Regenerative Architecture Assignment Sample
Introduction to Regenerative Architecture
Because it only attempts to make structures "less awful," sustainability in architecture, as it is now understood by modern culture, is an inadequate metric for both current and future architectural design. The environmental requirements for building today are really low, and the bar for what is deemed a "sustainable" building is incredibly low as well. The dynamic of architecture in relation to the environment sets low standards for success. When a building is constructed, it is celebrated if it incorporates any kind of environmental awareness.
The practice of using the natural world as both a medium for and a generator of design is known as regenerative architecture. The living and natural systems that are present on a site are utilized, and these act as the "building blocks" of the architecture. Regenerative architecture has two main objectives: it prioritizes performance and conservation through reducing a building's negative environmental effects. It is represented by the choice of materials, the use of less energy, and the clever design. The handling of the environment as an equal shareholder in the building is the second, more significant aspect of regenerative architecture. It is a method that incorporates a thorough understanding of all living and non-living processes into the design of a building. According to architecture assignment help, it is an architecture that embraces the natural world and builds a regenerative framework on the millions of years of engineering and development. Regenerative architecture is predicated on the idea that everything we construct has the ability to incorporate the natural environment as a "equal partner" in the design.
"The art or practice of planning and constructing buildings" is the definition of architecture.
This is a typical definition of architecture; however it is unsatisfactory since it restricts us to thinking of architecture as only a building, which eliminates any other possibilities for regeneration and integration. Our definition of architecture does not take into consideration the fact that buildings are a component of a place or site. Why do we drop the structure from the definition of architecture, one could wonder? Although the building needs the site in order to exist, we nevertheless see them as independent components. Perhaps the term "architecture" can be widened to include "the art or practice of designing and constructing space, through the integration of site and building." This definition is more thorough and comprehensive because a structure can only be "beyond sustainable" or regenerative if it incorporates the site into its design.
Buildings are static objects that do not integrate with the environment, resulting in a linear model of consumption and waste as seen in figure 1. The operation of the structure is intrinsically separated from the landscape and the biosphere under our current understanding of architecture, which removes the place from the architecture. This necessitates the synthesis of systems within our buildings, requiring a continuous inflow of resources and energy that are not tied to the site.
Our present system for handling resources and commodities is shown in Figure 1. A building of human contexts, the disintegration of site and architecture necessitates the ongoing introduction of resources into the architecture for operation. (At this point, it is crucial to emphasize that nothing is wasted in the natural world because everything produced is automatically recycled as part of the cycle of life.) Since there are only so many resources in the world, we cannot keep relying on the line model that has long been the cornerstone of our consumer society. It is a degenerative process.
When the term "architecture" refers to more than just the building, it is generative. The place, the site, the systems, the energy, the building, the flora and fauna, etc. are all components of the architecture. It is a structure that is entirely integrated into the location. It is an integrated whole that co-evolves into a single whole. The possibilities for regenerative architecture practically multiply if this idea of design is established. Regeneration occurs when the ecosystem's health improves and the building produces more than it consumes, leading to a positive life. A model of regeneration is visually shown in Figure 2.
Humans and the environment can coexist in harmony thanks to the growth of our constructed world paradigm. It enables people to find balance and rejuvenation in their environments. It goes without saying that adopting a process of regeneration and integration is in our best interest. The upward spiral of environmental health can start, which ultimately promotes the health of the human species as well as the environment.
When the system's production output exceeds the net inflow of resources, we can say that the architecture is regenerative. The architecture, under this new definition, produces more food than it consumes, more potable water than it uses, more energy than it uses, and a greater variety of species than existed before the structure joined the system.
Sustainability – The Less Bad Approach
Traditionally, a "green" structure only emphasizes the first aspect of regenerative design. Technology is used as a tool for reduction and conservation. The issue is that the structure is attempting to lessen the damage it causes to the environment by employing approaches and typologies that have been shown to not be the most sensible and rational ways to achieve true sustainability. It is still unnatural and unreasonable to develop and construct things without using natural processes or interacting with the environment much.
Take the rapidly expanding trend of hybrid cars. The auto industry's response to the contentious question of how we can protect the environment is the hybrid vehicle. While the technology does lessen the impact of the car, it still requires the burning of fossil fuels to function. Even if, as a society, we mostly embrace and encourage the spread of this technology, we are aware that using fossil fuels as a form of personal transportation is not the solution.
Hybrid vehicles share the same architecture. We are utilizing the incorrect solutions to try to solve the environmental saving conundrum. We are addressing the query of how we may be truly sustainably in our buildings by using regenerative design. Using the natural world as a resource, we are offering solutions.
All of the things that we require for life can be produced by architecture. In addition to other things, a structure can create food, energy, water, oxygen, CO2, and water purification. A building has the capacity for both a positive and a negative existence. We use the term sustainable to describe architecture that is "green" or designed with the effects on the environment in mind. Any human activity that is carried out with the idea that its negative effects on the environment are minimized is said to be sustainable. Professor of architecture at Columbia University and ecological designer Mitchell Joachim recently spoke with Tom Vanderbilt of Wired Magazine on sustainability. "I dislike the phrase. It doesn't evoke enough emotion. You want your marriage to be expanding, nurturing, and learning rather than being a stable union. Efficiency is also insufficient, as it only means "less awful." 4
Anyone who is trying to decrease the impact of their lives or the impact of the things they generate uses the term "sustainable" as a buzzword. But why would we merely wish to maintain ourselves and our environment? Why wouldn't we want to do it better, let alone feel the urge to move beyond sustainability and pursue health, balance, and wealth? Living a sustainable lifestyle means taking care of the bare necessities for both the now and the future. Our aim should be a regenerative dynamic rather than a sustainable human dynamic. Plain and simple, the way that humans live is destroying the quality of our planet and lengthening the permanency of the harm that is being done.
When you take into account the significant environmental impact that buildings have, very little of what is now understood as "sustainable" is addressed. The poor standards don't offer any future-oriented answers. We construct for the present while ignoring problems for the future. The current paradigm places a focus on increasing building efficiency and lowering energy use. In other words, using technology mostly, we try to lessen the impact of our buildings. Each system is divided into distinct entities, and as a result, each system becomes independent of the other systems already in place inside the framework.
In his 2006 article "Shifting our Mental Model - "Sustainability" to Regeneration," Bill Reed characterizes the unnatural building and design paradigm that we have accepted as our primary method of structure production as being as follows: According to him, closed systems like mechanical systems, envelope systems, and so forth are the most common systems we see in the design profession. These artificially created systems are entropic by nature and need constant inputs of materials and energy to function. 5
It is by no means sustainable to continuously provide a structure with the energy and resources it needs to run properly. Resources in the biosphere are limited, and we are using them more quickly than they can replenish or recycle themselves. No matter how clever and effective the technology used in a building is or can be, closed entropic systems lead to the exclusion of the complete, organized, and whole systems that form the fabric of the natural world, resulting in the destruction of the environment.
In order to assess the "sustainability" of architecture, the United States has created rating systems like LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design). These kinds of rating systems assign points to categories; the bigger the number of points, the higher the rating. This model provides guidelines for creating more effective, environmentally responsible, and low-impact structures. Although it is an attempt to solve a problem using a solution based on the archetype that is obviously ineffective, it is a realization that the building archetype that we apply is insufficient. Before we are willing to admit that the way we build is just erroneous and that the norm needs to be changed away from the "business as usual" and "less terrible" approach, we cannot solve the problem of unsustainable structures.
