Chapter 1.

Responsive Building Envelopes:

Characteristics and Evolving Paradigms
k at h y v e l i k o v and geoffrey thn

ABSTRACT: A new generation of high-performance envelopes have contributed to the

emergence of sophisticated assemblies combining real-time environmental response,
advanced materials, dynamic automation with embedded microprocessors, wireless
sensors and actuators, and design-for-manufacture techniques. This practice has
fundamentally transformed the way in which architects approach building design with
a shift in emphasis from form to performance, from structure to envelope. In the realm
of high-performance buildings, the envelope has become the primary site of innovative
research and development.1 Borrowing a set of terms from the discipline of biology now
commonplace in architectural design, this chapter articulates a conceptual paradigm and
working vocabulary for the development of high-performance building skins that are smart,
intelligent, interactive and responsive.

1.0 Redefining the responsive environment

An expanded understanding of building performance acknowledges that all

forces acting on buildings (climate, energies, information, human agents) are
not static and fixed, but rather mutable and transient. This has serious conse-
quences for the building envelope whose design must transcend its role as
mere protective wrapper separating inside from outside.2 Building faades are
increasingly developed as complex systems of material assemblies attuned to
climate and energy optimization. With ever greater frequency, they are equipped
with new performative materials, sensors, actuators and computerized intel-
ligence that support automated dynamic operations and functionalities, such
as regulating a buildings light, air and sound transmission, thermal transfer,
and interior air quality. This faade-based equipment assists and even at times
replaces functionalities otherwise performed by traditional building systems. As
the building component most directly exposed to sun and wind, the envelope

CHAPTER 1.3: Responsive Building Envelopes ~ Kathy Velikov and Geoffrey Thn 75
is also the most effective site for innovations in energy savings and alternative
energy generation.
The evolution of the building envelope as a focus of design innovation in
the twentieth century parallels advancements in envelope engineering and build-
ing science, as well as developments in computer engineering, cybernetics and
artificial intelligence (Figure 1.3.1). Additionally, new technologies, smart materi-
als and distributed systems have spurred the introduction of biological models for
understanding the behavior and design of building systems and their controls. A
descriptive lexicon has emerged that employs decidedly biological terminology
in conceptualizing architectural design. For example, we frequently encounter
the term building skin in reference to the buildings exterior envelope. Michael
Wigginton and Jude Harris, in their book Intelligent Skins, argue that the use of
the term skin is more than merely a metaphor; the buildings envelope can be
considered quite literally as a complex membrane capable of energy, material and
information exchanges. It can be designed to operate as part of a holistic build-
ing metabolism and morphology, and will often be connected to other parts of
the building, including sensors, actuators and command wires from the building
management system.3
This contemporary understanding of the building skin has fundamentally
changed the way in which architects approach building design, having shifted
questions of performance away from the traditional formal and physical proper-
ties of building envelopes to reposition the discourse within a more expansive
definition of how they behave. These new parameters have resulted in increased
architectural collaboration with the disciplines of mechanical and electrical engi-
neering, computing and the physical and social sciences. However, as argued by
Michelle Addington and Daniel Schodek in their seminal book Smart Materials and
Technologies for the Architecture and Design Professions, relative to the afore-
mentioned disciplines, architecture has evolved without a common language,
problem solving methodology or common basis of knowledge, and this often
hampers the design process. The blurring of boundaries between disciplines has
76 PART 1 : Building Envelopes, Renewable Energies and Integrated Practice
1.3.1
Contextual timeline of
responsive building envelope
development
that empowers an operational definition of building ecology and that functions
ant and environment.
Within the design disciplines, the term smart has most frequently been used
given rise to a near crisis in the definition of their respective roles, responsibilities
and professional accountability.4 Even within the discipline of architecture, terms
such as smart, intelligent, interactive, adaptive or responsive have
been used loosely and interchangeably, creating confusion as to their specific
meaning and their conceptual relationship to building performance and design. In
response, this chapter frames a provisional lexicon of descriptive, behavioral and
methodological terms to assist designers in navigating the field of high-perfor-
mance skins that incorporate materially innovative and feedback-based systems.
It offers a brief overview of current advances in this nascent and rapidly evolving
field and articulates a broader conceptual territory for the term responsive; one
through the combined and co-evolutionary agency of building, technology, inhabit-
2.0 Smart
in reference to materials and surfaces.5 Addington and Schodek identify smart
materials as systems possessing embedded technological functions that
involve specific environmental responses, operating either through internal physi-
cal property changes or through external energy exchanges.6 They define the
characteristics of smart materials as: immediacy (real-time response), tran-
siency (responsive to more than one environmental state), self-actuation
(internal intelligence), selectivity (a response is discrete and predictable) and
directness (a response is local to the activating events).7 Smart surfaces and
materials can play a significant role in intelligent, adaptive and responsive enve-
lopes because of these intrinsic properties. Examples of smart materials used
in high-performance building skins include: aerogel the synthetic low-density
translucent material used in window glazing, phase changing materials such as
CHAPTER 1.3: Responsive Building Envelopes ~ Kathy Velikov and Geoffrey Thn 77
 1.3.3
ShapeShift prototype,
consisting of 36 individual
EAP elements, as exhibited at
the Gallery StarkArt in Zurich,
September 2010

