It was designed by the architect Bill Dunster, who was wanted to create sustainable housing in urban areas which doesn’t produce any net carbon dioxide emissions from energy use (Best Practice programme, 2002). It was a partnership between BioRegional (an ‘entrepreneurial charity’ who work to create ‘a wide range of practical solutions for sustainability),’Bill Dunster Architects, Peabody Trust, Arup and quantity surveyors Gardiner & Theobald as well as with support from Sutton council.
Through this project, Bill Dunster and BioRegional both wanted to encourage other projects which promoted a higher quality of life in high density areas of living. They also wanted more housing projects which did not use green belt land (land in the countryside which hasn’t yet been built on) or agricultural land. With their project, they also wanted to reduce the global environmental impact of urban regeneration in the UK.
It boasts features such as ‘pedestrian priority’ streets, encouraging electric vehicles through charging points installed in the site and green space provided for every home. Finally, the people first moved on to the site in the year 2002.
Description of features
- It is a mixed tenure and mixed use site.
-
It has a total area of 16,500 m2.
- It contains 100 homes made up of a mixture of 1&2 bedroom flats, maisonettes and town houses, with a total of 271 habitable rooms.
-
There is more than 2500m2 of space for offices, studios, shops and community facilities.
- The site chosen for the project was chosen for its good transport links, being located on a major road (the A237), which has two bus routes connecting to Mitcham, Sutton and Wallington. There is also Hackbridge station, which is only 0.7km away and has services from London Victoria and St. Pancras International. There is also a tramlink service from Croydon or from Wimbledon to Mitcham Junction, with the tramlink only being a 15min walk away (Lo, 2009).
- It was the first sustainable housing project to have a legally binding Green Transport plan as part of its planning permission granted by Sutton council. As part of the plan, BedZED attempted to discourage residents from using cars by having a limited amount of parking space, with the site being allowed to have parking standards 30% lower than other developments. There is one parking space given to each home, though they are not allocated to the actual buildings. As well as this, each home has a bike storage space to encourage people to use bicycles to get around (Best Practice programme, 2002).
BioRegional predicted a 60% reduction in total energy demand for the site, a 90% reduction in heat demand and a 50% reductions in energy bills compared to a home built to 1995 standards.
Processes
BedZED utilises natural processes to increase the efficiency of its homes. For example, the site uses the concept of ‘Passive solar design’, which is a way of trapping the sun’s energy. Most of its homes are built facing the south so that they receive maximum sunlight. Most of the window glazing is on the south side to ensure this. As well as this, there glass conservatories facing the south (reference), which are ‘solar stores’ which act like greenhouses by trapping heat from the sun and using it to heat the rest of the house. The large, north-facing roof lights on the building reduce the need for artificial lighting.
It also uses a process known as passive ventilation, which wind cowls on the top of the roof use. The cowls draw the warm, stale air from the building’s interior, up and out of the building. At the same time, fresh air from outside is then directed downwards into the building over a passive heat exchanger. This system is supposed to work as a way of recovering heat so it isn’t lost, recovering up to 70% heat from outgoing stale air (Best Practice programme, 2002).
In my opinion, I feel that ‘passive solar design’ and ‘passive ventilation’ are processes that are efficient even though they essentially just utilise a natural process without factoring in any hi-tech technology. As well as this, during hot summers, using passive ventilation would mean that fans or air conditioning wouldn’t need to bed used. This is especially good for offices, which are known for using a lot of air conditioning during the summer.
Wind cowls - credit Tom Chance
Problems
Figure 3 Resident temperature ratings in summer and winter
(source (Hodge & Haltrecht, 2009)
The table above was taken from a survey BioRegional carried out, asking 71 households about how they rated the temperature of their homes in summer and in winter, from the numbers 1 -7, with 1 being too hot, 7 being too cold and 4 being just right (Hodge & Haltrecht, 2009). Summer results were the worst, with only 10% of those asked thinking the temperature of the home during summer as being just right. The passive ventilation system is supposed to effectively cool down the home but if just over half of the people are finding the temperature in summer too hot or close too it (numbers 1&2- 56%), then the system is not as effective as it could be. However, the system in use may not necessarily be what is at fault, because for example, 44% of those surveyed, found the temperature in wind to be just right. The survey is subjective, different people would have different temperatures at which they feel comfortable. As well as this, BioRegional are hypothesising whether households did not use ‘the windows and sunspace to cool the house’ (Hodge & Haltrecht, 2009) during the summer, which may have alleviated their levels of discomfort.