We can determine how to approach architecture, but it must originate from a socio-cultural perspective and be manifested in the widespread adoption of regenerative design principles and the acceptance by customers and users that our standard is too low. We cannot be saved by technology unless it is reliable and works in tandem with the environment. The people; the social structure, must acknowledge that our decision-making and patterning are the main causes of the issue. 6
Designing and building with the normative model separates us from the environment we live in. This paradigm spreads the idea that humans are superior to the rest of nature. It spreads the idea that the planet is ours to exploit, rather than acknowledging our relationship with and dependency on the natural world for existence. The mental model behind the patterning process is the one described in this sentence.
Facilities that harm the environment. The first step to regeneration is having a clear understanding and awareness of the underlying causes of the environmental catastrophe. After that, it is up to each individual, group, industry, state, and country to examine the situation and come up with wise and useful answers.
Figure 57 shows a straightforward storm water management canal. It serves as an illustration of the widely held belief that people are superior to the rest of nature, which contributes to our environment-driven demise. It presents a "solution" to a "problem," although the "issue" is actually just a product of human society. Storm water is not at all a concern; it is a component of the world's natural system. It is a crucial component on which other systems must rely for their own healthy functioning, which causes every other natural system to function improperly. This "solution" to this "issue" is an example of how, on the whole, as a species, we construct the environment to suit our needs.
We must reunite ourselves with the environment and adopt the perspective that everything is interconnected through a network of mutually beneficial ties. We may start to create solutions to our problems by using the problem itself as the solution if we accept the mental model that we are a part of nature and have the power to improve the health of the environment. The image above, for instance, was redesigned utilizing regenerative design principles yet shows the same location and view as the prior image. The mental model that was applied when creating the system is what makes a difference. We may simply transition to a world built in harmony with nature, as seen in this illustration, provided we reframe our paradigm.
Guiding Principles for Regeneration
"Tissue develops around the energy flow and turns into the physical manifestation or embodiment of that form. Its representation in form is determined by the flow's fundamental characteristics and the corresponding characteristics of the medium through which it is moving. Form is further shaped by energies flowing over and around it.
Patterns are repeating, predictable arrays of form. Each component of a system expresses a particular shape of the overall pattern. As quantitatively illustrated by fractals, systems shift to a higher degree of organization at certain levels of complexity, and patterns shift to a higher order as well 9.
--M. Murphy and V. Marvick, 1998
The first phase in the regenerative design process is the view of a place as a collection of patterns and interconnected systems. The designer needs to have a thorough understanding of the site's patterns, forces, and energy before they can be used to generate a structure. Exploration and analysis employing mapping and documentation systems are used to do this. The patterns and webs paint a distinctive picture of the site. As concrete information that can be employed to generate the architecture, the location's dynamics start to become apparent. A series of criteria and questions that Tim Murphy and Vicki Marvick developed serve as standards for comprehending, evaluating, and documenting the location.
We become aware of individual flows and how they relate to one another as we get to know a location. Beyond composition and structure, we ask, "What does this flow consist of?" What pieces does it have? —to the characteristics it demonstrates as a result of its fundamental makeup. These characteristics fit into several dimensions:
• How fast is it moving? (Expectations of velocity, viscosity, and resistance.)
• In what direction is it travelling? Directional orientation is a spatial dimension.
• How much flow is present at different points? (Volume denotes the flow's order.)
• What size is it? (Spatial height and breadth measurements.)
• How frequently does it flow? (Time dimension: periodicity/cycles.)
• How much time does it last? (Duration.)
• Where do it intersect and work with other flows? (Social aspects.)
• What does this flow mean in terms of our hopes for a relationship? (The social component that connects our system to the idea of place.)
We are given a paradigm by Murphy and Marvick for creating an effective and comprehensive regenerative architecture. The Hannover Ideas are a set of principles created by William McDonough, a well-known architect who uses many of these in his work. They are a collection of architectural principles developed in 2000 for the world exposition in Hannover, Germany. They provide a design approach centered on the elements Earth, Air, Fire, Water, and Spirit, and they stress the need for coexistence between humans and nature. The Hannover Principles outline the natural interconnectedness between humans and the rest of nature, as well as how our designs affect ecological survival. They take into account "all aspects of human settlement," including how people interact with the natural world and the built environment.
The Hannover Principles
1. Uphold the rights of humans and nature to coexist in a way that is beneficial, diverse, and sustainable.
2. be aware of dependency. The components of human design interact with and are dependent upon the natural world, having wide-ranging effects at all scales. Considerations for design should be expanded to include even distant consequences.
3. Honor the connections between spirit and matter. Consider the linkages between spiritual and material consciousness in all facets of human settlement, including community, housing, industry, and trade.
4. Take ownership of how design choices affect people's well-being, the resilience of natural systems, and their ability to coexist.
5. Produce secure items with long-term worth. Do not impose maintenance obligations or strict management of potential danger resulting from negligent creation of items, processes, or standards on future generations.
6. Do away with the idea of waste. To get closer to the state of natural systems, where there is no waste, evaluate and optimize products and processes throughout their whole lifecycle.
7. Rely on renewable energy sources. Like the living world, human designs should get their creative energy from unending solar revenue. Utilize this energy responsibly by integrating it securely and effectively.
8. be aware of design imitations. No human construct endures forever, and not all issues can be resolved by design. Those who plan and construct should be humble while dealing with nature. Treat nature as a role model and mentor rather than as a nuisance that needs to be avoided or managed.
In the area of regenerative design, two further sets of design principles that are essential to take into account for regenerative architecture have been created. "The Five Principles of Ecological Design" is the title of the first. Sim Van Der Ryn and Stuart Cowan created them. They emphasis the value of local knowledge and the significance of creating structures that enhance the surrounding environment. As they feel that "the more seam-less these aspects are integrated into the design, the less our actions will detract from the health of nature," Cowan and Van Der Ryn underline the significance of seamlessly integrating the natural systems and processes.
Cowan and Van Der Ryn's statement that "Ecological design occurs in the context of specific locales" explains their aims quite well. It develops irregularly, much like how an oak tree grows from an acorn. The soils, vegetation, animals, temperature, geography, river flows, and people give it coherence as it responds to the local characteristics of place.
1. Solutions Grow Locally. Knowing a place inside and out is the foundation of ecological design. As a result, it is simple and direct, responsive to both local circumstances and locals. We can inhabit without harming if we are aware of the subtleties of the environment.
2. Environmental Accounting Guides Design. trace the effects of current or suggested designs on the environment. Find the design option that is most environmentally friendly using this information.
3. Use nature in your design. We respect the requirements of all species while also meeting our own by working with live processes. We become more alive when we engage in procedures that replenish rather than drain.
4. We are all designers. In the design phase, pay attention to all opinions. Nobody is a participant or a designer only. Everyone participates and designs. Respect the unique insights that each person has to offer. People work together to restore their communities while also healing themselves.
5. Bring Nature Into View. Environments that are denatured disregard our capacity and need for learning. Bringing natural cycles and processes into view revitalizes the environment as it was intended. Effective design can help us understand our place in the natural world.