micro-encapsulated wax, salt hydrates, thermochromic polymer films, and build- 1.3.2
ing integrated photovoltaics. Smart Thermobimetal Self-
Ventilating Skin: installation of
One of the most significant characteristics of smart materials is that
prototype and details of skin
they have the ability to transform their physical properties and/or shape, or to performance under different
exchange energy without requiring an external source of power. Hence, they are temperatures, 2010
extremely attractive to building designers who aim to increase functionality and
performance while at the same time reducing energy use. Doris Sung, principle
of DO|SU Studio Architecture and faculty member at the University of Southern
California, is experimenting with the use of thermobimetals for creating self-sup-
porting building skins that are able to open their pores to self-ventilate without the
use of external energy sources (Figure 1.3.2).8 Laminated metals with differential
thermal coefficients deform unevenly when exposed to temperature set points,
inducing tension and causing movement in the thermobimetal. When the heat
source is removed, the bimetal returns to its original shape.
The use of electro active polymers for kinetic skins is also at the forefront
of research in the field, given their speed of response, large potential for active
deformation and resilience. Manuel Kretzer and students from the ETH in Zur-
ich have developed a prototype dynamic skin called Shape Shift; a layered,
self-supporting unit made of elastomeric films which deforms when electrically 1.3.4
charged (Figure 1.3.3).9 Moreover, architects Soo-in Yang and David Benjamin Smart envelope comprised of
ETFE encased solar-activated
are developing a new smart material called Living Glass which is comprised of
lamella shades developed
arrays of polymer gills interfaced with sensors. The system opens and closes for the Media-TIC building in
as a function of both human presence and carbon dioxide levels and is designed Barcelona, Cloud 9 Architects,
to control the air quality of a room.10 2011

