Supermeasurement for Superarchitecture

Full text

DOI: 10.4324/9781315145983-16
Introduction
Cultural attitudes to the natural world have changed over time and have shaped
how and where we live. Designers have long known that local climate and qualities
of water, air, trees, and soil impact the larger environment and our own health, and
there have been many dierent architectural responses. Priorities and design prin-
ciples for concepts underlying sustainable design and health have changed dramati-
cally over time, reflecting scientific knowledge, cultural movements in architecture
and art, new technologies, and people’s values and approaches to nature. In the
context of climate change, there is a pressing need to consider transforming exist-
ing buildings, not just building new “green” ones, and in doing so think dierently
about not only the interactions between the natural and built environments but
also how we measure them. This chapter examines ways that ecological housing
can focus on people and our behavior, traces a brief history of therapeutic environ-
ments and questions how we should consider therapeutic design now, and describes
and critiques current ways in which we are conceptualizing and evaluating green
buildings. The chapter concludes with the concept of superarchitecture, a new way of
thinking about green buildings that focuses on how designers can use new digital
tools for predicting and visualizing performance and new parameters and metrics
for evaluating the positive co-benefits of people and our environment.
Buildings and behavior
A new scientific report on global warming states that staying at or below 1.5°C
of warming requires slashing global greenhouse gas emissions 45percent below
2010 levels by 2030 and reaching net zero by 2050.1 The building industry, a sec-
tor responsible for about 40percent of carbon emissions globally, must be a major
12
SUPERMEASUREMENT
FORSUPERARCHITECTURE
Rethinking landscape, building technology,
and dwelling for the twenty-first century
Terri Peters

270 Terri Peters
part of this initiative. Despite a wealth of new technologies, digital workflows, and
material innovations, this will be enormously challenging, and the greatest impacts
would be gained from focusing on how people use buildings and on the renovation
of existing dwellings. When taking into consideration demolition, rebuilding, and
overall growth, about half of the building stock in 2050 will consist of buildings
that exist today.2
Overwhelmingly, it is the operation of existing buildings—how, when, in
which ways they are used, and by whom—that most aects the environmental
performance and impacts of buildings. In fact, for typical standards of building
construction, the embodied energy used in the construction of a building and its
materials is equivalent to only a few years of operating energy.3 Measurable change
in the building industry will require the design and fabrication of buildings and
cities to be radically reconsidered. There will need to be better and more accurate
predictions for people’s behavior in and around buildings. At the early design stages
of a project, when many of the most significant environmental decisions are made
(site, cost, size, scope, etc.), clients and architects do not think in detail about calcu-
lations of carbon emissions or operating energy use; industry-standard early-stage
design tools simply do not measure operating energy use or carbon. So what kinds
of new evaluation frameworks, measurement tools, or concepts will we need to live
more ecologically in the twenty-first century?
The necessary shift to better environmental health must focus more on people
than on building technologies alone: our behaviors, habits, patterns of consump-
tion, and quality of life. Eecting real change will require ecological housing to
demonstrate benefits and progress towards goals relevant to both the environment
and people. Studies show that there will be positive co-benefits to people if we
engage more sustainably with our natural environment, as the current system is
undoubtedly negatively impacting human health. Climate change is not “just”
about the environment. The Lancet called the impacts of climate change on human
health “the major threat of the twenty-first century.”4 This chapter highlights how
new approaches to sustainable housing, based on maximizing the positive environ-
mental and health impacts, and new ways of quantifying and measuring progress
in these areas are taking hold in the building industry. Starting with a brief history
of how designers have used architecture as a link between nature and well-being,
the chapter explores examples of new strategies, metrics, and architectural expres-
sions of maximizing the positive impacts of passive and active systems together, and
the measurement of salutogenic environments for people as part of a new way of
conceptualizing high-performance housing.
Therapeutic living environments
A healthy home is undoubtedly tied to our well-being, happiness, and social con-
nectedness, and these conditions depend on the design of our environments where
we live, work, and play. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines health

Supermeasurement forSuperarchitecture 271
as “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the
absence of disease or infirmity.”5 The Green Guide for Healthcare defines three
principles for healthy buildings as those that protect the immediate health of build-
ing occupants; the health of the surrounding community; and the natural resources
and the health of the global community.6 Often, health and architecture is focused
on clinical programs such as hospitals, but the home is the place where we spend
the most time and should be a focus. The specifics of therapeutic design are cul-
turally specific and depend on many factors, but some basic principles are that it
supports clinical excellence in the treatment of the physical body; supports the
psycho-social and spiritual needs of the patient, family, and sta; and produces
measurable positive eects on patients’ clinical outcomes and sta eectiveness.7
These are all positive considerations, but elements such as architectural quality,
sensory experiences and comfort, and connection to the natural world should be
considered as integral to therapeutic design.
The idea of using the nature as a resource to create spaces that promote human
health has a long history in architectural design. For example, using daylight and
intense exposure to nature as a treatment for illness has found built form through-
out history, including in sanatoria construction from about 1885–1950 in response
to the tuberculosis crises. The “fresh air” treatments sparked new hybrid health-
care/residential typologies, like sanatoria where people lived in therapeutic envi-
ronments to treat long-term illness (a notable example combines high architectural
quality and exposure to daylight: Alvar Aalto’s Paimio Sanitorium, built in 1933;
Figure12.1), and cure cottages, which were single-family homes designed to maxi-
mize exposure to fresh air and sun for patients requiring bed rest (such as those at
Saranac Lake in New York starting from the 1870s). Both sanatoria and cure cot-
tages incorporated therapeutic architectural features such as roof decks and cure
porches oriented to daylight, and passive environmental strategies. These treat-
ments were deemed successful if people “felt” better, not if they actually cured
the illness. There was very little emphasis on evidence or metrics for well-being
for residents in these environments. These new typologies responded to renewed
interest in public health at this time—which, rather than supporting early Victorian
eorts in educating impoverished residents about the health and moral benefits of
hygiene, were about middle-class living environments.
In the early 1900s, theories and guidelines were developed about design and
well-being, and many attempted to quantify “healthiness” in the home.8 In the
1910s, Thomas Spees Carrington, an American medical doctor and prolific writer
on sanatorium construction and on do-it-yourself approaches for adapting fresh air
treatments at home, oered medical advice, drawings, and photographs of how to
use nature to improve health.9 He explained that quantity was the most important
thing, detailing methods for installing cure porches, creating pop-up tent shelters
on shared apartment roofs (Figure12.2), and using temporary window tents to
funnel air from the window into the bed. Not only room scale but also personal
wearable devices were encouraged. He advised on the use of “knitted helmets” for

