I’ve written recently about energy efficiency in a high-density residential context (here, here and here). One specific area of reducing costs/consumption is to install renewable energy generation capacity. For properties that have significant roof-top space, this can be a quite cost effective way of reducing reliance on energy utilities (and increasing energy costs), thus reducing energy bills.
Whereas in a low-density residential environment (e.g. a separated dwelling or home) introducing renewable energy capacity is an option (e.g. installing solar panels or a solar hot water system), this is more difficult to achieve in a medium- to high-density environment. Continue reading
Previously I have noted a few key challenges in relation to achieving energy efficiency in a high-density residential context. If developers aren’t prioritising sustainability due to a perceived lack of market demand, and owners corporations’ focus is elsewhere, where else can efficiencies be gained? What about what happens “within the walls” of the apartments themselves?
While the individual savings might be small, the cumulative benefits might be significant. Just how significant is unclear, however. So it’s hard to judge just what sort of impact energy efficiency measures across a medium- or high-density residential complex would be. I did a bit of digging but couldn’t find readily available stats. Are savings in this context just going to be a “band-aid” solution? Or can it make a significant contribution?
Let’s assume, for a moment, that the cumulative effect is significant enough to warrant attention. Continue reading
In a previous post I commented on how the high-density residential market is not being driven by the same market forces as the commercial property sector to incorporate sustainability measures in the design/development of new dwellings.
So assuming that current building stock (i.e. those being built today) have a life span of 50–100 years. Thus, if the development stock currently being built is less efficient, what can be done to improve efficiency in the meantime? Continue reading
I wrote recently about the value of creating connections to nature in an urban environment.
I came across a striking statistic that really reinforces this point:
By 2030, 80% of City of Sydney residents will live in apartments and 90% of all new homes built will be in high rise apartment buildings.
A layman’s reading of this is that much of the benefits of energy efficiency in addressing emissions are going to have to come from improvements at the high-density residential level. Continue reading
Last week I had the pleasure of attending the February instalment of Design Thinking Sydney, a monthly meetup for exploring design thinking practice.
I was stoked to be asked to present on the topic of Designing for Purpose. My presentation slides below:
I need to do a tiny bit of tidy-up on my notes, but I hope to do so over the weekend, and I’ll post them here once they’re done.
As I suspected a number of attendees at the session would be relatively well-versed in the ideas behind design thinking, I wanted to focus a bit on what’s different about applying these practices in a for-purpose context.
Given a tad more preparation time, I’d reframe a few of the points I made to be more positive (it may come across as a bit negative!) But I think these methods hold tremendous value, and that it’s really important that we continue to develop these practice—just that we go in with our “eyes open” and to be prepared for some of these differences and challenges.
The main points of difference I identified (and, of course, there are probably more than I’ve highlighted here) were in how we:
- Define value
- Embrace and frame “failure”
- Engage with stakeholders
- Encourage behaviour change
- Measure and evaluate
Thanks to the organising committee for the invite, and for the participants who asked questions and came and spoke to me after—it was a great opportunity to dive in and explore and challenge the things I presented, which I found most valuable and enlightening!