The Todd’s' Principles of Ecological Design are the second set of rules or principles, and they were developed by John and Nancy Jack Todd. They wanted to establish a set of rules that would unambiguously and firmly put nature "at the Centre of the design process." Their guiding concepts emphasis the role of nature as a creator and teacher of design. To recognize what they see as the three most crucial considerations in regenerative and ecological design, they include architecture, food production, and waste management into the principles.
The Todd’s' Principles of Ecological Design
1) The matrix for every design is the living world.
2) Design should adhere to the laws of life rather than defy them.
3) Design must be determined by biological equity.
4) Bioregionality must be reflected in design.
5) Renewable energy sources should be the foundation of projects.
6) Design should incorporate living systems to be sustainable.
7) Design ought to evolve alongside the natural world.
8) Building design should promote planetary healing.
9) Sacred ecology should guide design.
The prescriptions for all three of these design models share a lot in common. Although each has a distinct primary focus, whether it be architecture or design in general, they are all founded on the same essential concept. The underlying tenet of all three is that design must respond to the regional biosphere and the particular location for which the architecture is created.
Mutually beneficial and reciprocal links between honeybees and flowers
Architecture rarely interacts with the environment it is situated in. The gap between the environment and architecture is quite wide. The inclusion and understanding paradigm has the power to influence and fundamentally alter the way we construct. It is a paradigm that calls for a thorough comprehension of the natural world and the systems that occupy it. The generated architecture can be built utilizing the environment as a model and guidance. It is a procedure that necessitates the incorporation of all organic processes found in the natural world.
Regenerative design is fundamentally built on the idea that there is no separation between people and nature. It implies that nature and people are one; we are a part of nature, not above it. It is founded on whole systems theory, which holds that everything is interconnected and functions as one system, with each component having an equal impact on the system's overall health (see diagram 3). An architecture that is entirely comprehensive and inclusive in character is produced by the mental model of whole systems thinking in architecture. It includes each component of the ecosystem and biosphere as an equal contributor to the creation of the architecture.
There are numerous solutions to the issues we confront in the environment. We can decide to accept these responses, use them in our architecture, and begin to produce architecture that is produced by including these processes. This gives us the opportunity to create architecture that improves the environment rather than just causing less harm to it. How can we accomplish the most good for the most people for the longest period of time with the least impact? Is a question that regenerative designer
Ethan Roland asks of designers?
Through the whole systems thinking concept, regenerative architecture reunites people with their natural surroundings. A thorough architecture is created from, by, and for the environment in which it is constructed. It integrates into the ecosystem, contributing to the natural equilibrium and creating an innate link between the occupants of the dwelling and the land on a profound and spiritual level. The strong bond restores people to their rightful place as equal stakeholders in the wellbeing and prosperity of the environment and biosphere in which we live.
Humans establish beneficial links with their living environments by adopting whole systems thinking and regenerative architecture. The land offers a balanced, interconnected existence, and in return, people live there as valuable contributors. Relationships that are reciprocally maintained are cultivated, expanded, and developed.
Think of a honeybee pollinating a flower. Through the bee's action of transporting pollen from one flower to another, this function improves the health of the flower species by preserving the diversified gene pool required for the health of the flower species. The bee receives nutrition for both itself and its hive while pollinating the bloom. Symbiosis and reciprocal maintenance describe the link between the flower and the bee. The co-evolution of the two species has created and engineered the link between them; it is a precise and effective relationship between two radically different species.
The basis for the world's well-being is found in these mutually helpful and reciprocally perpetuating interactions. We wouldn't be here as a species without the harmony and balance that nature has created. Although the equilibrium that allows us to exist in the first place is threatened and degraded by the current paradigm that we employ for dealing with the outside world, the equilibrium is what sustains us. Humans have the capacity to go back to a state of intense connectedness. We are the most highly evolved species and are best equipped to quickly adapt and change our way of life by actively contributing to the maintenance of the balance to which we owe a great deal as a species. The one-sided relationship we have created between us and the world cannot last forever, therefore we may take the flower and bee example as a guide for how we should be interacting with the environment.
So, Why Do We Poop in Clean Water?
Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, we have been creating our constructed environment using methods, structures, and technologies that mainly go against how the natural world has engineered itself throughout the history of life's evolution. One of the worst causes of this contradiction is architecture. Our design principles show a division between the natural world and the manmade environment. The natural world is made up of numerous interconnected natural systems and energy flows. To function properly, every system depends on every other system. We and the rest of life on earth literally exist because of the network of interdependence and mutually beneficial ties that exists in our environment.
Buildings significantly affect the environment since they use a lot of energy, water, and natural resources, as well as produce a lot of pollution. Buildings in the United States alone are responsible for over 65 percent of all electricity use, 30 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions, 136 million tonnes of construction and demolition waste (roughly 2.8 pounds per person per day), and 12 percent of potable water use. Andres R. Edwards quantifies this impact on the environment. Buildings consume 40% (3 billion tonnes annually) of all raw materials worldwide. 16 The numbers Edwards provides us with are astounding. They aid in putting into perspective the sheer magnitude of the situation we face as a species and the grave danger we are posing to the other species of the earth. In actuality, we are the only ones to blame for the extinction of two-thirds of all species on the planet.
The way that architecture currently functions is separated from the natural environment. By synthesizing and replacing the natural processes used by every other life on Earth to function, we separate our built habitats from the natural environment. For instance, the most common technique for cooling a building involves using artificially created energy to power a motor that cools the air by using mechanical devices and chemicals before forcing it through a network of tubes and vents to deliver a precise amount of air to a room at a particular temperature. This illustration shows one of the numerous ways that the building we create artificializes the natural world.
It makes sense to give an example of an air treatment system in a building that does not require energy input, chemicals, or machinery and creates a healthier living environment in contrast to the prior example. When a structure is built with the goal of supplying itself with an integrated system for executing this action, cooling and heating of the air occurs naturally.
Using deciduous trees to shield the structure from the sun's direct rays in the summer is the earliest and most organic technique to keep a building cool. During the summer, a deciduous tree will block 60–90% of solar radiation, however in the winter, when solar radiation is preferred for solar heat gain, it will only do so to the extent of 20–50%.
The employment of calculated overhangs on a structure's southern side can create air circulation by virtue of the design of the structure itself. While allowing direct winter sun for solar heat uptake, an overhang can be built to prevent direct summer sun from accessing the structure. A system of high pressure develops on the south side of the overhang, and a system of low pressure develops on the north side. The structure's cross ventilation is then used to connect the high and low pressure systems, creating a cooling impact in the summer and a heating one in the winter. Both active solar cooling and active solar heating apply to this.
Why Do We Poop In Clean Water? Is the title of this section? And you may be asking yourself why. It's a metaphor, I suppose. It serves as a metaphor for the absurd departure from reason that, despite our knowledge of how to live and function in a way that is consistent with the natural world, our society has decided to adopt and spread. We create products of our species that disregard the testing, engineering, and designing that millions of years of evolution have done for us. We build, design, engineer, manufacture, and support these things. The absurd environment we have created for ourselves is exemplified by the practice of pooping in potable water. Despite the fact that we know how to dispose of our garbage naturally, effectively, and efficiently, we have nonetheless designed a method or system to help us get rid of our waste (pun intended).
The most fundamental method of waste handling is composting. It is secure, beneficial, effective, economical, and organic. We are given the option of disposing of our waste without the need of fresh water, chemicals, or the guilt that comes with knowing that every time you flush the toilet, you are engaging in one of man's most bizarre and unnatural behaviors.