Technology
BedZED aimed to use mainly use on-site renewable technology to provide the site with just about all of its energy needs. They have a CHP (combined heat and power plant) which is supposed to generate electricity and hot water for the site. It works by using woodchips taken from tree waste which would have ended up on a landfill site (Twinn, 2003). The woodchips are then fed into a drier and then into a gasifier, where a restricted flow of hot air turns them into a combustible gas in a process called gasification. The gas, after being cleaned, cooled and mixed with air, is fed into a spark ignition engine which then produces the electricity (Hodge & Haltrecht, 2009). The CHP unit distributes hot water throughout the site, using a network of insulated pipes, which deliver constant heat to domestic hot water cylinders, keeping them ‘charged up’. These cylinders are stored in cupboards in every home and can be opened to allow them to act as radiators during cold weather (Best Practice programme, 2002). A diagram of the CHP can be seen in figure below.
Figure 4 CHP Generator (http://www.zigersnead.com/current/blog/post/bedzed-beddington-zero-energy-development/11-12-2007/351/)
Figure 5 Photovoltaic cell (http://www.biggreensmile.com/graffiti/files/media/Solar%20Cell.gif)
77m2 of photovoltaic solar panels were added to the roofs of the buildings. These are made out of layers of semiconducting materials such as silicon, which generate electricity as photons of light fall upon them(see Figure 5 Photovoltaic cell (http://www.biggreensmile.com/graffiti/files/media/Solar%20Cell.gif)Figure 5 Photovoltaic cell (http://www.biggreensmile.com/graffiti/files/media/Solar%20Cell.gif) They were put into place to mainly generate electricity which would be used to supply the 40 charging points across the site to be used for electric cars (Best Practice programme, 2002).
Finally, BedZED also created a water treatment system known as a ‘living machine’, which is so called because of its use of biological systems. It is made up of two septic tanks which have been placed underground and treatment tanks which biologically treat the effluent taken from toilets and kitchens. Plants, mainly reed beds, are suspended on rafts in the treatment tanks and they take in nutrients from the treated wastewater, filtering the water. The treated wastewater is then disinfected using ultraviolet light and subtly dyed with green vegetable dye to distinguish it from normal drinking water. It is added to the rainwater collected from the roofs to be put in storage tanks used for flushing toilets and for irrigation. Any extra outflow of water is not treated with ultraviolet light, but is run off into a water feature which is designed to be aesthetically pleasing and as a habitat for wildlife (Lazarus, 2003).
Problems
The CHP unit was originally intended to provide the majority of the site’s electrical and hot water needs, in fact it was supposed to provide 100% of the ‘net electrical load for BedZED’s buildings.’ However, this wasn’t the case and the CHP unit was shut down in 2005, after only three years in operation. So what went wrong?
The CHP unit was originally designed to be fully automated and run for nearly the whole day (it could only run for 18 hours due to noise restrictions), for seven days a week. It was supposed to only require human presence to receive the delivery of woodchips, and to check oil and water levels as well as filling them. There was also supposed to be regular maintenances every quarter. However, the manning of the machine ended up being required full time and it frequently had to be put out of operation to modify its equipment.
The main technical problems with the CHP unit were described by BioRegional included the reliability of equipment which had to operate continuously, like the woodchip grabber and slide valves, and the problem of the condensation of tar from the wood gas, which was worsened by the plant cooling when it was switched off during the night. In addition to these problems, the CHP unit only reached 70% of the targeted power outputs of 120 kW of electricity and 250 kW of heat. The costs of running CHP were seen as too high and Exus Energy, who were contracted to operate the CHP was closed down (Hodge & Haltrecht, 2009). The closing of the CHP unit meant that the amount of energy produced in BedZED from renewable sources went from 80% in 2003 to 11% in 2006 (Sutton: BedZED - Leading the way in eco village design, 2009). All this has resulted in BedZED being forced to get its electrical supply from the National Grid and hot water from an efficient gas condenser boiler (Hodge & Haltrecht, 2009).