272 Terri Peters
FIGURE 12.1 Paimio Sanatorium 1928–32, Paimio, Finland. This building was designed
to treat people with tuberculosis and featured exterior balconies for sun-
bathing, big windows with views to nature, and plenty of natural light.
Part A to the south, under construction. Photo: Gustaf Welin, Alvar
Aalto Foundation. 1930s. Source: Alvar Aalto Museum.
FIGURE 12.2 Image of a “lean-to tent shelter” on a rooftop in New York City, pub-
lished in a book by Thomas Spees Carrington, Directions for Living and
Sleeping in the Open Air, New York: The National Association for the
Study and Prevention of Tuberculosis, 1910. This is an example of the
movable, low-cost rooftop shelters he suggested as healthy improvements
to urban dwellings. Image: Public domain.
sleeping that cover the entire face except the nostrils to protect from unwanted
draughts.10 There was an assumption that natural air was fresh and clean and that
daylight and the sun would always help, not hurt, people’s health (Figure12.3).
Spatial and material innovations of the time allowed people to be exposed to
nature’s medicinal properties, and these were used to treat illness and to prevent it

Supermeasurement forSuperarchitecture 273
as well. Wellness became a marketable industry, and harnessing nature was a key to
improving well-being.
Using passive design strategies in these therapeutic living environments such
as daylight, fresh air, and recyclable or easy-to-maintain materials was the norm
out of necessity and practicality. Until the mid-1900s, the building industry
relied mostly on local materials and labour, and passive environmental strate-
gies such as daylight and natural ventilation for occupant comfort were the
norm. Buildings were constructed as long-term investments to be maintained
and designed to last.
From the end of World War II until the oil crises of the early 1970s, postwar
housing in a number of countries focused on prefabrication as a building method
of housing a growing population to a minimum standard. The housing was built
as quickly as possible with attention to dwellings having privacy, adequate space
for families, and modern conveniences. In Denmark, for example, much of the
prefabricated housing built during this time is still considered valuable and worth
renovating, but this housing is proving dicult to renovate to meet current envi-
ronmental, economic, and societal needs.11 The buildings have undergone signifi-
cant repair-oriented renovations since the 1990s to address issues with thermal
comfort and structural repairs. The social impacts of the mass-produced housing
had unintended consequences relating to quality of life due to its repetitive and
modular design. Recent socially focused renovations have focused on improving
access to light and air with some success, including high-quality examples such as
Varbergparken and Himmerland Estates, which has been renovated to high social
and environmental performance targets.12 In these renovations, the architect C.F.
FIGURE 12.3 An open-air shelter surrounded by tenement housing in Boston, pub-
lished in a book by Thomas Spees Carrington, Directions for Living and
Sleeping in the Open Air, New York: The National Association for the
Study and Prevention of Tuberculosis, 1910. The book promotes out-
door sleeping to get fresh air and daylight for better health. Image: Public
domain.

274 Terri Peters
Møller specifically focused on improving social sustainability and quality of life as
a part of ecological thinking.
In all housing, both new and renovated, there is a need to revisit basic strategies
and principles of therapeutic design aspects, as people become concerned about
the interconnections between environmental sustainability and human health and
well-being. Disease, and communicable diseases in particular, have always plagued
human societies; this has long influenced how we design for health. But non-
communicable diseases—including cardiovascular diseases like heart attacks and
stroke, cancer, chronic respiratory diseases, and diabetes—now present the greatest
threats to life,13 and depression is the leading cause of disability worldwide.14 Peo-
ple spend 90percent of our time indoors,15 and our living environments have the
power to make us unhealthy and depressed, or healthier and happier. The quality
of nature around and in our homes, and our psychological and physical well-being,
are deeply intertwined. So what do people expect from therapeutic environments
now?
Measuring ecological buildings
The most innovative and forward-looking approaches to sustainable housing are
the ones that consider environmental health and human health together. Design
strategies that focus on just one aspect of sustainable building, such as highly e-
cient operating systems to minimize energy use, are dicult to sell to consumers
or homeowners.
Globally, the most commonly used green building certification system is the
US-initiated LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design).16 The
LEED certification program has been at the forefront of granting recognition for
“green” buildings designed with energy conservation in mind since its develop-
ment in 1993. LEED is a points-based system whereby a candidate building or
neighborhood is assessed based on its merits across a series of broad categories with
points attainable, based on the most recent iteration of the program. The ratings
points system is classified into seven distinct sustainable parameters, and buildings
are scored based on the extent of building works and type of building relating to
sustainable sites, focusing on site selection and site attributes and associated infra-
structure; water eciency, centered on retention and conservation measures; energy
and atmosphere, rewarding minimization of energy consumption and on building
commissioning protocols; materials and resources, focused on ecologic construction
materiality practices and building longevity; indoor environmental quality, centered
on air quality monitoring and non-toxic material palettes, thermal comfort, and
daylight/view; innovation and design process, addressing ecologically attuned design
strategies; and lastly, regional priority, depending on the building’s location and con-
text.17 The score requirements for the lowest certification (Certified) are often
criticized as supporting initiatives that are easy to achieve and not very impactful,
such as adding bike racks or educational displays,18 compared to the highest certifi-
cation (Platinum), which demands that a building score very well in all categories.