Pooping in clean water is a metaphor for how far we have gotten from coexisting peacefully with nature.
It demonstrates to us that our built environment's engineering is not as logical and effective as it could and should be. One component of the outdated infrastructure on which we continue to rely is architecture. The methods used to create the goods we use, the energy we use, the food we eat, etc. can all be easily adapted to fit the principles of planning for the future. Alternative production techniques have been developed for each of these systems by the relevant industry. The issue and task right now is to fully adopt the "alternative" approaches and change how we produce things to reflect these methods.
The paradox is that our "conventional" techniques are so radically unnatural in their execution that we refer to methodologies that acknowledge, respond to, interact, and emulate the natural environment as "alternative". We have chosen development strategies that go against nature's laws, including urinating in potable water. The constructed habitat is unnatural and almost entirely detrimental to the environment. It goes without saying that the relationship is one-sided and unidirectional.
A product created by man that calls for the use of alternative ways is architecture, which embodies a variety of systems, goods, and energy. Most people in the world use architecture on a daily basis. It is something that is essential to our survival, comfort, and well-being as humans. As a species, we are sustained through architecture. The structures we build have come to be essential to our very life. Herein lies the most hypocritical dynamic of our existence: we construct structures that must support us, despite the fact that neither the structures nor we as their users and creators are able to survive without a continuous supply of energy, materials, etc. Why is it not standard practice to create structures that can accomplish all of the aforementioned tasks we require of them?
Every man-made structure offers chances to improve the environment
Every roof and wall can act as a medium for the creation of life. Each building is given the chance to blend in with the surrounding landscape's natural features, structure, and movement. A building may take on the role of the site and engage with the surrounding environment. Instead of seeing the site as an ecosystem that has the capacity to tolerate and accept a structure as merely another component of the dynamics of the site as a whole, our current building approaches regard the site as the location where the building exists. The site and the structure are typically seen as being in opposition to one another, however when they are combined, the architecture can actually improve the health of the site.
People believe that humans are apart from nature and that we are above it
Instead of seeing the world as the environment in which we live, we see it as a collection of resources that are available for consumption. The natural world, where "all things exist in a mutually supportive and reciprocal interaction with all other things...," is a place where humans do not live in isolation. If we choose to consider sustainability at whatever level, one of our responsibilities is to comprehend the pattern of interactions we enter into when we make decisions about our activities. We can then be ready to consider how our behavior might foster an even richer network of relationships.
It may be seen in our industry, engineering, agriculture, and economy. A very dangerous environmental plague that is deeply ingrained in our culture has been created by the methods we choose to use to build the contemporary society. Because of how deeply ingrained it is, our culture is largely oblivious to the root reasons of the issues we have brought about. "The environmental issue is, in many ways, a design crisis. It results from the way objects are created, structures are built, and landscapes are utilized. Design makes culture manifest, and culture is built on the tenets of what we take to be true about the universe. Our current forms of industry, engineering, architecture, and agriculture are based on design epistemologies that are incompatible with those of nature.
We are a society that is mostly cut off from the environment we live in. The environment that gives us life, food, shelter, water, happiness, and love is something we take for granted. By providing very little in the way of reciprocal nourishment, we show very little regard to that which keeps us alive. The resources we require to survive are provided by the earth, yet hardly any of them get recycled back into the systems from which they originated.
People have the chance to live in a house built with the future in mind thanks to regenerative design. In a moment of potentially impending economic, social, and environmental collapse, it entails creating houses that can support human existence. Using locally sourced materials and in a way that is truly sustainable, it is conceivable to construct a structure that can produce its own food, energy, heating, cooling, water capture, and purification. The natural world offers almost endless opportunity for architecture to incorporate it into its design and presence.
The future is quite uncertain, but one thing is certain: if the global economy collapses, the homes we currently live in cannot and will not be able to supply us with the necessities of life.
The public infrastructure that we depend on for things like food, energy, transportation, etc. will also collapse if a collapse of this kind takes place. The threat's imminent nature ought to be enough to motivate us, the problem's originators, to redesign our processes, structures, and dynamics. All informed citizens are aware of the dangers ahead, including rapid climate destabilisation, species extinction, pollution, terrorism, ecological unravelling in its many forms, and the human political and economic consequences, according to David W. Orr, professor at Oberlin College and author of several significant books. Here, he makes it quite evident that, as people become more aware of the impending threats, change is on the horizon and immediate action is required.
THE NINE PRINCIPLES OF REGENERATIVE ARCHITECTURE AND PLACE ANALYSIS CRITERIA
The philosophy and guiding concepts that shape the practice of regenerative architecture are described in the first section. They were concocted and put together after extensive investigation, debate, and consideration in an effort to establish a synthesis of the built world that is centered on humans and the natural world that is responsible for our basic existence.
A new set of design and site analysis criteria are offered in this section, along with a study of the theories and concepts that were defined in the first section. Most of the criteria that are applied across a wide range of disciplines, including permaculture design, regenerative design, architectural design, Cradle-to-Cradle principles, biodynamic design, and biophilic design, are incorporated into these concepts. These guidelines aim to provide a design methodology and set of standards for regenerative architecture, as it is defined in the first part.
It's crucial to remember that I felt the need to create a set of guidelines specifically for regenerative architecture. In the first section, I discussed and cited numerous pertinent subjects, notions, and tenets; nevertheless, none of them were intended expressly for the regenerative architecture. I thought it important to make an effort to create a synthesis of all the embodied concepts I have described in section 1. It is my contribution to the improvement of our society and the built environment. I've made an effort to formulate a "recipe" for coexisting with and participating in the natural world, to which we owe our very existence.
Even though my sets of guidelines are general in nature, they are meant to be applied especially to homes. The buildings we live in, in my opinion, are the most important man-made constructions. We find refuge, security, warmth, and comfort in our houses. The most meaningful memories are created in our homes, and residents often have a stronger bond with their homes than, say, they do with their workplaces.
I really believe that if we can stop the destructive behaviors that take place in, on, and around the home, our society will be able to start making significant changes. My rules and ideas are oriented towards a smaller, more manageable, and doable scale as a result of these factors.
I have created a comprehensive set of location analysis criteria in support of the nine regenerative design principles. The permaculture scale of permanence approach is used to construct the criteria. The "changeability" of a specific site system is determined by the scale of permanence, which is a relative scale. For instance, Climate is the website's initial and most lasting mechanism. We have very little control on the climate, thus we begin our analysis of the place by looking at the climate. Aesthetics and Experience of Place are the last to be analyzed in the place analysis step since it has been found that this is the most flexible site system that we are concerned with in regenerative design.
The Nine Principles of Regenerative Architecture
"Whole systems design integration" is the first of the nine principles. This concept encapsulates and defines what is unquestionably the most important set of rules in the collection.
All systems and entities are taken into account and incorporated into the overall system design, according to the first. This means that we are designing the site as a comprehensive system and that we are unable to pick and choose the aspects that are crucial to our needs and to us. We must approach the design process with the purpose of operating within the whole system without segregating, alienating, or ignoring any of the members of the full system community of the given site because our requirements are not the only ones that must be taken into account within the system.
"All systems are involved in communities of mutually beneficial relationships," reads the second tenet of the Whole Systems Design Integration concept. By requiring that every system element be thoroughly treated within the design and allowing each relationship to enhance the entire system, this rule reinforces the first rule when it is followed.