The CHP is not the only seemingly innovative system which has had to be put out of use. Though taken together with rain water harvesting, the Living Machine system saves 15 litres of mains water per person per day, it too has been closed down. This is because; it turns out to use more energy than conventional sewage treatments systems, which isn’t particularly sustainable, seeing that it is supposed to use little energy. The BedZED developers also felt that the costs of running and maintaining the Living Machine were too high to continue running it at the small scale it was used at BedZED, so it was also shut down in 2005.
The last problem isn’t so much as a problem but more of a technology not ending up being used for what it was intended. The solar panels were originally going to be used to supply electricity to charge electric cars. However, BedZED developers were certainly too enthusiastic in the hope that electrical cars would become desirable to be used, since they installed 40 charging points for the cars which were to provide free electricity and also had lower parking costs for electrical cars. Out of the 71 households which BioRegional surveyed, not a single one of them owned an electric car. In fact, there were only two vehicles on site, owned by ZEDfactory and BedZED’s architects (Hodge & Haltrecht, 2009). Instead they have been used to provide electricity to the site, contributing about 20% of the site’s electricity.
Materials
Materials such as concrete, where used because they have a high thermal mass, which means they can effectively keep in heat. This means that, in the summer, the material will absorb and retain heat inwards during the daytime. Then during evening and night-time, cooler air will cause the material to then slowly release heat, warming the home. This cycle also occurs during the winter, with the material absorbing heat from south facing windows as well heat produced through human activity and again releasing it during the night when temperature drops (The Concrete Centre). As well as this, 300mm of ‘super- insulation’ was used to create a jacket around the roofs, walls and floors of the houses (Best Practice programme, 2002). This keeps in warmth in the home, with heat from sunlight, human activity, lighting, appliances and hot water, being prevented from escaping so heat is kept in. To further reduce heat loss, triple glazed windows made out of low emissive glass (a coating is placed on the glass to reduce heat loss (Everett, Boyle, Peake, & Ramage, 2012)) filled with argon, with is an inert gas.
Figure 6 Sedum roof (source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bioregional/4326943539/sizes/m/in/set-72157623341525932/)
Using thermal mass and super insulation results in less heating being required for the houses, so if less heating is used, then as a result of this less energy is consumed by the household. As well as this, using thermally massive materials prevents heat from being lost to the surroundings, since it retains heat produced from within the building as well as from its surroundings. Apart from these features, another useful thing BedZED used was a plant called sedum (Figure 6). Sedum was grown on the roofs of the houses and is a semi-succulent plant, which means it is good at retaining water when it rained (BBC). This water was then collected in rain water butts to be used for flushing toilets and irrigating gardens.
Finally, most of the building materials were sourced from within a 55km radius of the site which meant that emissions produced by transporting materials to the site were lessened. Steel was reused from old buildings to create frames for the office workspaces, as well as reclaimed wood. Materials taken from site certified as sustainable and environmental friendly were used, for example wood certified by the FSC (Forest Steward Council), which meant that the wood had come from a sustainably managed forest.
Figure 7 BedZED Building Physics (source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bioregional/4326932669/sizes/m/in/set-72157623341525932/)
Figure 8 BedZED Mechanical & Electrical Systems (source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bioregional/4327665486/sizes/m/in/set-72157623341525932/)
The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment describe BedZED as bringing ‘the garden city ideal into the 21st Century.’ Garden cities are described as, ‘planned, self-contained communities surrounded by "” (parks), containing proportionate areas of residences, industry and agriculture (Wikipedia, 2012).’ This, I feel is an apt description for BedZED which is itself a mixed used site and contains all the features described. However, I feel that the concept of garden cities could be further integrated into the UK’s housing developments and possibly be part of the method for achieving the government’s targets of compulsory zero carbon housing.
Greenwich Millennium Village
There appear to be not many green spaces integrated in the flats, though the houses at the bottom may have gardens. I feel BedZED was more successful at integrating green space through its use of roof gardens.
I like how there are spaces where people could sit to overlook the river.
The colourfully painted balconies and buildings lend vibrancy to the site.
