There are three main dimensions to creating a sense of health and well-being among users with regard to houses and housing:
1 working with owner perceptions and values;
2 creating a feeling of comfort; and
3 developing within the owner a state of health.
2 creating a feeling of comfort; and
3 developing within the owner a state of health.
These dimensions are highly subjective and specific to individuals and family groups. Very often, the dimensions are subject to the home’s externalities and to the individual’s economic and social circumstances. Increasingly, as a result of complex social circumstances, users are applying new initiatives with regard to building homes. At one level, the home is seen as a ‘natural’ phenomenon. David Lee (Pearson, 1989) remarks on the desire for the ‘self-built home’ and Hassam Fathy, the Indian architect, reports: ‘people build houses like birds build nests’ (Fathy, 1972).
This phenomenon of the owner home has meant that architects are becoming less involved in designing houses. Rather, housing is now systematized and commercialized. People can now buy houses much as they buy cars, selecting a model that suits their needs and tastes. Creating awareness of the improvements of eco-housing may thus help drive the ‘market’ to a better alternative. Addressing the core issue of how eco-homes create a more comfortable environment, leading to a state of well-being and health, is central to addressing the mass ‘marketing’ approach. Increasingly, this ‘market’ is becoming sensitive to performance issues.
This trend began during the 1960s with concern for maintenance and durability, and now encompasses other issues, such as value adding and running costs (energy and water). Value adding is increasingly becoming important as a way of maximizing return on investment in property. It is indicative of a rising duality in housing – the need to use the ‘house’ as an investment as well as a ‘home’. What may be appropriate for a home is not appropriate as an investment. Perceptions are also changing. At one level, a house owner appears to be concerned about the environment; yet the use of environmentally friendly strategies in homes is often problematic. This is either because the strategies often bring little economic benefits or add little value.
So, a new bathroom or kitchen is perceived to add more value to a home than placing solar hot water or PVs on the roof (for a similar cost). Yet, as can be seen, the economic context to this phenomenon is changing. Comfort is more of a key issue that is related to the fabric of the building. Comfort has, since the 1960s, been expected in housing by virtue of cheap energy. No matter if the building’s envelope is poor: turning up and down the thermostat is a remedy.
The consequences of this have been staggering from an environmental point of view. However, new standards of comfort are emerging that promote variability in temperature as an important criterion and the adaptability of human response. The way forward is to return to making more climate responsive buildings, rather than energy-intensive buildings.
0 comments:
Post a Comment