As stated in the part 1 section titled "Honeybees and Flowers - Mutually Beneficial and Reciprocal Relationships," the entire system is made up of a collection of relationships that support one another. Without the assistance of other system components, a system cannot exist. A living roof system that has been properly installed is an illustration of this. These species have a habitat on the structure's roof, which is planted with local sedum, grasses, and flora. In turn, the plants give the buildings a lot of thermal insulation, storm water collection and purification, and elimination of the heat island effect caused by a typical roof, to name a few benefits.
The principle of multiplicity is the third directive in the Whole Systems Design Integration principle. According to this, any unit within the system should carry out several tasks or meet multiple needs simultaneously. The theory behind it is universal, though, and can be easily applied to regenerative architecture. This is a principle that is at the heart of permaculture design and is traditionally used to describe one of the methods for designing polycultures within edible forest gardens and permaculture gardens.
The Principle of Redundancy is the fourth principle under the Whole Systems Design Integration principle. It claims that there are multiple solutions within the system to address each requirement. This idea serves as the foundation for permaculture design. The foundation of the Principle of Redundancy is the understanding that no single solution can ensure the smooth running of a natural system. The acquisition of usable energy is an implementable and realizable example of this within regenerative architecture. For supplying ourselves with energy, we have a few excellent options, including solar, wind, and biomass (burning biomass for energy). In a regenerative design, we should think about incorporating at least two of these choices to meet our energy needs.
By doing so, we will solve the energy problem with several solutions, fortify our energy system, stabilize our energy input, and increase its dependability, efficiency, and benefits.
Regenerative architecture's second tenet is "integration into the landscape." There are three key focus points associated with this approach. According to the first, the design is based on a site analysis of the landscape and all of its natural components and systems. It is defining a generative process that turns the information, understanding, and insight gathered from the site into architectural and landscape form. By using this approach, we can produce a design that is solely of and for the site.
The second component of the second principle follows in this manner. It claims that the merging of the home and landscape produces a new unit or full entity. This means that there is no longer a division between the home and the landscape thanks to "whole systems design" and "integration into the landscape" in design. As it now incorporates both the site and the architecture, we are producing a new thing that transcends both.
The third aspect of "integration with the landscape" refers to whether the building was built naturally or artificially. As a result, we understand that architecture is something we impose upon a landscape, making it an artificial entity. In order to synthesis the interaction between the natural and the artificial, we must attempt to close the gap between them in regenerative architecture.
An intelligent limit is the third tenet of regenerative architecture. The design reflects the program's equilibrium, and each material and space is potentially maximized and integrated into its fullest potential positive net input into the entire system, according to this principle. Every programme has a minimum required limit, but it also has a potentially infinite maximum. Since equilibrium can occur under many different situations and can evolve in many different ways depending on what is imposed onto the site, intelligent constraints are essential to the design process because they guarantee that equilibrium can be reached within the system.
To reach a regenerative equilibrium and avoid limiting the system's capacity for regeneration, we wish to impose sensible constraints during the design process.
In order to have the biggest positive impact on the entire system, we are also working to integrate each component.
The fourth principle is "concentration," and it mostly relates to physical space. It is frequently forgotten that the unique relationships between system parts can have a significant impact on how the system functions. Each system element has a relative location or locations inside the site. We ought to create each
With the goal of optimizing that system's capacity and what it can offer to its counterpart systems. Components relative placement.
We also place a lot of emphasis on making the most of our available space while applying the principle of concentration. We can determine the potential of a specific location by examining our site and system. However, we must be careful not to over-program a space or leave out some areas from the "design," as our intervention may not always be the greatest option for a particular site, system, or location. It's crucial to keep in mind that less can sometimes be more.
The fifth rule is "the principle of intelligent construction." It alludes to the building of the site, the building of the systems, and the building of the architecture. The three pillars of intelligent building are material efficiency, material potential maximization, and constructability. The incorporation of the "image" of the design in the materials is another essential component. This means that the material choice can affect how the design is expressed. The place, the design, the systems, and the users are all revealed through the materials.
Bold ecology is the sixth tenet of regenerative architecture. Bold ecology refers to the adoption and spread of ecological systems that serve a number of purposes, are self-regenerating, and yield a positive net output. The bold ecological system goes beyond how we now understand ecology because it embraces and embodies everything that ecological systems have to give, both to the individual ecological system and to us as a whole. We interact with the environment because it gives us a place to live, food to eat, and shelter. Given how deeply it is woven into our lives, ecology acquires a deeper meaning.
"Community" is the eighth regenerative architecture principle. Communities can be clusters of similar things or they might be homogeneous elements. They are always characterized by their connection to all other communities since without the existence of all other communities, it would be impossible to distinguish one particular community. They can occur and exist at extreme minima and peaks. On every scale, communities develop, and because of their inherent capacity for self-organization, new systems are created.
Every community in a system is made up of a smaller group of communities that cohere to form the system as a whole. The components that make up each system and society can then be revealed by taking them apart.
The nearly infinitely large, calculable scales of arranged societies and systems that are present throughout the cosmos are known as layers of scale. A community of bacteria, for instance, lives on a different degree of size than a community of people. The pattern of relationships that exist between various societies and systems throughout the scale horizon are shown to us by the layers of scale.
Because there are more communities with smaller scales, the complexity of the community or system grows exponentially with scale. It's crucial to realize that not all communities can be calculated or understood, even yet their continued existence is necessary for all succeeding communities.
The "experience of place" is the seventh regenerative architecture principle. The experience of the place principle embodies a collection of attributes and phenomenological traits that can be found in and particular to any location. Positive feelings and a defined systemic form should drive the experience. Communities and individuals should be able to experience the location, and it should have a narrative to it. The sense of place conveys the goals of the design and the system's capacity for regeneration.
"Culture" is the eighth principle of. Culture is a fundamental principle that appears at all scale levels and permeates every species, polyculture, structure, and system. Each cultural organization is a part of the location and should be embraced and honored during the planning phase. Every location has a narrative to tell and a history that is deeply ingrained there, and these stories are presented through cultural expression. Using pattern recognition, the cultural expression is located throughout the site analysis phase.
Place Analysis Criteria
The location analysis criteria were developed as a manual for the place analysis phase of the R Urban Intervention Dwelling design process. Based on where they fall on the scale of permanency, the criteria are arranged in ascending order. The place analysis procedure must take place in the order in which they are located. The extensive list of requirements aims to take into account each site system.
The design process' place analysis step is where the designer starts to interact with the location. The designer gathers the entire information essential to create a regenerative architectural design at this phase.
A thorough site plan is created first as the procedure gets started. The subsequent mapping of the site systems is done using the site plan as a base map. Each criterion is represented by a system of translucent or transparent overlays, such as vellum, digital tracing paper, or digital overlays. It is crucial that the designer create, use, and maintain a mapping language concurrently throughout the entire process. The goal is to map each system as the designer sees fit, but each overlay is completed in the order specified by the Place Analysis Criteria and is thoroughly completed in order to produce a set of data maps that accurately and clearly depict the site systems as they actually exist. (For instances of overlays, see figures 20–23 on pages 51 and 52.)