Supermeasurement forSuperarchitecture 275
The United States Green Building Council (USGBC) and Canada Green Build-
ing Council (CAGBC) maintain online databases of certified projects, but they
surprisingly do not include the architects’ names, building design information, or
web links to the projects. This means that architects and clients would not be able
to use it to persuade decision makers, or for marketing. Globally, there are very few
examples of apartment housing achieving LEED Platinum certification, compared
to oce buildings. There is a separate LEED Homes certification for single-family
homes or 1–3 units, although it is discontinued in Canada and not widely used.
This could be because of how it is measured and marketed. On the LEED website,
four benefits are listed of a LEED home: savings, well-being, value, and trusted. For
the point on well-being, it states,
Everyone is concerned about their family’shealth and safety. Not only does
a LEED certified home encourage the use of environmentally-preferable
products whenpossible, they are built to ensure thatconstruction waste is
minimized, lesseningthe impact on the world around us.19
It is hard to imagine this being very desirable for homeowners, as most peo-
ple do not equate well-being with waste. People hold high expectations for their
home, as they know it impacts how they feel. Ecological housing, however, appears
to pose dierent questions and demand dierent language and concepts of well-
being than those quantified in this scheme.
The first building certification system to include human well-being and experi-
ence was introduced in 2013; the WELL Building Standard aims to measure “how
design, operations and behaviors within the places where we live, work, learn
and play can be optimized to advance human health and well-being”.20 WELL
is the only building certification system that does not measure energy use, and
the standard awards points in seven categories: air, requiring buildings promote
clean air and reduce sources of air pollution; water, with points for promoting
safe and clean water through the implementation of proper filtration techniques
and regular testing; nutrition, with points for making available fresh, wholesome
foods, limiting unhealthy ingredients, and for designs that encourage better eating
habits and food culture; light, with guidelines on design thresholds that minimize
disruption to the body’s circadian system, enhance productivity, support good sleep
quality, and provide appropriate visual acuity; fitness, with points for integrating
physical activity into everyday life by providing the opportunities and support for
an active lifestyle and discouraging sedentary behaviors; comfort, rewarding designs
that are distraction-free, productive, and comfortable indoor environments; and
mind, which awards points for designs that optimize cognitive and emotional health
through design, technology, and treatment strategies.21
Rating systems like LEED have raised awareness of green buildings among cli-
ents and professionals, and WELL has shifted the focus to people and how buildings
can make us feel better, but like all rating systems, in themselves they cannot create
more ecological buildings. Designers, clients, and the wider community need to

276 Terri Peters
keep a focus on harder-to-measure priorities such as integrating renewable energy,
improving design quality, and creating inspiring buildings and places that people
want to maintain and keep over time. Not only the measurement tools but also the
language and cultural aspects of nature and culture need to shift in response.
Minimizing or maximizing impacts of our environment?
To meet the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) goals of drastically
and immediately reducing carbon emissions, we need dramatic improvements in
building performance. Designers need both new tools and new ways of working.
In the last few years, there has been a surge in open-source design tools to bet-
ter allow designers to predict the impacts of their buildings using simulation and
visualization to better understand how people will feel in, and use, buildings. The
technologies are necessary in designing zero energy buildings, defined as those that
produce on site, using renewable energy, at least as much energy as they consume.22
However, considering that this strategy could be applied to all new buildings with
significant environmental and economic positive impacts, there are relatively few
of these buildings constructed. The New Buildings Institute has 53 verified Zero
Net Energy Buildings on their 2016 list.23 Zero energy buildings have been cri-
tiqued for their focus on eciency and for singling out certain performance aspects
rather than a more holistic approach including aesthetics; design quality, including
how people feel in the building; and neighbourhood influences, including if the
location of the building requires people to drive to it, thereby making it reliant on
fossil fuels not accounted for in the calculation.24 The boundary conditions in a
“zero energy building” are dicult to measure. What are the extents of the build-
ing? The energy used in the materials used for the building, or the labour in its
construction and other important parameters, would be dicult to calculate and
are not accounted for. People cannot see or experience energy use like they can
daylight, spatial quality, or other sensory aspects that promote well-being. People
just do not see energy eciency as essential to their immediate quality of life. For a
variety of reasons, despite the beneficial ideas and good intentions of the certifica-
tion scheme, typical designers, clients, and consumers are not demanding a shift in
the building industry towards zero energy.
Rather than focusing on minimizing impacts, reducing energy use, and limiting
impacts, increasingly there are initiatives to begin to focus measurement systems
and certification schemes for conceptualizing sustainability in a dierent way. As
low-energy building strategies are becoming more accepted and commonly used, a
concept driving ecological building in the future will be resource use and materi-
als. In the building industry, the construction process is linear and generates a lot
of waste. A “circular economy” approach to design requires gradually decoupling
economic activity from the consumption of finite resources, and aims to design
“waste” out of the system.25 The current approach of design, build, use, and disposal
is not economically or environmentally feasible. The circular economy approach
is based on three principles: design out waste and pollution, keep products and

Supermeasurement forSuperarchitecture 277
materials in use, and regenerate natural systems.26 This approach has been adopted
in other industries including fashion, manufacturing, and even the food indus-
try, with significant economic and environmental advantages. In housing, it makes
sense to design dwellings that can be flexibly reconfigured as needs change, and that
elements can be maintained, renovated, and reused over time. Rather than materi-
als and components being thrown “away” when a building needs renovating, there
are some pilot initiatives in the industry to test ways that valuable resources can be
given a new life in the same or a dierent project.
Another way of measuring and evaluating buildings beyond energy use is the
net positive approach, which focuses on how a building can have a positive impact
on the environment. New terms that reflect this thinking include restorative and
regenerative sustainability. Restorative sustainability is the concept that includes
biophilia, well-being, connectivity with nature, and healthy buildings. Biophilia
has been defined as the urge to aliate with other forms of life,27 and in design this
means designing with nature and human well-being in mind. Eight points of the
biophilic eect have been identified—light, color, gravity, fractals, curves, detail,
water, and life—and these have been expanded with architecturally relevant con-
cepts as a framework for exploring how designers could create health-promoting
buildings.28 However, there are few biophilia examples that are benchmarks for
both environmental sustainability and design quality. Regenerative design aims to
generate positive impacts—to generate sucient benefits to the building’s site, to
the project’s community, and to the environment at large—to oset any negative
impacts that the project may incur.29 The Living Building Challenge certification
is one of a new breed of more holistic, positive building certification initiatives
gaining popularity.
An example of net-positive in practice is the Powerhouse collaboration and
concept. Powerhouse refers to the interdisciplinary building design partnership
founded in Norway between real estate company Entra Eindom, construction
company Skanska, renowned architectural firm Snøhetta, environmental organi-
zation ZERO, aluminum extrusion company Sapa, and consulting firm Asplan
Viak.30 Together, this group aims to create buildings that produce more energy than
they use, that have strong aesthetics and comfortable indoor environments, and that
are financially sustainable.31 They have completed a number of high-profile new
and renovation projects, including the Powerhouse Kjørbo,a refurbished 1980s
oce building that produces twice as much energy as it uses due to its geothermal
energy for heating and enormous rooftop solar photovoltaic system. In the meas-
urement of its environmental impact, the project team estimates that the building
will generate enough energy to cover the total amount of energy used to pro-
duce the building materials, construction, operation, and disposal32—something
that none of the industry-standard green building certification standards, such as
LEED and Building Research Establishment’s Environmental Assessment Method
(BREEAM), attempts to measure or balance. Powerhouse is unique in its highly
collaborative and coordinated approach to measurement, and in its attempts to
measure the building’s impacts over time to get a fuller accounting.