78 PART 1 : Building Envelopes, Renewable Energies and Integrated Practice CHAPTER 1.3: Responsive Building Envelopes ~ Kathy Velikov and Geoffrey Thn 79
 While many of these systems are still in the research and development
phase, a recent example of a smart skin installed in a completed building is that of
the Media-TIC building, constructed in Barcelona in 2011 and designed by Cloud
9 Architects and envelope specialists Vector Foiltec Ltd. The envelope features
a pillow cladding system made of the polymer ETFE with encased lamella fins
whose pneumatic mechanisms are automatically activated by light sensors that
respond to the presence of solar energy (Figure 1.3.4).
While smart materials offer many advantages for high-performance building
envelopes, their performance is often tightly bracketed within a specific range
of climatic conditions and predictable reactions. However, in a high-performance
building skin that is required to be intelligent or responsive, it is often necessary
to accommodate much broader variation in conditions and performance criteria.
The skin may be required to facilitate more complex building system commu-
nications, to respond to occupant requests, and to adapt and learn over time.
As such, smart materials are often incorporated in complex building skins with
sophisticated thermal management systems a pairing that would render them
intelligent.
3.0 Intelligent
The term intelligent has been used extensively in the construction industry
since building automation and telecommunications became more pervasive in
the 1960s and 1970s, gaining widespread currency in the 1980s when it referred
to the programmable zones of a buildings heating, ventilating and air-conditioning
(HVAC) systems. Many countries have intelligent building (IB) institutes, each of
which contributes a slightly different approach to defining the characteristics of
IBs.11 Relative to building skins, the term intelligent implies a higher order of
organization and performance than smart. In the broadest sense, the goal of
an intelligent building skin is to optimize the buildings systems relative to cli-
mate, energy balance and human comfort, typically based on predictive models.
This is often accomplished through building automation and physically adaptive
elements such as louvers, sunshades, operable vents or smart material assem-
blies. Brian Atkin, in his book Intelligent Buildings, defines intelligent buildings
as those that know what the environmental conditions are both outside and
inside, that decide how to provide a convenient and comfortable environment
for occupants, and that respond promptly to occupant requests.12 This is typi-
cally achieved using a variety of sensing apparatus that communicate with build-
ing control systems to optimize interior conditions, including computational pro-
tocols (for both the envelope and HVAC equipment) capable of re-balancing the
system based on occupant adjustments. For their part, Addington and Schodek
describe the term intelligent using these three characterizations: environmen-
tal characterizations (surrounding environments, use environments), cognition
characterizations (information systems, expert systems, artificial intelligence) and
implementation characterizations (methods of operation and control).13
The widespread availability and use of mechanical conditioning equipment
during the postwar era was certainly a factor in the development of intelligent
80 PART 1 : Building Envelopes, Renewable Energies and Integrated Practice
buildings. This mechanically regulated environment released the building enve-
lope from its primary role as thermal barrier, calling into question its very necessity
an observation eloquently developed by Reyner Banham and Francois Dellagret
in their 1969 article A Home is Not a House.14 The use of mechanical systems
for interior climate regulation resulted in buildings designed with ever increasing
amounts of glass, which in turn necessitated variable shading and ventilation as
an integral part of the envelope.
As buildings often follow on the heels of advancements in the automotive
and household appliance industries, the rise of automation was another factor
which led to the development of intelligent building envelopes.15 One of the first
automated climate-adaptive envelopes was Buckminster Fullers faade for the
United States pavilion built for the 1967 Montreal Expo (Figure 1.3.5). The skin
of this geodesic dome was made of a transparent cladding of acrylic panels, with
interior canvas sunshades controlled by a computer program that would adjust
their position relative to the movement of the sun.16
The ability for a building envelope to change and adapt its configuration rela-
tive to the sun (either by blocking its rays to prevent overheating and/or glare, or
by allowing them to penetrate for passive heat gain and/or daylighting), has been
a primary source of formal and technological innovations in intelligent building
skins. The Terrence Donnelley Centre for Cellular and Bimolecular Research at
the University of Toronto, completed in 2006 by ArchitectsAlliance and Behnisch
Architekten, has a south facing double skin faade with intelligently controlled
internal blinds and ventilation louvers that together manage light, heat gain and
natural ventilation in this energy efficient, all-glass building (Figure 1.3.6).
So pervasive is the field, engineering firm Buro Happold, in collaboration
with deployable structures innovator Chuck Hoberman, have established an intel-
ligent surfaces unit called the Adaptive Buildings Initiative (ABI). This design unit
has developed a number of kinetic shading and cladding systems, including the
Strata System, which consists of automated modular kinetic units that can
retract into a slender profile (Figure 1.3.7). The Strata system was the basis
for the Helio Trace Faade, developed in collaboration with SOM and the Per-
masteelisa Group, that improves envelope performance relative to daylight and
glare while reducing solar heat gain by as much as 81 percent.17
Although a significant amount of research and development in intelligent
building envelopes occurs in the commercial building sector, where building auto-
mation and advanced technologies have had faster and more widespread adop-
tion, residential buildings have also engaged the question of intelligent building
skins. An early home featuring automated curtains and controllable windows,
which opened and closed as a function of data received from internal and exter-
nal climate conditions, was the TRON-Concept Intelligent House. The prototype
developed by Professor Ken Sakamura from the University of Tokyo, operated
as a living lab for research in domestic automated environments from 1989 to
