Building Design

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/54952/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
We take for granted that buildings are classified and designed according to a specific use: a library, say, or school, prison or hospital.
A room, or an open area (“a space” in our modern jargon), too, is determined by its function, so we label them as bedroom, living room, boardroom, office, study or even a gift-wrapping room (if you are a Hollywood star).
Such classification is relatively new in human history. In pre-19th-century Europe and pre-modern China of more than 3,000 years, there were very few or no building types.
In modern times, overt specificity and its opposite, open planning, have caused a few problems: short building lifespan, on the one hand, and bland, lifeless open buildings, on the other, are two.
Rooms for cooking, washing and answering nature’s call must cater to these specific uses. Still, these rooms, like others, can be conceived and designed with singular or multiple characters.
We can, for example, wash in a particular room, but we may also bathe or even read there for pleasure if the room has a serene character. We often speak of rooms in terms of human character: a secretive room, a cheerful room, a gloomy room, a feminine room, a dreamy room … the list goes on.
A narrative of rooms
What did it do to humans when in pre-modern times a building was composed with a narrative of rooms and gradually given a “life” of its own?
It would be inconceivable for a modern architect to receive the instruction from a client to design a building with rooms of various characters. But this was exactly what Andrea Palladio – the 16th-century Renaissance master – was instructed to do.
Give me a dozen rooms, some for me, some for my wife, some for my sons, some for servants and some for “ease”, asked the Veneto noble when he desired a country villa. Other than the differentiation between more open rooms (entrata, sala) and more enclosed ones (stanze, camere and camerini), these rooms are sequentially characterised from expansive and lofty to cosy and intimate.
Throughout their long summers, the Veneto nobles loafed around in such ensembles of interconnected rooms to pursue otium – a Roman ideal of leisurely time spent away from business and politics in the city to read literature and philosophy, and to converse and revel in the country.
They often travelled with furniture when they visited each other in those splendid villas. Depending on the mood and the need, a canopy bed could be set up in either a stanza or a camera, hence a circumstantial bedroom in the modern sense.
The entire Villa La Rotonda, conveniently positioned on the top of a hill, was on occasions turned into this magical theatre at night with its rooms becoming viewing boxes – from where the guests would be entertained with fireworks in the valley.
Around a courtyard, each room has its place
For more than three millennia, the Chinese built everything – from house, shop, factory, theatre and temple to imperial palace and the entire city – following one configuration, a courtyard.
But the rooms lining and within the courtyard – some elevated, expansive and magnanimous, and some grounded, hidden and secretive – were designated to play different social roles.
The patriarch and his wife lived in the central building on the axis; the married sons were housed in the two side-wing buildings; the unmarried daughter and the servants were tucked away in the rows of rooms in the rear courtyard.
One’s destiny and the character of the room were matched based on the legible Confucian decorum. The central tang – the hall – was elevated on a stone platform with its southern façade open to the lower court.
When the blind musician Mian called in, Confucius paid him the utmost respect by showing him the way up to the hall. When Mian reached the steps, the Master said: “Mind the steps”. Taking him to his mat, the Master said: “Here is your mat”. When everyone was seated, the Master explained: “So-and-so is here, So-and-so is there.”
This must have been an expected and yet imperative sequence: stepping up to the hall, being allocated the appropriately positioned mat, and sitting down to converse while facing the courtyard below.
The hall is reserved for the distinguished; the lesser must remain in the courtyard. To rise to the hall without an invitation from the owner therefore is an offence. In the imperial palace, the emperor, sitting in the hall, would give audience to his ministers, on their knees, in the court.
A place under Heaven
The courtyard itself is a room with a character. Though the four wings of the courtyard frame the sky, the Chinese leave their Heaven “unclaimed” in blandness.
When leaves fell in the imperial courtyard, the emperor was informed about the arrival of autumn. Women and children cut golden leaves in various shapes and stuck them on their sideburns: a long-forgotten Chinese custom under the Song dynasty.
Heaven’s pulse, in this Song celebration of autumn, is felt through the framed sky in the courtyard, but its true meaning remains on earth – that is, the connection of the emperor with his subjects. Unsurprisingly, the emperor is “the son of Heaven”.
The atrium in a Roman courtyard domusis narrow and skyward. Its character par-excellence is akin to the oculus in the Pantheon. This “courtyard” is the Roman emperor Hadrian’s homage to both Heaven and man, but man is contained within and, subordinate to, the internalised cosmos.
Though gods were many in classical antiquity, Heaven was to be held in awe. The coffers of the concrete dome, shrinking gradually in size towards the oculus, and still the largest unreinforced concrete dome in the world after nearly 2,000 years, are in the mind’s eye of a modern philosopher a chorus of angels ascending to Heaven.
Rain, snow and occasionally hailstones fall from the oculus. But this is the divine sublime. Even to this day, a cascade of ruby rose petals descends from “Heaven’s eye” (the oculus) on every Pentecost.
By the late 19th century, a large country house of the English aristocracy could have up to 50 defined rooms – ranging from parlour, boudoir, music room, library, gentleman’s room and saloon to cloakroom, china closet, gun room and even soiled linen closet. Professor Robert Kerr took the trouble of writing a book in 1865, The Gentleman’s House, to advise architects on the art of segregation in a house.
Unlike that of the 16th-century Veneto nobles, the English country house was fully occupied throughout the year. While the English gentry retreated to some of these enclosed rooms to cultivate a selfhood, this was the end of likening a building and its rooms to a human character, and the beginning of a building as a mechanical apparatus.
“A house is a machine for living in,” declared the French avant-garde architect Le Corbusier in the early 20th century – though his own buildings are more enigmatic than those of his enthusiastic followers.
But not all has been lost. The great New Zealand architect, the late Sir Ian Athfield, and a few of his kindred spirits such as Luis Barragan in Mexico and Geoffrey Bawa in Sri Lanka, conceived and built their buildings as an ensemble of rooms of all sorts of characters.
Their work nonetheless prove the validity of a long-forgotten tradition – that is, architecture was meant to be an art of imitating a human character, rather than “designed” to cater to a specific use only.
Xing Ruan is professor of Architecture, associate dean international and director of Architecture, UNSW Australia and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/xing-ruan-219197" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Why a building and its rooms should have a human character

