Passivhaus

Dr Jessica suggests a new dimension for design, on my opinion with a clear focus in eco-medical eco-logic for sustainable infrastructure (Guy & Farmer 2001). In some way, she is talking about a new approach about SBS: sick building syndrome. In this pursue for healthy built environments, she truly believes that we can we design microbial ecosystems.

I would argue that we can make it consciously, but it may be a challenging and tough task. While i understand the whole idea behind the concept, i don't get the rationale for new designs. The data obtained for the fossil record sampling of an existing building certainly is a useful input to make changes and improvements for healthier building interiors. But if all about microbes in buildings is ecosystems interaction, this means people and air movement, how to anticipate to these interactions in the conception of a building? For the facilities it may be reasonable to infer which microbes we would expect to find in the different spaces like kitchens, toilets and offices. Bot for users, we should assume and average amount and type of microbes? As buildings have different types and amount of users i think that in order to achieve the outcomes that Jessica proposes, the research that would be needed to be done has to be really accurate.

I think that Passivhaus standard just like the different rating tools has advantages and disadvantages. Instead of analysing the pros and cons, i would centre my reflection in the fact that as being a standard towards sustainability, (because it has a high focus in energy savings) i consider it beneficial. I base my point of view in the following ideas:

• In the lecture we learned that although the standard was created in Germany, nowadays it has become a universal standard that can be implemented in any part of the world, because laws of physics are universal. But special attention must be given to the location and site topography.

• It seems to be a simpler standard to achieve, compared to other standards and rating tools since it is based in 5 basic principles.

• While it may cost more than a conventional house or building, this initial cost would be offset by cheaper energy bills.

• It is not a complex method to achieve healthy interiors.

I think that the challenge about Passivhaus is to find the right builder that can ensure to construct a 100% tight building envelope.

An interesting approach for social housing considering Passivhaus standard was developed in Chile. The project can be reviewed in the following link: Social house.

Also, according to the Passivhaus Institute, there are 2 projects certified in Chile, the only ones in South America. One is a bank branch and the other is a detached single family house. More details can be obtained in the next link: Passivhaus Chile.