278 Terri Peters
Despite this range of new metrics and language around green buildings, it
remains challenging to quantify user experience, including architectural quality
and people’s quality of life in buildings. This is a major challenge for gaining and
learning from design feedback for creating healthier and better housing. There
is a trend in architectural design research towards evidence-based design. This
involves an architect or designer using academic research and other sources to
support design decisions, rather than largely being led by design experience and
intuition. Areason for quantifying how housing or a neighborhood makes people
feel is that it can promote higher consumer demand for healthy environments. It
is dicult to convince people that they should willingly consume less for a some-
what undefined greater good, but if adding certain aspects to living environments
could make us feel better, younger, or richer, people are more likely to pay atten-
tion. For example, researchers have analyzed the myriad of positive health benefits
of green spaces, and even small doses of green have been proven to have lasting
physical and mental health benefits.33 Arecent study showed that planting trees in
an urban environment—aside from mitigating urban heat island eect, removing
carbon dioxide from the air, storing carbon, and releasing oxygen into the atmos-
phere—made some people living there feel younger and richer. Findings by Omid
etal. (2016) published in Nature showed that planting trees, even only ten on a
city block, improves health perception in surveyed residents in ways comparable to
adding $10,000 to their personal salaries and to being seven years younger.34 Trees
in a neighborhood also oer design benefits, including beauty, privacy, reduction
of glare and reflection, buering noise, and creating comfort through shading.
Studies such as the one by Omid etal. can be seen as part of an increasing inter-
est in environment-health research, made famous by Roger Ulrich’s benchmark
1984 study showing people healing faster when their hospital beds have views of
nature.35 Numerous studies in various disciplines have shown quality of life benefits
relating to nature exposure. Studies have found that people demonstrate better
attention to detail in oce settings with views of nature,36 and at home report feel-
ing generally happier and satisfied with their environments with views of nature.37
Since the 1980s in architectural design, a new industry and renewed urgency has
been strengthened around the quantifiable benefits of nature and health. Since the
mid-2000s, a more evidence-based approach to design has been gaining traction.38
The next step for translating this into improved ecological housing is to create bet-
ter building industry metrics, design standards, and integration with architectural
expertise.
Supermeasurement for superarchitecture
Superarchitecture is a term describing designs that do more than minimize harm,
a special category of regenerative buildings that oer measurable and integrated
positive co-benefits for environmental sustainability and human health and well-
being.39 This way of conceptualizing healthy and green buildings argues that design-
ers should create buildings that do more than oer regenerative environmental

Supermeasurement forSuperarchitecture 279
benefits but rather keep the focus on how design can improve our quality of life.
Superarchitecture describes building strategies that work at multiple scales, using
multi-functional strategies for our physical environment and improving health. The
concept can be applied to dierent kinds of housing, some more easily than others.
The Velux Model Homes initiative is a series of single-family housing projects
designed to connect environmental design and wellness in specific architectural
ways. Part of this is the use of digital simulation tools to predict aspects of environ-
mental performance including energy and daylight. Using the new Active House
standard, the houses have been evaluated based on three main categories: energy,
measuring how the building integrates renewable energy to positively contribute
to the energy balance of the building; indoor climate, measuring how the building
creates a healthier and more comfortable life for occupants; and environment, meas-
uring the positive impact on the environment.40
The Active House in Centennial Park, located in Toronto, Canada, is a single-
family home designed by local architects Superkul.41 The design focuses on natural
daylight and ventilation for optimal indoor environmental qualities for sustainabil-
ity and well-being, and it is designed in accordance with Active House principles.
The large house has operable triple-paned windows and programmable skylights,
as well as a Tesla Powerwall rechargeable lithium-ion battery system for the home
that pulls electricity from its energy provider (in this case, a provider whose grid
is 100% renewable) during o-peak hours. Visiting the building, it looks the same
size and shape as its neighbors, but on the inside it is surprisingly bright (it has 11
skylights), and small details like an articulated side wall give the living room a sense
of having a small courtyard. The double height space in the living room and framed
views to the backyard make the house comfortable and livable (Figure12.4). The
designers were able to predict the qualities of the indoor environment and the
energy performance of the housing digital design tools to simulate the house in
use (Figure12.5). After it was completed in 2016, a Velux employee and his family
moved into the house to document their experiences and blog about how it feels
to live in the house, its psychological impact on their comfort and well-being, and
how easy the technologies for operating the house are to use.42
Another example in the Healthy Homes initiative is the Maison Air et Lumière,
a demonstration house built south of Paris, France, designed by Nomade Architects
as part of the Velux Model Homes 2020 series.43 The house is designed to oer
architectural quality and optimal indoor environmental qualities for sustainability
and well-being. The house was designed using Active House principles, including
the creation of a positive energy balance, a neutral environmental impact, and a
design with the capacity to enhance human well-being. The brief set out to exploit
the energy-saving potential of daylight using digital modeling and simulations of
the building to optimize window and roof light placement. The goal was to cre-
ate an open, airy, and inspiring living environment that oers framed views of the
site and surroundings. The building’s unusually high 1:3 window-to-floor ratio
is designed to enhance the residents’ physical and psychological health and well-
being, and also to save energy by reducing artificial light use.