1993.18 More recently, the home built by Technische Universitt Darmstadt for
1.3.5 (overleaf)
the 2007 US Solar Decathlon Competition incorporated an exterior building skin
Buckminster Fullers 1967
Montreal Expo Dome,
comprised of computer controlled wooden louvers with integrated photovoltaic
illustrating canvas sunshades panels that generated power while shielding the interior of the house from the
in variable positions sun (Figure 1.3.8).
CHAPTER 1.3: Responsive Building Envelopes ~ Kathy Velikov and Geoffrey Thn 81
82 PART 1 : Building Envelopes, Renewable Energies and Integrated Practice CHAPTER 1.3: Responsive Building Envelopes ~ Kathy Velikov and Geoffrey Thn 83
 1.3.6
Intelligent double-skin
faade system with integral
automated shading for the
Terrence Donnelley Centre
for Cellular and Bimolecular
Research at the University of
Toronto, architectsAlliance/
Behnish Architekten, 2006
84
1.3.7
(top) ABI Strata System gent is that in the case of the former functionality results from intrinsic mate-
demonstrated in the
continually transforming
Emergent Surface exhibition
at MoMA, 2008 (Courtesy of
ABI); (bottom) The award-
winning HelioTrace Adaptive
Faade system by SOM/ABI/
Permasteelisa, 2010
The biggest difference, therefore, between terms smart and intelli-
rial properties, whereas in the latter performance is primarily controlled through
computation and automation. The performance profile of intelligent envelopes is
typically more variable than that of smart skins; the operation of smart skins is
typically binary and more limited in control, while intelligent envelopes typically
require external power to achieve their goals. Hence, when committed to overall
building energy reductions, intelligent envelopes should ideally be developed with
smart materials that are self-powering and self-actuating.
CHAPTER 1.3: Responsive Building Envelopes ~ Kathy Velikov and Geoffrey Thn 85
 1.3.8
Intelligent faade of automated
wood louvers with building-
integrated photovoltaics
create a continuous faade
for TU Darmstadts 2007 Solar
Decathlon House
4.0 Interactive
The term interactive is used less frequently with regard to building envelopes
than in reference to computer-enabled artworks, installations and other such envi-
ronments encouraging active public participation. The past twenty years have
witnessed an explosive rise in the number and range of interactive devices used
to this end; in part due to the increasing miniaturization of technology, render-
ing ubiquitous and inexpensive the sensing, computational and micro processing
components necessary for their widespread adoption.19 However, for the pur-
poses of this text, the most significant characterization of the term is that of an
interactive system that fundamentally requires human input to initiate response.
The history of ideas on human-machine systems and the concepts of feed-
back and circular causality can be traced to the Macy Conferences of The Cyber-
netics Group held between 1946 and 1953. These events included the participa-
tion of individuals seminal in the development of the field of Systems Theory such
as, Gregory Bateson, Norbert Weiner, Warren McCulloch, John von Neumann,
Ross Ashby and Margaret Mead.20 One of the earliest attempts to develop an
interactive architectural system was Cedric Price and Joan Littlewoods Fun Pal-
ace, a project developed in 1961, in collaboration with well-known cybernetician
Gordon Pask.21
During this early phase, limited computer processing capability constrained
the possibility for interactive systems to become widespread in buildings. And
yet, a great deal of the conceptual and process-related groundwork in the field
took place during the 1960s and 1970s via the work of Warren Brodey, Charles
Eastman, Gordon Pask and MIT Media Lab founder Nicholas Negroponte.22 Early
86 PART 1 : Building Envelopes, Renewable Energies and Integrated Practice
1.3.9
Michael Mozers ACHE
computer architecture for the
Adaptive House
discussions were focused on regulatory feedback-based systems, or first-order
cybernetics, while the development of second-order cybernetic systems (i.e.
machine-based learning or conversing systems) was the goal of contemporary
designers working in the field.23 According to Usman Haque, in second order
cybernetics, input and output criteria are actively and iteratively constructed
by other participants of the project, and a more productive relationship ensues
between human and environment, informing future operations of the system.24
So stated, a number of projects that have more commonly fallen under the
rubric of intelligent, might be more appropriately identified as interactive.
This includes the Adaptive House Project, by Michael C. Mozer at the Uni-
versity of Colorado at Boulder which, equipped with sensors and an automated
building management system, is programmed to optimize energy conservation
while at the same time ensure the comfort of its inhabitants.25 The home control
computer architecture called ACHE (Adaptive Control of Human Environments)
is implemented using networks that emulate neural functions, with sensors posi-
tioned to not only monitor interior climate, but also to track and record informa-
tion on inhabitant actions under changing scenarios.26 As a result, the computer
algorithm learns over time and begins to anticipate inhabitant preferences (Figure
1.3.9). In addition to the computerized observation of human behavior, of particu-
lar interest are advancements that have been made in the capacity to interpret
gestures and actions. As opposed to more familiar human input interfaces that
are keyboards and touchscreens, inhabitant preferences are understood via an
advanced recognition based interface. This not only foregrounds the human factor
in the building-energy-environment equation, but also engages deeper questions
of bodily and psychological importance when designing interactive environments
and their material components.
5.0 Responsive
The term responsive is often used interchangeably with interactive and
adaptive, but most simply it is used to describe, how natural and artificial
systems can interact and adapt.27 In 1975, Nicholas Negroponte proposed
the following definition of responsive architecture in his text Soft Architecture
Machines:
CHAPTER 1.3: Responsive Building Envelopes ~ Kathy Velikov and Geoffrey Thn 87
 The manipulative environment is a passive one, one that is moved
as opposed to one that moves. In contrast, responsive means the
environment is taking an active role, initiating to a greater or lesser
degree changes as a result and function of complex or simple com-
putations maybe a house is not a home until it can learn to laugh
at your jokes.28

