Are depth and scale mutually exclusive in a sustainable world?

While in the design phase of two housing development projects, I was faced with what at first could be considered polar opposites in the industry: depth and scale.

The first project is a 100+ unit, uniquely interactive, mixed-use development. The other is a four unit, two-story walk-up. The latter being our Manor House design - a framework that can be reproduced at scale.

At first glance, you would think that they are at opposite ends of the spectrum, one being a concentrated one-of-a-kind building, and the other more suitable for a volume builder. However, I found out that through a true sustainability lens, there is nothing that can be scaled without depth.

The realisation came with the Manor House framework design.

These projects will be built through complying developments, meaning strict requirements with no room for deviation and little option on what can be designed.

This is very restricting in the green building sector where you start your project with passive design, including buildings orientated to the north with living areas at the front and sleeping to the rear; larger north-facing windows that are smaller on the east, south and west; and landscaping and internal walls designed for optimal cross-ventilation.

With the building size, shape and orientation having very limited options, this leaves you with having to over-design on the building fabric, meaning heavier glazing options, higher insulation, denser external materials, and mechanical ventilation.

This is fine on a green building level and is what the Passive House designs would focus on, though once you start looking from a true sustainability and circular economy perspective, you need to also consider the embodied carbon in all these extra materials. The over-designing to get sufficient NatHers ratings or green stars means true carbon neutrality is a much longer road than what is on paper.

To combat this, further considerations need to be taken to look at each project as an individual, site-specific development. You can’t simply come up with a green design that reaches your accepted green rating tool requirements and produce at scale, you have to go deeper.

Funnily enough, the best place to begin is at the start. What is already on the land? Let’s imagine a three-bed brick house. What can be recycled, reused or repurposed to reduce the embodied carbon on the new development? Can the same bricks be cleaned and used on the new build? What will be the percent of loss in damage in the process? Will there be enough to use on the front face maintaining the streetscape as closely as possible, helping with the compliance of the development? Are there any unique features or materials that can be repurposed? Stones from retaining walls or the roof tiles reused in the garden? How can you separate the rest of the demolition waste for maximum recycling capability?

Another aspect of sustainability that consistently goes under the radar is social sustainability.

Are we building green, healthy, energy efficient boxes of separation? What is the point of a community without commune?

Countless studies around the world have proven that depth of integration within a community builds more resilient and healthy societies, environments and lives.

Instead of buildings of separation, we need to be basing our projects in-line with nature, community and social structure, permaculture principles (by assessing the flow of energy through the systems), and open communication.

Once you truly look through the lens of sustainability, you will understand that there can be no future in scaling without depth of social integration and communication, environmental planning and an understanding of resilience. Without depth, scale is just lots of little things next to each other.