280 Terri Peters
The demonstration projects are constructed in partnership with roof light and
window manufacturer Velux, which makes sense given the focus on daylight in the
Active House standard. Daylight is an experiential quality linked closely to archi-
tectural eect, energy savings, and human health. As in the examples of sanatorium
design and in contemporary hospital environments, exposure to daylight has been
linked to positive health outcomes such as reduced length of stay, reduced medica-
tion intake, and positive moods.44 Researchers examining workplace productivity
have found that green buildings that design for daylight can promote higher perfor-
mance, reduce absenteeism, lower employee turnover, and oer financial savings.45
In many other contexts, daylight has been linked to the nervous and endocrine
systems, circadian cycles, and other health aspects.46
In contrast to single-family housing, renovating multi-unit social housing for
better resident quality of life and for environmental performance is enormously
challenging due to the nature of social housing, the quality of postwar construc-
tion, the lack of maintenance, and the political and social contexts of social hous-
ing. For example, French architects Lacaton Vassal have renovated several 1960s
FIGURE 12.4 Active House in Centennial Park, Superkul Architects. The interior
is bright and welcoming. Active House certification includes daylight
quality as well as site location, climate, life-cycle costs, thermal comfort,
indoor air quality, and energy sources. Photo courtesy of Velux, photo-
graph by Igor Yu, Eyecapture.

Supermeasurement forSuperarchitecture 281
FIGURE 12.5 Active House Centennial Park floorplans showing daylight simulations
used at design stage to predict daylight performance, Superkul Archi-
tects, Velux Canada and Denmark Simulation Teams, 2016. The daylight
factor for a standard house in Ontario, Canada has an average of below
2percent daylight factor, no skylights, and double-glazed windows. The
Active House Centennial Park has an average daylight factor of 3.3per-
cent, triple-glazed windows, and skylights. Image courtesy of Velux.
social housing estates around Paris. Their architectural renovations are in stark
contrast to typical uninspired renovations to improve energy performance. Their
approach to these renovations focuses on improving the spatial and sensory quality
of life and experience of residents, and they stress the economic and social benefits
of keeping tenants in place during renovations.47 Their renovation of a housing
complex at Bois-le-Prêtre, completed in 2011, focused primarily on enlarging the
living spaces and creating better connectivity between residents and nature.48 The
renovation enlarged the living areas by forming new floor slabs extending on the
outside of the building to create winter gardens and balconies for new indoor–out-
door spaces for each resident. They call their strategy of increasing living space and
adding a new threshold between indoor and outdoor, “Plus,” which means “more”
or “added.”49 Meticulous accounting of the existing conditions by the designers led
to a dialogue with the social housing owners and a budget for improving the layout
and increasing the layout options of the housing.
The success of the project for the clients was a cheaper solution to costly
rebuilding, more so than its measurable environmental impacts. The architects
demonstrated that it was cheaper and quicker to fix up the existing housing than to

282 Terri Peters
build new social housing. The renovated housing has a better environmental per-
formance just by replacing the façade elements with new construction, and there
are social and cultural benefits in the often-overlooked aspects of tenant continuity
and community. The new indoor–outdoor spaces and improved daylighting are
designed to better connect the residents with nature and views to outside. They
have used this Plus strategy in several other housing estates, including in Saint-
Nazaire, France, where they again focused on collective housing that has addi-
tional, intermediate spaces with flexible uses and that oers variety and connection
to climate and views.50
Another example of rethinking measurement and quality of life in ecological
housing is the new social housing project under construction in Denmark by 3XN.
This project takes a radical approach to measuring ecological impacts, incorporating
circular economy concepts in the design of social housing.51 There are only a hand-
ful of built examples globally of buildings designed to be deconstructed and parts
reused, and the goal of doing this with the economic constraints of social housing
is ambitious.52 After completing a 1:1 prototype to experiment with materials, flex-
ibility, and modular construction strategies (Figure12.6), the construction began.
Scheduled for completion in 2020, the 60 social housing dwellings are built in a
neighbourhood near Aarhus in Denmark by Danish companies 3XN Architects,
GXN Innovation, Lendager Group, andVandkunsten Architects.53 The housing
plan incorporates a range of building systems that can be built, disassembled, and
rebuilt and adapted into other buildings. The goal of the project is that 90percent
of the project materials can be reused without loss of value. The architects found
that social housing posed a huge challenge—the design needed to be economically
competitive and meet the strict Danish building and environmental standards.54
In order to know how a building comes apart, designers and clients need to
know a lot more about exactly what materials and products are in their buildings.
Designing for disassembly is a major challenge in architecture, as it requires inte-
grated collaboration and significant eort at a design’s early stages from multiple
stakeholders (Figure12.7). The team found that a much deeper collaboration and
partnerships between manufacturers and designers was required at the early stages
of the design project,55 but there is the potential to positively address major sustain-
ability challenges and create better, more robust design solutions that are better
for people and the environment. To benefit from circular design approaches, the
design team must start by redefining what is meant by “value” and “benefits’ ” in
the projects to more explicitly consider future uses. Circular design oers enor-
mous potential for ecological housing and for empowering the people using and
owning buildings to eectively repair and reuse their materials. In fully understand-
ing what materials and methods of joining and connecting components are used,
people can know more about potential harmful materials or chemicals, thereby
improving indoor environmental quality. From an environmental perspective, cir-
cular principles can promote the idea that housing can be a material “bank” or
mine of valuable resources, and designers can creatively develop new processes and
models for reuse (Figure12.8).

Supermeasurement forSuperarchitecture 283
FIGURE 12.6 The Circle House prototype, 2018, designed by Danish companies 3XN Architects, GXN Innovation, Lend-
ager Group, and Vandkunsten Architects. Guided by circular design principles, the team first constructed a 1:1
prototype to experiment with materials, flexibility, and modular construction strategies. Photo: Tom Jersø, used
with permission.