In a responsive milieu, one that operates under the principles of second-order

cybernetics, both user and system are capable of shaping an unlimited set of
performance outcomes. Rather than the designer predetermining appropriate
responses to user inputs, the system measures reactions to its outputs and con-
tinually modifies its actions according to these responses. In an extreme case,
buildings and environments could co-evolve and transform according to cognitive
and biological models.
A responsive building skin includes functionalities and performance charac-
teristics similar to those of an intelligent building skin including real-time sensing,
kinetic climate-adaptive elements, smart materials, automation and the ability for
user override. But it also includes interactive characteristics, such as computational
algorithms that allow the building system to self-adjust and learn over time, as well
as the ability for inhabitants to physically manipulate elements of the building enve-
lope to control environmental conditions.29 Learning takes place in accordance with
1.3.10
changing environmental conditions and inhabitant preferences, such that the algo- Responsive building envelope
rithm anticipates desirable configurations. A truly responsive building envelope, characteristics include both
therefore, not only includes mechanisms for inhabitant sensing and feedback, but response input interfaces
as well as learning through
is also committed to educating both the building and its occupants. Information is
mechanisms that use
provided to the buildings inhabitants so they too can learn over time and modify adaptive computation based
their actions relative to climate and energy use. In this way, both building and occu- on continual sensing and
pant are engaged in a continuous and evolving conversation (Figure 1.3.10). information feedback

1.3.11
North House Exterior Shade
operation response logistics
and occupant control interface
logic
One such home is the North House prototype, described in detail in the
Chapter 4.3. It was built using a responsive envelope with computer-automated
exterior shading louvers capable of continually adjusting their configuration. The
energy balance of the mechanical system based on real-time interior and exte-
rior climate sensing and user manipulation was continually optimized for mini-
mum energy use. Although a building-learning algorithm for occupant preferences
was not developed for this prototype, interactivity researchers at Simon Fraser
University developed a human-learning environment that was a computerized
interface system, called ALIS (Adaptive Living Interface System). It provided real-
time energy and resource use feedback in both numerical and ambient formats,
alerted users when occupant actions (such as opening the blinds on a sunny
day) would compromise energy optimization, and supported a matrix of online
community and social networking applications to promote energy saving lifestyle
patterns (Figure 1.3.11).