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/57114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
In 1960, when the America computer scientist Ivan Sutherland developed Sketchpad, described as the first computer graphical user interface, it changed the course of architecture.
It was the first recorded tool enabling designers to interact with the computer graphically, using a light pen on the monitor.
This laid the foundation for computer aided design (CAD), which, over the next 60 years, replaced the drafting pen and tracing paper with the mouse and monitor in most architectural practices.
But while, for most, computing in architecture is a replacement technology, there are always rebels who want to experiment.
Architects think and draw at the same time, at the design stage as well as detailing the building for construction. And it quickly became apparent that no software can think or design as fast as a doodle on paper (or the infamous napkin). Nor could a program replace the lateral problem solving ability of a human.
All CAD software has limitations. Developers simply cannot program enough tools within the software environment to cater for all the possible applications, let alone to condition creative and lateral thinking.
<h2>The architect programmer</h2>
But why only work within the software written by others when you can write your own? Since the 1970s, a number of pioneering architects and designers have taken it on themselves to be both programmer and designer. In other words, they started to program design.
What emerges at first are the use of algorithms in design to develop forms and spatial organisation through programming logic. With advancement of software and interjection from other disciplines such as film, aerospace and product engineering, architects are now designing ever more complex geometries to explore unprecedented spatial conditions and relationships.
A built example is the Atrium at the Federation Square, in Melbourne, Victoria, by LAB architecture studio. This urban atrium not only constructs new relationships between the city and the river, it also creates a multi-layered space for social encounter and art installation. Structures like these are difficult to conceive in the human mind.
This experimentation in programming design has surfaced as the main stream of architecture design in the past ten years. Computing in architecture is having a deeper impact than ever before: from complex analytical and design tools that allow us to understand the spatial syntax of cities to fully integrated three-dimensional models (commonly known as Building Information Modelling or BIM) and, eventually, linking design with structural analysis to name a few examples.
<h2>Programming materials</h2>
When an architect thinks through drawing and three-dimensional modelling, this is essentially stimulating what the real materials (brick, concrete, steel or timber) can or could be. That’s to say we design in a virtual environment before implementing it in the physical world.
With the recent availability of 3D printers and numeric control machinery, such as CNC routers and laser cutters, designing with computers is bringing architects closer to the material.
Not surprisingly, computer aided manufacturing (CAM) has a history as long as CAD. It was originally designed as a parallel workflow by computer scientist Patrick Hanratty in 1958.
The first known CAD/CAM software is called PRONTON (program for numerical tooling operations). CAM software translates drawing directly into machine code which can be used to cut, print or shape material.
Thanks to the pioneering work of Hanratty, designers can now “talk” directly from computer to machinery. This direct interface with the computer allows us to build very complex geometry.
The Articulated Timber Ground pavilion is recent design research project at the Melbourne School of Design (MSD). Consisting of 1,752 unique components, the pavilion changes its form throughout the sections.
The geometry captures the various ergonomic positions from seating to lounge position. Here, computing allowed us to generate an integrated three-dimensional model for digital fabrication.
The model contained the geometric information, ergonomic data, structural analysis as well as fixing and joint detailing. The position of every single drill hole was defined using a custom algorithm.
The entire pavilion took two days to install with prefabricated parts. It also challenged the way we usually communicate building information through indexing and reading the data for assembly using a tablet.
In the same way as designers start to program design, we can now program how we build things. In other words, we can program material. If we understand its behaviour, we can start to manipulate this as well.
Research at the ETH Zurich, in Switzerland, has developed a number of research pavilions that explore precisely this method of designing using robotics.
At this level of computing using numeric control tools, materials can be stretched and transformed into shape. Our research is developing a new way of fabricating a uniquely curved wall system that can be used as a temporary meeting pod in a flexible working and learning environment.
From the straight line of early CAD software to free form geometry, computing has liberated the creativity of the profession in the past 60 years. The impact of computing in architecture is immense and this will continue to shape the future of our cities.
Imagine the day where our building materials are programmable to suit any design.
Paul Loh is lecturer in digital architecture design, University of Melbourne and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/paul-loh-252075" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Computing helps with the complex design of modern architecture