284 Terri Peters
FIGURE 12.8 Digital tag in the Circle House, designed by Danish companies 3XN
Architects, GXN Innovation, Lendager Group, and Vandkunsten Archi-
tects. Adigital tag is embedded in every concrete element during fabri-
cation to allow these building components to be digitally tracked during
their use, maintenance, and reuse. Photo courtesy of Consolis, used with
permission.
FIGURE 12.7 Diagram of Circle House, a housing project designed by Danish compa-
nies 3XN Architects, GXN Innovation, Lendager Group, and Vandkun-
sten Architects. This diagram shows the concept of design for disassembly,
which means thinking of the building components as resources that can
be used and reused later. Image: GXN, used with permission.

Supermeasurement forSuperarchitecture 285
Future housing
These projects demonstrate ways that design can augment our physical and mental
faculties and encourage certain behaviors. Many designs already take advantage of
superarchitecture concepts but rarely in a holistic way. Often, these salutogenic
design elements are focused on speciality facilities like oces for enhanced pro-
ductivity, or hospitals for physical and emotional well-being. For example, specially
designed rooms in hospitals have been demonstrated to help children experience
less pain,56 and new lighting strategies and material choices in hospitals have been
shown to lessen the spread of disease.57 But what about the home? Why are we not
innovating for the most important setting for people’s daily lives?
Urban dwellers still believe in the benefits of intense exposure to nature, even
when studies show more than ever that urban air, water, and soil is polluted. It has
been shown that the quality of climate matters on both a local and observable level
and on a more abstract, dicult-to-quantify global level, due to awareness about
climate change. With more than half of the world’s population now living in cities,
research has shown that urban environments can negatively impact mental health,58
so incorporating natural elements such as trees, air, light, and water into the city is
increasing in importance—not to make the areas Zero Energy but to make them
liveable with improved quality of life.
There needs to be more of a focus on the interiors of building as well as the
exterior and connection to nature. Research from a number of disciplines could
be harnessed by designers to improve indoor living environments, including more
evidence-based spatial organization and health-promoting design features. Kitchen
design elements could be used to encourage people to choose healthy food (using
specific colors, qualities of light, proximity, and views to food gardens); dining
rooms could be better designed to inspire social meals (furniture arrangement,
acoustics, location); and bedrooms could be designed for the optimal conditions
for sleep (operable windows for fresh air, no floor-to-ceiling windows to promote
feeling safe and private). Living rooms can be designed to inspire communication
and play (spatial qualities and color), and façades can be designed to help people
feel more connected to neighbors (framing views, incorporating porches, balco-
nies). This would require architects and designers to learn and trust studies from
other fields, and other fields to collaborate more with those that design cities,
buildings, and interiors. Acollaborative collective eort is needed, and an expan-
sion of strategies, frameworks, and metrics is necessary, to try to better account for
the intersections and positive co-benefits of green buildings. New metrics such as
Active House, which focuses on both human and environmental well-being, can
lead to better housing design. Similarly, the Plus concept of adding to buildings
while renovating them in order to create better indoor–outdoor relationships takes
a dierent view of economic measurement, intentionally planning design strategies
that keep residents in place during renovations. In the case of the “circular” social
housing by 3XN, this project shows the ambition in the industry to more fully
account for a building’s components and the potentials of creating a more robust
ecology of a building in use and on a site.

286 Terri Peters
The future of ecological housing is tied to new expectations we have for our
dwellings and for the methods we use to evaluate them. Changing sustainability
metrics and definitions are shifting perceptions of how to live ecologically in the
face of a changing climate. In keeping with new studies of regenerative design, or
ways that the act of building can be a catalyst for positive change within the unique
place, this chapter uses the term superarchitecture to frame an architectural discussion
about the potential for design to benefit both environment and health. Through a
discussion of innovative housing examples, it is clear that we need a more critical
discussion about our relationship to nature and the outdoors and the varied quali-
ties and local meanings.
Notes
1 United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) “Emissions Gap 2018,” Novem-
ber2018, accessed February11, 2019, www.unenvironment.org/emissionsgap
2 Raman Mahadev, “Mitigating Climate Change: What America’s Building Industry
Must Do,” Design Intelligence (2009), accessed February11, 2019.
3 Architecture 2030, “2030 Challenge,” accessed February 11, 2019, https://architec-
ture2030.org/2030_challenges/2030-challenge/
4 Nick Watts etal., “The 2018 Report of the Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate
Change: Shaping the Health of Nations for Centuries to Come,” Data Lancet 392 (2018):
2479–514.
5 World Health Organization. “Preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Organ-
ization as adopted by the International Health Conference, New York, 19–22 June,
1946,” www.who.int/about/definition/en/print.html
6 Health Care Without Harm, “Green Guide For Health Care,” accessed February11,
2019, www.gghc.org/
7 Smith, Ron and Nicholas Watkins, “Therapeutic Environments” published online in
the Therapeutic Environments Forum, AIA Academy of Architecture for Health 2010,
www.wbdg.org/resources/therapeutic.php
8 Annemarie Adams, Corpus sanum in domo sano: L'architecture du mouvement en faveur
de la salubrité domestique / The Architecture of the Domestic Sanitation Movement 1870–
1914 (Montréal: Centre canadien d’architecture / Canadian Centre for Architec-
ture, 1991).
9 Thomas Spees Carrington, Directions for Living and Sleeping in the Open Air (New York:
The National Association for the Study and Prevention of Tuberculosis, 1910).
10 Ibid., 20.
11 Terri Peters, “Architectural Strategies of Transformation to Modern Housing: Qualita-
tive Parameters for Analysis of Sustainability in 1960s and 1970s Multi-Story, Prefabri-
cated Concrete Housing in Denmark” (PhD diss., Aarhus School of Architecture, 2015).
12 Terri Peters, “Architectural Interventions for Social Sustainability: The Renovation
of Modern Housing,” Sustainable Built Environment (SBE) Toronto 2016. Online pro-
ceedings: http://sbcanada.org/conferences/sbe16-toronto/sbe16-programming/sbe16-
technical-paper-presentations/
13 World Health Organization 2015, “Non-Communicable Diseases,” accessed Febru-
ary11, 2019, www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs355/en/
14 World Health Organization 2016, “Depression,” accessed February 11, 2019, www.
who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs369/en/
15 N. E. Klepeis etal., The National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS): AResource
for Assessing Exposure to Environmental Pollutants (Berkeley: Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory, 2001).

