 2.8 KW photovoltaic roof-mounted system meeting 25% of the house’s annual energy demand. The house is heated and cooled by an Energy Recovery Ventilator (ERV), replacing stale air with clean, fresh air, while harvesting heat energy to heat the incoming air.
Since its completion in 2020, the house has amassed an impressive set of accolades. In February of this year, the scheme achieved PHIUS 2018+ certification – the first family house in Chicago to do so. In addition, the house holds a Department of Energy Zero Energy Ready Home (ZERH) status, EPA Energy Star certification, and the US Environmental Protection Agency’s Indoor airPLUS label.
“For our team, this project was successful because of our tenacity in the face of a difficult design and building science problem: how can you transform existing buildings today to meet 2050 goals,” say designers HPZS, a 100% woman-owned firm based in Chicago. “But it also represents, to a greater extent, significant policy issues that we’re going to have to deal with if we want to decarbonize: zoning codes must change to allow for exterior insulation to be added within setbacks, major renovations and new construction should not be allowed new natural gas connections, homes should be blower door tested successfully in order to achieve occupancy permits. This project demonstrates that change is essential to the policy administration of the built environment. It’s just one more call to action.”
With 20% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions coming from residential energy use, projects such as the Yannell PHIUS+ House demonstrate the importance and opportunity for architects and policymakers to engage with sustainable retrofitting. Another case study on the subject is the Harvard HouseZero, which saw the Harvard GSD Center for Green Building and Cities (CGBC) collaborate with Snøhetta to retrofit a pre-1940s timber frame house into a highly-efficient headquarters for the CGBC. More recently, the awarding of the 2021 Pritzker Prize to retrofit champions Anne Lacaton and Jean-Philippe Vassal demonstrates the increasing recognition given to the importance of reusing and enhancing our existing housing stock in the fight against climate change.
32 Comments
Interiors look great.
Exteriors?
why.
"because we can"
+can https://youtu.be/PWgCqbWwpBg
I'm all about LEED etc, but 'Aesthetically rewarding'? Talk about screwing up a nice looking house!
I wonder what they'd to to this hot mess...lovely as it is!
I like the “before” exterior so much more to be honest.
And all the artificial materials, sprayed this and blown that will likely LEED (pun intended) to sick building syndrome, radon overdose or something similar. There are plenty of natural alternatives out there...especially when windows need to be kept shut in a passiv haus kind of set up, already getting a headache looking at the pictures.
Are you sure you understand how Passive House works? There's mechanical ventilation. But otherwise yes, I agree - seems like a lot of foams and technology to retrofit an old crappy house (and if you own an old crappy house, how likely are you to be able to afford to do any of this? At that point you'd be better off building new).
Yes I understand that you can't open a window in a passiv haus. Mechanical ventilation can only get you so far, the opening vents and pipes will eventually collect dust and mold inside out of reach and what have you. Psychologically it is just off to lock yourself up in a plastic condom, there is nothing like opening your windows to let in the fresh spring breeze and listen to the birds chirping. Can't hear the birds chirping if all your windows are closed and all you hear is the soft gentle buzz of the mechanical ventilation.
Agree with building new in this case or just totally wear it out and accept the higher energy bill or simply wear an extra sweater.
Not using natural gas for heating is very misguided. The electrical grid can go down for many reasons: thunderstorms, high winds, accidents, ice storms, hurricanes, snow storms, floods. None of these will affect the natural gas service to a home. If you are without electricity in the winter for a prolonged period at least you will have gas heat and maybe hot water from a gas water heater and perhaps a gas range for cooking.
Many stand-by electrical generators are plumbed into a home's natural gas line for those and other reasons. This rush to wokeness in everything is really getting tiresome.
The conflating you do when trying to make a simple point has always been tiresome.
Sorry if listing the advantages of natural gas over electricity and having two sources of energy in a home is tiresome to you. The Chicago hermetically-sealed cell would be uninhabitable in the summer or winter sans electricity.
Intentionally missing the point is still missing the point.