88 PART 1 : Building Envelopes, Renewable Energies and Integrated Practice CHAPTER 1.3: Responsive Building Envelopes ~ Kathy Velikov and Geoffrey Thn 89
6.0 The human factor in building performance
A responsive building skin is one that facilitates co-evolutionary interaction
between the building, the inhabitant and the environment in a meaningful way.
One of the primary performance mandates for high-performance envelopes has
been energy optimization and reduction in the use of resources. Yet research has
shown that while approximately half of the energy used in the home depends on
its physical characteristics and equipment, the behavior of its residents accounts
for the balance.30 Dr. Ray Cole, co-founder of the Green Building Challenge, has
proposed to add inhabitant intelligence to existing concepts of building intel-
ligence, challenging the assumption that inhabitants understand building control
options, and that they will make appropriate and intelligent choices.31 Social sci-
entists have long recognized that motivations to consume or conserve energy are
socially dependent32 and the social, political, and personal dimensions of a build-
ings energy consumption and resource management are as critical to address
as the technical ones.33 Differences in individual behavior have been shown to
produce large variations in energy consumption in some cases as much as 300
percent even when accounting for differences in housing types, appliances,
HVAC systems, and family size.34 Moreover, in a study including extended moni-
toring of energy use patterns in a community of Zero Energy Houses in California,
results showed that while the energy efficient and energy producing features of
the buildings were effective at reducing the energy consumption, the patterns of
energy use by inhabitants remained identical to those of neighbors in non-Zero
energy houses. In spite of living in high-performance sustainable buildings, resi-
dents did not change their consumption habits in any significant way.35
Motivations for saving energy may vary. However, availability of informa-
tion and feedback loops are effective means for encouraging building occupants
to develop more energy-conscious lifestyles and building use patterns.36 In a
responsive design paradigm, where building, inhabitant and environment are all
agents, the positive and negative feedback loops that individuals have with their
built environment, the active co-evolution that they necessarily share with it, as
well as the agency of both buildings and their inhabitants, are all potentially pow-
erful tools for promoting social change. They not only increase the intelligence of
building systems, but the intelligence of their inhabitants as well.
Given residential buildings in the United States account for nearly 57 per-
cent of building energy use,37 and that the home is a central site of habit form-
ing behavior, residential buildings may prove to be an ideal place for advancing
developments in responsive envelope systems. With emphasis on adaptability,
the high-performance skin has the capacity to learn over time and in so doing can
form ongoing and emergent relationships with its inhabitants. In this way, respon-
sive envelopes can significantly impact the definition of building performance by
forging a new cognitive framework for buildings, their inhabitants and the larger
environment.
90 PART 1 : Building Envelopes, Renewable Energies and Integrated Practice
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Franca Trubiano and Malcolm McCullough for content and edi-
torial feedback; Lauren Barhydt, Julie Janiski and Zain AbuSeir for research and
drawing assistance.
Notes
1 Witness the recent societies and research initiatives related to high-performance faades,
such as The Society of Faade Engineering (www.facadeengineeringsociety.org), the
advanced work in adaptive facades by The Adaptive Buildings Initiative (Buro Happold
with Hoberman and Associates, www.adaptivebuildings.com), The Center for Architecture
Science and Ecology (CASE) (Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute with SOM www.case.rpi.
edu) and the work of consultants, Front Inc (www.frontinc.com), among others.
2 B. Kolarevic and A. M. Malkawi eds., Performative Architecture: Beyond Instrumentality,
New York: Spon Press, 2005, pp. 203212.
3 M. Wigginton and J. Harris, Intelligent Skins, Oxford: Elsevier Architectural Press, 2006
[2002], p. 3.