Figure 9 Greenwich Millennium Village: Maurer Court (source: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-C1XlBGKZgQI/T_cNvrgMQ2I/AAAAAAAABRY/rMoxPawZTsI/s1600/100_1804.jpg)
Context and History
Greenwich Millennium Village (GMV) is a housing development located in the Greenwich Peninsula in South East London. It is the result of a partnership between Ralph Erskine, an architect who master planned the project, and Greenwich Millennium Village Limited which is a joint venture between Countryside Properties and property developers Taylor Wimpey. It was part of the Millennium Community Village Programme by English Partnerships (the UK government’s housing and regeneration agency) who collaborated with the Department for Communities & Local Government ( a subset of the UK government), to create seven sustainable communities nationwide. GMV was the first such development, arising after Greenwich Millennium Village Limited won a competition to design and build the GMV. Construction for the site begun in 1999 and the first people began occupying the residential units in 2000. The development aimed to create high-density housing, similar to what BedZED aimed to achieve, as well as green spaces, good transport links and access to shops and recreational facilities (Foletta & Field, 2011).
Description of Features
- It has a population of 2300 people with a higher residential density compared to the whole of Greenwich and even London.
-
Located on a 121 hectare (1,210,000m2) site formerly occupied by the town gas works, though the village itself only occupies about 29 (290,000m2) hectares.
- It currently has 1095 residential units, but plans to have 2900 by the year 2014 with plans to also create shops and a community centre.
- It is a mixed-used Brownfield redevelopment site.
- Like BedZED, the GMV project also wants to reduce car use, which it does by giving priority to cyclists and pedestrians with specially designated lanes. It also has good access to public transportation and also tries to restrict parking by having less available spaces (about 0.8 parking spaces per residence) and charging residents about £17000 for their right to park.
- It was divided into different phases, with phase 1 & 2 having been completed in 2009 and phases 3 &4 due to be completed in 2014, with 1800 additional new homes being built.
- It also has an ecology park which is 50 acres large which has two lakes and has trees, shrubs and reeds specially planted to attract birds and other wildlife.
Processes
GMV uses rain water harvesting, with some of the rain water collected, being used to feed water into the lake in the ecology park. Relating to the use of water, the development also uses ‘grey water recycling’ to reduce its water consumption. This grey water is taken from waste water from sinks and showers, which is chemically treated and then stored to be reused as a source to flush toilets. This recycling of water is a system which was put in place to help GMV achieve its aim of reducing water consumption by 30%.
The buildings are specialized designed to create shielding from easterly winds, which are a problem due to the site being relatively close to the River Thames. To counter this, the height of the buildings, gradually increase as you head away from the east. To further reduce the effect of wind, the buildings were also planned around squares (Hawley, 2001). The buildings also share another similarity with those from BedZED by designing the buildings in a certain way as to have maximum solar gain, this results in most of the buildings glazing being on the south facing side of the building, the area which is likely to receive the most sunlight. To prevent overheating in the summer, the site has external shading with balconies or canopies being placed over the glazing (Hawley, 2001).
Technology
The development has a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) system, where energy is generated on-site and is used to provide the site with hot water, heating and electricity and was also the first major private development to do so in the UK. The system is similar to the one BedZED used, working on a small scale and being powered by gas. GMV aimed by 2007 to reduce the site’s primary energy use by 80%, with primary energy being the energy embodied in natural sources for example, fossil fuels, solar & wind power, which hasn’t been converted or transformed by people (Canadian Nuclear Association, 2012). It managed to achieve this through its use of the CHP unit as well as other features such as insulation and energy efficient appliances. Using the CHP unit also helped GMV to reach its other target of using renewable for 10% of its electricity generation.
Materials
GMV developers made sure that a high percentage of building materials used for the site’s construction were taken from used and recycled materials as well as most materials being sourced from within a 50 mile radius of the site (Countryside Properties, 2010). For example, cedar wood used to create rain screens on the building was sourced from places that sustainably managed and harvested the wood (Shin, 2006).
GMV also uses the concept of thermal mass that BedZED utilises, by using a concrete frame which also reduces energy consumption. Aluminium was also chosen as a construction material because it is long lasting and can also be recycled.
The site uses thermal insulation and air tightness as well as using insulating materials which are not ozone depleting, features which help it to achieve its aim of having building insulation standards 10% better than the national targets.
