There is no question that the Passive House standard is gaining traction. This year’s SAB Awards had 9 categories, three of which embraced Passive House. We see building owners, designers, contractors and policy makers recognizing the benefits. At Waymark Architecture, our leading projects are all Passive House and continue to gain considerable media attention. In fact, Charter’s headquarters recently won the Canada Green Building Awards 2020 in the small commercial category. What is unique about Charter’s headquarters is that it is a commercial building project which brings to question why hasn’t Passive House gained greater traction within the commercial sector.
The Charter building demonstrates that a commercial building can be built today to the Passive House standard, on a challenging site, with trades who are willing to learn but don’t have special training, without financial incentives or grants, and for a reasonable cost. You’d think that commercial building owners would be early adopters of an approach that reduces life cycle costs while simultaneously making their buildings more appealing to the people working there.
My personal option is that over the coming years the principles behind the Passive House standard will have a bigger impact on the industry than LEED ever did, changing practices throughout and not just for projects seeking certification. At the same time it’s hard to explain why this isn’t happening as quickly in the commercial sector as it is in residential.
The first barrier may be perceived cost. This is the perception that building to the Passive House standard is too expensive despite being offset by the projected savings of lower operation and maintenance costs. Added to this is the distrust that the reduced operations and maintenance costs will really pan out. Unfortunately there are widely recognized “performance gaps” with other building standards. Unlike these other building standards, Passive House employs rigorous methodology that eliminates theses performance gaps. Similarly, we have adequate data that shows that Passive House has a minor effect on cost, as long as it is done right. (CMHC Study).
Another barrier that we encounter is the perceived increase in complexity in the already complex process of getting a commercial building across the finish line. I have found that among my industry colleagues, a shift in mindset is often a bigger obstacle than technical know-how or added complexity. Indeed, the Passive House approach can actually strip complexity out of a project.
How do we overcome these barriers and increase the rate of adoption of the Passive House standard in the commercial sector? The first task is to continue to drive awareness of the benefits of Passive House and how they are relevant to commercial buildings. This means building owners will understand that with a modest capital investment, they can expect lower life cycle costs and an improved workplace for employees. In parallel, we need to come together to change design mindsets within design and construction industry. Charter’s headquarters is a great example what happens when we bring together a Passive House specialist together with non-specialized trades who where willing to learn. Together we can advance Passive House adoption within the commercial sector and effect lasting change!
Do you have ideas on how to increase the rate of adoption of Passive House? Comment below to continue the conversation.