The designers then starts to transform the data into a formal and architectural language as three-dimensional forms start to take shape when the overlays are finished. The designer must use their intelligence to evaluate the data and envision how it might affect three-dimensional forms as part of the intuitive translation process. Numerous design iterations are made as the translation process progresses, and a linear design process emerges as the design changes in response to the data translation and form creation.
Whole Systems Neuron Mapping
An attempt is made to three-dimensionally map the place analysis criteria using the complete systems neuron map. The goal was to provide a set of three-dimensional data that could be used to examine the connections between different place systems. In order to create a design that is comprehensive and built on relationships of mutual support, it is essential to understand the relationships that the systems have.
The structure of the neurons in the brains of mammals is borrowed by the neuron map. The neuron body, axon, and dendrite are the three components that make up a neuron. The neuron body is in charge of receiving and transmitting information to other neurons via electrical impulses. Both the axon and the dendrite are in charge of transmitting and receiving data and signals, respectively. Each neuron is connected to thousands of other neurons by many axons and dendrites.
The cellular neuron and the whole-systems neuron both carry out very similar tasks. Each system's components are separated into their individual parts, and each part is represented by a separate neuron. Neuronal clusters serve as representations for each system. The connections between each individual system component in a cluster determine its structure. The strength and quantity of connections that exist between the various systems determine where each system is located in relation to other systems; the same is true of the overall structure of the entire system. (Page 40's figure 11)
A determination of the nature of the relationships is made after analyzing the relationship between each system and each system component. Relationships can be classified as either being one-sidedly supporting, reciprocally supportive, or having no relationship at all. A system part or system that has the influence has an axon that symbolizes the interaction when there is a mono-directional relationship.
A comparable dendrite from the influencing system or system part received the influence and is present in the influenced system or system component. On each system or system part, there is a corresponding axon and dendrite in the event that there is a mutually supportive relationship, or to put it another way, a relationship that is reciprocally influential.
Solar energy's impact on the site's water system is an illustration of how one system can affect another. The solar energy that each defined component of the water system interacts with has a direct impact on it. Each water system neuron in this situation has dendrites that directly received the effect from the associated axon on the sun energy neuron. (See pages 40, figures 12–15)
The interaction between the vegetation system and the water system is an illustration of two sets of systems that are mutually supporting. In this instance, each component of each system interacts reciprocally with each component of the other system. Each neuron in the plant system has dendrites corresponding to each component of the water system. Corresponding axons in the water system connect to the dendrites of the various components in the vegetation system. The same holds true for how the water system is influenced by the vegetation system. (See pages 40, figures 12–15)
The final product is a model that captures the complexity of the entire system. Under the conditions outlined in the preceding section, the map can be created and used for all location criterion analysis activities. The advantage of employing this approach is that the user gains a thorough understanding of a site's entire structure. It offers a close-up look of the links and relationships that make up the website. This model will produce a different neuron map at each site because each site is unique and each site's internal relationships are unique. (See pages 40, figures 12–15)
THE R_URBAN INTERVENTION DWELLING
The R urban Intervention Dwelling is both a model and a method for small-scale architectural interventions that uses a methodology of site and programme analysis and assessment that is human-centric and based on the standards outlined in the nine regenerative architecture principles. Through the development of a technique that enables quick, cost-effective, and productive construction that adheres to the principles of regenerative architecture, it is an effort to un-standardize our housing paradigm. It serves as a blueprint for an alternative to the "McMansion," which has destroyed the residential lives of the neighborhoods, families, and people who have decided to buy them.
Rural and/or Urban Intervention Dwelling is what the name "R Urban Intervention Dwelling" refers to. The R Urban Intervention Dwelling model was created with the premise that our current process for creating residential architecture is completely unsustainable and that an intervention in this methodology is required. Using the location analysis criteria and the nine regenerative architectural principles, the unit may be constructed and designed for any site, whether it is rural, suburban, or urban.
The word "intervention" was chosen because it is clear that practices are generally degenerative in most sectors and that there needs to be a change in these practices. As a demonstration of the variety of forms regenerative methods can take, the R Urban Intervention Dwelling is put into effect. It intervenes in the current paradigm and provides a substitute. There will be two "interventions." As the unit functions within the local regenerative systems, the first aspect of it is the environmental intervention that takes place within the unit.
The opposite side
Since it is an instructional intervention, it is considerably less palpable. The building gives people an illustration of what a "sustainable" existence looks like—one that is more abundant, healthier, and happier. People frequently think that living "sustainably" entails drastically altering their way of life. The R Urban Intervention Dwelling demonstrates to individuals that adopting a regenerative way of life does require adjustment, but not at the sacrifice of comfort, luxury, or wellbeing.
The R urban Intervention Dwelling was built using the CNC, or computer numerical control, method of construction. CNC is a technology that has been used extensively in the manufacturing sector since the 1940s. It is a method of cutting, putting together, or creating things that uses computers to transmit data to a milling machine. With almost endless customization and selection possibilities, the technology creates goods that are incredibly exact and precise. While not frequently utilised in architecture, this technology is now widely used in many other industries to quickly produce and prototype their ideas.
The R urban Intervention Dwelling is made to be put up on-site using pre-fabricated components that are bonded together to form a single, fluid structure. All building components, including the structure, utilities, amenities, etc., are developed at the same time as the CNC-manufactured parts are made. The R urban Intervention Dwelling sectional sections are primarily made of recycled high-density plastic, although the procedure almost eliminates construction waste and the building materials can be quite varied. Additionally, because most of the work is done off-site, this kind of construction substantially lessens the impact the project has on the site while it is being built.
During the design phase, it became evident that the R Urban Intervention Dwelling would not be built using conventional building techniques. The universal design approaches used to create our physical environment today are insufficient for place-based architecture because of the limitations on their applicability and customizability. The use of techniques and materials that have contributed to the decline of our planet as we know it could not possibly be justified in the new home architecture solution.
The challenge became redefining what it meant to plan and build a structure, which was no simple undertaking. Utilizing structural insulated panels, GlueLam, steel frames, stick frames, rammed earth, cob, and straw bales, the R Urban Intervention Dwelling was tested during the design phase. None of these alternatives was sufficient to produce a final product that embodied every trait that the unit was required to have. It was obvious that a flexible, simply adaptable, and easily "idealizable" solution was required because the design possibilities were extremely constrained in all of the available alternatives.
CNC was the best choice because it provided all of the essential qualities for the unit. Many of its design cues come from industrial design since the architecture was now being assembled from separate parts. The end solution demonstrates highly strong structural properties, versatility in application, recyclable nature, and potential universality. Due to the R Urban Intervention Dwelling's high degree of customizability, solutions like living roofs, rainwater collection, passive and active solar energy, wind power, etc. are simple to deploy.
R_Urban Intervention Dwelling 1 – The Coop House
The R Urban Intervention Dwelling model was used to create the architectural concept for The Coop House.
The 750 square foot apartment may house one or two people.
The main living area and the greenhouse are both contained within one structural unit. The Coop house is passively heated and cooled, making it a zero non-renewable energy building.
in addition to being naturally vented, heated, and cooled. The structure's main living space gets additional heating from the greenhouse, which stores heat for the winter.
It is situated on the South Shore of Massachusetts in the town of Hingham. The property is situated beside the Wier River, a tidal inlet with a robust environment and a wide variety of healthy organisms in the biome system. The Wier River and a Hull Wind turbine are seen from the site's southeast corner. The location of the land is in a neighborhood that is predominately made up of diminutive post-war cape style residences. In terms of median yearly per household income, the demographic falls between the lower and middle classes. There has been and will continue to be a surge in the construction of enormous "McMansion"-style mansions on small pieces of land.