Supermeasurement forSuperarchitecture 287
16 United States Green Building Council (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environ-
mental Design (LEED), accessed February11, 2019, https://new.usgbc.org/leed
17 Ibid.
18 Editors. “In the US Green Building Industry, Is it too Easy to be Green?” USA Today,
October 24, 2012, accessed February 11, 2019, www.usatoday.com/story/news/
nation/2012/10/24/green-building-leed-certification/1650517/
19 Matthew Libby, USGBC, “When it Comes to Homes There’s Green and Then
There’s LEED,” May29 2015, accessed February 11, 2019, www.usgbc.org/articles/
when-it-comes-homes-theres-green-and-then-theres-leed
20 Delos Living LLC. WELL Building Standard Version 1.0, 2014, accessed February11,
2019, www.wellcertified.com
21 Ibid.
22 Whole Building Design Guide 2016, “Net Zero Energy Buildings,” accessed Febru-
ary11, 2019, www.wbdg.org/resources/net-zero-energy-buildings
23 New Buildings Institute, “2016 List of Zero Net Energy Buildings,” accessed Febru-
ary 11, 2019, https://newbuildings.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/GTZ_2016_
List.pdf
24 N. Malin, “The Problem with Net-Zero Buildings (and the Case for Net-Zero Neigh-
borhoods),” BuildingGreen (2010), accessed February 11, 2019, www.buildinggreen.
com/feature/problem-net-zero-buildings-and-case-net-zero-neighborhoods
25 Ellen McArthur Foundation, “Business Cases for Circular Economy,” www.ellenma
carthurfoundation.org/case-studies/design-and-business-model-considerations-for-
heavy-machinery-remanufacturing
26 Ellen McArthur Foundation, “What is The Circular Economy,” www.ellenmacarthur-
foundation.org/circular-economy/what-is-the-circular-economy
27 Edward O Wilson, Biophilia (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984).
28 Nikos A. Salingaros, Biophilia and Healing Environments: Healthy Principles For Designing
the Built World (New York: Terrapin Bright Green LLC, 2015).
29 Raymond Cole, “Transitioning from Green To Regenerative Design,” Building Research
and Information 40, no. 1 (2012): 39–53.
30 Powerhouse, “Why Choose a Powerhouse?” accessed February11, 2019, www.power-
house.no/en/why-choose-a-powerhouse/
31 Ibid.
32 Guro Aalrust National Association of Norwegian Architect/ Norske Arkitekters Lands-
forbund, “Powerhouse Kjørbo,” December5, 2018, accessed February11, 2019, www.
arkitektur.no/powerhouse-kjorbo-barum?pid1=228528
33 F. Beute and Y de Kort, “Salutogenic Eects of the Environment: Review of Health
Protective Eects of Nature and Daylight,” Applied Psychology: Health and Wellbeing 6
(2014):67–95.
34 Omid Kardan etal., “Neighbourhood Greenspace and Health in Large Urban Center,”
Nature. Scientific Report 5, no. 11610 (2015): 1–13.
35 Roger Ulrich, “View Through a Window May Influence Recovery from Surgery” Sci-
ence 224, no. 4647 (April27, 1984): 420–21.
36 Kate E. Lee, Kathryn J. H. Williams, Leisa D. Sargent, Nicholas S. G. Williams, and
Katherine A. Johnson, “40-second Green Roof Views Sustain Attention: The Role
of Micro-breaks in Attention Restoration,” Journal of Environmental Psychology 42
(2015): 182.
37 Rachel Kaplan,“The Nature of the View from Home: Psychological Benefits,”Environ-
ment and Behavior33 (2001): 507–42.
38 Stephen Lundin, “In Search of the Happy Balance—Intuition and Evidence,” Health
Environments Research& Design Journal 8 (2015): 123–26.
39 Terri Peters, “Superarchitecture: Building Better Health,” Architectural Design (March/
April2017): 24–31.
40 Active House, accessed January16, 2019, www.activehouse.info

288 Terri Peters
41 Superkul Active House 2, accessed February11, 2019, https://superkul.ca/projects/
active-house-2/
42 Great Gulf. Active House Centennial Park, accessed February11, 2019, https://great-
gulf.com/activehouse/
43 Velux Maison Air et Lumiere, accessed February11, 2019, www.velux.com/innovation/
demo-buildings/maison-air-et-lumiere
44 Agnes van den Berg, Health Impacts of Healing Environments: AReview of Evidence for
Benefits of Nature, Daylight, Fresh Air, and Quiet in Healthcare Settings (Dissertation, Wage-
ningen University and Research Center, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2005), www.
agnesvandenberg.nl/healingenvironments.pdf
45 Amanjeet Singh Matt Syal, Sue C. Grady, and Sinem Korkmaz, “Eects of Green Build-
ings on Employee Health and Productivity,” American Journal of Public Health 100, no. 9
(September2010): 1665–68.
46 McGraw Hill Construction, Smartmarket Report: The Drive Toward Healthier Buildings:
The Market Drivers and Impact of Building Design and Construction on Occupant Health, Well-
Being and Productivity (New York: McGraw Hill Construction, 2014).
47 Frederic Druot and Anne Lacaton, Jean-Philippe Vassal Plus: Large Scale Housing Develop-
ments An Exceptional Case (Barcelona, Spain: Editorial Gustavo Gili, 2007).
48 Lacaton Vassal, www.lacatonvassal.com
49 Druot and Lacaton, Jean-Philippe Vassal Plus.
50 Lacaton Vassal, “53 Semi-collective Housing Units, Saint-Nazaire,” www.lacatonvassal.
com/index.php?idp=58
51 GXN, “Circle House Demonstrator,” https://gxn.3xn.com/project/circle-house-demon
strator
52 GXN, “Building a Circular Future,” www.buildingacircularfuture.com/book
53 GXN/3XN, Circle House: Denmark’s First Circular Housing Project, https://gxn.3xn.
com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2019/02/CircleHouse_ENG_2018.pdf
54 Author Interview with Kasper Guldager Jensen, April24, 2019.
55 Ibid.
56 CBC News, “Health Sciences North Hopes New ‘Distraction Room’ Will Put
Kids at Ease,” accessed February 11, 2019, www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/
distraction-room-sudbury-hospital-1.4832161
57 N. Martin, “ ‘Nothing Can Live on Copper’: Ontario Hospital Fights Bacteria with
High-tech Toilet Seats,” accessed February 11, 2019, www.cbc.ca/news/canada/
toronto/copper-hospital-toilet-seats-1.4987891
58 Florian Lederbogen, Peter Kirsch, Leila Haddad, et al., “City Living and Urban
Upbringing Aect Neural Social Stress Processing in Humans,” Nature (London) 474,
no. 7352 ( June2011): 498–501.
Bibliography
Active House. “Active House.” Accessed January16, 2019. www.activehouse.info/
Adams, Annemarie. Corpus sanum in domo sano: L’architecture du mouvement en faveur de la salu-
brité domestique/The architecture of the domestic sanitation movement 1870–1914. Montréal:
Centre canadien d’architecture/Canadian Centre for Architecture, 1991.
Architecture. “The 2030 Challenge.” 2013. Accessed February11, 2019. https://architec-
ture2030.org/2030_challenges/2030-challenge/
Berg, Agnes van den. “Health Impacts of Healing Environments: AReview of Evidence
for Benefits of Nature, Daylight, Fresh Air, and Quiet in Healthcare Settings, Disserta-
tion.” Wageningen University and Research Center (2005): 1–100. www.agnesvandenberg.
nl/healingenvironments.pdf
Beute, Femke, and Yvonne A. W. de Kort. “Salutogenic Eects of the Environment:
Review of Health Protective Eects of Nature and Daylight.” Applied Psychology: Health
and Wellbeing 6 (2014):67–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12019