4 M. Addington and D. Schodek, Smart Materials and Technologies for the Architecture and
Design Professions, Oxford: Elsevier Architectural Press, 2007 [2005], p. 12.
5 For the two most comprehensive publications on the matter, see Addington and Schodek,
Smart Materials as well as T. Klooster, Smart Surfaces and their Application in Architecture
and Design, Berlin: Birkhauser, 2009.
6 Addington and Schodek, op. cit., p. 9.
7 Addington and Schodek, op. cit., p. 10.
8 D. K. Sung, Skin Deep: Making Building Skins Breathe with Smart Thermobimetals,
Where Do You Stand?: Proceedings of the 2011 ACSA National Conference, A. Prez-
Gmez, A. Cormier, and A. Pedret eds., Washington, DC: ACSA Press, 2010, pp. 145152.
9 ShapeShift is a collaboration between the Chair for Computer Aided Architectural Design
(ETHZ) and the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology (EMPA).
The team includes M. Kretzer, D. Rossi, S. Georgakopoulou, E. Augustynowicz and S. Sixt.
See www.caad-eap.blogspot.com
10 The Living New York (2010) Living Glass, Available at: www.thelivingnewyork.com/lg/lg01.
htm (accessed 30 January 2011).
11 A summary can be found in S. W. Wang, Intelligent Buildings and Building Automation,
New York: Spon Press, pp. 13.
12 B. Atkin, Intelligent Buildings, Worcester: Billings & Sons, 1988, p. 1.
13 Addington and Schodek, op. cit., pp. 204205.
14 R. Banham, A Home is Not a House, Art in America, 1965 April, vol. 53, pp. 7079.
15 See S. Giedion, Mechanization Takes Command: A Contribution to Anonymous History,
New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1948 and R. Banham, Theory and Design of the First
Machine Age, Cambridge: MIT Press, 1980 [1960].
16 M. J. Gorman, Buckminster Fuller: Designing for Mobility, Milan: Skira, 2006, p. 134.
Unfortunately the shades seized up in a random position the first time they system was in
use, and then the entire skin burned in an accidental fire in 1976.
17 Hoberman Associates and B. Happold (2010) Adaptive Building Initiative, Available at: www.
adaptivebuildings.com (accessed 18 February 2011).
18 Wigginton and Harris, op. cit., pp. 155158.
19 For comprehensive references to contemporary interactive design see: M. Fox and M.
Kemp, Interactive Architecture, Princeton Architectural Press, 2009; Klooster, Smart
Surfaces; and L. Bullivant, Responsive Environments: architecture, art and design, V&A
Contemporary, London: Victoria and Albert Museum, 2006.
20 S. Heims, Constructing a Social Science for Postwar America: The Cybernetics Group,
19461953, Cambridge: MIT Press, 1993.
CHAPTER 1.3: Responsive Building Envelopes ~ Kathy Velikov and Geoffrey Thn 91
21 M. L. Lobsinger, Cybernetic Theory and the Architecture of Performance: Cedric Prices
Fun Palace, in Anxious Modernisms: Experimentation in Post-war Architectural Culture, Chapter 1.4
ed. S. W. Goldhagen and R. Legault, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000.
22 For early writings on interactive architecture see: W. Brodey, The design of intelligent
environments: Soft architecture. Landscape, Autumn 1967, 812; G. Pask, Architectural
Relevance of Cybernetics, Architectural Design, September 1969, 494496; A. Rabeneck, Nanomaterial +
Super Insulator = Aerogel
Cybermation: A Useful Dream, Architectural Design, September 1969, 497500; C.
Eastman, Adaptive-Conditional Architecture, in Design Participation, Proceedings of the
Design Research Societys Conference Manchester, September 1971, Ed. N. Cross, pp.
5157. London: Academy Editions, 1972; and N. Negroponte, The Architecture Machine,
Cambridge: MIT Press, 1973, and Soft Architecture Machines, Cambridge: MIT Press,
1975. franca trubiano
23 H. Dubberly, U. Haque, and P. Pangaro, What is interaction? Are there different types?,
Interactions, Volume 16 Issue 1, January/February, 2009.
24 U. Haque, Distinguishing Concepts. Lexicons of Interactive Art and Architecture,
4dsocial: Interactive Design Environments, Architectural Design, Volume 77, no 4, 2007, pp.
2627.
25 M. Mozer, Lessons from an Adaptive House, D. Cook and D. Das eds., Smart
Environments: Technology, Protocols and Applications, Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley &
Sons, Incorporated, 2004, pp. 273310. ABSTRACT: This chapter discusses the adoption of nanotech materials in the development
26 Ibid., p. 283. of high-performance building envelopes and the opportunity for innovation this affords