<html><body><div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
GUEST OBSERVER
The announcement by NSW Minister for Planning, Rob Stokes, that an architecture and design policy will be developed to give a focus on design quality is positive, provided a balance between innovation and regulation is achieved. 
Clearly it is better to have good design rather than bad design of the buildings and precincts in urban areas.
While the intent of the policy is good we need to ensure that design does not become a tick the box assessment criteria measured against prescriptive design manuals.
The draft document states that guidelines, standards and manuals will be developed ‘to assist authorities in the assessment of design proposals.’ 
The draft policy document has many worthwhile statements about the importance of design quality but design quality can be a very subjective issue. The draft policy, for instance, says good design is 'local and of its place' as well as being ‘distinctive, visually interesting and appealing’. This raises the issue of balancing local design that fits in with the existing context compared to the one off exceptional design that stands out.
The Urban Taskforce is supportive of the need for design excellence in the built environment particularly as our urban areas become more compact. Currently State Environmental Planning Policy 65 defines design quality through the Apartment Design Guide for buildings above 3 storeys. 
Any new policy must not duplicate the current SEPP.
The role of The NSW Government Architect is supported by the Urban Taskforce as an advocate for design quality across New South Wales. The current Government Architect, Peter Poulet, is chair of the Taskforce’s Development Excellence Awards jury and we are positive about supporting his role.
The most likely way to lift design quality is to ensure the best designers do the work. This is what SEPP 65 does by ensuring qualified architects design apartment buildings over 3 storeys. The use of design excellence competitions with floor space uplift as an incentive are worthwhile and design review panels with a diverse group of reviewers can also help ensure quality.
The Urban Taskforce is keen to work with the NSW Government to develop appropriate approaches to ensuring design quality as cities like Sydney double in size over one generation. Clearly denser cities need to ensure that design quality gives communities a positive sense about both the private and the public built environment. The NSW Government Architect can play an important role in delivering these quality outcomes.
Chris Johnson is chief executive officer of property development industry group Urban Taskforce and can be contacted <a href="https://www.urbantaskforce.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=97&amp;Itemid=126#.Vdaart55dFI" target="_blank">here</a>.
</div>
</div>
</div></body></html>

NSW architecture and design policy needs to balance innovation and regulation: Chris Johnson