The decision to use this location for the first R Urban Intervention Dwelling was heavily influenced by the neighborhood's gradual but steady transformation. It is a chance to stop the trend from starting, educate the locals, and get them involved in stopping the takeover of outdated technology by shoddy "McNansions."
The Coop House extends to the garage building to the west of the new construction and makes use of an existing 16' x 16' concrete slab-on-grade base. A chicken coop once stood on the foundation; it was utilized for about 45 years before the previous owner decided to cease keeping hens and sell the house. The location of the coop was picked because it satisfied a number of the prerequisites for the effective use of the R Urban Intervention Dwelling Model.
The infrastructure that already exists on the site was the primary factor in the decision to choose the coop as the location. Along with the 256 square foot chicken coop, there is a single-family residence measuring 1000 square feet, as well as a detached garage of 600 square feet. In addition to the 256 square feet of the existing coop footprint, the site's 5,625 square feet of productive, plantable, and buildable space total about 2,700 square feet. A grade shift of about 10 feet is present on the site's southern side, and one of about 3 feet is present on its northern side.
In the "backyard" of the existing house, the three structures on the site create a largely enclosed nook. The pocket is a square of green yard space that is about 1000 square feet in size and is generally level. The southern façade of the Coop House is exposed to the yard space using big glazing panels and an operable sliding door on the southeast corner, making this area the centerpiece of the design.
The parameters from the location study were used to construct the architectural form. The analysis produced all the data required for the structure to emerge. The building's north side begins at grade and rises sharply in the direction of the south, resulting in flowing surfaces on the north and mixing the wall and roof boundaries. Two of the site systems in particular contributed to the fluid shape. The wind system was the main factor, as the cold winter winds from the northwest attack the structure and flow aerodynamically up and over its northern surface. The second most important mechanism for illustrating the fluid shape of the structure was the water system. The final form enables the water to run uniformly and smoothly down the northern façade, ending up collected on grade level as the structure curves to become parallel to the ground plane. This was necessary to capture and purify the precipitation that acted on the building.
A living roof system is applied to the northern façade in an effort to counteract the ground surface that the building consumes. The winter wind will be diluted by the living roof, lessening its heat impact. It is called the precipitation treatment system because it enables water to permeate the soil surface, lessening the force of the water flow downward while simultaneously purifying the water and irrigating the living roof. The living roof is a fantastic insulator throughout the entire year. It can offer an additional R50 insulation value to the roof and northern façade, which is a huge quantity of insulation suitable for the harsh New England weather.
Passive solar heating necessitated a significant quantity of glazing on the southern façade. There are 278 square feet of glazed area on the façade, with an extra 35 and 17 square feet on the east and west, respectively. The greenhouse can function well and the living room can be passively heated with this quantity of glazing providing the necessary solar gain.
In order to shade the interior during the summer and minimize overheating while allowing the southern winter sun to penetrating deeply into the structure and use the mass of the structure to store energy, the southern façade has a roof overhang that extends beyond the windows. Because the living space requires more precise shelter from the summer sun, the overhang is much more noticeable on the eastern end of the building. As it moves across the southern façade to the western end of the building, the overhang gradually gets less.
The site study performed for the solar energy system of the site gave the overhang its curvature and projection distance. For the twentieth of every month from December through June, the sun trajectories were three-dimensionally modeled. The structure was applied to, and the path's direct path arch was examined in order to determine the overhang form. The form was designed using the sun path model for the month of April. Additionally, the southern façade had a compound curvature performed within the surface in both the x and y axis directions. The sun path arch for the month of December, when the sun is at its lowest in the sky, was projected to create this curve.
Both the greenhouse entrance and the entrance to the living area are located on the southern façade of the building. An integrated deck space with a bench seat spans the southern façade's living room portion at a height of 2' 6", sweeps over the façade from the eastern side of the deck, and terminates with a symmetrical sweep down to the western border of the deck. For the people living in the building to use during the pleasant weather months, the overhang above curls down at the edge. To keep mosquitoes and other pests out, a screen mesh can be attached to the overhang's edge and stretched down to the edge of the deck on the three exposed sides. Downlights are included into the inner surface of the overhang above the deck to illuminate the outdoor area at night.
An integrated all-season planter for food production improved indoor air quality, humidity control, and temperature adjustment is located inside the southern façade. The planter is made to optimize the amount of solar radiation that enters, resulting in the highest yield possible given the solar energy input. Because convective radiation reduces laminar airflow up the internal surface of the glass, the vegetation on the inside of the glazing also serves as insulation. Additionally, a barrier is built to protect the inhabitants from the harsh heat of direct southern light.
An integrated cord wood storage box for zone zero access to heating fuel is built onto the eastern façade. The function of the wall is maximized by incorporating the wood storage into the façade, which also gives the occupants easy access to and protection for their cordwood. A translucent fiberglass covering covers the top half of the inside surface of the wood storage area. The panel's purpose is to let the space's diffused eastern morning sun in through the panel and via the cordwood. Without compromising the wall's functionality, the lighting effect created is a treat for the residents in the morning. The cordwood also insulates against the weather outside.
One fluid surface that flows, mutates, and transforms to provide all of the amenities that are built into the structure makes up the inside of the living area. On the inside of the planter wall, a bench seat is provided, using the vertical wall space as the bench's back. A fluid surface that serves as a functional element is created by combining the tabletop and second bench seat in the same formal gesture. The entire interior surface, including the bathroom amenities, kitchen counter surfaces, bench seating for lounge seating, and an interior thermal mass wall, is covered with the same approach.
A wood-burning stove is built into the living space side of the thermal mass wall. In the winter, the stove is utilized as supplemental heating, and the wall's thickness of almost one foot serves as thermal storage for the heat generated by the stove. On its southern end, this wall has a ladder stair as well. The sleeping loft is built into the upper level of the building and is accessible by a ladder stair.
The sleeping loft, which is integrated into the building above the mass wall, the bathroom, and out into the greenhouse space, is an additional 100 square feet approximately. The living area end of the open loft is where it is the widest. At the greenhouse end, it narrows to a smaller diameter. The purpose of this is to provide the residents a feeling of security and protection, making it a cosy place to sleep.
The interior of the sleeping loft has a flowing design that improves ventilation within the area while also enhancing sleeping comfort.
Between the walls dividing the living space from the greenhouse and the thermal mass wall is the bathroom. The room is long and narrow, and the innermost wall is where the composting toilet is located. The bathroom is intended to be a wet bath, which means it lacks a separate shower or bath stall in favor of an overhead showerhead that uses the entire room as the shower area. On the space's entrance side, the thermal mass wall incorporates a sink as well. Integrating the hot water plumbing into the thermal mass wall prevents heat loss, insulates the pipes to help prevent heat loss, and may even help heat the water when the wood fire is running.
The living room is accessible from the greenhouse through a glass sliding pocket door. The ramp that drops two feet to the greenhouse floor is also accessible from the landing on the greenhouse side of the door, which also serves as an entryway to the garden area in the yard. The top of the greenhouse floor is one foot above street level and two feet below the existing slab of the chicken coop.
