are some results in figures, provided by the research team: 3 international conferences, 25 books, the Energie+ website (Cstb in France), 115 articles over the last 10 years and 32 doctorates presented.
1.6. Teaching
In 1995, the European community was looking for a way to get the bioclimatic message across in architecture schools without having to rewrite an umpteenth book on the subject. Teachers had to be given material, and what is better than existing exemplary buildings? We presented the educational portfolio. It was a portfolio containing educational material by means of examples drawn from bioclimatic buildings in Europe. There was a portfolio on housing, on the tertiary sector, on schools. We found all the materials that could spark the interest of any architecture teacher, whether at the workshop, for theory courses, in terms of structure or the physics of building. There was even a floppy disk with Autocad with a building model for the computer teacher. For the structure teacher there were the plans with the details in 1:10 and 1:20 scales. The portfolio also included overlays, slides, the architect’s resume, sometimes an architect’s text, climate and energy analysis. All the schools got one of the three portfolios, so there must be one at the school here.
Various volumes of the “Guide to bioclimatic architecture” have been published.
In 1996, the European Master in Architecture and Sustainable Development was created together with the Toulouse School of Architecture and the EPFL in Lausanne.
In 2003, we won the Roberval Prize for Higher Education with the book Natural Lighting in Buildings.
The educational approach to teaching in Louvain-La-Neuve is made up of three blocks:
1 1) three-year Baccalaureate (“License” in France, equivalent of a Bachelor’s degree): raising students’ awareness about the issues we are interested in;
2 2) two-year Master’s degree: validation of awareness;
3 3) doctoral studies: reflection on this subject.
There are theory classes, project workshops and optional courses. The theory and the projects fully interact with one another. The specificity of our school was that the same teachers who taught theory lessons also conducted the workshops, which I think was specific to our school. For example, a first course on materials or climatic architecture is directly related to the first “habitat” project. The course on the physics of building (a theory course) then had an impact on the second project: natural light, with a model work in relation to the sky and the artificial sun.
These are still buildings in the city, and not in a potato field: for us, the problem of tomorrow is the city or a village (an urbanized area). We would never commission a project for a house with four exterior walls.
At the beginning, it was the results of the “Architecture and Climate” course that had an impact on the other courses. Afterwards, in the field of research, it was the researchers of “Architecture and Climate” team who became involved.
Optional courses are those which can be found at other faculties, such as for example, on environmental pollution, environmental law or ecology. During the last year, there is the graduation or final thesis (the “dissertation” in France), which is usually an architectural project.
1.7. Conclusion
As a conclusion, I would like to present three questions.
The challenges of tomorrow are multiple: the territorial and programmatic aspect, air quality, the environmental quality of materials, waste, water issues, biodiversity, etc. We should not legislate as we have legislated so far in relation to energy. This is the great drama of environmentalists, who have tried to spur change with simple speech, but who have seen nothing concrete. It then became necessary to legislate, but we have undoubtedly legislated too much, too much has been cut from the architect’s creativity.
The passive has two dramas: firstly, in passive mode, we cannot be autonomous in terms of heating and secondly, there has been an increase in the amount of materials (insulation and additional sheaths, the increase in the volume built), which totally goes against the idea of economy of materials.
The third point to which I hold: we must not forget the human being. Humans must keep control of their habitat and all the systems in which they find themselves immersed.
So, to answer the question asked: obviously the architect must be part of the solution; the architect can in no way be part of the problem!
Thank you for your attention.
1.8. Questions
1) Student at ENSA Marseille:
What struck me in the presentation was the use of the term sustainable development rather than sustainability. In sustainable development there is the allusion to development and durability which confronts the building with its finiteness: we want it to stay forever. Are the two terms the same for you?
André De Herde: We looked for another term for a very long time. We found no other better term than sustainable development. But it is true that we should talk about architecture as something that needs to be supported (the French term “soutenir” can both be translated as “sustain” and “support”), in the same way that a supporter supports a sports team, but the expression “sustainable architecture” did not work. “Sustainable development” was the expression used by everyone, which is why we made a definition that is different from the definition of something “durable over time”, like concrete, for example. But you are right, it is “sustainable development” in the sense that it can be supported, not in the sense “that it can last over time”. However, if you find another word, I am open to suggestions.
Reactions in whispered words come up from the audience and we hear the word “growth”.
André De Herde continues: I think that Brundtland is right, we must be able to continue to develop, but in what ways and how? It is not the development of multinational companies; it is joint development, of value, of more natural elements, of low technologies and not of high technologies. This is the development of the future, for me.
2) Student at ENSA Montpellier:
You used a phrase that impressed me: “If you are planning a building that does not add anything to its environment, then do not build it. On the contrary, if demolishing a building adds value to its environment, then destroy it.” Yesterday evening I was at Philippe Madec’s conference, which presented a rehabilitation of the Multimedia library and the refugee house. His speech was different: we can no longer afford to destroy a building, because today we build too much, we use too many materials. Demolishing the Multimedia library building could have helped the environment, and so could rebuilding it with a new building, but he decided to keep the building. So where does rehabilitation fit in your speech?
André De Herde: I am convinced that there is no contradiction. I think Philippe Madec wondered whether the building should be demolished or kept. If he estimated in fine that it was worthwhile to keep it, I think he made the right decision. You do not have to demolish the building every time, but sometimes this makes it possible to create a public space, for example, which can provide a benefit. If Philippe Madec had felt he had to demolish the building to do better, he would have done so.
Robert Célaire: Buildings must not be demolished; they must be deconstructed. We have to revive them and reuse the materials.
De Herde: Yes. MATRIciel is currently working on a building without any new material brought to the site, everything is recovered or recycled.
3) Teacher in