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/66406/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Since the beginning of the 20th century the single-function building typology – for example, the office, school, apartment, institution or retail complex – has been subject to regulations requiring separate spaces for “working” and “living”. 
Within this framework, paid labour seldom took place inside the home. Today, people use space differently, which means legislation must change to support different ways of living and working in the one building. 
The post-industrial city, which has existed since the late 20th century, has changed the way people live and work. 
In North America, with the decline of the manufacturing sector in many cities and the “discovery” of the inner city by the 1970s, it became fashionable for people to live in former manufacturing spaces that had been converted for residential use. This trend emerged in New York and then in San Francisco a decade later. 
By the 1990s most cities in North America boasted converted loft districtswhere people were, potentially, both living and working. 
The early adopters of the contemporary live/work movement were artists and craftspeople. Other groups that have since taken advantage of live/work dwellings are entrepreneurs and the self-employed. They may be freelancers who do not keep regular office hours or need permanent office space. 
The availability and affordability of computers, advances in telecommunications and tax deductions for home offices have made the live/work option a practical and economically savvy alternative for many.
<h2>Movement calls for planning reform</h2>
When the contemporary live/work movement gained traction in the 1980s and 1990s, it challenged the North American urban planning system. New legislation allowed for mixed use, blending residential, commercial, cultural, institutional and, where appropriate, industrial uses. 
This included “home occupation”, which incorporated the right to pursue small-scale work activities at home. This model usually placed restrictions on the number of employees and commercial or client visits to the premises.
The term “live/work” signifies that the building or unit is primarily used for residential purposes, but that working is permitted. “Work/live” means the work component takes priority over the residential. In urban planning legislation, live/work is often associated with residential and mixed-use zones and codes, whereas work/live is associated with commercial, industrial or mixed-use zones and codes.
The main difference between live/work and work/live and home occupation is the “disturbance factor” – that is, how intrusive the activities in the building are for neighbours. 
In Australia, home occupations are generally permitted in current residential and mixed-use zones as long as they do not disturb the neighbours. 
While artist communities and creative entrepreneurs in Australia have been blurring the boundaries between living and working for decades, live/work (or work/live) as a formalised land use does not exist.
The adaptive reuse of vacant or underused buildings and lots is a strand of the live/work, work/live movement. Locations such as Collingwood in Melbourne, Northbridge in Perth and Surry Hills in Sydney are all home to numerous adaptive reuse projects and people working in the creative economies. Councils often turn a blind eye to the buildings’ unregulated use.
However, Australia is yet to see the development of new land use or mixed-use live/work zones such as those in North America. Since the 1990s, live/work has also been formalised in Western Europe. By the 2000s, the movement had taken hold in places such as Eastern Europe, Russia and China.
<h2>What are the live/work benefits?</h2>
As a land-use and building typology, live/work can support urban neighbourhoods through providing a diversity of uses, which can be flexible over time. It intersects with housing, job, transportation and infrastructure planning to support an integrated approach to urban planning. 
The live/work ethic advocates for mixing stores, offices and housing. This can help make neighbourhoods busier and more productive, meaning they may be livelier and safer. 
Live/work offers multiple sustainability benefits. These include a reduction in vehicle use, improved air quality, less dependency on natural resources and reduced sprawl. It can also support and promote efficient land use by putting maximum floor area within a given envelope. 
Increased choice as to how and where people live and work, as well as the accommodation of different lifestyles and new demographics, can result in a built environment that is more responsive to the changes in cities that occur over time.
<h2>What changes are needed?</h2>
The City of Perth encourages residential uses within commercial precincts – for example, in West Perth – but what happens when you want to work in your own home in the city or the suburbs? 
How many workers can you have? Can you put up signage? What services are prohibited? How easy or expensive is it to change the use of a building through the planning system? What spaces and safety conditions need to be adhered to? 
The WA planning scheme stipulates that home occupation means that the business cannot employ non-household members. It also cannot occupy over 20m² or have a physical retail component. A “home business” cannot employ more than two people, be larger than 50m², or have a physical retail component.
With a shift in the attitudes of Australian federal and state governments towards innovation and creativity, planning regimes also need to be more creative to support living and working conditions for the 21st century. An increase in densities presents an opportunity to explore further experiments in live/work.
Andréanne Doyon is research fellow, University of Melbourne, and author for The Conversation. She can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/andreanne-doyon-305144" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Reinventing density: bridging the live-work divide