27 P. Beesley, S. Hirosue, and J. Ruxton, Responsive Architectures. Subtle Technologies 06,
Cambridge: Riverside Architectural Press, 2006, p. 3.
the design of residential buildings. During the past decade, advances in bio-engineering,
28 Negroponte, op. cit., pp. 132133. medicine and the material sciences have altered the landscape of chemical and organic
29 The sense of control that inhabitants have over building systems has been shown to be synthesis. A result of which has been increased availability of its techniques and technologies
a significant factor in occupant satisfaction and the ability to have more perceived control
over interior environments has been shown to increase inhabitants tolerance for less- for invention in the building industry. The material properties of aerogel, a translucent
than-ideal conditions. See N. Baker, The Irritable Occupant: recent developments in insulation material with multifunctional capacities, are discussed in detail, as are the design
thermal comfort theory, Architectural Research Quarterly, 2, Winter 1996; R. Cole and
Z. Brown, Reconciling human and automated intelligence in the provision of occupant
implications of using this nanotech material in high performance homes.
comfort, Intelligent buildings international 1, 2009, pp. 3955; and A. Leaman and B.
Bordass, Assessing building performance in use 4: the Probe occupant surveys and their
implications, Building Research & Information, 29(2), 2001, pp. 129143.
30 K. B. Janda, Buildings Dont Use Energy: People Do, in Architecture, Energy and the
Occupants Perspective Proceedings of the 26th conference on Passive and Low Energy
in Architecture (PLEA), C. Demers and A. Potvin eds., Quebec, Canada: Les Presses de
1.0 Material engineering at the nano scale
lUniversite Laval, 2009, pp. 914.
31 R. J. Cole and Z. Brown, Human and Automated Intelligence in Comfort Provisioning, in
Architecture, Energy and the Occupants Perspective Proceedings of the 26th conference In the field of material science, the term nano identifies the scale of morpho-
on Passive and Low Energy in Architecture (PLEA), C. Demers and A. Potvin eds., Quebec, logical transformations that occur at the measure of one billionth of a meter.
Canada: Les Presses de lUniversite Laval, 2009, pp. 1821. A nanometer (nm) is excessively diminutive and impossible to register by the
32 L. Schipper et al., Linking Life-Styles and Energy Use: A Matter of Time? Annual Review naked eye. And yet, every year, dozens of materials are invented and manu-
of Energy 14 (1989), pp. 273320 and P. C. Stern and E. Aronson eds., Energy Use: The
factured with properties engineered at this tiniest of dimensions. In the field of
Human Dimension, New York: W.H. Freeman and Company, 1984.
33 Janda, op. cit., pp. 914. nanotechnology it is the material itself that is being designed and engineered
34 Janda, op. cit., p. 11. rather than the architecture which contains it. Nanotech materials are synthe-
35 M. Keesee, Setting a new standard the zero energy home experience in California, sized and calibrated to perform at the highest degree of specificity. Yet most
Proceedings of Solar World Congress, International Solar Energy Society: Orlando, FL, building products that have undergone morphological changes at the nanometer
2005; and Janda, op. cit., p. 10.
scale typically do not occasion a significant change in their form; notwithstand-
36 See M. Chetty, D. Tran and R. E. Grinter, Getting to Green: Understanding Resource
Consumption in the Home, Proceedings of UbiComp 08, pp. 242251; and S. Darby, ing possible changes in appearance when using smart surfaces, thermochromic,
The Effectiveness of Feedback on Energy Consumption, Oxford: Environmental Change photochromic and other shape-changing materials. Hence, it will be argued that
Institute, University of Oxford, 2006. See www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/energy/downloads/ rather than having a significant effect on the visual and formal design of archi-
smart-metering-report.pdf (accessed 2 May 2010). tecture, design at the nanometer scale has a substantial effect on the thermal
37 US Department of Energy (2009) 2009 Buildings Energy Data Book, Table 1.2.3, pp. 112,
dimension of architecture.
Available at: http://buildingsdatabook.eren.doe.gov/Default.aspx (accessed 24 January
2011).

92 PART 1 : Building Envelopes, Renewable Energies and Integrated Practice CHAPTER 1.4: Nanomaterial + Super Insulator = Aerogel ~ Franca Trubiano 93