Regenerative and Positive Impact Architecture

Looking today to the challenges for planning and design of sustainable built environment including, carbon emissions, climate change, human health, water problems, biodiversity, scarcity of resources, depletion of fossil fuel, population growth and urbanization; sustainable architecture will play a key role for the sustainable development of society as a whole. Cities and buildings can be seen as microcosms, a potential testing ground for models of the ecological and economic renewal of the society. In this context, this chapter provides an introduction to the book readers and shares with them the vision and key research questions that guided the research development in relation to sustainable urban and architectural development. The chapter presents the scope of research and the motivation behind writing this book. A discussion on the ecological and economic challenges in relation of the built environment and its environmental impact highlights the need for a paradigm shift.

In order to understand the changes that accrued in the field of architectural, building design and urbanisation practices during the last hundred years we must follow the history of sustainability in the built environment. We can classify this history under five major phases that shaped the architectural discourse and practice we are witnessing today. Four out of five of those phases were influenced mainly by a major reductionist paradigm that defined sustainability for architecture and buildings design. The reductionist paradigm is seeking mainly the reduction of negative building impact through environmental efficiency. However, we are on a verge of a paradigm shift that operates from a different paradigm. This chapter describes the historical progress and different phases of the modern sustainable architecture and explore the sustainability paradigms associated with those phases.

Creating positive impact buildings requires setting clear definitions to accelerate the innovation process. A definition can increase the built environments’ positive impact on people, planet and economy by designing regenerative and circular buildings. We are on the verge of paradigm shift that challenges the traditional and linear resource centred thinking. The impact reduction paradigm of the linear extract, make, use and dispose process is confronted with a new paradigm that is about maintaining products and services at their highest value, then recovering and regenerating them. In this chapter, we will explain both paradigms and bring ideas and definitions that can help the reader to adopt a new way of thinking into new design and construction models.

Designers should focus on applying design principles and strategies for regenerative and positive impact architecture. During early design stages, design teams need to be informed with a richer understanding of principles of regenerative design so that they can come up with design solutions and incorporate them into effective performance driven buildings. Therefore, in this chapter, we present the key design principles for regenerative design and more importantly we provide a design framework that serves as a logical frame for decision making during the design process. The design framework has been tested and acknowledged in association with detailed regenerative design strategies and design elements. We recommend designers to read this chapter that provides a step-by-step informed guidance for the selection of construction systems, the creation of architectural design elements and solutions and the selection of regenerative design materials and products. A series of illustrations and schemes are developed to help architects during the design process. The aim of this chapter is to enhance the understanding and provide a structured guidance based on measurable performance indicators and threshold when designing regenerative and positive impact buildings.

In this chapter, we list the key performance indicators and thresholds for regenerative architecture and positive impact architecture. The aim of this chapter is to share with readers the insights of our assessment methodology and how we compared the four case studies. The chapter discuss the key influential parameters that need to be taken into account when assessing the environmental performance of buildings. The assumptions for our life cycle assessment and the used standards and system boundaries are described including the functional unit and indicators of comparison. We present the life cycle inventory and the weight share of material groups that was found four the four buildings. The durability of elements, replacement and repair scenarios are presented in order to inform the reader about the some quantitative and methodological information on the role of end-of-life in buildings.

In this chapter, we present an overview of the four case studies. We investigated the design, construction and operation aspects related to the four projects and their pre-set performance targets. This chapter is the foundation for our building energy modelling and life cycle assessment of the four case studies. Through walkthrough visits and interviews with different stakeholders we summarize the main characteristics of those projects before presenting the performance comparison and qualification results in Chap. 7.

The results of the life cycle analysis (LCA) applied to four high performance buildings in the US, Switzerland and The Netherlands are highlighted in this chapter. When assessing the sustainability and environmental performance of high performance buildings it is very important to use universal indicators and consider carefully all life cycle phases and subsystems. This chapter summarizes the research findings using evidence based methods. A detailed description of the environmental impact of the four cases studies is presented including the primary energy balance, global warming potential, and embodied energy. Each building is assessed using several quantitative and qualitative environmental indicators such as the embodied energy of window framing and construction materials or the multi-criteria environmental impact of bio-based insulation materials. The presented work is mainly based on the methodology described in Chap. 5 and the detailed project description in Chap. 6. The results are classified and grouped under different topics namely energy, materials, water and construction system. Finally, this chapter presents a valuable and profound comparison reflecting the complexity of the assessment.

In this chapter, we summarize the key research findings described earlier in Chap. 7. We found that the regenerative paradigm is closer to reverse the ecological foot print and provide a positive impact building than the reductionist efficiency paradigm. Thanks to the biogenic CO₂ calculation approach for bio-based construction and insulation materials, or rapidly renewables agricultural products that are typically harvested within a 10-year or shorter cycle following a sustainable management process. Also, we reflect on the effectiveness of our novel framework for regenerative building design, presented earlier in Chap. 4. The framework could have been used by architects to prevent the negative impact of some case studies and adopt a regenerative and resource centred thinking. Another key contribution of this chapter is the presentation of ten key learned lessons for regenerative and positive impact architecture. The learned lessons are presented and illustrated in an informative way proving relevant content and corresponding illustrations forming a roadmap for future regenerative architecture. In fact, the regenerative paradigm increased knowledge about the materials and embodied energy, generated a more conscious attitude to materials and energy resources selection and almost eliminated the reductionist paradigm in design. Finally, we discuss the limitations and implications of our research on the architectural design practice.