In my work I meet people that have a "green
heart" and want to do something positive for nature or the environment.
Some of these people even go so far as to want to create an "ecological
project". The initiatives seldom amount to much as the economics of such
dreams of a better future for one's personal life and the planet don't stack
up. This prevents many idealist from completing actual projects. I'm not
mentioning this to put down the dreamers amongst us, no, I simply want to draw
attention to the divide between what is dubbed "conventional" versus
"ecological".
Ecological projects that can be linked to water
management are the most easily realised in the Netherlands, as there is
standing policy encouraging this. There is also a quid-pro-quo approach in
planning which means that if for instance someone wants to develop a site for
new housing, this will have to be compensated via the building of "new
nature" or an investment in the spatial and natural quality of the
landscape on site or in a suitable location earmarked by the planners for
so-called blue-green developments.
There are many projects of concerned citizens trying
to improve the environment and the future of the planet by setting up projects
within the sharing economy, reducing waste, promoting reuse and the circular
economy, cleaner energy, reducing energy
consumption and localism. The collection of reusable materials has been well
organised with collection points for glass (to be separated by colour), paper,
metal, plastics and green waste. And slowly the sharing economy is becoming
part of the mainstream. Furthermore many local authorities strongly favour a
more durable way of transport and developing offices and housing. Central
government also issues directives concerning building standards, energy
efficiency for new-builds and remodelled or revamped buildings, reusability of
building materials. And the waterboards (Waterschappen)
have clear guidelines concerning hydrological impact assessment and
hydrological compensation. Developers are now noticing that houses with
durability features sell better so nearly all new-builds are fitted with high
yield glazing, passive heating, heat exchangers, extra insulation, photovoltaic
panels, sun boilers and/or geothermal heating systems.
This is the way forward. As many new-builds that look
"conventional" are in fact outperforming the so-called eco-housing,
the question arises why there is still the insistence on separating
conventional and ecological housing. I think this is in part a sales trick from
developers that market their housing with more than minimal durability measures
as ecological. This is impossible without creating the impression of a less
durable "conventional" option. It is, to my mind, a bit like those
washing machines that are all Label A+, A++ and A+++, with categories down to E on the label. This is
less than honest as no machines are sold below label B.
Another factor for emphasising the special status of
eco-housing might lie in the people and organisations that are promoting this
as part of their perceived shared identity. All the GEN-initiatives are clear
examples of this. Where EVA-Lanxmeer tried to create practical solutions
imbedded in its spatial and social context, most GEN-initiatives emphasise
their peculiar uniqueness and are aimed at only the group of like-minded
individuals (e.g. the Dutch Ecovillages).
The earliest durability measures in buildings were
strongly technical and most have proven to be non-practical or give less
positive results than was first calculated. The houses with a computer
controlled ventilation and passive heating turned out to make people sick, as
moulds flourished, allergens were constantly reintroduced and no window could
be opened. Some people will be attracted to a New-Age commune with the
intention of self-sufficiency, most people however are well-willing to do their
bit for the planet as long as they can have some sense of continuity of lifestyle
and social context. Only a small group can't be swayed by any argument and will
choose to be as wasteful and polluting almost out of spite against the concerns
of the many...
I think eco-housing as a separate category is fine,
for those for whom it is part of their core identity. This is only a small and
well-defined group. For all other people new housing must include best practice
concerning durability measures and existing housing should be improved to meet
higher standards. Durability measures should be aimed at the majority of people
and made mandatory in building regulations and planning. As the conventional
looking housing of Westerpark in
Breda or In Goede Aarde in Boxtel
show, a lot can be done without being too obvious about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment