About Research topic Blog Case library Vocabulary Publications Relations

Saskia Furman

ESR2

Host university

B1 - School of Architecture La Salle, Ramon Llull University

Supervising team

Anna Martínez (Supervisor) Karim Hadjri (Co-Supervisor) Flora Samuel (Co-Supervisor)

Secondments

Institut Català del Sòl, Spain Housing Europe, Belgium

Research project

ESR2 - Adapting existing social housing to the needs of today's dwellers

Saskia Furman is an Architect with an avid interest in social and environmental sustainability. Her range of practical experience includes residential, listed buildings, community buildings and low-carbon retrofit of existing homes, contributing to the ongoing European funded project, Homes As Energy Systems (HAES). She continues to investigate community-led cooperative housing design through her collaboration with the Greater Manchester Commoners Cooperative (GMCC).

  After completing a Bachelor of Architecture at the Manchester School of Architecture, Saskia studied for a Master of Architecture at Liverpool University, where the investigation into both the pragmatic and societal results of automation led to a new housing typology and the award-winning thesis - Automonument.

  Saskia’s international study includes: London workshop How Do We Live?; Hello Wood design-build project Caravanserai, Hungary; Erasmus exchange, Germany; and investigation into the social, political and cultural context of the Inhotim Institute, Minas Gerais, Brazil, where she immersed herself in Brazilian culture and language. Based in Barcelona, she will be investigating how to adapt European social housing stock to meet the needs of modern and emerging households. 

Research topic

Updated sumaries

February, 04, 2025

December, 08, 2023

September, 07, 2023

November, 20, 2022

March, 18, 2022

September, 15, 2021

Upgrading social housing to meet the socio-economic needs of today’s dwellers: A framework for sustainable retrofit.

European social housing peaked in the post-war period. Predominantly designed and constructed by institutional stakeholders using top-down approaches—including architects, planners, engineers, and policy makers—the deregulation of building standards, poor maintenance, and lack of investment, has led to disrepair. Poor insulation, poor energy performance, thin walls, cold, damp, and mould all contribute to the desperate need for retrofit of this housing stock. Unfortunately, over the last few decades, there is evidence to suggest that residents have little to no autonomy (and often lack the financial means) over repair and maintenance and top-down decision-making by building owners is favoured. Yet this method of retrofit neglects inclusive stakeholder engagement in retrofit processes, imposes living standards and conditions onto marginalised groups without integrating their needs, and generates outcomes unfit for purpose.

Recent studies in retrofit suggest that residents are experts in the way they live and should be key contributing stakeholders in retrofit design. Non-energy benefits are more important to residents than energy-related benefits, particularly social housing residents who require pragmatic solutions that differ from homeowners. Despite this, the prioritised method of deep energy retrofit (DER) favours three technical improvements: (1) enhancing the building fabrics’ thermal properties; (2) improving systems efficiency; and (3) renewable energy integration. Performance gaps can be as high as five times the predicted energy consumption, however, driven by the rebound effect, the prebound effect, occupant behaviour, improper installation, and simulation uncertainties. Integrating residents’ perspectives in retrofit design, alongside expert input, can help achieve holistic sustainable outcomes—social, environmental, and economic—that close performance gaps by increasing energy performance, affordability, health and wellbeing, quality of life, and user empowerment, simultaneously closing the performance gap.

This thesis examines how resident participation can improve social housing retrofit outcomes by using a mixed methods approach through: (1) a systematic literature review examining shifting terminology and discourse from social housing to affordable housing in England; (2) a semi-systematic review of resident participation in social housing retrofit; (3) qualitative analysis of stakeholder interviews exploring retrofit decision-making processes; (4) focus group research investigating residents’ values in social housing retrofit; and (5) case study analysis of exemplar social housing retrofit projects across Europe. Reflexivity, power relations, and outsider status are considered to socially position the research in relation to participating stakeholders.

The study addresses the following questions: Could the participation of people living in social housing improve retrofit solutions more than end point performance targeted retrofit? How can social housing retrofit be safeguarded for future tenants? Is deep energy retrofit the best approach for holistic sustainability? What do inhabitants include as important in retrofit, that is not included in the retrofit energy process?

Through this comprehensive analysis, the thesis develops a framework for socially inclusive, holistic retrofit to engage with stakeholder groups. The project discusses the sustainable upgrading of existing social housing stock aligned with the triple bottom line of sustainability, prioritising social and environmental improvements and economic considerations. The findings result in good practice guidance for high-level stakeholders to embed social housing residents in retrofit decision-making processes.

Reference documents

Visual abstract

View

Upgrading Social Housing to meet the Socio-economic needs of Today’s Dwellers: a framework for sustainable retrofit.

European social housing peaked in the post-war period. Predominantly designed and constructed by top-down stakeholders—including architects, planners, engineers, and policy makers—the deregulation of building standards, poor maintenance, and lack of investment, has led to disrepair. Poor insulation, poor energy performance, thin walls, cold, damp, and mould all contribute to the desperate need for retrofit. Residents have little to no autonomy (and often lack the financial means) over repair and maintenance and top-down decision-making by building owners is favoured. Yet this method of retrofit neglects inclusive stakeholder engagement in retrofit processes, imposes living standards and conditions onto marginalised groups without integrating their needs, and generates outcomes unfit for purpose.

Residents are experts in the way they live and should be key contributing stakeholders in retrofit design. Non-energy benefits are more important to residents than energy-related benefits, particularly social housing residents who require pragmatic solutions that differ from homeowners. Despite this, the prioritised method of deep energy retrofit (DER) favours three technical improvements: (1) enhancing the building fabrics’ thermal properties; (2) improving systems efficiency; and (3) renewable energy integration. However, performance gaps can be as high as five times the predicted energy consumption, driven by the rebound effect, the prebound effect, occupant behaviour, improper installation, and simulation uncertainties. Integrating residents’ perspectives in retrofit design, alongside expert input, can help achieve holistic sustainable outcomes—social, environmental, and economic—by increasing energy performance, affordability, health and wellbeing, quality of life, and user empowerment, simultaneously closing the performance gap.

The focus of this thesis is to develop a new process for socially inclusive, holistic retrofit to engage with stakeholder groups. Reflexivity, power relations, relative privilege, and my outsider status will all be considered to socially position myself as the researcher in relation to participating stakeholders, thus framing the investigation with strong objectivity. In this way, inclusive participatory action research will empower underrepresented groups to engage in retrofit processes.

The following questions will be addressed: Could the participation of people living in social housing improve retrofit solutions more than end point performance targeted retrofit? How can social housing retrofit be safeguarded for future tenants? Is DER the best approach for holistic sustainability? What do inhabitants include as important in retrofit, that is not included in the retrofit energy process?

Through participatory research, different processes of social housing retrofit will be investigated. The following questions with two high level stakeholders (third sector housing companies and designers) guiding the retrofit process will be addressed: How did retrofit occur? Why did retrofit occur this way? Who was involved in the retrofit process? What were the objectives? And what role do residents play in decision-making processes? Focus group research with inhabitants will explore how resident satisfaction, health and wellbeing, and quality of life have been impacted by retrofit decisions.

The project will discuss the sustainable upgrading of existing social housing stock in line with the triple bottom line of sustainability, prioritising social and environmental improvements and touching on the economic. From the results, a good practice guide for high level stakeholders to embed social housing residents in retrofit decision-making will be developed.

Reference documents

Abstract in Diagram

View

Upgrading social housing to meet the socio-economic needs of today’s dwellers: A framework for sustainable retrofit

European social housing peaked in the post-war period. Predominantly designed and constructed by top-down stakeholders—including architects, planners, engineers, and policy makers—the deregulation of building standards, poor maintenance, and lack of investment, has led to disrepair. Poor insulation, poor energy performance, thin walls, cold, damp, and mould all contribute to the desperate need for retrofit. Residents have little to no autonomy (and often lack the financial means) over repair and maintenance and top-down decision-making by building owners is favoured. Yet this method of retrofit neglects inclusive stakeholder engagement in retrofit processes, imposes living standards and conditions onto marginalised groups including women and other groups at risk of vulnerability without integrating their needs, and generates outcomes unfit for purpose.

Residents are experts in the way they live and should be key stakeholders in the co-design of retrofit plans. Non-energy benefits are more important to residents than energy-related benefits, particularly social housing residents who also require pragmatic solutions that differ from homeowners. Despite this, the prioritised method of deep energy retrofit (DER) favours three technical improvements: (1) enhancing the building fabrics thermal properties; (2) improving systems efficiency; and (3) renewable energy integration. However, performance gaps can be as high as five times the predicted energy consumption, driven by the rebound effect, the prebound effect, occupant behaviour, improper installation, and simulation uncertainties. Integrating residents’ perspectives in retrofit design, alongside expert input, can help achieve holistic sustainable outcomes – social, environmental, and economic – by increasing energy performance, affordability, health and wellbeing, quality of life, and user empowerment, simultaneously closing the performance gap.

The focus of this thesis is to develop a new process for socially inclusive, holistic retrofit to engage with stakeholder groups. Reflexivity, power relations, relative privilege, and my outsider status will all be considered to socially position myself as the researcher in relation to participating stakeholders, thus framing the investigation with strong objectivity. In this way, inclusive participatory action research will empower women and underrepresented groups to engage in retrofit processes.

The following questions will be addressed: Could the participation of people living in social housing improve retrofit solutions more than end point performance targeted retrofit? How can social housing retrofit be safeguarded for future tenants? Is Deep Energy Retrofit (DER) the best approach for holistic sustainability? What do inhabitants include as important in retrofit, that is not included in the retrofit energy process?

Through the exploratory case study methods umbrella, I will investigate different processes of social housing retrofit. I will investigate the following questions with two high level stakeholders (policy makers and designers) guiding the retrofit process: How did retrofit occur? Why did retrofit occur this way? Who was involved in the retrofit process? What were the objectives? And what role do residents play in decision-making processes? I will also conduct research with inhabitants to explore how resident satisfaction, health and wellbeing, and quality of life have been impacted by retrofit decisions.

The project will discuss the sustainable upgrading of existing social housing stock in line with the triple bottom line of sustainability, prioritising social and environmental improvements and touching on the economic. From the results, I will develop a good practice guide for high level stakeholders to engage social housing residents in retrofit decision-making.

Keywords: Social Housing, Retrofit, Social sustainability, Environmental sustainability

Upgrading social housing to meet the socio-economic needs of today’s dwellers: A framework for sustainable retrofit

Construction of social housing in Europe peaked in the post-war period and was predominantly designed and constructed in a top-down fashion by stakeholders including architects, planners, engineers, and policy makers. Through the deregulation of building standards, poor maintenance and lack of investment, social housing across Europe has fallen into disrepair. Poor insulation, poor energy performance, thin walls, cold, damp, and mould all contribute to the desperate need for retrofit. However, top-down decision-making continues to neglect inclusive stakeholder engagement in retrofit processes that often lead to outcomes not fit for purpose.

The large scale retrofit of residential building stock must defend the need to house people in accessible, inclusive homes they can afford. Housing associations, local authorities, large housing providers and other stakeholders need to be convinced that inclusive, bottom-up retrofit is a necessary economic decision. This is because it will facilitate a long-term return-on-investment through lower maintenance costs, reduced crime rates, positive educational outcomes, and improved mental and physical health and wellbeing of residents.

While energy retrofit can occur as deep, partial, or overtime, the prioritised method of deep energy retrofit favours high energy performance targets through airtightness, mechanical systems, thermal insulation, and renewable energies. As social housing is usually state owned and managed by municipalities and third sector housing associations, a top-down approach to retrofit often occurs because residents have little to no autonomy (and often lack the financial means) over repair and maintenance. Yet this method of retrofit imposes living standards and conditions onto marginalised groups including women and other groups at risk of vulnerability without integrating their needs.

The focus of this thesis is to develop a new process for socially inclusive, holistic retrofit using feminist methodologies to engage with stakeholder groups. Reflexivity, power relations, relative privilege, and my outsider status will all be considered to socially position myself as the researcher in relation to participating stakeholders, thus framing the investigation with strong objectivity. In this way, inclusive participatory action research will empower women and underrepresented groups to engage in retrofit processes.

By revisiting the retrofit process using feminist methods to engage with stakeholders, I will investigate how inclusive retrofit can lead to positive outcomes for residents’ health and wellbeing alongside environmental benefits. The use of feminist methodologies leads to better, more inclusive results because multiple underrepresented groups are explored through the lens of women, including children, the elderly and the less able-bodied. When the results are better from using feminist methodologies, this immediately will empower women. The following questions will be addressed: Could the participation of people living in social housing improve retrofit solutions more than end point performance targeted retrofit? How can social housing retrofit be safeguarded for future tenants? Is Deep Energy Retrofit (DER) the best approach for holistic sustainability? What do inhabitants include as important in retrofit, that is not included in the retrofit energy process?

The project will discuss the sustainable upgrading of existing social housing stock in line with the triple bottom line of sustainability, prioritising social and environmental improvements and touching on the economic. From the results, I will develop a comprehensive multi-criteria framework that suggests what type of renovations should occur, how they should occur, and identify the multiple actors and stakeholders that should be engaged in the process, along with a good practice guide.

Upgrading social housing to meet the socio-economic needs of today’s dwellers, and the environmental needs of the planet: A framework beyond retrofit.

Despite the disparity between their meanings the term social housing is often used synonymously with affordable housing. Alongside the increased commodification of housing, this shift in language has facilitated a wider paradigm shift away from the welfare state and towards individualism. The project will discuss the sustainable upgrading of existing social housing stock – initially built as state-provided housing for different groups – in line with current sustainability targets including the triple bottom line of sustainability: social, environmental, and economic.

Increased resident satisfaction is a vital agenda for sustainable social housing renovation, and a multidimensional challenge: social, economic, and environmental. The socio-economic characteristics of social housing dwellers, the surrounding infrastructure including access to amenities and transport, and building energy performance, all converge to impact satisfaction with quality of life.

The necessity to low carbon retrofit housing is a widely accepted agenda throughout the construction industry, policy, and beyond. Retrofit schemes such as the EU’s Renovation Wave aim to combat climate change and assist in the post COVID-19 economic recovery by creating jobs. However, a major obstacle for all housing providers outside the luxury market remains: how to complete retrofit while maintaining affordability?

Commodification of housing has facilitated the migration of social housing over to the private sector, leaving mixed-tenure ‘pepper-pot’ buildings that make retrofit decisions difficult to agree. Meanwhile, the current state of affordable housing is not affordable for all socio-economic groups. Whilst we are currently transitioning to low carbon housing, the large scale retrofit of residential building stock must defend the need to house people in homes they can ‘afford’, rather than upgrading existing social housing stock and selling it to the private market. Housing associations, local authorities, large housing providers and other stakeholders need to be convinced that large scale retrofit is a necessary economic decision that will facilitate a long-term return-on-investment through lower maintenance costs, reduced crime rates, positive educational outcomes, and increased mental and physical health and wellbeing. Long term affordability must be considered throughout the renovation to deter gentrification.

The objective of this research is to develop a matrix for mid- to large-scale housing renovation to deliver affordable and sustainable housing. Organised under broad categories, including urbanity, sustainability, social, connectivity and more, the framework will identify key issues to be improved, such as the building envelope, internal layout, social mix, safety, and energy efficiency. I will then analyse and inform the set of criteria against several case studies and precedents to assess the successes and failures of existing social housing stock. Chosen precedents for investigation will be partly renovated post-war European social housing. Deeper case studies will be identified alongside consultations with INCASÒL and Housing Europe to determine an optimal set of criteria and provide rich data sets for further analysis during secondments; these include post occupancy evaluation, energy performance data, and access to stakeholders for interview.

The following questions will be addressed during case study analysis: How long should evaluation of each case study take place? What problems were identified by renovations and how were solutions found? What did the renovators want to achieve? How do the renovations align with sustainability agendas such as the SDG’s? How has renovation impacted residents’ lives, post occupancy?

From the results of the matrix, I will originate a comprehensive multi-criteria framework that suggests what renovations should occur, why they should occur, and identify the multiple actors and stakeholders that will benefit, along with a best practice guide for easily digestible information.

Reference documents

Research Plan Diagram and Summary

View

Adapting European Social Housing to meet the Socio-Economic needs of Today’s Dwellers, and the Environmental needs of the Planet: A Framework for Renovation

Despite the disparity between their meanings the term social housing is often used synonymously with affordable housing. The project will discuss the upgrading of existing social housing stock – initially built as state-provided housing for different groups – to affordable (still a contested term) and sustainable housing, in accordance with the current Sustainable Development Goals (SDG’s)

When renovating existing social housing we must address the socio-economic characteristics of today’s dwellers, the surrounding infrastructure, and energy efficiency standards.

The objective of this research is to develop a matrix encompassing the multiple dimensions and issues to consider in a mid- to large-scale renovation programme. Organised under broad categories, including urbanity, sustainability, social, connectivity and more, the framework will identify key issues to be improved, such as the building envelope, internal layout, social mix, safety, and energy efficiency. I will then analyse the set of criteria against a number of case studies to assess the successes of existing social housing stock and areas to be improved. The chosen case studies will be post-war European social housing that has been partly renovated since construction. Consultations with INCASÒL will help determine an optimal set of criteria, as well as provide a rich data set for further analysis during my secondment.

From the results of the matrix I will originate a comprehensive multi-criteria framework that suggests what renovations should occur, why they should occur, and identify the multiple actors and stakeholders that will benefit.

Reference documents

Leinefelde Haus 07, Germany. Retrofit by Stefan Forster Architekten

View

Blog

Recent activity

Housing Europe Secondment: When Technical Retrofit Meets Social Value

Posted on 22-11-2024

"You have too much of a social agenda," my former architecture director once told me. Years later, that same agenda landed me at the heart of European housing policy in Brussels, just as the continent launches its most ambitious retrofit program ever. The timing was perfect. I'd just finished studying Barcelona's HOUSEFUL project, where resident engagement in retrofit saw mixed results. Now at Housing Europe - the European Federation of Public, Cooperative & Social Housing - I could investigate how stakeholders across Europe navigate this challenge, especially with the European Performance Building Directive (EPBD) under review. My first reality check came at the European Sustainable Energy Week. I watched policy discussions leap from "energy justice" to "demand-side flexibility" in seconds flat. When one speaker dismissed concerns about staying up to do nighttime laundry with "that's where automation comes in," I realised how quickly human needs get lost in technical solutions. From Research to Action This disconnect sparked my investigation. Through Housing Europe's network, I interviewed stakeholders across the continent about balancing technical requirements with resident needs in retrofit. The pattern was clear: housing providers struggle to merge energy targets with real people's lives. Action followed insight. I co-organised two events at the International Social Housing Festival in Barcelona. Our workshop on "Resident Engagement Practices" revealed the constant tension between performance metrics and resident needs. But it was during our webinar "People at the Centre of District Renovations" for the European Affordable Housing Consortium SHAPE-EU, that everything clicked. I kicked off by presenting the results of a semi-systematic review into social housing retrofit with resident participation, setting the context for why resident engagement matters. We then brought together voices from every scale: VIPASA showcased district-level engagement in Asturias, Fingal County Council presented building-scale solutions in Ireland, and TU Delft demonstrated tenant-level innovations. The insights were striking. When residents were treated as experts rather than obstacles, projects saw reduced performance gaps between predicted and actual energy savings. In Asturias, residents' knowledge of local wind patterns helped refine ventilation strategies. In Ireland, understanding how families used their homes led to more effective heating solutions than pure technical specifications would have suggested. Most tellingly, when resident engagement started early and remained consistent, retrofit projects saw higher satisfaction rates, better uptake of new technologies, and fewer post-completion issues. This wasn't just about consultation – it was about recognising that residents hold crucial expertise about their homes, their communities, and their daily needs. Their knowledge can transform retrofit from a technical exercise focused solely on energy metrics into genuine home improvement that enhances quality of life. Bridging the Gap The highlight came in Vienna, where I moderated the roundtable "Practical difficulties co-creating renovation projects with residents" for the SHAPE-EU Bootcamp. The panel brought together diverse expertise: Wohnpartner Vienna's community work specialists, Helsingborgshem's bottom-up neighbourhood development team from Sweden, and Vilnius City's one-stop-shop renovation experts. Key discussions centered on critical challenges: How do we ensure resident input comes from truly representative groups, not just those with time to participate? What's the balance between individual rights and collective benefits in the energy transition? How can retrofit foster new communities, especially when residents are temporarily relocated? The session fed directly into the Social Innovation Blueprint - a practical guide being developed to help housing providers deliver district renovations that prioritise social value alongside technical requirements. As moderator, I steered conversations through thorny issues including managing resident trust, integrating diverse needs, and safeguarding good practices through political changes. Most compelling was the discussion about skills gaps - not just in technical retrofit, but in the specific competencies needed to work effectively in occupied homes. Housing Europe taught me something crucial: the growing divide between techno-optimist approaches and resident needs isn't inevitable. My interviews revealed housing providers successfully bridging this gap through hybrid decision-making, where resident expertise helps balance building needs, energy requirements, and social priorities. That director was right – I do have an agenda. But it's one shared by many professionals I met through Housing Europe. It's an agenda recognising that sustainable retrofit isn't just about technical solutions; it's about creating processes that empower residents to shape their homes' future. As I return to my research, I carry not just data, but conviction. The path to successful social housing retrofit lies at the intersection of technical expertise and resident knowledge. As many interviewees mentioned, we must ensure social housing residents don't become mere 'guinea pigs' for testing retrofit solutions – their expertise in how they live should be central to the process. The social agenda lives on, more vital than ever. **** // The results of the thematic analysis from these stakeholder interviews will be published in 2025, offering new insights into how housing providers across Europe are integrating resident expertise in retrofit design. // The Webinar "People at the Centre of District Renovations" can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2EIlXdUXiw // The ShapeEU: Affordable Housing Initiative Bootcamp can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tcCD9dNziA

Retrofit and Social Engagement | We can do better

Posted on 13-07-2023

That’s it. The final summer school of RE-DWELL has officially been and gone. This year saw input not only from my cohort of ESRs and supervisors, but we were joined by industry partners to test the first iteration of RE-DWELL’s ‘Serious Game’ – which will be coming to a city near you. ‘Serious Game’ combines academia and industry to help all housing stakeholders navigate complex questions regarding holistically sustainable housing. Through the game, transdisciplinary discussion prompts action through tools and methods within policy and finance; design, planning and building; and community participation – the benchmark of RE-DWELLS investigations. This output will form a part of the transdisciplinary framework based on the ESR’s PhD’s. One turn of the 'Serious Game' took our group from the solution “new tools to tailor make housing solutions”—through exploring methods including urban rooms, workshops with critical action research, transdisciplinary collaboration, and grant of use models—to answer: “could the participation of people living in social housing improve retrofit solutions more than end point performance targeted retrofit?” Funnily enough, this question is identical to one of my research questions. Working on my PhD in social housing retrofit with tenant engagement, has put the terms “retrofit” and “social sustainability” on the tip of my tongue. Constantly ready to listen, learn, and discuss these concepts, I see blind spots everywhere. Tom Dollard from Pollard Thomas Edwards revealed a stunning environmentally sustainable scheme, even attempting some socially sustainable effort on the Blenheim Estate greenfield site in Oxfordshire but drew attention to the ethical grey area of building on a greenfield. Paul Quinn from Clarion revealed plans for regeneration that prioritise the Right-to-Return but is often not taken advantage of. A good way to keep the existing community together, Quinn says, is to build new environmentally sustainable housing on the same plot, decant the existing tenants into this housing, then retrofit the rest. Of course, this only works if the plot allows new buildings, and often buildings with retrofit potential are still cited for demolition and rebuild. 85-95% (European Commission, 2020) of buildings will remain standing in 2050, in the UK this extends to 80% of all dwellings (Pierpoint et al., n.d.) and they desperately need retrofitting for the climate crisis and for inhabitants. There are residential buildings in London designed for 40% occupancy. These leave 60% of those homes empty, acting as safety deposit boxes called “foreign investment”. Do we need to build more? Or do we need to re-enforce existing building stock and insist on full occupancy? When asked about retrofit, “we could do better” is a common reply from architects and housing associations. So why aren’t we doing better? It’s true that retrofit incurs more upfront cost that new build—in part because new build in the UK is exempt from tax, while retrofit is not—but the opportunities for long-term returns are enormous. To name a few: embodied carbon savings; new supply chains; opportunities to upskill unemployed tenants in a field with huge skills gaps; upskilling construction workers who fear a dwindling construction sector; physical and mental health and wellbeing implications; and integrative, iterative learning from the tenants who are experts in the way they live. During the RE-DWELL visit to London, I visited the Building Centre exhibition Retrofit 23:Towards Deep Retrofit of Homes at Scale*. The exhibition (which I highly recommend) displays examples of retrofit from around the UK. The questions identified in the exhibition read “how do we fund retrofit and leverage the benefits? How best can deep retrofit be scaled up locally across streets and neighbourhoods to meet the net zero goals?”. It states that improving performance brings environmental, economic, and social benefits. Environmental benefits are easily displayed through energy performance statistics, economic benefits are displayed in terms of financial cost, but social benefits remain a struggle to translate beyond technical measures such as quantifiable indoor air quality and temperatures. The lack of quantifiable social benefits can be a huge barrier in tenant engagement because of the need to justify the extra expense, especially in social housing. But this is where engagement is most needed. In homes where residents are already disempowered by the knowledge that changes to their homes are not their decision to make. Noble efforts of community engagement displayed on a handful of case studies in the Retrofit 23 exhibition include: meetings with installers, on-site training, and one example of a resident design group where tenants had some real design impact. Deep Retrofit comes with a specific restriction: to reduce energy consumption by 60-90% of pre-retrofit levels (Fawcett, 2014; Femenías et al., 2018) and therefore immediately places the focus on environmental sustainability and economic viability, consequently deemphasising social sustainability. So I ask the question: can deep retrofit lead to holistic sustainability? Mostly, engagement efforts are systems motivated, attempting to teach residents the correct use of technical systems, at times nominating technical agents from within the building to help transfer this knowledge to the others. The biggest success of the Retrofit 23 exhibition must be the message board. Full of answers to the question “how can the challenge of retrofitting homes be made easier?”. Answers included: more grant money; increased low-carbon incentives; neighbourhood scale solutions; increase supply chains; increased education and training; upskill; knowledge sharing with children, schools, and communities; and attention to detail to avoid costly mistakes. My personal additions included cut tax on retrofit, extend funding spending deadlines, and legislate social engagement processes. Often, social housing residents don’t want costly mechanical interventions, they want people to listen to their input and learn from the way they occupy their homes. Not that technical solutions don’t have their place, of course. But there are plenty of energy savings to be had with passive solutions, education, and conversation. Let’s do better. *Retrofit 23: Towards Deep Retrofit of Homes at Scale is a free exhibition held at the Building Centre in London until 29thSeptember 2023. References European Commission. (2020). A Renovation Wave for Europe -greening our buildings, creating jobs, improving lives. Fawcett, T. (2014). Exploring the time dimension of low carbon retrofit: Owner-occupied housing. Building Research and Information, 42(4), 477–488. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2013.804769 Femenías, P., Mjörnell, K., & Thuvander, L. (2018). Rethinking deep renovation: The perspective of rental housing in Sweden. Journal of Cleaner Production, 195, 1457–1467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.282 Pierpoint, D., Rickaby, P., & Hancox, S. (n.d.). Social Housing Retrofit Toolkit MODULE 3: Housing Retrofit Policy Summary.

ISHF 2023: “At the end of the day, we are all here for the same reason. And we have to look out for each other”

Posted on 16-06-2023

Last week marked the fourth edition of the International Social Housing Festival (ISHF) and unlike last year in Helsinki, I didn’t spend the entire week in my hotel room with coronavirus. HURRAH! In fact, I was able to sleep in my own bed, because this year the festival came to my current hometown, Barcelona. More than 1,800 international social and affordable housing providers, policymakers, city representatives, urbanists, architects, researchers, NGOs, and activists celebrated social housing over three days of activities: seminars, lectures, workshops, exhibitions, and site visits. I was fortunate to help facilitate transfer of knowledge through seminar, exhibition, workshop, and live blogging, in collaboration with multiple social housing actors: RE-DWELL (academic), where I am an Early Stage Researcher; Housing Europe (European Federation), my current secondment in Brussels; and the Agència de l'Habitatge de Catalunya AHC (Regional Government Organisation), my previous collaborator on the HOUSEFUL project. Read on to find out more. RE-DWELL | Exhibition and Seminar RE-DWELL designed and facilitated a participatory workshop in Helsinki, regarding our network’s three key research areas: Design, Planning, & Building; Community Participation; and Policy & Finance. RE-DWELL expanded with two key contributions in Barcelona: an exhibition of network-wide output – vocabulary entries and case study analyses; and a collaborative seminar with Housing Europe titled “Mass renovation of Affordable Housing: Industrial and Social Innovations”, investigating how social policies align with environmental policies and whether environmental housing policies are socially just, or bring tenants further burdens. Key takeaways include: we must retrofit en masse, industrialise the renovation process, avoid creating segregation, deploy organisational transformations to allow social innovation to emerge, value design by employing architects, and ensure socially just quality of life improvements. The challenge is to consider behaviour to reduce the rebound effect and increase quality of the works and supply chain. Industrialisation could help, but for residents, CO2 reduction is a co-benefit to retrofit. The main benefits and desires are improved quality of life, summer comfort, vegetation, and new local business. Housing Europe & AHC | Retrofit Workshop My secondment at Housing Europe enabled my involvement in “Resident Engagement Practices in Energy Efficient Social Housing”. The event began with presentations exploring sustainable projects: positive energy neighbourhood Syn.ikia EU by Incasòl, which I was fortunate to visit in Santa Coloma De Gramanet; and retrofit projects Green Deal ARV by Ajuntament De Palma and HOUSEFUL, 4RinEU, PLUG-N-HARVEST, and RELS by AHC. I then facilitated a workshop using a game of cards to explore different methodologies and tools to engage marginalised tenants in the retrofit process*. Some results from the discussion: ENGAGEMENT Engagement should occur at the beginning of a project to give tenants options. When occurring at the end of the project, it’s hard to engage people. Tenant engagement should be factored into the programme at every stage of the project. Tenants with little time and money are more difficult to engage. For example, elderly and very low-income residents. Children and parents are easier to engage, however, and we can offer incentives such as childcare and food. METHODS OF PARTICIPATION Overall, the most useful methods chosen in the workshop were sensory and/or tactile. Videos showcasing previous retrofit projects helps engagement, encouraging groups to come, join, and share the experience before facilitating a discussion. A demonstration house where people can attend and interact with the architects and products can be used – but only if designs are finalised. Expectations must be managed if it is subject to change. A challenge to consider: Is there room for a demo-house as a decision-making tool? TIMING AND TRANSPARENCY Timing is a typical problem for housing associations. Everything should be discussed with all stakeholders to ensure everyone is on board and minimise time delays. If delays occur, transparency and honesty are key to cultivating trust – tenant updates should occur throughout the process. LONG TERM Tenant partnerships with construction projects are a great way to increase sense of ownership, upskill, and create jobs. Housing Europe | Blog Throughout the event, I was live blogging for the Housing Europe website, alongside four colleagues. This was a fantastic way to stay consistently engaged and distil the most important aspects of the events I visited – despite the cramp in my hand from typing so fast! 1. THE CARDBOARD FACTORY, FÁBRICA DE CARTRÒ BY INCASÒL Fàbrica de Cartró, an old cardboard factory in Sant Joan Despí, Catalonia, is being investigated for retrofit and reuse by Incasòl. The aim is to create mixed-tenure housing, with a focus on sustainability, including social rental housing, affordable rental housing, cooperative spaces, and private ownership, considering the local community's participation. Desired features include prefabricated systems, renewable energies, a new public space linked to the river, increased dwellings, and common spaces for social value. Incasòl is exploring a public-private partnership model for a long-term lease, ensuring sustainability standards. The retrofit will be a long journey. The structure needs improving to hold more storeys, the basement needs reinforcement. But the space is ethereal, and the façade is beautiful; it could always be removed and reused – an idea already under investigation. Who will win? Retrofit, circularity, or demolition? We'll have to wait and see. 2. RENT CONTROL, RENT CONTROL! The war in Ukraine has led to a 30% increase in construction costs, exacerbating the housing crisis amid growing urban migration. Insufficient housing supply results in vulnerable individuals living in subpar accommodations. The head of the EU office of the International Union of Tenants, Barbara Steenbergen calls for rent regulation and caps, while cautioning against landlords exploiting furnished apartments to evade rent control laws. 3. HOW FINLAND AVOIDS EVICTION In 2002, a house fire caused by five people addicted to drugs prompted Finland to establish a proactive service aimed at preventing crises before they occur. Instead of relying on treatment, focus shifted to prevention. Housing Advisors, available to all residents regardless of tenure, offer housing advice to avoid evictions and serve as intermediaries between residents and social services. This approach helps individuals facing issues such as gambling addiction retain their homes and access the appropriate support services. Finland's high salaries and robust public social services do give it advantages over other states. But, consider this, the cost of a single eviction for housing companies is €10,600. Saving three people from eviction, therefore, covers the salary of one Housing Advisor. Simple, yet effective. 4. ISHF TALKS ON PARTICIPATION, POLICY, RETROFIT, AND ENGAGEMENT Montserrat Pareja, a housing researcher from the University of Barcelona, facilitated quick fire presentations of innovative academic research on social housing, covering topics such as tenant participation, policy, retrofitting, and engagement. I end by quoting an insightful social housing tenant in the documentary about their new home: Casa Bloc: Rehabilitació d’una idea’ (Casa Bloc: Retrofit of an idea) – “At the end of the day, we are all here for the same reason. And we have to look out for each other”. *Game cards were based on the results of an investigation into people-centred energy renovation processes by Broers et al. (2022). References and Further Reading The full Housing Europe live blog can be found here. Read more about the documentary Casa Bloc: Rehabilitaciód'una idea Broers, W., Kemp, R., Vasseur, V., Abujidi, N., & Vroon, Z. (2022). Justice in social housing: Towards a people-centred energy renovation process. Energy Research and Social Science, 88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102527

Retrofit and The Social Agenda

Posted on 08-05-2023

Imagine you are standing at the top of a residential block in a large open park, slightly raised above the ground, with playground equipment catering to various age groups: climbing frames, monkey bars, zip lines, swings… the lot. Walking down the pedestrianised centre of the road, lined with benches and trees (not the norm in arid Barcelona), you arrive at a nine-storey residential building occupying the triangular corner plot. The surrounding buildings occupy a lesser height, so the yellow façade is immediately visible, seamlessly rendered over cork SATE (external wall insulation). Approaching from the street, this is what you would see: at eye level, a west-facing facade with natural limestone wrapping the entire first two storeys; tilt your head upwards, you are looking at yellow-render on the top right two-thirds of the remaining wall, terracotta brick on the top-left third, and the edge of the apartment’s balconies; next, walk around the chamfered the corner, the first two storeys of limestone continues, but, glancing upward again, full balconies are visible on both sides, in the centre of the wall is a central panel of unobstructed glass, and the rest of the wall is terracotta brick; continue your stroll around the building, you are now looking at the south-west facing wall, you see the same material pattern as the west-facing facade, but mirrored. The building is tonally harmonious and the effect is soft and warm—accentuated by the sunshine outside. The building is called Bloc Els Mestres (The Teachers Block). It was built around 1956 to house the teachers of the adjoining school. The school, the teachers’ residencies, and the expansion of two housing estates were some of the first buildings to occupy the sparsely populated Sabadell Sud location. The site is near Sabadell Airport. By 1984, the expansion had caught up to Bloc Els Mestres and it was no longer isolated between fields but surrounded by residences to the North, West and East. By the year 2000, it was nestled in at all sides. By 2018, however, Bloc Els Mestres sat vacant, neglected, and in major need of renovation. Today, two structurally sound wings fan out either side of the bright central stairwell, with two approximately 100m² four-bedroom apartments per floor —one in each wing (1st – 8th floor). The ground floor belongs to the community. The south-east building orientation allows light to stream through the square windows that punctuate the longest façades; slightly cantilevered balconies also benefit from this orientation. The apartment interiors are a simple white, giving tenants a wide scope to personalise and redecorate. HOUSEFUL: Innovative circular solutions and services for the housing sector The Catalan Land Institute—Institut Català del Sòl (Incasól) are the main landowners and developers of social housing in Catalunya. But while they own the land, the buildings themselves are managed by their sister organisation—Agència de l'Habitatge de Catalunya (AHC). Social housing retrofit—or rehabilitación in Castellano—is therefore overseen by the AHC. A lesson I learned quickly after starting my secondment in social housing retrofit… at Incasól. Graciously, introductions were made at the AHC, the owner (unusual) and manager (usual) of Bloc Els Mestres and partner in the HOUSEFUL project. Bloc Els Mestres has undergone a major retrofit as part of the EU funded HOUSEFUL project (2018-2023) – integrating innovative circular solutions and services into the retrofit of four pilot projects in Spain and Austria. More information can be found here. An ambitious project in sustainable retrofit, physical building upgrades have been combined with smarts systems, reuse, and tenant inclusion through technical systems operation learning and feedback sessions, enhancing social sustainability by ‘consultation’ (Arnstein, 1969) and ‘collaboration’ (Oevermann, 2016). It is now occupied by social housing tenants, who rent the homes directly from the building owner (AHC) at a discounted rate. I attended two site visits to Els Mestres during my secondment at Incasòl, one included a feedback session with key stakeholders: AHC, Aiguasol, WE&B, Sabadell Council, Saneseco, the Social Association, and Fundació EVEHO – a group who temporarily place young people in HOUSEFUL to aid in their move to Spain. Bloc Els Mestres feedback session takeaways: Barrier 1: How to visualise the benefits of the HOUSEFUL solutions. Solution1: Create a report to present the solutions to building owners, manager, and public authority. Place an information board at the building entrance (outside) and inside the building, with a QR code taking people to the website with constantly updated information. Barrier 2: Language – not all residents were raised in Spain, and therefore speak and read Spanish or Catalan. Solution2: Consider different dimensions of accessibility. Audio translations, an instruction manual for technical components that is easy to comprehend, beautiful, and visual. Barrier 3: The water system needed a lot of space and maintenance; constant analysis of the treated water was also needed - the tenants association asked for removal. Solution 3: It was finally agreed with the tenants’ association to install the water system temporarily, in order to evaluate it. Barrier 4: A “circularity agent” should be allocated to teach tenants how to use complex technical systems. Solution 4: A ‘president’ of the residents could be trained to take this role, in-house expertise and earning a social place in the building. Barrier 5: Safeguarding future tenants use of technical systems. Solution 5: Contract states the obligation for new tenants to receive technical training regarding how to use the dwelling. Going forward with my own research, it is important to keep in perspective that conflicts will arise when tenants are involved in decision-making processes. As a result of this, it is important to foresee these potential conflicts, plan possible solutions, and manage expectations. A huge thanks to Pere Picorelli at Incasòl and Cristina Cardenete, Esther Llorens, and Anna Mestre at AHC for their help, time, access, and guidance. References: Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A Ladder Of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 35(4), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225 Oevermann, H., Degenkolb, J., Dießler, A., Karge, S., & Peltz, U. (2016). Participation in the reuse of industrial heritage sites: The case of Oberschöneweide, Berlin. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 22(1), 43–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2015.1083460

Bridging the Retrofit Gap: Climate, Culture, and Infrastructure | Future Build 2022 | International Women’s Day

Posted on 08-03-2022

Future Build 2022 in London was an inspiring event. While the majority of discussion concerned homeownership tenures, the wealth of expertise available reminded me why housing retrofit is a vital and worthy goal. I was reminded of why my research project to retrofit social housing is an urgent modern problem. Interestingly, there was a noticeable divide between speakers promoting social value in retrofit (mostly women) and purely technical solutions to decarbonising homes (predominantly men). One of the few mixed-gender panels I attended was the Big Debate: Should we use RdSAP (Reduced Data Standard Assessment Procedure) in retrofit? Andrew Parkin of Stroma said yes, RdSAP is historical and therefore has a plethora of past data for comparison. It is also future proof; an API (application programming interface) with the BRE Group’s ‘Appendix Q database’ is being developed to migrate external information and data sets into RdSAP. Marion Lloyd-Jones for Manchester Co-op ‘People Powered Retrofit’ said no, strongly arguing that: retrofit should be for the people with a focus on heat loss reduction, and that local knowledge should be amplified because EPC ratings are simply incomparable between varying regional climates. I am writing this post on International Women’s Day. A day that should serve as a reminder that: women are still not paid equally; domestic and sexual violence, which disproportionately affects women, has increased during the covid-19 pandemic; and women remain responsible for the majority of domestic labour. The world of retrofit and decarbonisation must remember that social value is as important to sustainability as energy efficiency. Social retrofit should be encouraged in tandem with environmental retrofit in order to sustain the health and wellbeing of both the people and the planet. Here are my major takeaways: Climate The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report cemented the UKs carbon target to limit global warming to below 1.5°C, fuelling the Net Zero Strategy – a net zero target by 2050. The National Retrofit Strategy by the Construction Leadership Council (CLC) modelled the work required to retrofit the nation’s homes by 2040, a decade earlier than government targets. We can and SHOULD speed up the green transition – particularly in the midst of the current fuel crisis exacerbated by the conflict in Ukraine. “Decarbonising Homes” was a widely used slogan at Future Build, used to promote technical solutions to retrofit. Air source heat pumps were frequently discussed, a questionable cure-all solution, gaining popularity. Culture Skill shortages are a huge obstacle to low-carbon retrofitting – no one seems to know what to train people in yet, and in-house retrofit employees are relatively new because employers worry that post-training, they will leave. A possible solution to this is to borrow apprentices from within the construction sector to upskill. The Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 declares the minimum weighting on all government projects that should be applied to social value is 10%. The Social Housing Decarbonisation Fund has pledged £3.8 billion by 2030. How to access the funds and get residents on board: Have a clear message for social value and EDI (Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion), and get it right! Prepare the project into a ‘package’ to send with your funding bids. Resident engagement in social housing retrofit should occur at multiple stages: pre-bid, mobilisation, and post occupancy (POE). Engage non-profit organisations to interact with residents, independent from local authorities and housing associations (aka tenants’ landlords). Wellbeing outcomes from retrofit and a reduction in fuel poverty include increased physical health, increased mental health, improved educational outcomes, and decreased levels of crime. Quantifying the cost savings of these outcomes on public services such as the NHS could find retrofit leads to a return on investment. Infrastructure Digital Twins are a necessity to improve social housing. Tenants can flag an issue online (accessibility should be maintained by Housing Associations and Local Authorities for those without access to digital twins) and modelling social housing typologies can determine the impact of energy efficiency improvements. Complete dwelling assessments as soon as possible – defects must be fixed before retrofit can begin. While new build development continues to benefit from 20% price reductions, according to Sam Balch – Policy Advisor for the Department of Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) – VAT exemptions for retrofit remain under consideration. Homes England have updated the Building Regulations (BR) as follows: Part L – 31% reduction in emissions compared to current standards, Part F – increased ventilation in new dwellings, Part O – overheating in new residential buildings, and Part S – electric vehicle charging points. This is in preparation for the introduction of the Future Homes Standard (due 2025). It will demand homes produce at least 75% less carbon emissions than currently allowed under the BR. SAP 10.2 will be released later this year, and RdSAP will consequently improve. The output of SAP is EPC ratings, which are highly controversial, at times unreliable, and often not comparable. But changes are coming to RdSAP including improved air tightness measurements and ventilation risk assessments. I believe RdSAP should produce new sets of comparable outputs alongside EPC ratings. I encountered many illuminating approaches from Future Build – clearly there are overlaps between climate, culture and infrastructure – but these strands should be brought into closer dialogue with one another. My project aims to bridge this gap. References (BEIS) Department for Business, E. & I. S. (2021). Social Housing Decarbonisation Fund: Competition Guidance Notes. Cabinet Office. (2021, March 29). Guidance: Social Value Act: information and resources. GOV.UK. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/social-value-act-information-and-resources/social-value-act-information-and-resources Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government. (2021, December 15). Collection: Approved Documents. GOV.UK. https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/approved-documents IPPC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Isolation?

Posted on 26-07-2021

The past few weeks have been some of the most intense, jam-packed and fulfilling of my entire life. Though you may not believe it, during this time I have: completed and passed my final architecture exams, qualifying as an architect after 11 years of study; packed up my home and moved from Manchester to London as a stop-gap on my way to Barcelona; organised a Civil Partnership to my wonderful partner; and started a new job. Honorary mention to the general life admin that comes with moving country and distributing accumulated personal assets (dear plants, I will miss you!*). Anchoring me throughout this madness has been starting work with the RE-DWELL Consortium’s Kick-Off Sessions. Although I’ve had the constant feeling of one foot in the (virtual) room and one foot out of the door, it only took one group Miro exercise into the definitions of affordability, sustainability and transdisciplinarity to know that I have found my tribe. Social housing and the politics that surrounds it have been woven into everything I work towards. One of my previous architecture firm directors actually took me aside one day to disclose to me, “you have too much of a social agenda, you need to change your thinking to become more commercial”. I credit this director with pushing me to prove that a social agenda is not un-commercial. Discussing inequality, neoliberalism and financialisation is party talk to me. But during the kick-off sessions, a world-wide network of multi-generational professionals brought new focus to this conversation through concepts including paradigm shift, circular economy, and sustainable indicators, to name a few. As Hannah Arendt once said: “Action…is never possible in isolation; to be isolated is to be deprived of the capacity to act”. And isolated we are not! (Government-mandated 10 to 14 days of self-isolation notwithstanding). Thus, as I embark upon a holistic journey, striving for transdisciplinarity with 14 of the most committed young professionals I’ve come across in my quest for fair and adequate housing for all, guided by a team of supervisors and specialists from our uniquely qualified secondments, I say … watch this space! Long Live the Social Agenda!

Case library

Contributions to the case library

LILAC_Low Impact Living Affordable Community_Leeds

Created on 15-11-2024

Innovative aspects of the housing design/building The model for LILAC is based on the Danish co-housing model: mixing private space with shared spaces to encourage social interaction. A plethora of green spaces include allotments, pond, a shared garden and a children’s play area. Akin to the private self-contained homes, the ‘common house’ includes a communal workshop, office, post room, food cooperative, kitchen, dining space, social space, bike storage, play area, guest rooms and laundry room. The LILAC community benefit from a large number of communal facilities including: a common house with shared laundry, kitchen, reading area and community area; car sharing; pooling household equipment and power tools; sharing common meals twice per week; growing food in the allotment; and looking for provisions in the local area (LILAC Coop, 2022b; ModCell, n.d.). A shared lifestyle whereby resources and amenities are combined, reduces energy use and saves money. Construction and energy performance characteristics Constructed under a Design and Build contract (Chatterton, 2015), LILAC boasts an innovative prefabricated ModCell construction that includes a low carbon timber frame insulated with straw-bale. Residents assisted with the labour, collectively adding the straw bale insulation. External walls and interior finishes are in a lime render, increasing benefits from passive solar heating through thermal mass. Air tightness was prioritised during construction, and triple-glazed windows help to decrease heat loss during winter, allowing for Mechanical Ventilation Heat Recovery Systems (MVHR) to regulate indoor air temperature. Further energy performance characteristics include solar thermal energy collection for space and hot water heating, 1.25kw solar PV array, with an extra 4kw on the common house (LILAC Coop, 2022b). LILAC features a flood prevention system whereby a sustainable urban drainage system (SUDS) feeds the central pond. Roof rainwater runoff is collected into water butts that are later used to water the gardens. Overflow from water butts enters the central pond, which discharges into the public drainage system at a reduced rate. Furthermore, all ground surfaces of the site are permeable. Biodiversity planting and a permaculture design certificate course were integrated into the design at planning stage. Major additional spending decisions were made whenever residents believed it would meet their core values and result in long term financial savings (Chatterton, 2015, p.68). Construction costs were therefore higher than the UK average – a 48 sqm one-bedroom flat cost £84,000 to build at a cost of £1,744 per sqm while the average costs in England were £1,200 per sqm. However, the annual heating demand of the homes is far less than the UK average of 140kWh/m² at around 30kWh/m², reducing energy consumption and bills up to two-thirds compared with existing UK housing stock (Chatterton, 2015, p.84). Involvement of users and stakeholders LILAC is owned by a cooperative, through the innovative equity-based model: Mutual Home Ownership Scheme (MHOS). The MHOS is a leaseholder approach (Chatterton, 2013) where residents purchase shares in the co-operative. The number of shares owned by each member is related in part to their income, and partly according to the size of their property. If someone earn a large income their house becomes more expensive, but another property subsequently becomes cheaper, thus conserving affordability. Affordable housing at LILAC is maintained as no more than 35% of net household income should be spent on housing (Chatterton, 2013; LILAC Coop, 2022a). Minimum net income levels were set for each different house size to ensure a 35% equity share rate generates enough income to cover the mortgage repayments (Pickerill, 2015). The MHOS owns the homes and land and is made up of the residents who also manage LILAC. Members lease and occupy specific houses or flat from the MHOS. In effect, residents are their own landlords. The building was financed by a combination of personal members invested capital, a long-term mortgage from the ethical bank Triodos, and a government grant of £420,000 from The Homes and Communities Agency’s Low Carbon Investment Fund, specifically to experiment with ModCell straw construction (Chatterton, 2013; Lawton & Atkinson, 2019). Each member makes monthly payments to the MHOS, who then pays the mortgage – deductions are made for service costs. In 2015, annual household minimum income for a home was set as at least £15,000. ‘Community agreements’ cover areas such as pets, food, communal cooking, use of the common house, management of green spaces, equal opportunities, vulnerable adults, the use of white goods, housing allocation and diversity, and garden upkeep (Chatterton, 2013; LILAC, 2021). “MHOS forms the democratic heart of the project” (Chatterton, 2013). All decisions are made democratically, using templates to generate and discuss proposals, explore pros and cons, generate amendments, and ratify decisions (Chatterton, 2013). Relationship to urban environment LILAC is in a highly integrated inner-city locality, situated in an urban neighbourhood of Leeds, on a site that was previously a school. Integrating with the wider community in West Leeds, the common house is used for “local meetings, film nights, meals and gatherings, workshops and has been used as the local polling station” (LILAC Coop, 2022b). LILAC has increased residents feeling of empowerment to participate in social action, working within the wider community to explore issues together and work for change. This has included supporting a local community association, local schools and holding charity and music events (LILAC, 2021). Behaviour and wellbeing LILACs community act in the knowledge that an adequate response to climate change and energy reduction takes shifting the way we live, enacting behavioural changes that contribute to a post-carbon transition. Decisions in cohousing are made as a community, rather than individual consumers or households. Residents report a much higher health satisfaction – from 58% to 76% – and life satisfaction – from 58% to 87% – compared to previous accommodation (LILAC, 2021). Both physical and mental health improvements have been reported since moving to the community due to LILAC’s “plentiful greenspace, sustainable travel options, better high air quality and natural light in the homes, greater social interaction and opportunities for socialising with neighbours” (LILAC, 2021). Further benefits of LILAC as a cohousing scheme include increased safety and wellbeing, natural surveillance and support for the elderly, reduced car numbers combined with car separation and car-free home zones to increase safety as well as reducing carbon emissions related to car use (Chatterton, 2013).

S.Furman (ESR2)

Read more ->

HOUSEFUL: Els Mestres, Sabadell

Created on 12-03-2025

Innovative Aspects of the Housing Design/Building: Bloc Els Mestres underwent a major retrofit as part of the EU-funded HOUSEFUL project, integrating innovative circular solutions and services. Tenants were involved through technical systems operation learning and feedback sessions. Tenant engagement methods included interviews and workshops focused on teaching residents how to engage with energy consumption and learning the energy consumption of home systems. As with typical DER, there were four main technical improvements to the building: (1) airtightness, (2) insulation, (3) smart systems, and (4) renewable energies. Circular solutions also incorporated into the retrofit to reduce waste include: (1) reusing the balcony balustrades after raising their height to meet building regulations, (2) recycled wall cladding product, and (3) greywater to be treated using the Nature Based Solution (NBS) of a green wall inside the courtyard. Construction Characteristics, Materials, and Processes: After the rehabilitation, the housing block has evolved into a resilient structure with two four-bedroom apartments per floor, spanning the 1st to the 8th floor. Its distinctive design encompasses an array of materials, from natural limestone and cork SATE for insulation to yellow render, terracotta brick, and unobstructed glass panels. With a strategic south-east orientation, the building optimizes natural light, thanks to square windows and cantilevered balconies. Inside, the apartments are designed in a clean, white palette, giving tenants the freedom to infuse their unique style and personal touch. Energy Performance Characteristics: Physical deep energy retrofit interventions included: cork external wall insulation; airtightness, fixing holes and fissures, double glazing, and other solutions to reduce thermal coefficient; mechanical ventilation; hydraulic balance valve with differential pressure measurement for the determination of the circulation flow, with insulation; and solar thermal panels, owned by the building owner, together increasing energy efficiency by approximately 50% compared to pre-retrofit. Tenants received technical training on how to use dwelling systems, potentially improving energy efficiency. Involvement of Users and Other Stakeholders: The rehabilitation process has involved collaborative decision-making among key stakeholders: LEITAT, non-profit organisation managing and researching sustainable technologies—project co-ordinators; AHC—Housing Agency of Catalonia and building owners; Sabadell Council; WE&B, organised co-creation activities and resident outreach; Housing Europe; members of the tenants’ association; Aiguasol, solar thermal energy; and ITEC, Catalan Institute of Construction and Technology—performed LCAs (life cycle analyses) to decide on cost-effectiveness of circular solutions. The retrofit project encompassed low levels of tenant consultation and feedback sessions. The importance of managing conflicts that arise during tenant involvement in decision-making processes was recognised. A 'circularity agent' was proposed to teach tenants how to use complex technical systems, potentially fostering in-house expertise. Relationship to Urban Environment: Located in Sabadell Sud near the local airport, the block has undergone a significant transformation over the years. It has evolved from an isolated building, the once surrounding fields now transformed into a densely populated urban environment. Notably, it seamlessly integrates into this urban landscape, with a tonally harmonious façade that bathes the surroundings in a warm and visually appealing ambiance. The ground floor is dedicated to the community, fostering a strong connection to the local area and its residents. The nearby pedestrianized streets, adorned with benches, trees, and versatile playground equipment for all age groups, create a welcoming and inclusive atmosphere. This building plays a vital role as it provides accommodation exclusively for social housing residents, contributing to the rich social fabric of the urban community.

S.Furman (ESR2)

Read more ->

The Sutton Estate Regeneration, Chelsea

Created on 25-10-2024

Innovative aspects of the housing design/building The Deep Energy Retrofit (DER) involves four blocks with new lifts, ground floor apartments made wheelchair accessible, 81 one-to-four-bedroom flats, double glazed windows with aluminium frames and trickle vents, and re-opening closed balconies as private outdoor spaces for residents. A ground source heat pump acts as a collective heater via 200m deep piping in 25 boreholes distributing heat to each home through individual Kensa ‘shoeboxes’. The ventilation, heating, and thermal performance were designed together to allow each strategy to complement the other: insulation depth was limited, the ground source heat pump has a certain performance, and walls were made airtight. The landscaping includes a new communal garden, natural stone hard landscaping, and soft landscaping that directs rainwater to the garden. A play trail will wind through the estate, transforming the spaces between building entrances into inviting, people-friendly areas. These will feature new trees, attractive landscaping, and enhanced facilities for bin and bike storage. The sunken garden has been updated and is a focal point for communal activity and respite. New cycle infrastructure also aims to encourage an increase in cycling as transportation. The estate office boasts a sedum roof and will be used by maintenance staff and whenever housing officers require offices on site. Construction characteristics, materials and processes The DER occurred while the four buildings were unoccupied. Floor plans were amended to accommodate new lifts and a greater household mix. The construction system adds the following to existing brick masonry walls: 50mm wood fibre internal insulation; 5mm reinforced lime plaster coat; double glazed windows with timber frames, aluminium fascia, and trickle vents. Where closed balconies existed, these were opened to provide some private outdoor space. Where they did not exist, prefabricated external metal balconies were fixed to the façade. The maintenance regeneration was retrofitted with residents in situ with external façades designed to look identical to the DER. While it was preferable not to move, this was a challenge because residents have had to live with scaffolding for almost 2 years, impacting natural light and noise. During particularly disruptive periods or vulnerabilities, residents could temporarily move into vacant apartments on site. A phased approach was taken, largely block by block, where replacement of kitchens, bathrooms, boilers, and electrics occurred simultaneously on a property-by-property basis. This may mean more tenant disruption but minimises the duration of inconvenience to each home. Window replacements are being undertaken in conjunction with the external works to each block, including roof replacement, lightning conductors, pointing and brickworks repairs, and pest control measures. This maximises utilisation of the scaffold to the block, which represents a significant part of the costs, helping to achieve better value for money overall. Improvements were also made to the communal areas, door entry systems and lifts. The phasing of the 11 occupied blocks was developed to enable the scaffold to be removed in time for the landscaping works to be carried out. Although it was preferable to avoid any relocation, this proved challenging given that residents had to live with the presence of scaffolding for almost two years, which resulted in disruptions to their natural light and noise levels. During periods of particularly disruptive construction activity or when specific vulnerabilities were identified, residents were able to temporarily relocate to vacant apartments on site. The project was delivered in a phased manner, with each block undergoing replacement of kitchens, bathrooms, boilers, and electrics simultaneously. This approach may result in greater disruption for tenants, but it also serves to minimise the overall duration of inconvenience to each residence. To meet Secure by Design (SBD) requirements front doors to each block will have a metal core and timber facades. Existing windowsills are at a height of 990mm. Bars at a height of 1,100mm are, therefore, added to the window internals to adhere to modern building regulations. The fence around the sunken garden will be replaced by a metal fence at a 1,100mm height. Energy performance characteristics The objective of the DER is to enhance energy performance, with a baseline of 208 kWh/m²/year and a predicted reduction of 38% to 111 kWh/m²/year.. The following measures have been taken to improve thermal performance: enhanced airtightness; 50mm wood fibre internal insulation; 5mm reinforced lime plaster coat; double glazed windows with timber frames, aluminium fascia, and trickle vents. A new ground source heat pump with individual ‘shoeboxes’ in each apartment facilitates low and constant heat through large, low service temperature radiators. After six years unoccupied, the DER buildings will become occupied in late 2024. Therefore, the actual improved performance is currently unknown. The maintenance strategy improved energy performance through the following improvements: triple glazed windows with timber frames, aluminium fascia, and trickle vents; brickwork repairs to improve airtightness; adding loft insulation; and replacing boilers with new hybrid boilers. Involvement of users and other stakeholders The DER turned 159 flats, mostly studios and 1-2 bedrooms, into a mix of 81 one-to-four-bedroom flats accessible by lift. This new mix was chosen to meet the demographic needs of existing residents. Residents are integral to the Sutton Estate. Clarion’s regular printed Sutton Estate newsletter, the ‘Chelsea Chat’ was distributed to all homes across the estate in the initial stages of the project and continued until 2021. All back issues are still available online. Through the pre-application design evolution process, two Design Update leaflets, plus a questionnaire, were produced to provide residents with the opportunity to engage. Six interactive events were held throughout the pre-application process, consisting of regular online residents’ workshop, a stakeholder walkabout and a public exhibition. A design steering group was generated from within the residents to discuss designs, gain feedback, and is now used to update on construction and share concerns. For example, there was concern over many households simultaneously cooking and showering at the same time, therefore the strategy was stress tested. Communal events are also a key component to the estate’s philosophy. These include: a resident gardening club; pantomine, monthly senior lunches; trips to the seaside and other housing estates; various training events, such as media and chairing meetings; and outdoor events in the sunken garden, such a fish and chip van. Apprenticeship schemes have been implemented for gardeners, adding further social value. Relationship to Urban Environment Two of the street-facing blocks rent their ground floor to commercial shops and cafés. The residents have been historically integrated into the wider neighbourhood through shared amenities such as laundrettes, and a Tenants Association that previously organised neighbourhood fêtes. With rising costs, however, replacing affordable services with new amenities, the integration of Sutton Estate residents within the wider neighbourhood is diminishing (personal communication, 2024).

S.Furman (ESR2)

Read more ->

Vocabulary

Contributions to the vocabulary

Energy Retrofit

Housing Retrofit

Indoor Thermal Comfort

Performance Gap in Retrofit

Sustainability

Techno-optimism

Thermal Insulation & Airtightness

Area: Design, planning and building

Buildings are responsible for approximately 40% of energy consumption and 36% of greenhouse gas emissions in the EU (European Commission, 2021). Energy retrofit is also referred to as building energy retrofit, low carbon retrofit, energy efficiency retrofit and energy renovation; all terms related to the upgrading of existing buildings energy performance to achieve high levels of energy efficiency. Energy retrofit significantly reduces energy use and energy demand (Femenías et al., 2018; Outcault et al., 2022), tackles fuel (energy) poverty, and lowers carbon emissions (Karvonen, 2013). It is widely acknowledged that building energy retrofit should result in a reduction of carbon emissions by at least 60% compared with pre-retrofit emissions, in order to stabilise atmospheric carbon concentration and mitigate climate change (Fawcett, 2014; Outcault et al., 2022). Energy retrofit can also improve comfort, convenience, and aesthetics (Karvonen, 2013). There are two main approaches to deep energy retrofit, fabric-first and whole-house systems. The fabric-first approach prioritises upgrades to the building envelope through four main technical improvements: increased airtightness; increased thermal insulation; improving the efficiency of systems such as heating, lighting, and electrical appliances; and installation of renewables such as photovoltaics (Institute for Sustainability & UCL Energy Institute, 2012). The whole-house systems approach to retrofit further considers the interaction between the climate, building site, occupant, and other components of a building (Institute for Sustainability & UCL Energy Institute, 2012). In this way, the building becomes an energy system with interdependent parts that strongly affect one another, and energy performance is considered a result of the whole system activity. Energy retrofit can be deep, over-time, or partial (Femenías et al., 2018). Deep energy retrofit is considered a onetime event that utilises all available energy saving technologies at that time to reduce energy consumption by 60% - 90% (Fawcett, 2014; Femenías et al., 2018). Over-time retrofit spreads the deep retrofit process out over a strategic period of time, allowing for the integration of future technologies (Femenías et al., 2018). Partial retrofit can also involve several interventions over time but is particularly appropriate to protect architectural works with a high cultural value, retrofitting with the least-invasive energy efficiency measures (Femenías et al., 2018). Energy retrofit of existing social housing tends to be driven by cost, use of eco-friendly products, and energy savings (Sojkova et al., 2019). Energy savings are particularly important in colder climates where households require greater energy loads for space heating and thermal comfort and are therefore at risk of fuel poverty (Sojkova et al., 2019; Zahiri & Elsharkawy, 2018). Similarly, extremely warm climates requiring high energy loads for air conditioning in the summer can contribute to fuel poverty and will benefit from energy retrofit (Tabata & Tsai, 2020). Femenías et al’s (2018) extensive literature review on property owners’ attitudes to energy efficiency argues that retrofit is typically motivated by other needs, referred to by Outcault et al (2022) as ‘non-energy impacts’ (NEIs). While lists of NEIs are inconsistent in the literature, categories related to “weatherization retrofit” refer to comfort, health, safety, and indoor air quality (Outcault et al., 2022). Worldwide retrofit schemes such as RetrofitWorks and EnerPHit use varying metrics to define low carbon retrofit, but their universally adopted focus has been on end-point performance targets, which do not include changes to energy using behaviour and practice (Fawcett, 2014). An example of an end-point performance target is Passivhaus’ refurbishment standard (EnerPHit), which requires a heating demand below 25 kWh/(m²a) in cool-temperate climate zones; zones are categorised according to the Passive House Planning Package (PHPP) (Passive House Institute, 2016).

Created on 23-05-2022

Author: S.Furman (ESR2)

Read more ->

Area: Design, planning and building

Environmental Retrofit Buildings are responsible for approximately 40% of energy consumption and 36% of carbon emissions in the EU (European Commission, 2021). Environmental retrofit, green retrofit or low carbon retrofits of existing homes ais to upgrade housing infrastructure, increase energy efficiency, reduce carbon emissions, tackle fuel poverty, and improve comfort, convenience and aesthetics (Karvonen, 2013). It is widely acknowledged that environmental retrofit should result in a reduction of carbon emissions by at least 60% in order to stabilise atmospheric carbon concentration and mitigate climate change (Fawcett, 2014; Johnston et al., 2005). Worldwide retrofit schemes such as RetrofitWorks, EnerPHit and the EU’s Renovation Wave, use varying metrics to define low carbon retrofit, but their universally adopted focus has been on end-point performance targets (Fawcett, 2014). This fabric-first approach to retrofit prioritises improvements to the building fabric through: increased thermal insulation and airtightness; improving the efficiency of systems such as heating, lighting and electrical appliances; and the installation of renewables such as photovoltaics (Institute for Sustainability & UCL Energy Institute, 2012). The whole-house systems approach to retrofit further considers the interaction between the occupant, the building site, climate, and other elements or components of a building (Institute for Sustainability & UCL Energy Institute, 2012). In this way, the building becomes an energy system with interdependent parts that strongly affect one another, and energy performance is considered a result of the whole system activity. Economic Retrofit From an economic perspective, retrofit costs are one-off expenses that negatively impact homeowners and landlords, but reduce energy costs for occupants over the long run. Investment in housing retrofit, ultimately a form of asset enhancing, produces an energy premium attached to the property. In the case of the rental market, retrofit expenses create a split incentive whereby the landlord incurs the costs but the energy savings are enjoyed by the tenant (Fuerst et al., 2020). The existence of energy premiums has been widely researched across various housing markets following Rosen’s hedonic pricing model. In the UK, the findings of Fuerst et al. (2015) showed the positive effect of energy efficiency over price among home-buyers, with a price increase of about 5% for dwellings rated A/B compared to those rated D. Cerin et al. (2014) offered similar results for Sweden. In the Netherlands, Brounen and Kok (2011), also identified a 3.7% premium for dwellings with A, B or C ratings using a similar technique. Property premiums offer landlords and owners the possibility to capitalise on their retrofit investment through rent increases or the sale of the property. While property premiums are a way to reconcile split incentives between landlord and renter, value increases pose questions about long-term affordability of retrofitted units, particularly, as real an expected energy savings post-retrofit have been challenging to reconcile (van den Brom et al., 2019). Social Retrofit A socio-technical approach to retrofit elaborates on the importance of the occupant. To meet the current needs of inhabitants, retrofit must be socially contextualized and comprehended as a result of cultural practices, collective evolution of know-how, regulations, institutionalized procedures, social norms, technologies and products (Bartiaux et al., 2014). This perspective argues that housing is not a technical construction that can be improved in an economically profitable manner without acknowledging that it’s an entity intertwined in people’s lives, in which social and personal meaning are embedded. Consequently, energy efficiency and carbon reduction cannot be seen as a merely technical issue. We should understand and consider the relationship that people have developed in their dwellings, through their everyday routines and habits and their long-term domestic activities (Tjørring & Gausset, 2018). Retrofit strategies and initiatives tend to adhere to a ‘rational choice’ consultation model that encourages individuals to reduce their energy consumption by focusing on the economic savings and environmental benefits through incentive programs, voluntary action and market mechanisms (Karvonen, 2013). This is often criticized as an insufficient and individualist approach, which fails to achieve more widespread systemic changes needed to address the environmental and social challenges of our times (Maller et al., 2012). However, it is important to acknowledge the housing stock as a cultural asset that is embedded in the fabric of everyday lifestyles, communities, and livelihoods (Ravetz, 2008). The rational choice perspective does not consider the different ways that occupants inhabit their homes, how they perceive their consumption, in what ways they interact with the built environment, for what reasons they want to retrofit their houses and which ways make more sense for them, concerning the local context. A community-based approach to domestic retrofit emphasizes the importance of a recursive learning process among experts and occupants to facilitate the co-evolution of the built environment and the communities (Karvonen, 2013). Involving the occupants in the retrofit process and understanding them as “carriers” of social norms, of established routines and know-how, new forms of intervention can emerge that are experimental, flexible and customized to particular locales (Bartiaux et al., 2014). There is an understanding that reconfiguring socio-technical systems on a broad scale will require the participation of occupants to foment empowerment, ownership, and the collective control of the domestic retrofit (Moloney et al., 2010).

Created on 16-02-2022

Author: A.Fernandez (ESR12), Z.Tzika (ESR10), S.Furman (ESR2)

Read more ->

Area: Design, planning and building

Improving indoor thermal comfort is a widely agreed motivate for housing retrofit (Femenías et al., 2018; Outcault et al., 2022; Sojkova et al., 2019; Zahiri & Elsharkawy, 2018). Low carbon retrofit of existing social housing tends to be driven by cost, the use of eco-friendly products, and energy savings (Sojkova et al., 2019). Energy savings are particularly important in colder climates where households require larger energy loads for space heating and thermal comfort and are therefore at greater risk of fuel (energy) poverty (Sojkova et al., 2019; Zahiri & Elsharkawy, 2018). Femenías et al.’s (2018) extensive literature review on property owners’ attitudes to energy efficiency argues that renovations are typically motivated by other needs, referred to by Outcault et al (2022) as ‘non-energy impacts’ (NEIs). While lists of NEIs are inconsistent in the literature, categories related to “weatherization retrofit” (Outcault et al., 2022, p.3) refer to comfort, modernity, health, safety, education, and better indoor air quality (Amann, 2006; Bergman & Foxon, 2020; Broers et al., 2022; Outcault et al., 2022). In poorly maintained social housing, however, the desire to improve indoor air quality and thermal comfort will have an impact on energy consumption. Occupants will, for example, use extra heating to feel comfortable in a damp, mouldy, or cold home. (Zahiri & Elsharkawy, 2018). There are three main technical improvements to low carbon retrofit: (1) enhancing the building fabrics thermal properties; (2) improving systems efficiency; and (3) renewable energy integration (Institute for Sustainability & UCL Energy Institute, 2012). In order for the Passivehaus Institut’s EnerPHit Retrofit Plan to meet Passivhaus standards for indoor air quality, homes must achieve high levels of air tightness complemented by a mechanical ventilation system including heat recovery (MVHR). Specifically, “airtightness of a building must achieve an air change per hour rate of less than 0.6 at 50 Pa of pressure (n50), and have ventilation provided by either a balanced mechanical heat recovery ventilation or demand-controlled ventilation systems” (McCarron et al., 2019, p.297). This airtightness concept is revered for saving energy, avoiding structural damage, and contributing to thermal comfort (Bastian et al., 2022) while requiring no natural ventilation such as open windows. Mechanical HVAC units alter indoor air temperature, air movement, ventilation, noise levels, and humidity (Outcault et al., 2022). But despite known benefits to physical health and clean air, this may not lead to optimum user-comfort. This is because social housing residents have unique housing needs that differ from homeowners (Sunikka-Blank et al., 2018) and cannot be predicted without resident engagement, as residents are experts in the way they live and use their homes (Boess, 2022; Gianfrate et al., 2017; Walker et al., 2014). Post Occupancy Evaluation after retrofit has found that social housing residents are often unfamiliar with mechanical systems and their sustainable benefits, especially when retrofit occurs without resident input (Garnier et al., 2020). This can lead to misuse, overheating, the prebound effect, and the rebound effect where affordable energy bills lead to excessive heating—at times 25-26°C (Zoonnekindt, 2019)—contributing to performance gaps as high as five times the predicted energy consumption (Traynor, 2019). Other households considered mechanical systems to be bulky, ugly, and noisy, prompting removal, lack of use, and at times emotional distress (Lowe et al., 2018). DREEAM’s Berlin pilot site found one household blocking mechanical ventilation with tissue paper because they considered the air too cold and residents “haven’t been informed about the positive impact of a well working ventilation on their health and on the energy efficiency of the heating in their apartment” (Zoonnekindt, 2019). DREEAM continued the project with Green Neighbours (Zoonnekindt, 2019), an innovative engagement program co-designed with and for residents to better inform mechanical systems usage. However, literature shows (Boess, 2022; Gianfrate et al., 2017; Walker et al., 2014) that informing residents on how to use mechanical systems is unlikely to change use-habits or adequately combat performance gaps. In order to change residents’ energy behaviours, resident stakeholders should be integrated in retrofit decision-making.

Created on 20-09-2022

Author: S.Furman (ESR2)

Read more ->

Area: Design, planning and building

The performance gap in retrofit refers to the disparity between the predicted and actual energy consumption after a retrofit project, measured in kWh/m2/year. This discrepancy can be substantial, occasionally reaching up to five times the projected energy usage (Traynor, 2019). Sunikka-Blank & Galvin (2012) identify four key factors as contributing to the performance gap: (1) the rebound effect, (2) the prebound effect, (3) interactions of occupants with building components, and (4) the uncertainty of building performance simulation outcomes. Gupta & Gregg (2015) additionally identify elevated building air-permeability rates as a factor leading to imbalanced and insufficient extract flowrates, exacerbating the performance gap. While post occupancy evaluation of EnerPhit—the Passivhaus Institut certification for retrofit—has shown far better building performance in line with predictions, the human impact of building users operating the building inefficiently will always lead to some sort of performance gap (Traynor, 2019, p. 34). Deeper understanding of the prebound effect and the rebound effect can improve energy predictions and aid in policy-making (Galvin & Sunikka-Blank, 2016). Therefore, the ‘prebound effect’ and the ‘rebound effect’, outlined below, are the most widely researched contributors to the energy performance gaps in deep energy retrofit. Prebound Effect The prebound effect manifests when the actual energy consumption of a dwelling falls below the levels predicted from energy rating certifications such as energy performance certificates (EPC) or energy performance ratings (EPR). According to Beagon et al. (2018, p.244), the prebound effect typically stems from “occupant self-rationing of energy and increases in homes of inferior energy ratings—the type of homes more likely to be rented.” Studies show that the prebound effect can result in significantly lower energy savings post-retrofit than predicted and designed to achieve (Beagon et al., 2018; Gupta & Gregg, 2015; Sunikka-Blank & Galvin, 2012). Sunikka-Blank & Galvin’s (2012) study compared the calculated space and water heating energy consumption (EPR) with the actual measured consumption of 3,400 German dwellings and corroborated similar findings of the prebound effect in the Netherlands, Belgium, France, and the UK. Noteworthy observations from this research include: (1) substantial variation in space heating energy consumption among dwellings with identical EPR values; (2) measured consumption averaging around 30% lower than EPR predictions; (3) a growing disparity between actual and predicted performance as EPR values rise, reaching approximately 17% for dwellings with an EPR of 150 kWh/m²a to about 60% for those with an EPR of 500 kWh/m²a (Sunikka-Blank & Galvin, 2012); and (4) a reverse trend occurring for dwellings with an EPR below 100 kWh/m²a, where occupants consume more energy than initially calculated in the EPR, referred to as the rebound effect. Galvin & Sunikka-Blank (2016) identify that a combination of high prebound effect and low income is a clear indicator of fuel poverty, and suggest this metric be utilised to target retrofit policy initiatives. Rebound Effect The rebound effect materializes when energy-efficient buildings consume more energy than predicted. Occupants perceive less guilt associated with their energy consumption and use electrical equipment and heating systems more liberally post-retrofit, thereby diminishing the anticipated energy savings (Zoonnekindt, 2019). Santangelo & Tondelli (2017) affirm that the rebound effect arises from occupants’ reduced vigilance towards energy-related behaviours, under the presumption that enhanced energy efficiency in buildings automatically decreases consumption, regardless of usage levels and individual behaviours. Galvin (2014) further speculates several factors contributing to the rebound effect, including post-retrofit shifts in user behaviour, difficulties in operating heating controls, inadequacies in retrofit technology, or flawed mathematical models for estimating pre- and post-retrofit theoretical consumption demand. The DREEAM project, funded by the European Union, discovered instances of electrical system misuse in retrofitted homes upon evaluation (Zoonnekindt, 2019). A comprehensive comprehension of the underlying causes of the rebound effect is imperative for effective communication with all retrofit stakeholders and for addressing these issues during the early design stages. Engaging residents in the retrofit process from the outset can serve as a powerful strategy to mitigate performance gaps. Design-thinking (Boess, 2022), design-driven approaches (Lucchi & Delera, 2020), and user-centred design (Awwal et al., 2022; van Hoof & Boerenfijn, 2018) foster socially inclusive retrofit that considers Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI). These inclusive approaches can increase usability of technical systems, empower residents to engage with retrofit and interact with energy-saving technology, and enhance residents’ energy use, cultivating sustainable energy practices as habitual behaviours. Consequently, this concerted effort not only narrows the performance gap but simultaneously enhances overall wellbeing and fortifies social sustainability within forging communities.

Created on 08-09-2023

Author: S.Furman (ESR2)

Read more ->

Area: Design, planning and building

Through the 1987 Brundtland report “Our Common Future”, the UN popularised the concept of sustainability as, “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987). This definition emerged from the pairing of ecological and social critiques of economic development, elaborating on the previous term “eco-development”, coined in 1975 as a merging of economic development with environmental integrity (Purvis, 2018). Indicators of Sustainable Development: Guidelines and Methodologies (2001) definition of sustainability divided the issue into three main categories: economy, society and environment; the original draft included the category institutional – incorporating societal and legal norms, cultural determinants of development, and procedures (Spangenberg et al, 2002). Since then, a number of UN initiatives have been developed to encourage global cooperation of sustainable development: the declaration of a climate emergency (2016), the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) (2015) and the Paris Agreement (2016). When investigating affordable and sustainable housing, the issue must be approached holistically to satisfy the multiple facets of sustainability. Sustainability goes beyond the terms and goals pre-defined by the UN; the SDGs have been designed to provide a solid framework to justify and organise policy and action, and therefore have political agenda (Le Blanc, 2015). In order to continually strive towards (and surpass) the SDG’s, sustainability should be considered throughout every stage of design, planning and building interventions and renovations. This should also include multiple scales, from material choice to construction methods and processes, and energy consumption (Berardi, 2012). Worldwide retrofit schemes, such as RetrofitWorks and EnerPHit, encourage sustainable and affordable housing through improving building performance, decreasing energy consumption and reducing fuel poverty. A further vital consideration in sustainable design is a reduction in Greenhouse Gas emissions; in developed countries, the construction industry accounts for 40% of total emissions (ibid).

Created on 19-09-2021

Author: S.Furman (ESR2)

Read more ->

Area: Design, planning and building

Techno-optimism refers to the belief that advances in technology will improve humanity, enhance quality of life, and solve critical problems including climate change, health issues and social inequality (Danaher, 2022). According to Danaher (2022), techno-optimism assumes technology will ensure “the good does or will prevail over the bad” (p.54). Techno-optimists believe that technological innovation is a key driver for economic growth and can provide solutions to many of the pressing challenges faced by contemporary society (Wilson, 2017). Keary (2016) links faith in technological optimism to an unshakable commitment to economic growth. Technological change modelling (TCM), he argues, has shifted the terms of environmental debate, pulling efforts away from ‘green’ ecologism (associated with degrowth movements), and toward techno-optimism; a belief that mitigation pathways should rely on technological advancements. Techno-optimism emerges from enlightenment ideals, whereby reason and scientific progress are seen as pathways to improving human conditions and capabilities by overcoming “existential risk” (Bostrom, 2002) through technological advancements (Wilson, 2017). Hornborg (2024) criticises techno-optimism for its failure to address ecological and social inequalities exacerbated by technology. Further, technological solutions often address symptoms rather than root causes, leading to a superficial treatment of complex problems (Wilson, 2017). Hornborg, using Marx’s commodity fetishism and World Systems Theory as his guide (Marx, 1990), seeks to unmask modern assumptions about what technology is. Both capitalists and certain left-wing thinkers exalt technology, viewing it as embodying human progress — a promethean mode of thinking. This overlooks, however, the social relations and material, energetic, and metabolic flows needed to maintain technological systems. Technology needs a “sociometabolic reconceptualization” (Hornborg, 2024, p. 28). Historically, technological progress in the world’s industrial core, was dependent on unequal social relations and colonial patterns of extraction from non-industrial peripheries. Shifting to green technologies, in Horrnborg’s view, will involve repeating these inequities: sugar-ethanol, or electric powered cars, for instance, will rely on exploited land in Brazil and the cobalt-rich Congo. “High tech cores versus their exploited peripheries” (Hornborg, 2024, p. 38), recasts the colonial industrial core-periphery dynamic (Wolf et al., 2010), exacerbating ecological and social inequalities. By attributing too much power to technology itself, techno-optimists may neglect the need for conscious and deliberate governance of technological change (Bostrom, 2002, p. 11). Further, it is crucial to maintain a balanced perspective that recognises both the opportunities and the limitations of technological advancements (Wilson, 2017). Social, political, and cultural contexts must shape technological outcomes. Danaher (2022) argues through collective effort, it is possible to create the right institutions and frameworks to guide technological development towards beneficial ends. Technological innovation plays a key role in deep energy retrofit (DER), which relies on three main technical improvements to reach end point performance targets, measured in kWh/m2/year: increased thermal insulation and airtightness; improving the efficiency of systems such as heating, lighting, and electrical appliances; and installation of renewables such as photovoltaics (Institute for Sustainability & UCL Energy Institute, 2012). Techno-optimism in DER has led to the widespread adoption of ground source and air source heat pumps, such as mechanical heat and ventilation systems (MVHR) (Traynor, 2019), to mechanically stabalise indoor air temperatures (Outcault et al., 2022), LED lighting smart systems (Bastian et al., 2022), and upgraded systems for heating and hot water (Roberts, 2008). There are many concerns with techno-optimism in DER: (1) the gap between predicted and actual energy performance can reach as high as five times the prediction (Traynor, 2019), (2) the adoption of techno-optimism does not consider the certainty of technological obsolescence, (3) inoperable windows due to mechanical heating and ventilation increases the risk of future overheating, and cooling costs, and (4) DER disregards architectural vernacular and passive energy strategies, including cross ventilation, thermal mass, and solar gains. In social housing retrofit, non-energy benefits including comfort, modernity, health, and safety, (Amann, 2006; Bergman & Foxon, 2020; Broers et al., 2022)—negated in techno-optimism—are often more important to social housing residents than energy-related benefits. Further, technological innovation in retrofit is often tested on social housing (Morgan et al., 2024), despite housing tenants from marginalised groups, to convince private markets to adopt technologies.

Created on 14-10-2024

Author: S.Furman (ESR2)

Read more ->

Area: Design, planning and building

Increasing the thermal properties of the building envelope is a passive strategy to reduce energy loss and ensure significant reductions in energy demand (Grecchi, 2022). Van den Brom et al (2019) define thermal renovation as “renovation measures that are taken to reduce energy consumption used for thermal comfort”, and group thermal insulation, airtightness and efficient electrical system into a single category. Accordingly, deep ‘thermal’ renovation occurs when significant improvement in at least three building components bring thermal performance to a level equal to or higher than the current building regulation standards (van den Brom et al., 2019). These building components include roof insulation, floor insulation, façade insulation, window improvements, heating system, domestic hot water system, and ventilation system (van den Brom et al., 2019). Other authors (Institute for Sustainability & UCL Energy Institute, 2012; Sojkova et al., 2019; Traynor, 2019) divide electrical systems into a further category for clearer practical application. The concept of airtightness is revered for saving energy, avoiding structural damage, contributing to thermal comfort (Bastian et al., 2022), and is key to reducing heat loss through ventilation (Roberts, 2008). Draught proofing involves draught-stripping, replacing leaky windows and closing off unused chimneys (Roberts, 2008). The location of an airtight layer should be identified, and all penetrations through it minimised, sealed, and recorded (Traynor, 2019). This airtight layer can be airtight board, a plastered wall, or a membrane with appropriate tape at all junctions such as window openings (Traynor, 2019). Triple-glazed windows in combination with any frame material are the most efficient glazing system at reducing primary energy cost and CO₂ emissions (Sojkova et al., 2019). All air pockets should be sealed to prevent draughts and thermal bridging. Thermal bridging should be eliminated wherever possible, although a comprehensive thermal reduction with low internal surface temperatures can prevent physical problems such as moisture and mould (Bastian et al., 2022). There are many forms of insulation to consider during retrofit that considerably contribute to a reduction in heat loss. Filling external cavity walls with insulation can reduce heat loss through walls by up to 40% (Roberts, 2008). Ground floor insulation and roof insulation are also necessary steps in DER (Grecchi, 2022; Roberts, 2008; Traynor, 2019). Ground floor insulation can occur in suspended timber floors between joists or above solid concrete floors (Traynor, 2019). Roof insulation can be added between structural elements, or using a ‘cold’ roof solution, with insulation laid or sprayed over the existing ceiling (Traynor, 2019). Alternatively, green roofs can reduce the amount of heat penetration through roofs, playing a similar role to roof insulation. This is done by absorbing heat into their thermal mass alongside the evaporation of moisture but will require structural upgrades to manage the new load (Roberts, 2008). External wall insulation (EWI) protects the building fabric, improves airtightness and is relatively quick and easy to install (Roberts, 2008). EWI can also help mitigate overheating by absorbing less heat than the original material, while allowing existing thermal mass from solid masonry walls and concrete to be retained within the insulated envelope (Bastian et al., 2022). The two main external insulation systems are ventilated rainscreen systems and rendered insulation systems (Roberts, 2008). EWI is inappropriate for historical building use because it will cover the historical architectural character. Gupta & Gregg’s (2015) preserved the original exterior façade by using internal wall insulation inside the front façade and EWI on all other façades. However, drawbacks to this solution can include the loss of internal floor area, and reduced energy efficiency as notable heat loss can occur where the internal insulated wall meets the external insulated wall (Gupta & Gregg, 2015).

Created on 25-10-2024

Author: S.Furman (ESR2)

Read more ->

Publications

Furman, S. (2022, June). The emergence of affordable housing and its relationship to social housing: The history of housing commodification in England. Arquitectonics: Mind, Land & Society, 20th International Conference, Barcelona, Spain.

Posted on 21-05-2025

Relational graph

Case Study

Concept

Publication

Blogposts