Relating to materials, GMV had also set a target for a reduction of 50% in embodied energy of materials used for construction. Embodied energy is defined as the amount of energy required to manufacture or produce something (Everett, Boyle, Peake, & Ramage, 2012), in this case to produce, install and transport construction materials (Hawley, 2001). GMV attempted to achieve this goal by using the BRE guide when choosing materials and products they will use, the guide describing the impact different materials have on the environment with each material being ranked (BRE Global Ltd, 2012). Based on the BRE guide, they used materials such as terracotta tiling and using mineral wool for insulation instead of synthetic material like glass fibre, which would have generated carbon dioxide in its manufacture.
Problems
Unlike BedZED, the GMV development did not have any reports of the technology used being shut down for any long length of time. The CHP system was especially useful in cutting down the site’s energy consumption in order to reach its 80% target. Using a CHP system may have been more effective for GMV due to the larger size of the site, which had over 1,000 homes compared to 100 homes at BedZED, which may have allowed the costs to be more spread out.
Though this may not be seen as a problem per say, I was disappointed with how low the GMV’s target for renewable technology was, compared to that for BedZED. Whiles BedZED at one point created 80% of its energy from renewable sources, though this number later dropped to 11% after the decommissioning of the CHP plant, GMV always seemed to have a target of merely 10%. The former chairman of Taylor Woodrow (now Taylor Wimpey), a construction company involved with GMV, claims that, ‘Options for renewable energy have been evaluated and found to have limited viability in the housing sector. High capital costs combined with the relatively low available energy currently limit their application (Hawley, 2001).’ This is the reason given for the site’s limited use of renewable technology. Limited viability of renewable technology may have been a good reason a decade ago near the project’s beginning, however I have see no sign that GMV plan to adopt more renewable technology, something which I am a little disappointed about.
There aren’t necessarily problems with the GMV related to the technology it uses, but I feel there are problems with the promises it makes. Near the beginning of the project, the GMV developers wanted GMV to be a zero-carbon development. However, this goal was revised to become a 35% reduction in the amount of carbon dioxide the site produces. Another target of a 35% reduction in water use was also changed to a 15% reduction in the first year of phase 1 of the project with a 30% reduction over five years (Shin, 2006). Some may see these changes as the project developers simply trying to create more realistic targets for GMV. The question is whether it is better to set ambitious like BedZED did and sometimes fail or to create goals that you are completely sure you are actually capable of achieving.
Evaluation
Comparison of BedZED and GMV
I feel that everyone involved in the BedZED project were too optimistic in forecasting what their project would achieve. They wanted BeZEDto be a carbon neutral development and also to ‘generate as much or more renewable energy on-site than was used in the buildings for heating, hot water and electrical appliances (Hodge & Haltrecht, 2009).’ However, this is obviously not the case, since a lot of electricity used is taken from the grid due to the CHP unit being closed down.
Despite what some probably seeing the development not reaching one of its main goals as something akin to failing, I feel that BedZED has exceeded the performance of sustainability of a lot of existing housing. Monitoring by BioRegional in 2007, even showed that the average household in BedZED used 45% less electricity than the average household in Sutton (Hodge & Haltrecht, 2009). This is a large drop in electricity use; one which I feel is significant enough for BedZED to call its measures a success. BedZED is also said to have heating requirements which are about 10% less than for a typical home (Royston, 2008, p. 21).
Both developments have claimed to include affordable housing in their sites. GMV aimed for 20% of its residential units to be affordable housing, with this percentage increasing to 35% by 2014 (Foletta & Field, 2011). I am not sure how far this is the case, though a quick comparison of house prices between GMV and the Greenwich area shows a 1 bedroom house costing £239,950-£250,000 in GMV (GMV, 2012) compared to the average price of £247,000 in Greenwich (London Property Watch, 2012). The price of the GMV home seems comparable with that of Greenwich. I was unable to find the average cost of a 1 bed home in BedZED, however BedZED house prices are generally 15% higher than in the surrounding London Borough of Sutton.
In conclusion about the comparison of both projects, I feel that in terms of attempting to transform the seemingly impossible concept of the ‘zero carbon’ home into tangible, real life terms, BedZED had succeeded. It may not have achieved all that it aimed to do, whether due to efficiency of the technologies and processes used or to a breakdown in relationship between the architect Bill Dunster and the project developers (Slavin, 2006), but it has at least showed some of what UK housing could achieve and has opened the way for even more efficient housing to be developed. Greenwich Millennium Village on the other hand is in my opinion a development which shows how just implementing one or two effective and efficient technologies, and using sustainable materials can greatly improve the efficiency of buildings.
