“Let’s look at our living culture, not our facades”
Just insulating houses is not enough.
Since 2023, there has been a renovation obligation when purchasing a home in Flanders. New homeowners must improve their recently purchased home, if it has an energy performance certificate (EPC) with a score of E or F, to score D within five years. That is only a first step; by 2050, all homes must have label A.
While politics seems mainly concerned about the financial burden for the average Fleming, little critical thinking is being done about the basis of those energy labels. However, the measures pose a threat to the housing supply, which is becoming increasingly inaccessible and unaffordable. Yet the system behind the EPC (for renovation) and EPB (Energy Performance and Indoor Climate, for new construction) regulations offers little or no credible guarantees for an energy-efficient future. Is that ‘ambitious’ energy transition, which will cost Flemish families a considerable sum of money, the right strategy?
Currently, EPB and EPC standards dominate sustainability thinking in the construction sector, with a strong focus on the energy efficiency of the indoor climate. The Flemish government uses a compass that judges ‘sustainable’ architecture based on abstract calculations. These calculations are based on generic data about extreme weather conditions that only occur a few times a year, leading to oversized insulation packages and technical installations.
The homes are screened in an unrealistic way, as if they are autonomous objects, without social or urban context. This results in absurd outcomes where a villa in the countryside can be labeled ‘energy neutral’ within the EPB/EPC logic. The energy needed for the construction of roads and infrastructure, or the higher energy consumption of vehicles in the countryside, is completely ignored.
Sometimes demolition is better
EPB and EPC standards are based on the one-sided idea that energy loss linked to living comes solely from the home itself. As a result, they stand in the way of real change: anyone who insulates their home from now on washes their hands in innocence, while you would expect that a vision aimed at 2050 would reflect on the foundations of our living culture. These standards offer a false sense of security, they are not sufficient to create sustainable and energy-efficient buildings. We must see them as a piece of a complex puzzle and we must look beyond the four walls and the roof of our home. We cannot separate energy consumption from location. A spacious, detached passive house in the countryside with a poor mobility score can be just as environmentally damaging as a non-insulated 19th-century city house. Therefore, we must examine the broader urban planning context. It’s not just about the house, it’s about the entire infrastructure that makes a house livable and accessible, including roads, sewage systems, and commuting. So let’s not be blinded by an energy-efficient house. The renovation of rural villas may cost more energy in the long term than demolition, while demolition also gives space back to nature and agriculture. Our focus must be broader and include biodiversity and sustainable land use, which is possible through a critical look from an urban planning perspective. Instead of just relying on modern technologies such as solar panels and insulation, we must acknowledge the impact of the design on the energy efficiency of buildings. Natural construction techniques, materials and designs that take into account environment and climate can promote efficiency without intensive heating and cooling systems. For example, a building with large windows on the south, which captures and stores the solar heat in the winter in its thermal mass, such as stones or in wooden floors, can be particularly energy-efficient. Strategically placed windows and ventilation openings can then let the wind flow through the building and cool it naturally. Architecture must therefore play a central role, with the ability to utilize wind and sun as part of the design. First focus on the performance of the architecture and how it can contribute to energy efficiency from the design. And only then think about adding technologies and insulation. In practice, we already see how architectural firms are moving away from over-insulating buildings and looking for innovative and natural ways to make buildings energy-neutral. That approach should play a central role in design practice. That means recognition of the power and potential of architectural design as a starting point.
Excel architecture
Changing our energy consumption pattern does not have to lead to spatial impoverishment. If we agree that the average temperature of a living space can be 19 degrees instead of 23, that creates room for a different architecture. It is a balance between spatial and energetic comfort.
By investing less in expensive technologies and insulation packages, the budget is freed up for more spaciousness, which leads to more flexibility and more living comfort. Let’s dream again about spaces that may sometimes be ‘too high’ instead of the hypercompact Excel architecture.
Anyone who dares to sacrifice thermal comfort does not have to lose. It can lead to cheaper, flexible and comfortable living spaces that remain usable for generations.
With the current approach to energy efficiency, we are blindly focusing on insulation and modern technologies. That is absolutely not enough to meet the challenges that are coming our way. We must go beyond the limited boundaries of our homes and address the broader issues such as urban planning, biodiversity and sustainable land use. That requires recognition of the role of architectural design applied to the right locations, but also a radical change in our lifestyle. We must be willing to revise our expectations in terms of living comfort, not in the light of energy impoverishment, but in the light of spatial enrichment. That approach will also make us think radically differently about how we design, (re)build and inhabit our buildings and cities. Real change in terms of energy efficiency requires a societal effort that goes beyond insulating our ‘fermettes’. That approach is not only necessary, but also an opportunity to discover new forms of economy, comfort and community. Let’s therefore shift the focus of the sustainability policy and make a thorough renovation possible that not only gives our homes the A+ label in the long term, but also our living culture.
This opinion was published first in De Standaard on 29.02.2024