But apparently you won't discuss the disadvantages incurred when natural gas is banned as a means of heating homes (or businesses or factories). I guess if you don't address the disadvantages then they don't exist.
I try to limit my comments to the parts I feel like discussing. That's what I did here. You, on the other hand, pollute a simple comment with unrelated language designed to provoke people. I guess if you pretend you're not doing it then you can pretend it doesn't exist. Unfortunately you're transparent. We see through you. Even if I agree with you I won't comment as such as to avoid being stained by your mealy-mouthed duplicity.
Here, I'll respond as if you're as dumb as you're pretending to be:
"This rush to wokeness in everything is really getting tiresome. "
Wokeness has nothing to do with this, you ignorant ass.
You do understand gas systems require electricity to move air, right? Blowers, circulation pumps etc. Or are you talking about a gravity system that nobody has or wants anymore?
I just leave a Bunsen burner running in the dining room 24/7.
"Not using natural gas for heating is very misguided."
Making a cake with only flour is also very misguided. Generally if you implement one and only one piece of a multi-pronged solution, the result is bad.
The real question is whether your outrage is borne of misunderstanding or intentional ignorance.
No passive solar heating, no passive cooling, unhealthy environment, toxic materials, ... green building my a$$.
How about an environmental analysis of construction material based on carbon footprint? What about making smaller houses (or houses smaller)? Less area to condition is the most blatantly obvious way to reduce energy consumption. Unless of course your job is selling tech marketed to do that.
R100 ... is this building in Antarctica? Put on a freaking sweater already.
Not surprised seeing this from HPZS. Outstanding firm with another outstanding project. Congratulations to the team and the client.
The lack of knowledge shown in these comments about Passive House is amazing ... and I'm not even a convert. I've just educated myself in order to better serve our clients who might be interested in it.
"Yes I understand that you can't open a window in a passiv haus."
Look closer at the windows in the photos. Those are operable. If not, did they put hardware on them for looks? You want a fresh breeze, no one is stopping you from opening the window. I've got a project under construction right now that is targeting PHIUS certification and it has operable windows. Is the building designed to work without natural ventilation? Yes. Does that mean you can't open a window? No.
"The Chicago hermetically-sealed cell would be uninhabitable in the summer or winter sans electricity."
You sure about that? The Rocky Mountain Institute has a paper you might be interested in reading. Bottom line, in a simulated power outage during winter a typical 1950's home had the interior temp drop below 40 deg F in 8 hours; a 1980's home like mine, 23 hours; a code-compliant 2009 home, 45 hours; a Passive House home, 152 hours. They also note, "While this research simulated a power outage during a cold weather event, hours of safety is relevant to heat waves as well." Seems like Passive House is your best bet for habitability in Chicago during a summer or winter power outage at the moment.
There are definitely meaningful critiques for Passive House and this project in particular. But these tired ones are not it.
Thank you for this Everyday. I also don't know a *lot* about passivhaus but I know enough to know that most of the comments above are ignorant.
EA..."especially when windows need to be kept shut in a passiv haus kind of set up", that's what I meant. Can't as in shouldn't...
randomised, except they don't *need* to be kept shut. In most homes you *shouldn't* open the windows if the weather outside is unfavorable to maintaining a comfortable interior temperature. You usually wait for the right temp and humidity range outside before you open them up. This is true for non-PH construction as well as PH construction.
The difference might be that in non-PH construction the outside weather influences the inside conditions more readily and you're subjected to wider fluctuations based on heat gain or loss. So on a hot day the inside of my 1980's home might get uncomfortable and I'll temper it by opening some windows when the outside temp drops below the inside temp even if the outside temp isn't exactly comfortable. But in a PH, that likely won't happen as the inside temp will stay comfortable. But if the outside temp is favorable in the mornings or evenings and I want to open a window in a PH, I can go ahead and do it.