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVER
“Dull and uninspiring apartment buildings” were the words used by the Burwood mayor, John Faker, in an article run in The Australian Financial Review on Thursday 4th October that blamed planning rules (NSW Apartment Design Guide) for ‘blocking’ better quality design.
On the contrary, the adoption of the design guide has delivered much more attractive and liveable apartments than those built in the 90s. The guide is not responsible for poor construction quality - nor a presumption that maximum allowed residential floor space can be achieved on every apartment site without an appreciation of its setting.
PIA appreciates the mayor’s comment that the design guide had become a box ticking exercise among some developers to get projects across the line quickly while maximising yield. It is the rigid application of the guide in these cases that can cause problems. 
The NSW Government implores consent authorities that ‘apart from the non-discretionary development standards (clause 30 of SEPP 65), the ADG is not intended to be, and should not be applied as, a set of strict development standards’ (Planning Circular June 2017).
While the guide improves consistency and sets a minimum standard, it is not in a position to inspire design excellence. Outstanding design is achieved through great ideas expressed in collaboration among designers, developers and planners who appreciate the opportunities and context of the site.
The Planning Institute of Australia recently ran training on the Apartment Design Guide. Industry leading architect Michael Harrison from Architectus, highlighted that ‘compliance for compliance sake is not a good idea…there should be some flexibility for good design’. He noted that there is room for varying a development standard and the Design Advisory Panels can and should assess the value of innovation.
The Planning Institute of Australia supports the Apartment Design Guide. It reduces contradictions, confusion and conflicts in the assessment of residential apartment buildings and encourages a consistent approach to quality residential apartment design across NSW. It also enables consent authorities to list non-compliance with the Guide, to stop poor development and mandate that qualified architects are required to design apartments.
The Apartment Design Guide is also supported by guidelines on the setting of buildings (Better Placed), so that design of buildings and their precincts are interlinked to result in good places to live and enjoy social activity.
The Planning Institute of Australia agrees that the Guide needs to be applied with flexibility to promote innovation and enable slight non-compliance where the location context calls for it and where there is design merit.  
The Planning Institute of Australia supports the NSW Government being active in promoting better design to ensure that living conditions and amenity improve alongside urban growth.
John Brockhoff is a policy advisor and planner at the Planning Institute of Australia.
</body></html>

jrobinson-rf4aSBido9

Planning is not to blame for poor apartment design outcomes 

<html><body>
Following the call for the registration of more building and design practitioners since its incorporation, the NSW Government has delivered on its promise to restore public confidence in the building industry by successfully passing the Association of Accredited Certifiers (AAC)'s Design and Building Practitioners Bill 2019. 
This bill will increase accountability in the construction sector and improve outcomes for consumers. The legislation ensures that building designers and building practitioners are register in NSW and more accountable for their work on building sites. 
AAC CEO, Jill Brookfield said the Bill will increase accountability, protect consumers, and weed out practitioners doing the wrong thing. "The passage of this Bill is a win for the community and a win for every building practitioner who wants their industry cleaned up," said Ms Brookfield. 
“For too long, unregistered building and design practitioners have been allowed to work on NSW construction sites without any accountability. These reforms mean their days are coming to an end. 
“As we have argued for some time, more building practitioners must be registered and insured if we are to improve accountability and outcomes for the community. 
“This will work to establish a more robust construction industry in NSW, which puts consumers first and weeds out operators doing the wrong thing.
“The NSW Government has rightly identified the importance of the construction industry in supporting the broader economy during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.
“These reforms are crucial in ensuring the right framework for the construction industry is in place to assist in the post-COVID-19 economic rebuild.
“The Design and Building Practitioners Bill 2019 provides an important framework for improving accountability amongst building practitioners in NSW. 
“The Bill is the first step in addressing this lack of accountability and improving confidence in the entire system.
“Central to ensuring its operational success will be the development of robust and thorough associated regulations, which establish professional indemnity insurance requirements for these newly registered practitioners.”
Minister for Better Regulation, Kevin Anderson said the much-needed reforms, passed by Parliament today, mark the start of a new era in the design and construction of buildings in NSW.  
“The NSW Government has a no nonsense approach to achieving and maintaining best practice regulation across all of the industries that it regulates, and the building sector is no exception,” Mr Anderson said. 
“This Bill is all about putting consumers first by giving those entering the property market peace of mind that their home will be expertly designed and built in compliance with the Australian Building Codes.” 
The Minister said the Bill, developed through extensive consultation with industry stakeholders and the public, will ensure NSW has a leading system of design and building regulation that delivers well-constructed buildings into the future.
“The passing of the Bill is a huge step forward in the rebuilding the construction sector into a transparent, accountable, customer-centric industry that consumers deserve,” Mr Anderson said. 
“Owners of apartment buildings with defects will benefit immediately from the statutory duty of care that applies to all new buildings and those less than ten years old.”
Also introduced to NSW Parliament this week is the Residential Apartment Buildings (Compliance and Enforcement Powers) Bill 2020, boosting the Building Commissioner’s power to stop dodgy builders and developers in their tracks.  
The NSW Building Commissioner, David Chandler OAM, will be leading the regulator’s implementation of both Bills, through an expert team of up to 60 new staff who will undertake increased investigation, audit and compliance activities. 
“Combined, these two Bills put the interests of consumers first and show that the Government is serious about lifting the standard of work across the building and construction sector,” Mr Chandler said.
“The laws will give my team a broad range of powers, including the ability to issue stop work orders, prevent strata plan registration and occupation certificates, and to issue hefty fines for those doing the wrong thing.”  
The two pieces of legislation forms one part of the NSW Government’s comprehensive six part reform agenda to lift standards and accountability in the building sector. 
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

