Socio-Technical Dimensions for a Sustainable Housing Transition
6.4 Knowledge
two-dimensional lumber glued together perpendicular to each other and compressed tight. As a naturally fire-resistant product, CLT was first used for walls, floors, and roofs in both residential and non-residential con- struction. The benefits of using CLT include a high degree of prefabrica- tion and off-site assembly, and compared to light-weight timber construction, CLT has less air permeability and more capacity for humid- ity and thermal energy. CLT is also able to act as a load-carrying element, which makes it applicable as a stand-alone structural element, and it is being used as a substitute for reinforced concrete. This makes it an appro- priate substitute for reinforced concrete, helping builders reduce their carbon footprint as CLT is much less carbon intensive than concrete and steel. More recently, CLT has been used to construct tall timber struc- tures of up to 18 storeys. Examples include “Treet”, a 49.9 metre-high apartment tower in Bergen (Norway) design by architectural office ARTEC [28]; “The Toronto Tree Tower”,2 a 62 metre-high residential tower in Toronto (Canada) designed by Penda (now Precht); and
“Carbon12”,3 a 26 metre-high mixed-use building (residential and retail) in Portland, Oregon (USA) designed by Kaiser+Path. At the time of writ- ing, there are proposed residential towers of 90 and 100 metres tall using CLT in Toronto and Switzerland, respectively. If built, these buildings would be the tallest mass timber structures in the world.
thinking, and organizing” of housing. This includes the access, under- standing, and use of information to design, build, and sell housing.
Knowledge is informed by guiding principles in that there is a signifi- cant focus on business practices and the financial bottom line. Knowledge around building quality and performance generally is about meeting minimum standards, regulations, or planning requirements with the least cost, effort, and change to practices. Without a better understanding of design, materials, construction, and technology, the current housing regime can be locked into inefficient ways of ways of meeting minimum requirements as they attempt to “bolt on” additional requirements rather than redesign from the ground up. In addition to design and technology dimensions, the housing regime is primarily focused on individual dwell- ings or buildings and rarely extends to the role housing plays within the wider urban context.
The housing construction industry is also generally protective of its knowledge and intellectual property. There is typically little sharing of knowledge, learnings, or lessons across the industry [29–31]. This stems from the focus on the financial bottom line and trying to eke out any market advantage possible. This approach also means that stakeholders rarely have the time or opportunity to return to completed projects to find out first-hand what has worked well, what could be improved, and what the key lessons are, or even share this information across the indus- try [30]. This means that the wider housing industry is repeating issues that could be easily addressed if proper consideration, reflection, and sharing on previous projects were conducted.
These knowledge sharing constraints not only exist within the industry but are also evident in how housing is marketed to consumers. Typically, marketing information relates to the price, location, number of bed- rooms/bathrooms, and other perceived key amenities (e.g., garage, views), rather than providing information (or knowledge) about the implications of the design, materials, construction, and technology, which can signifi- cantly impact the quality and performance of a dwelling [32]. As noted earlier, this is reinforced by social norms about what a house should be, and the focus on wants over needs. There is also the lack of knowledge that housing consumers have about housing and their understanding around quality, performance, and sustainability. This is critical as wider
housing industry stakeholders who push back against regulatory change often state that consumers have the knowledge of what they want and will use their purchasing power to drive sustainability change. However, research shows that housing consumers often lack knowledge about the impacts their decisions have on housing quality, performance, and design [33–36].
Sustainable housing stakeholders, on the other hand, are interested in information and knowledge as evidence to enhance their understanding and improve the design, construction, and retrofit of housing. By weav- ing this evidence in with housing consumer needs, a more considered and holistic sustainability approach is applied. While such knowledge was site specific in the early years of the sustainable housing movement, recent decades have seen the development of communal sustainable housing knowledge that is flexible enough to be adapted to different cultural norms, jurisdiction requirements, climate zones, and other local contexts (e.g., use of local materials). This knowledge is now integrated into many higher education courses related to the housing industry (e.g., architec- ture and construction management) to ensure those going into the wider industry have a higher level of knowledge and understanding to deliver sustainable housing. There has also been a focus on training for sustain- able housing elements and delivering demonstration projects to reduce barriers of the unknown and to give actors experience with real-world outcomes [29–31].
Knowledge and evidence have expanded beyond just technical, mate- rial and design knowledge to include the role of the dwelling within the wider environment. For example, the focus on affordability through reduced utility bills, health and well-being through improved thermal comfort, and better productivity through improving natural light, and so on, are now as much a part of the sustainable housing language as the need to reduce the environmental footprint. Furthermore, improving housing performance based on what occurs around the dwelling is increasingly playing a role in the design, construction, and occupation of sustainable housing. This includes the strategic planting of vegetation to help regulate local micro-climates and reduce requirements for mechani- cal heating and cooling within a nearby dwelling.
The sustainable housing community is typically a community that is open to sharing and has engaged with ideas around open sourcing key information. This is evidenced by the range of publications on the topic (e.g., books, articles, videos, podcasts, blogs) where people are happy to share what they have done [1]. Importantly, the community is also happy to share lessons of what has not worked, and to revisit these reflections periodically to see if anything changes as the dwelling ages and house- holds gain more understanding of how to maximize their performance.
Increasingly, these niche sustainable housing stakeholders are engaging more and more with existing regime actors [1].
6.4.1 Vancouver House/Vienna House
In 2018, the City of Vienna and City of Vancouver signed a Memorandum of Cooperation to share knowledge and advance innovation in low car- bon affordable housing across the two cities. Specifically, the agreement commits the cities to ‘share insights on innovative new building approaches, effective market transformation programs, and research asso- ciated with different building approaches and standards’ [37]. Vancouver House,4 in Vienna, will consist of 107 rental units, a kindergarten, 12 units for assisted living, and 11 units for single parents in a hybrid wooden structure built to Passive House performance standards. Vienna House,5 in Vancouver, will consist of 123 units of dedicated affordable rental housing in a high performance, low emissions building showcasing innovative materials and design processes. The knowledge exchange between the City of Vancouver and the City of Vienna has the potential to inform future sustainable and affordable housing projects. For this reason, knowledge transfer and dissemination will be a key part of the project’s research and communications efforts.
Research on the buildings is publicly available through the project and government websites. In Vancouver, the University of British Columbia (UBC) is leading research through the UBC Sustainability Initiative, the
4 https://bit.ly/3iuOP4b
5 https://bit.ly/3GYDDXS
Department of Civil Engineering, and the UBC Collaborative Research Group. Researchers, students, and consultants will study the design, manufacturing, construction, and commissioning processes of the Vancouver project and document the challenges, solutions, and lessons learned. Potential areas of interest include energy performance, virtual design and construction (VDC), building information modelling (BIM), mass timber product performance, life cycle assessments, and prefabrica- tion and construction productivity. The aim is for the project to be a showcase or demonstration project for the housing construction indus- try, as well as for policymakers facing similar challenges.