At that point it's not a question of should or shouldn't, its a matter of personal preference. Bad day for allergies or lots of smoke in the air from wildfires, maybe I don't open a window and let the ventilation system filter those particles out. I have that option in a PH, but if I want to cool my 1980's house to simply get it comfortable in the evenings after a hot day, I *need* to open a window and bring in the pollen or smoke in order to get it comfortable.
Or I run the AC all day long trying to maintain a comfortable temp in an under-insulated and leaky building. I'm just as likely to open my windows in that scenario as I am in a PH (i.e. when the outside temp is favorable). On top of all that, in a PH house I'm getting the necessary mechanical ventilation to maintain good indoor air quality. In my 1980's house I'm relying on my lack of air barrier to maintain mediocre indoor air quality.
The Passiv Haus only delivers on its promise with everything closed and relying on the mechanical ventilation to do its magic...over time the grates and pipes of that mechanical ventilation system will fill with dirt/dust/etc. or there is even construction debris in them and that dusty/dirty air will be blown into the home as if its crisp fresh air, which it is not. Not to mention improper use of the system by its occupants. Ever opened up one of those grates and looked inside the ducts?
"A particular area of investigation therefore concerned ventilation and indoor air quality. Whilst it has been shown that MVHR can achieve energy reduction [19], good air quality and associated health benefits [20], recent research has identified a number of problems in relation to MVHR systems [21]. In the pilot study conducted in 2011, a number of defects were identified in the MVHR system. These included crushed and damaged ducts, additional bends, a high amount of 100 mm flexible ducting being used, debris in the duct from construction, filters being dirty (Figure 6), and the unit being connected using the horizontal spigots, which restrict airflow." https://www.researchgate.net/f...
See, I knew you could come up with a better attempt at a critique if you just tried harder and didn't rely on perpetuating myths like PH won't let you open a window.
At any rate, ducts can be cleaned, but even then the EPA says, "Duct cleaning has never been shown to actually prevent health problems. Neither do studies conclusively demonstrate that particle (e.g., dust) levels in homes increase because of dirty air ducts. This is because much of the dirt in air ducts adheres to duct surfaces and does not necessarily enter the living space. [...] Moreover, there is no evidence that a light amount of household dust or other particulate matter in air ducts poses any risk to your health." They go on to discuss when you probably should think about cleaning your ducts and in those cases it usually suggests underlying causes that should be fixed anyway (like in your example crushed and damaged ducts, the wrong size or kind of duct being used, construction debris, etc.).
So I'll give you a point for a better attempt, but still largely problems that can, and should, be avoided with proper design and installation. And guess what, that's exactly what the paper you cited says (emphasis mine), "The problems that relate to the active systems—the solar thermal system, hot water pipework insulation, MVHR system—are both predictable and avoidable, [...] These problems could be mitigated through improved design and installation."
Those problems could be mitigated but often are not, when was the last time you had your ducts cleaned? Leaving the residents with a bad indoor climate/air quality while thinking they’re doing a great job saving the planet or something...thanks for that point though :-) I’d personally opt for vernacular low tech solutions, but perhaps that’s just me...
The point of the EPA link as well as the comments from the paper was to point out that if designed and installed properly you probably don't need to get your ducts cleaned as it light dust from normal use doesn't equate to bad indoor air quality. Additionally I included the statement from the EPA because a co-requisite to PHIUS certification is the EPA's Indoor airPLUS certification which requires measures to mitigate this type of thing. So when you say the problems could be mitigated but are often not, you're not really looking at the whole picture.
So thanks for the effort, but don't think that a couple of examples from bad design and implementation are a valid critique of the entire program.
"So when you say the problems could be mitigated but are often not, you're not really looking at the whole picture."
I obviously cherry picked to fit my narrative ;-)
Compared to the right use of natural materials and simple low-tech vernacular solutions a passivhaus to me seems often just expensive elitist overkill. I'd rather live with nature and our climate than trying to fight it tooth and nail.
We're back here again? Sure, it probably is expensive elitist overkill, but you can still do it while living with nature and the climate. All you had to say is that it wasn't your taste.
SMH
It is not to my taste and this passiv haus is not the answer here, but you knew that already.
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.