NSW Government delivers historic building reforms to restore industry confidence

<html><body>
The Commonwealth Bank will introduce sustainability in to their branches.
CBA is the first Australian financial institution to achieve a 5 Star Green Star from the Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA).
They received the star for the 'standard of design' of its branches.
The designed features a number of sustainable elements including low chemical paints, Forestry Standard certified timber, reduced water consumption and forty percent of energy saving when compared with existing branches.
A 5 Star Green Star assessment reflects 'Australian Excellence' and the design is one of the most sustainable fitouts in Australia.
The design can be replicated across CBA's network.
The head of group property for Commonwealth Bank Jennifer Saiz says that that Green Star assessment confirms CBA's efforts to make a positive impact through the way it does its business.
Commonwealth Bank Place in Sydney's Darling Quarter has recently achieved Australia's first 'quadrella' of six Star Green Star ratings for design, construction, interior fittest and operational performance.
</body></html>

CBA earn Green Star for building design standard

<html><body>
Governments and private companies could save millions of dollars and drastically reduce their carbon footprint with a simple adjustment to the way they use air-conditioning, according to new research by Savills. 
In a presentation posted to the online knowledge clearinghouse TED (Technology, Entertainment and Design), Savills Australia’s national head of Research, Tony Crabb, said air conditioning systems were generally fixed at what is considered to be an optimal 22 degrees based on an arbitrary standard which took no account of outside temperatures and employee comfort levels.
"It turns out that we heat and cool the built environment to a fixed 22 degrees. Why? Because it is the thermal comfort level of a 44-year-old-man which was determined by the Americans in the 1950s. I kid you not," he said.
"This is an arbitrary point that makes little sense and which costs governments and industry millions of dollars a year to say nothing of the impact on the environment.’’
By way of an example, Crabb said that in 2008 the United Nations, as a publicity stunt at its New York headquarters, adopted a temperature range of 19-25 degrees. A month later the UN estimated the savings at US$100,000.
"In Australia, some 40 per cent of our energy is consumed in the built environment and a large amount of that energy is used in heating and cooling. The question is why wouldn’t you adopt some flexibility with regard to your air-con temperature settings?
"If we did this in Australia in office buildings and shopping centres it would save a hundred million dollars and three hundred thousand tonnes of carbon emissions a year and it would not cost a cent. 
"Now let’s run that out through all the other property in the country including residential and then run that out around the world and we are talking billions of dollars and millions of tonnes every year,’’ Crabb said. 
Irrespective of the dollar savings, he said governments and industry should make the effort to adjust the air-conditioning as part of their social responsibility.
</body></html>