The northern façade is where the building's primary entrance is located. The entrance is shielded from being inset by 3 feet from the edge of the roof and faces east. For the purpose of accommodating and safeguarding the entry, the surface of the northern façade fractures and peels outward.
To avoid being exposed to the chilly winter winds from the northwest, the entrance faces east. A gently sloping ramp leads the occupant up and into the wide, welcome area that serves as the entry way from the street.
A number of manufactured and integrated zone 1 annual and perennial food production planters are affixed to the eastern and southern edges of the deck on the structure's southern side. The yard area, which is intended to be a grilling area, raised keyhole planters, and circulation walkways, is beyond the planters. The grade starts to slope downward at the yard's edge and drops to a level that is about 9 feet below the yard's grade. On-contour planting beds are located along the hill's contour and alternate with swales until the hill's base, where it flattens out and the property line terminates.
The design approach was highly meticulous because it began with the coop's existing structure and progressed via site analysis, form translation, and form development. Since the final shape required numerous formal modifications, the design process was iterated upon. Due to the application of the location analysis data throughout all iterations, which forced modifications when the analysis was applied to the form, the procedure needed to be iterated. In essence, the form "grew" out of the location analysis through an evolutionary process that produced what might be regarded as one of several "perfect" solutions for and by the site.
The iterative method was required in order to understand and create the relationships that each building and site element had with one another, as was previously discussed in the section headed "Whole Systems "Neuron" Mapping." As many mutually beneficial and encouraging connections as possible must be made. All of the Nine Principles of Regenerative Architecture fit under this category.
The Nine Principles of Regenerative Architecture's objectives were met thanks in part to the R Urban Intervention Dwelling design method that was used to create the Coop House. The Coop House blends in with the surroundings, contributes to the area, and has a great deal of potential to be seen as regenerative. Although it was not necessary in producing and testing the proposed design process, the final design has not been meticulously described. Even though it wasn't flawless right away, the procedure has changed with time.
Numerous intangibles were made apparent, and process defects were fixed. The resulting procedure is theoretically portable and has a distinct linear path.SZ
Ames, S. Community Visioning: Planning for the Future in Oregon’s Local
Communities. In Constrasts and Transitions: Conference Proceedings of the American Planning Association. <http://www.design.asu.edu/apa/proceedings97/ames.html>
Anderson, B., Riordan, M. 1976. The Solar Home Book. Cambridge, MA: Brick House Publishing, Co.
Bahamon, A. 2003. Mini House. Barcelona, Spain: Loft Publications. Beatley,T. 2005. Native to Nowhere: Sustaining Home and Community in a
Global Age. Washington, DC. Island Press.
Beckerman, Wilfred. 2002. A Poverty of Reason. Oakland, CA: The Independent Institute.
Boone, Christopher G., and Ali Modarres. 2006. City and Environment.
Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Dobereiner, David. 2006. The End of the Street. Montreal, Canada: Black Rose Books.
Dunnet, N., Kingsbury, N. Planting Green Roofs and Living Walls. Portland, OR: Timber Press, Inc.
Easton, D. 1996. Rammed Earth House. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing Company.
Edwards, A.R., 2005. The Sustainability Revolution: Portrait of a Paradigm Shift. British Columbia, CA: New Society Publishers.
Eisenberg, D., Reed, B. 2003. “Regenerative Design: Toward the
Re-Integration of Human Systems within Nature.” Article from the Pittsburgh Papers, Select Presentations from the Greenbuild Conference 2003, July 2003.
Girling, Cynthia, and Ronald Kellett. 2005. Skinny Streets & Green Neighborhoods. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Haggard, B., Reed, B. and Mang, P. 2006. “Regenerative Development:
New approach to reversing ecological degradation offers opportunity for developers and Builders.” Revitalization Magazine, January 2006.
Holmgren, D. 2002. Permaculture: principles and pathways beyond sustainability. Victoria, AU: Holmgren Design Services.
Jacke, D., Toensmeier, E. 2005. Edible Forest Gardens: Ecological Design
and Practice for Temperate Climate Permaculture. White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing Company.
Jacke, D., Toensmeier, E. 2005. Edible Forest Gardens: Ecological Design
and Practice for Temperate Climate Permaculture, Volume Two: Design and Practice. White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing Company.
Jackson, Hildur and Svensson, Karen. 2002. Ecovillage Living Restoring the Earth and Her People. Devon, United Kingdom: Gaia Trust.
Jha, Raghbendra, and K.v. Bhanu Murthy. 2006. Environmental Sustainability, as Consumption Approach. New York, NY: Routledge
Karlenzig, Warren, Frank Marquardt, Paula White, Rachel Yaseen, and
Richard Young. How Green is Your City? Gabriola Island, BC: New Society, 2007.
Kellert, S.R., Heerwagen, J.H., Mador, M.L. 2008. Biophilic Design: The
Theory, and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Lawrence, G. 2008. The Sustainability Benefits of a Curious Approach.
August 11, 2008. Design Intelligence, <http://www.di.net/articles/archive/2878>
Lyle, J.T. 1994. Regenerative Design for Sustainable Development. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Mang, P. 2001. Regenerative Design: Sustainable Design’s Coming Revolution. July 1, 2001. Design Intelligence,
McDonough, W., and M. Braungart. 2002. Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things. New York. North Point Press.
Melby, P., Cathcart, T. 2002. Regenerative Design Techniques, Practical Applications in Landscape Design. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Mollison, B. 1988. Permaculture. Tyalgum, Australia: Tagari Publications. Murphy, T. and Marvick, V. July,1998 Issue. Permaculture Acitivist #39.
Newman, Peter, and Isabella Jennings. 2008. Cities as Sustainable Ecosystems. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Pople, N. 2003. Small Houses: Contemporary Residential Architecture. New York, New York: Universe Publishing.
Reed, B. 2007. “A Living Systems Approach to Design, AIA National Convention, May 2007 – Theme Keynote Address”. May 22, 2007.
Reed, B. 2006. “Shifting our Mental Model – “Sustainability” to Regeneration”. April, 2006.
Reed, B. 2005. “Sustainable Design: Moving towards Integrated Design in a Disintegrated World”. National Association of Independent Schools Magazine, Spring, 2005. <http://www.integrativedesign.net/resources>
Reed, B. 2003. “The Cost of Green Buildings”. Cornerstone Bulletin, Pittsburgh Green Building Alliance, January, 2003.
Roaf, S., Fuentes, M., Thomas, S. 2007. Ecohouse, Third Edition.
Oxford, UK: Architectural Press.
Roaf, S., Fuentes, M., Thomas, S. 2003. Ecohouse 2, A Design Guide.
Oxford, UK: Architectural Press.
Roseland, Mark. 1998. Towards Sustainable Communities. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society. Stroup, R. L. 2003. Eco-Nomics. Washington, D.C.: CATO Institute.
Ukaga, Okechukwu, and Chris Maser. 2004. Evaluating Sustainable Development. Sterling,VA: Stylus.
Van Der Ryn, S., and Cowan, S. 1996. Ecological Design. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Wilhide, E. 2002. Eco: An Essential Sourcebook for Environmentally Friendly Design and Decoration. New York, New York: Rizzoli International Publications, Inc.
Wired. Vanderbilt, T. 2008. The Smart List: Mitchell Joachim, Redesign Cities from Scratch. October, 2008, p. 178-179. 16-10.