My Proposal for a Sustainable House
Figure 10 Domestic final energy consumption by end use, UK, 1970 to 2011 (source: http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/stats/publications/energy-consumption/2323-domestic-energy-consumption-factsheet.pdf)
The graph on the previous page (Figure 10), taken from a report by the Department of Energy and Climate Change, shows the levels of energy consumption in homes from 1970 to 2011 equivalent to tonnes of oil. By far the most energy consumption comes from space heating, which is basically the energy needed to heat homes. If we want to greatly improve the energy efficiency of new homes, methods will need to be put into place to allow homes to have lower heating requirements. Because of space heating’s high contribution to home energy consumption, most of the features I recommend in my proposal will be specifically chosen to decrease the amount of energy needed to keep the home surroundings comfortable to its residents.
Processes
Though my research into BedZED, I came across a housing concept known as the ‘PassivHaus Standard’. This was developed in Germany during the 1990’s and aims to reduce the energy required for space heating through using insulation much thicker than in normal homes as well as high-quality glazing and airtightness. This concept is relatively popular, having been used in 30,000 building worldwide (Everett, Boyle, Peake, & Ramage, 2012). BedZED uses the idea of PassivHaus in its design and since it has had success in reducing the energy consumption of its homes, my recommendation will be for new housing to be built to PassivHaus standard.
Figure 11 PassivHaus features (source: http://www.passivhaus.org.uk/page.jsp?id=17)
My sustainable house would utilise solar energy by having the majority of its glazing on the south facing side. This would enable the building to easily gain heat, especially useful in the winter. As well as this, the windows will be triple glazed, with glass coated with a low-e (low-thermal emissivity) material and filled with an inert gas like argon. Triple glazing allows less heat to escape through the windows, whiles the low-e material reflects infrared radiation from the sun whiles still absorbing sunlight, resulting in rooms having a high amount of daylight while still remaining cool, a feature particularly useful in the summer. As in BedZED, a glass conservatory would be placed on the house, which would trap heat coming from the sun and be used to warm the air inside the home (Royston, 2008). To avoid overheating in the summer, the building would have shading over its glazing, made from wood taken from sustainable forests certified by the Forest Stewardship Council.
The house would also use passive ventilation with a wind catcher placed on top of the building, which would pull cool, fresh air down into the building and at the same time expel the warm, stale air from inside the building.
Figure 12 Shading for glazing at GMV (source: http://www.randlesiddeley.co.uk/portfolio_cat/commercial-portfolio/)
Technology
My sustainable house would be part of a development which aimed to produce the majority of its energy on site using predominantly renewable technology. Due to the success of the CHP plant in the GMV development, I feel this is an effective technology, especially when used in conjunction with a housing that is already well insulated and so requires less energy. I believe that CHP units are more efficient compared to electricity generated from a conventional power station because power stations lose a large amount of heat when generating the electricity and more is lost transporting it through the grid. Though a lot of energy is given out as heat in a CHP unit, much of this is recovered to be used to provide homes with heat and hot water, with typical CHP systems being able to use over 80% of their waste heat (Everett, Boyle, Peake, & Ramage, 2012). To further make the CHP unit more sustainable, it would be powered using biogas created by waste wood which has been turned into gas using gasification. Biogas can also be derived from anaerobic (not needing oxygen) digestion of animal and food waste which is then converted into a methane/carbon dioxide mixture (Everett, Boyle, Peake, & Ramage, 2012). I am not sure if this method of collecting biogas is widely used, but it could be a potential source for biogas.
Finally, the building will also use photovoltaic solar panels which will cover the roof. These can be used to provide electricity to the house and shall be placed on the south facing side to maximise solar gain. Though they are expensive, they are becoming more popular and more are being manufactured. This may result in prices being driven down in the future, increasing their affordability.
Figure 13 Conventional heat and power compared to CHP (source: http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S1359431199000551-gr1.gif)
Materials
Learning about the use of sedum on the roof of the BedZED houses and reading about green roofs has helped me to see this as a viable method of natural insulation. It is created by covering the roof of the house with soil, which is then used to grow plants which require little care. The soil acts as an insulator, keeping the house cool in the summer and warm in the winter (Royston, 2008).
