The challenge for design practice is a matter of integrity, of upholding the numerous oaths taken when becoming accredited professionals, and therefore not undertaking design commissions that will continue to contribute to climate change deterioration.
Today, we have the economic frameworks, the standards, the software tools and indeed the examples of buildings and facilities that are regenerative. The challenge for design practice is putting these into place, and replicating and improving upon the cases.
The title and message of the World Green Build Council’s report – ‘From Thousands to Billions’ - nails it: We have thousands of buildings that exhibit regenerative characteristics that we need to scale that up to billions. Urgently.
The problem of climate change is strictly linked to human activities on Earth. Despite this awareness and over a decade of strategies and programmes, the progress in the built environment has been barely visible; we still lack action in effectively addressing these global issues.
Although most professionals involved in the built environment sector declare to embrace sustainability as one of the primary drivers of their ethos, regenerative design has been achieved at a disappointingly small scale, and it is hard to find examples.
There is a (still limited) number of projects that are intended to be demonstrations of Regenerative Design: The Bullitt Centre, USA;
The EAU Enterprise Centre, UK; The UBC CIRS Building, Canada;
The Edge, NL; Geelen Counterflow, NL; Snøhetta’s Powerhouse Kjørbo, Oslo.
It is necessary to move this practice beyond large commercial flagships. There is more environmental impact – and thus more opportunity – within the long tail of construction, necessitating the myriad millions of small projects across the globe to embrace change [1]. The book hosts several case studies in the chapter titled ‘Case Studies of Regenerative Design’.
BARRIERS AND OPPORTUNITIES OF REGENERATIVE CERTIFICATION
What are the obstacles to putting regenerative design principles into practice? It is not technical feasibility: technical solutions are already available on the market. It is not only the cost premium:
even considering an initial investment that is higher than the market average, Regenerative buildings have no bills to pay.
Existing policies and regulations represent a barrier. Innovation and new ideas run counter to the conventional, and as a result, people often resist being early adopters.
Efforts can be further hindered by energy and environmental targets legislated under building codes, which in their negotiation between ambitions and market willingness often default to the latter. It is not good enough to rely on legislation or standards to increasingly ramp up towards regenerative building levels. Firstly, because we simply do not have that luxury of time; and secondly, because only designing or building to code or regulation is the least bad one can be without being illegal. Both EU regulations and voluntary certification systems focus on limiting damage to the environment with scarce attention towards regenerative design.
As such, they are not great drivers for designers to embrace higher ambitions and for them to upgrade knowledge and tools to face regenerative design challenges.
Although the green building movement has played a crucial role in increasing awareness and providing tools for sustainable design and construction to a community of professionals, manufacturers, developers, owners, public officials and policy owners, the approach to sustainability has been reduced in many cases to tick boxes on a check-list. We have lost sight of the objective, while climate change runs at a speed that is higher than the spread of good sustainability practices.
Instead of a world that is merely a less bad version of the one we currently have; we ask – what does good look like? That is why a new, more systemic, comprehensive and effective approach is sought. One example, the Living Building Challenge (LBC), provides design and construction teams with guidelines on how to integrate the living building concept by relying on a system thinking approach [2] [3]. A ‘Living Building’ is one that is integrated with and mimics natural processes and obtains all necessary resources for operation from the natural environment (rainwater, wind, sunlight and where possible natural materials), and in doing so achieves a net-zero impact on the environment.
THE BUSINESS CASE FOR REGENERATIVE DESIGN
There is a business case for regenerative design. These designs are resilient, self-sufficient systems that provide energy and water security, as well as long-term financial benefits [4] [5]. Are regenerative buildings feasible from an economic and financial standpoint? This is a common concern about the concept of green building in general, but the question is urgent when dealing with regenerative design. Everyone, regardless of economic status, should have access to healthy, safe, and affordable buildings. For instance, the International Living Future Institute (ILFI) collaborated with affordable housing developers who use the LBC Framework for Affordable Housing to design and build homes that have no energy bills, are free from toxic materials, and are truly sustainable for future generations. Here, the key driver was to overcome social, regulatory and financial barriers that currently hinder the application of deep green technologies to affordable housing [6].
It should be noted that regenerative design would require the design team also to advocate and inspire policy officials, utility companies, community leaders and decision makers to replace entrenched and regulatory barriers and implement policy initiatives that ease, rather than frustrate, regenerative buildings.
For example, in respect of Living Building Challenge projects, the ILFI provides advocacy tools, a policy leadership toolkit, case studies and reports that facilitate this process [7]. Also, the shift required to implement regenerative design in timely and effective ways needs a change in the mindsets of the stakeholders of the building sector, necessitating a focused collaboration and education at all levels.
REFERENCES
[1] Martin Brown, Edeltraud Haselsteiner and others. Sustainability, Restorative to Regenerative.
Vienna: COST Action RESTORE, 2018.
[2] Sarah Nugent and others, ‘Living, Regenerative, and Adaptive Buildings’, WBDG, National Institute of Building Sciences [Online]. Available: http://www.wbdg.org/resources/living- regenerative-and-adaptive-buildings
[3] The International Living Future Institute programs. https://living-future.org/
[4] James Connelly, ‘Built to last: The business case for living buildings in 2019’, GreenBiz.
Available: https://www.greenbiz.com/article/built-last-business-case-living-buildings-2019 [5] The International Living Future Institute and others, ‘Net Zero and Living Building Challenge
Financial Study’, 2013. Available: https://living-future.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/
NZEB_LBC_-DC_Financial_Study.pdf
[6] The International Living Future Institute. The Living Building Challenge Framework for Affordable Housing. Available: https://living-future.org/affordable-housing/#affordable- housing-framework
[7] The International Living Future Institute. Living Future Policy & Advocacy. https://living- future.org/policy-advocacy/
Due to technological advancement, we have the available tools and methodologies to transform our architectural practice from sustainable to regenerative. However, the lack of knowledge and inefficient coordination between stakeholders are hindering this endeavour. The integrated design process, with its wide application and positive impact in the built environment, can become a reality.
The increasing demand for a regenerative built environment is inevitable. However, only a few real projects exist which fulfil the goal of such a complex issue. To reach global Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDG) [1], the whole design & construction process and value chain must be studied carefully to create more of a positive impact. If the different stakeholder groups of a development and construction project do not understand each other’s interests, the idea of increasing the wellbeing and health of our society will remain just a dream.
For instance, in a commercial development project the primary stakeholders, such as the investor (private or public), the developer, the groups of specialists (such as the architects, engineers etc.), the authorities (municipalities, fire department etc.), general contractors, facility managers, inhabitants, the public etc., have different interests. The investor is rarely interested in reducing the utility costs because this requires further investment while less profit can be made. The contractor is involved in cutting down construction costs compared to what was contracted as much as possible. The building inhabitant, who is the most interested in a healthy and effective (water usage, energy usage, etc.) working and living environment, is rarely present at the planning and development phase.
However, high-performance and emerging state of the art buildings, such as projects developed according to the principles of regenerative architecture can be achieved through collaboration and coordination of the aims and work of the different stakeholders. In recent decades, during the development of complex and sustainable buildings, an ever-increasing emphasis has been put on adopting Integrated Design Project (IDP) [2],[3] or Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) [4].