On sustainability in planning and building
Prof. Dr. Schmitz, how did you get involved in the topic of sustainability?
I am an architect and teach building technology. My focus is on energy and resources. My interests took me from energy to climate change and from there to sustainability and ultimately to dealing with the issue of social justice inasmuch as we consume resources here that have to be extracted elsewhere under difficult conditions. Our lifestyle choices negatively impact future generations. This requires us to adopt a more far-reaching perspective.
A more far-reaching perspective is a good place to start. Of the many dimensions associated with sustainability, which do we need to focus on most? Solely the environmental dimension?
The focus of our discussion at the moment is on whether the three pillars of sustainability – environmental, social and economic – in fact carry equal weight. In addition to the pillar model, there is also the doughnut model with its 21 domains that situate the environmental, social and economic aspects in a comprehensive context. This model places greater weight on the environmental and social domains than it does on the economic sphere. And then there is the shell model, which treats the environment as the foundation of life. This forms the basis for the social domain, which in turn serves as the basis for the economic dimension. If, for example, the economy is given too much weight and should also fall into disequilibrium, then the shells will tip over. It follows that the economy needs to support the other shells. The environmental comes first, followed by the social – which means we must economize efficiently over the long haul. Embedding this mindset into teaching and construction is what my work is all about.
How will your approach change architecture?
We set a clear goal for ourselves: we have to completely transition away from fossil energy sources. This can in turn spawn highly engaging modes of architectural expression. What is more, post-fossil architecture ties in with millennia-old technologies. After all, we have always made use of wind, water and the sun as energy sources.
What does post-fossil architecture look like in terms of aesthetics?
It varies in appearance wherever you go. It is different from region to region, is adapted to the climate, conserves resources and makes optimal use of local resources. It is an exciting way to build, quite extreme and also polarizing, to top it off. By way of example, the 2013 International Building Exhibition in Hamburg featured a research building with a microalgae bioreactor facade. The algae bind carbon dioxide and produce biomass to be used as an energy source or raw material in production. The building takes on a new role as producer and is not merely an energy consumer. It effectively becomes a prosumer – producer and consumer in one. Not only does it produce waste gas and wastewater but is also part of a natural recycling economy.
That sounds alluring, but what about the existing cities and structures?
Yes, that is a difficult challenge, to be sure. One thing is certain: the energy standard for new buildings is on the way to becoming the zero-energy standard – or even the Plus-Energy Building, which generates more energy than it consumes. Dealing with the existing structures will prove to be the more formidable challenge. This will require a case-by-case assessment. The general trend, however, is that buildings and housing complexes are no longer being individually supplied with energy but instead are integrated into intelligent networks – smart grids – into which renewable energies such as green power and biogas are fed.
Where is the renewable energy sourced from?
Architects must learn to think beyond the building as such and into the future ...
How will you convey this sweeping change to users and decisionmakers?
Here is where a political component comes into the equation. And it’s all taking much too long. Everybody talks about doing what is right, but the necessary decisions are not being made consistently and systematically. I’m thankful for the Fridays for Future movement. Today’s generation of university students wants change.
Is this generation with its desire for change building on ideas from the past?
In the early 1980s in the aftermath of the oil crises, a book came out, edited by the Federal Environmental Agency [Umweltbundesamt], under the title Ecological Building [Ökologisches Bauen]. The authors were written off as “greenies,” and their work was pejoratively labelled as “muesli architecture.” Had we adopted their ideas earlier, we would have had a different architecture today – with fewer problems.
How long will the paradigm shift in architecture that you are working towards take?
There are two avenues of approach to effect such a change: insight and pressure. The insight approach is obviously not working. It seems that putting the pressure on is the only option we have I’m afraid. Our actions have an impact and ramp up the pressure. This will lead to a paradigm shift. We find ourselves at a turning point today. The growth paradigm has steered us into a quagmire of problems, and the way I see it green growth is a contradiction in terms. Climate change will force us to do a rethink. There has never in the history of mankind been a return to customary ways, and people cannot continue in the future to make the same lifestyle choices they have been making over the past 50 years. If you look back in history, you’ll find that lasting change is nothing out of the ordinary but more or less the norm. It is incumbent on us to cultivate change on our own terms – to master the challenges of climate change rather than throw in the towel.
Are your students open to the paradigm shift — no matter how long it takes?
Yes, unquestionably – after all, they are the ones affected by it. They have a personal connection to this issue.
Just how much patience — measured in years — will be needed also on the part of these young people?
The building industry has an immense capacity for inertia – it is extremely sluggish. The service life of a building is 50 to 100 years. However, buildings – once constructed – can be retrofitted or refurbished every 20 to 30 years using automation technologies.
Which technical renovation concepts are forward-looking?
We’re talking about more than just insulating here. Buildings must be retrofitted with renewable energy-generating technologies, and the CO₂ price has to rise in order to make the use of certain technologies uneconomical.
As an architect, do you make it a point to seize the opportunity for interdisciplinary studies that a university offers?
Yes, among other things our faculty has hosted a series of conferences on climate change and on residency in conurbations. I worked on the topic of residency together with a computer scientist who also happens to be a Jesuit and philosopher of science specializing in human-machine interfaces, as well as in artificial intelligence. We are taking advantage of computer-based simulation games as a tremendous opportunity for people to participate in planning processes. What happens when I actively defend my interests in, say, a conurbation? Are they – when I stop to consider the consequences – my interests at all? We discuss topics like these in the “studium generale”, which we offer as a compulsory course in the Bachelor’s program. Computer-based simulation games offer a singular opportunity in urban planning to identify decision impacts and to enhance the attractiveness of participatory processes. I’m thinking back to Richard Buckminster Fuller, an architect and visionary who originally conceived the World Game. I see myself as continuing the tradition of his way of thinking. He lived from 1895 to 1983 and was a genuine ‘68er for me – the way he saw humanity treading a critical path and now confronting its final exam.