In our attempt to be nature's master and supposedly sustainable, we are converting everything. Not least our homes: the amount of installations is increasing hand over fist: boiling faucets, rain showers, recirculating showers, video doorbells, rainwater pumps, heat pumps, solar panels and now batteries and charging stations.
No wonder installations seem to account for nearly 40 percent of construction costs, I gather from the podcast Bureau Stoer (episode 31, Building code needs a drastic overhaul') No wonder, almost all of it involves metallic, expensive materials and products.
Not only are the costs skyrocketing, but the use of materials, and associated production-related energy, is increasing hand over fist. I saw it happen 15 years ago, when a real engine room emerged in a demonstration house.
We get carried away in a fictional progress story, which mainly increases energy and material use. But reason the other way, leave out installations. A shower can be a simple tube and head, and if you use it twice a week, - briefly - the rest is nonsensical. (The body cleans itself mainly by itself, smell is in the clothes). We get carried away in a fictitious "ideal of care.
But more so heating. It has long been proven that new construction can be done virtually without installations. Austrian architects Baumschleger and Eberle have been creating groundbreaking buildings for more than 10 years: offices and homes without heating. Yes, in Austria. Buildings without installations, with natural ventilation via windows that can be closed open, CO2-controlled.
22-26
Research shows that we can do the same, the so-called 22-26 concept, a matter of proper detailing and materialization. Residents have infrared panels for emergencies, but when I visited those homes, the residents reported that they hadn't needed those panels in the 3 years they've lived there.
It seems that Dutch architects are going after the Austrians. In Rotterdam with a home, in Amsterdam with an installation-poor office. It should be standard! Material and energy reduction can also be achieved with passive houses or variants of them. These types of houses are well insulated and, especially when they make good and grateful use of the sun, they need virtually no heating.
And if we as residents learn to accept that it may be below 20 degrees in the house for a few days in the winter, and dress a little fatter, then even in a passive house no heating system is needed. Or a small emergency supply will suffice. That should be possible, right? Why do we want to regulate and lay down everything to three decimal places in building regulations?
TO-January
Could the government accept that, a building code in which a temperature of 20 degrees must be achieved "only" 95 percent of the time? Why do we have a "TO July" but not a "TO January," or temperature underrun limit? The number of hours the indoor temperature is allowed to go below a certain unpleasant limit?
It also saves residents quite a bit of pennies. Although, of course, they shouldn't spend the money saved on a flying vacation. What should they spend it on? Well, work a little less and take a little more time off.
About the Author
Ronald Rovers is an ex-professor, physical fundamentalist, future thinker and present day author, in a quest for the ultimate sustainable physical balance on earth, Without fossil of course. Productive Land he calls "our real capital, for food energy water and material. And that requires us to live 'vegetarian', and therefore to build vegetarian. In that light, I explore the future of construction here." Want to read more? Then check out Ronald's website.
Also read:
An installation-free office in Amsterdam