prateek24-ezbwHMbNAk

Air-con at 19-25 degrees would save millions of dollars: Savills Research

<html><body><div title="Page 1">
Australia’s property market has extended its winning streak in green buildings by another year, according to a new report by data provider GRESB.
The average score of companies and funds in Australia/NZ improved to 74 in 2016 from 70 in 2015 against a global average of 60, according to the 2016 GRESB.  
GRESB is a leading data provider for environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance of real assets. For the current report, it assessed a record 759 real estate companies and funds, representing more than 66,000 assets and $3.7 trillion in gross asset value, according to a media release.
Australian property companies and funds that stood out were Lendlease, Stockland and DEXUS.
GRESB’s head of Asia Pacific, Ruben Langbroek, said Australia’s leadership reflects a long-term commitment to sustainability and a “pervasive spirit of collaboration and knowledge sharing”.
“Australia’s property industry also regards superior sustainability as a proxy for quality,” said Langbroek.
Australia now has more than 1,320 Green Star-rated buildings, and investors are increasingly demanding reliable data on energy efficiency and sustainability to help guide their decision-making, added Green Building Council of Australia CEO Romilly Madew.
“Sustainability is intimately connected with risk, reward and reputation – and sustainable buildings are not only more efficient and environmentally-friendly, but are also future-proofed assets,” said Madew.
The data also reveals that companies reporting to GRESB for seven consecutive years outperformed their peers in environmental, social and governance (ESG) by an average of 12 points.
The report named four sector leaders for Australia/NZ:
<ul>
<li>Retail: Lend Lease Sub-Regional Retail Fund – Lendlease</li>
<li>Office – Listed: DEXUS Office Trust</li>
<li>Office – Private: Australian Prime Property Fund Commercial – Lendlease </li>
<li>Diversified – Retail/Office: Stockland</li>
</ul>
Lendlease was also named ‘global leader’, coming out top of the 759 companies and funds assessed.
“Lendlease remains steadfast in its commitment to sustainability, and is currently delivering Australia’s first carbon neutral precinct at Barangaroo South. With 74 Green Star ratings under its belt – including apartments, offices, libraries and entire communities – Lendlease continues to set a high watermark for sustainability,” said Madew. 
“Stockland has achieved more ratings under the Green Star – Communities ratings than any other developer in Australia, has Green Star ratings for its entire retail portfolio and launched Australia’s first green bond.
“And DEXUS Office Trust now has 87 Green Star ratings, and has delivered some of the nation’s most iconic green buildings, such as 1 Bligh Street and 5 Martin Place in Sydney.
“We applaud these three companies for stellar sustainability leadership.”
GRESB also found that the Australia/NZ region decreased its energy consumption by two per cent over the reporting period. This decrease is the equivalent to the energy required to power 3,037 homes for a year.
The region’s four per cent reduction in carbon emissions equates to saving almost 1.4 million tonnes of greenhouse gases – the same amount generated by almost 286,000 passenger vehicles over an entire year.
“While we can be proud of our achievement, we can’t rest on our laurels. Our challenge is to keep raising the bar as we work towards a zero carbon industry,” said Madew. 
</div></body></html>

Australia extends winning streak in sustainable property market

<html><body>
A premium-grade office tower at 171 Collins Street in Melbourne’s CBD has got a 6 Star NABERS energy rating, making it the first commercial building in Victoria to achieve the grade.
It is also one of three commercial office buildings in Australia to get the rating without green power or renewable energy back up (such as solar, wind, or geo-thermal), said a media release.
The property – developed and owned by Cbus Property and Charter Hall – is managed by Knight Frank’s Asset Management Services team. 
It comprises an 18-level office called the Tower building, plus seven levels of PCA A-grade boutique offices within the Mayfair building. 171 Collins Street features an atrium, a high-end ground-floor lobby, along with retail tenancies to Collins Street; subterranean retail tenancies to Flinders Lane; and basement car parking. 
According to Knight Frank’s Nick Mavropsi, head of sustainability, Asset Management Services, Australia, the 33,136 square metre property was designed for a 5 Star NABERS energy rating.
“The property achieved its design at 18 months after practical completion, with only 65 per cent occupancy. The challenge was to try and improve the 5 Star NABERS energy rating to possibly 5.5 or 6 stars, while maintaining premium environmental conditions to all tenants and complying with all lease commitments,” said Mavropsi. 
<img src="/images/2016/09/12/171CollinsSt2.jpg" alt="">
Leader of the on-ground team in charge of the works, Knight Frank’s senior Facilities and Engineering Manager, Harshana Wijewardane, said, “Fine-tuning all of the services was crucial to maximise the efficiency of the installed plant and equipment, including the utilisation of the smart tools available. These include highly-refined EMS, under floor air distributed system (UFD), access control high level integration and the co-generation system.”
“These initiatives resulted in 171 Collins Street becoming one of just a handful of commercial office buildings to achieve a 6 Star NABERS energy rating without green power,” said Wijewardane. 
Knight Frank’s Managing Director, Asset Management Services, Australia Aaron McGhee said the company wants to replicate its success nationally to all buildings it manages.
</body></html>

Building Design

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Building Design

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News