It is easier to wear a cardigan than to build an energy efficient house

Urmas Luure, architect of the passive house of Palamuse community office, tells us why there are not many energy efficient houses in Estonia and how the house designed by him emerged.
Each person would probably like for all their utility costs to be as low as possible. Then why do you think they do not build more energy efficient buildings?

All activities start from thinking and the decisions that develop from this. Probably, the term “energy efficiency” is only beginning to reach people’s minds. In order to build energy efficient houses, the client and the architect, as well as the later user of the building (if by a chance it is not the client) must be aware of what the energy efficient house brings about.

Insulation and efficient technology devices (such as, reheat ventilation, airtight caps) are not enough to decrease utility costs. In the case of designing, everything starts from determining the site plan, the typology of the building, and the room programme.

It is not possible to construct every house according to the criteria of a passive house, which has brought about the term “low energy consumption building”. Two important factors for buildings to be energy efficient are the client and the architect. Both must know what and to whom they are jointly planning. This involves thorough knowledge about the needs and use of the future building – the number of people and devices, number of guests, time distribution of the use of the building, and so on and so forth. New approaches do not emerge overnight, as one must give time for the building to prove itself energy efficient and that is has a comfortable indoor climate.

The first energy efficient houses that are built are based on the experiences and theories of someone else, however. Or in this case, on examples from Central Europe. Another reason why they are not popular probably lies in the fact that houses become too complicated when everything is controlled by sensors and automatics, and for smaller buildings the investment into technology simply does not pay off; it is easier to put on a cardigan and let fresh air in through the window. It works very well. Each building needs a decent master who has the know-how and is capable of taking care of it. In the end, everything comes down to the awareness of people and their attitude towards their surroundings. But let time tell; at least for the time being, energy efficient houses are popular.

Concerning the results of the design contest of the Palamuse community office, several doubts subsequently emerged meaning the issue had to be reverted to the Union of Estonian Architects. What is your view on this?

With regard to this matter, I can only rely on what I have heard and my own opinion. When the idea contest was launched, the members of the Union of Estonian Architects were not involved in the jury. The membership should (at least in theory) ensure competent and independent architectural quality. Time has shown, however, that it is difficultly to make good architecture in an energy efficient manner at a reasonable cost. Also, reasonable cost is not defined, as the client and the builder are mainly interested in as cheap a cost as possible.

The relationship between the cost and quality is the biggest issue in architecture these days. In the Union of Estonian Architects, they discussed whether the jury was competent enough, which should be the case with a public representative building. The more professional the jury, the better should be the result. It is a pity that Estonian contests are not two-phased, as in this case, the client, experts, and politicians would have had time to make the right decisions and give their instructions for further design. Planning is an activity where things must be thought through and compromises (even bad ones) made to reassure others in the excellence of the future building at all levels (aesthetic, function, further usage).

Another issue was probably at the level of the rural municipality where there was a discussion between various political parties and local people about whether it is feasible to build and take the loan in the first place. Of course, the whole area of how and how much it is attempted to influence the activities of the jury in public procurements and other contests would be a nice topic for research. Actually, the decisions of the jury have an immense impact on the further wellbeing of the building.

When designing such a house, did you have to break through any brick walls, or did you have to explain anything more or have more trouble than usually?

As it concerns fairly new terms and steeper demands, there was a lot of learning and studying. As an architect, I had to approach the special designs with an utter seriousness and understand what was going to happen in the rooms with the temperature, air humidity, and the amount of fresh air. The project was certainly one of the most interesting ones I have worked with. I did not have to explain much to the client; they trusted who was working on it.

I was assisted by the Energy Efficient Building Core Laboratory of the University of Tartu, Institute of Technology, and ventilation designer Teet Tark from Hevac OÜ. For such a building, co-operation and the readiness to change the solution, if necessary, in order to retain the whole concept is especially important.

Did you encounter any problems with the material?

In regard to materials, I think we could probably have managed without the grass roof for the Palamuse community office (it added a supplementary load to the supporting structure). The construction and placement of the furniture was probably complicated by the unusual geometrics of the building (rounded walls on three radii).

We had a problem with the builder when choosing the bricks, as they wished to replace the manually formed bricks for cheaper ones. We came to an agreement on that one, though. However, we did not back down from the brick pavement surrounding the building, as it was an architecturally significant element.

As the materials were foreseen in the project and the builder had worked out their cost in relation to them, we saw no reason in changing it. Therefore, the responsibility of the designer is fairly big in what is foreseen in the project, and once it has been agreed with the client, there is no need for third parties to get involved. Such redesigning in the course of construction ends up in a chaos.

Unfortunately, my own surveillance remained null, as by the time of the construction I had left the office where the designing took place. I am not happy with the indoor illumination where the incorrect lighting was installed and the result does not bear any criticism; also the ceiling beams were placed lower in the exterior of the building and, therefore, visually “the ceiling falls on one’s head”. That convinced me to go there to observe and react.

Authors of the Palamuse community office: architects Urmas Luure and Tõnu Rebane. Interior design: Marit Vendel and Tõnu Rebane