Finally, the materials used to construct frame of the house and other features of it could be taken from old buildings which have been demolished. This recycles and reuses materials which could otherwise have been sent to rubbish sites. Both BedZED and the GMV development used recycled materials in their construction.
Bibliography
Sutton: BedZED - Leading the way in eco village design. (2009, 6 11). Retrieved September 16, 2012, from Sustainable Cities Web site by the Danish Architecture Centre: http://sustainablecities.dk/en/city-projects/cases/sutton-bedzed-leading-the-way-in-eco-village-design
BBC. (n.d.). The Beddington Zero Energy Development - a sustainable design solution. Retrieved September 23, 2012, from BBC Learning Zone Web site: http://www.bbc.co.uk/learningzone/clips/the-beddington-zero-energy-development-a-sustainable-design-solution/6338.html
Best Practice programme. (2002). General Information Report 89. Watford: BRECSU.
BioRegional. (2007). Beddington Zero Energy Development: A practical solution for sustainable living. Surrey, England: BioRegional.
BRE Global Ltd. (2012). Background to the Green Guide to Specification . Retrieved September 26, 2012, from BRE Gloabl Web site: http://www.bre.co.uk/greenguide/page.jsp?id=2069
Canadian Nuclear Association. (2012). Library – Energy glossary. Retrieved September 25, 2012, from Canadian Nuclear Association Web site: http://www.cna.ca/library/energy_glossary/#P
Chartered Institute of Building Services Engineers. (2012). EU urged to speed up energy cuts. CIBSE Journal , 10.
Countryside Properties. (2010, September 9). Case Studies: Greenwich Millennium Village, London. Retrieved September 23, 2012, from Countryside Properties Web site: http://www.countryside-properties-corporate.com/assets/x/56658
Department of Energy & Climate Change. (2012, March). Table 1: UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions 1990-2011 (provisional), headline results. UK emissions statistics.
Everett, B., Boyle, G., Peake, S., & Ramage, J. (2012). Energy Systems and Sustainability. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Foletta, N., & Field, S. (2011). Europe’s Vibrant New Low Car(bon) Communities. New York: Institute for Transportation & Development Policy.
GMV. (2012). Availability. Retrieved from Greenwich Millennium Village Web site: http://gmv.gb.com/availability/?bedrooms=1
Hawley, D. R. (2001). Homes for the new millennium: new technology and innovation at Greenwich Millennium Village. The Ingenia Magazine, 46-51.
Hodge, J., & Haltrecht, J. (2009). BedZED seven years on: The impact of the UK’s best known eco-village and its residents. BioRegional.
Lazarus, N. (2003). BedZED: Toolkit Part II. Surrey: BioRegional.
Leeds Metropolitan University: Centre for the Built Environment. (2011). Low Carbon Housing Learning Zone. Retrieved September 10, 2012, from Centre for the Built Environment Web site: http://www.leedsmet.ac.uk/as/cebe/projects/lowcarbhlz/index.htm
Lewisham Council. (2009). Lewisham’s Housing Strategy 2009-2014. London: Lewisham Council.
Lo, M. S. (2009, February 10). BedZED, United Kingdom. Retrieved August 13, 2012, from Hong Kong Institute of Planners Web site: http://www.hkip.org.hk/plcc/download/UK.pdf
London Property Watch. (2012). Average asking prices for London properties for sale. Retrieved from London Property Watch Web site: http://www.londonpropertywatch.co.uk/avg_prices.html
McLeish, E. (2006). The energy-saving home. In E. McLeish, Sustainable Homes (pp. 10-19). London: Evan Brother Limited.
Royston, A. (2008). Buildings of the Future. Oxford: Heinemann Library.
Shin, D. K. (2006, Spring). Millennium Village. Retrieved September 25, 2012, from University of Idaho: http://www.caa.uidaho.edu/arch504ukgreenarch/CaseStudies/MillenniumVillage2.pdf
Slavin, T. (2006, May 17). Living in a dream. The Guardian.
The Concrete Centre. (n.d.). Thermal mass. Retrieved September 23, 2012, from MPA - The Concrete Centre Web Site: http://www.concretecentre.com/technical_information/performance_and_benefits/thermal_mass.aspx
Twinn, C. (2003, 1). BedZED. The Arup Journal, pp. 10-16.
Wikipedia. (2012, September 9). Garden city movement. Retrieved from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_city_movement
by
azanu (student)