Supermeasurement forSuperarchitecture 289
Carrington, Thomas Spees. Directions for Living and Sleeping in the Open Air. New York: The
National Association for the Study and Prevention of Tuberculosis, 1910.
CBC News. “Health Sciences North hopes new ‘Distraction Room’ will put kids
at Ease.” Accessed February 11, 2019. www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/
distraction-room-sudbury-hospital-1.4832161
Cole, Raymond J. “Transitioning from Green to Regenerative Design.” Building Research and
Information 40, no. 1 (2012): 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2011.610608
Durot, Frederic, Anne Lacaton, and Jean-Philippe Vassal. Plus: Large Scale Housing Develop-
ments. An Exceptional Case. Barcelona: Gustavo Gili, 2007.
Ellen McArthur Foundation. “Business cases for circular economy.” Accessed May 29,
2019. www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/case-studies/design-and-business-model-
considerations-for-heavy-machinery-remanufacturing
Ellen MacArthur Foundation. “What is The Circular Economy?” Accessed May29, 2019.
www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-economy/what-is-the-circular-economy
Great Gulf. “Active House Centennial Park.” Accessed February11, 2019. https://greatgulf.
com/activehouse/
Green Guide for Health Care (GGHC). “Green Guide for Health Care.” Accessed Febru-
ary11, 2019. www.gghc.org/
GXN. “Building a Circular Future.” Accessed May29, 2019. www.buildingacircularfuture.
com/book
GXN. “Circle House Demonstrator.” Accessed May 29, 2019. https://gxn.3xn.com/
project/circle-house-demonstrator
GXN. “Circle House: Denmark’s First Circular Housing Project.” Accessed May29, 2019.
https://gxn.3xn.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2019/02/CircleHouse_ENG_2018.pdf
International WELL Building Institute (IWBI). “WELL Building Standard Version 1.0.” Inter-
national WELL Building Institute. Accessed February11, 2019. www.wellcertified.com
Jensen, Kasper Guldanger. Interview by Terri Peters, April24, 2019.
Kaplan, Rachel. “The Nature of the View from Home: Psychological Benefits.”Environ-
ment and Behavior33 (2001): 507–42. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F00139160121973115
Kardan, Omid, Peter Gozdyra, Bratislav Misic, et al. “Neighborhood Greenspace and
Health in Large Urban Center.” Nature. Scientific Report 5 (2015): 1–13. https://doi.
org/10.1038/srep11610
Klepeis, Neil E., William C. Nelson, Wayne R. Ott, etal. “The National Human Activity
Pattern Survey (NHAPS): AResource for Assessing Exposure to Environmental Pollut-
ants.” Journal of Exposure Science& Environmental Epidemiology 11 (2001): 231–52. https://
doi.org/10.1038/sj.jea.7500165
Lacaton& Vassal. “53 Semi-Collective Housing Units, Saint-Nazaire.” Accessed May29,
2019. www.lacatonvassal.com/index.php?idp=58#
Lacaton& Vassal. “Lacaton& Vassal.” Accessed May29, 2019. www.lacatonvassal.com/
Lederbogen, Florian, Peter Kirsch, Leila Haddad, etal. “City living and urban upbring-
ing aect neural social stress processing in humans” Nature 474, no. 7352 ( June2011):
498–501. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10190
Lee, Kate E., Kathryn J. H. Williams, Leisa D. Sargent, etal. “40-second Green Roof Views
Sustain Attention: The Role of Micro-breaks in Attention Restoration.”Journal of Envi-
ronmental Psychology 42 (2015): 182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.04.003
Libby, Matthew. “When it Comes to Homes, There’s Green and then There’s LEED.” United
States Green Building Council (USGBC). Accessed February11, 2019. www.usgbc.org/
articles/when-it-comes-homes-theres-green-and-then-theres-leed
Lundin, Stefan. “In Search of the Happy Balance—Intuition and Evidence.” Health Environ-
ments Research& Design Journal (HERD) 8, no. 2 (2015): 123–26. https://doi.org/10.11
77%2F1937586714567646

290 Terri Peters
Malin, Nadav. “The Problem with Net-Zero Buildings (and the Case for Net-Zero Neigh-
borhoods).” BuildingGreen. Accessed February 11, 2019. www.buildinggreen.com/
feature/problem-net-zero-buildings-and-case-net-zero-neighborhoods
Martin, Nicole. “’Nothing Can Live on Copper’: Ontario Hospital Fights Bacteria with
High-Tech Toilet Seats.” CBC News. Accessed February11, 2019. www.cbc.ca/news/
canada/toronto/copper-hospital-toilet-seats-1.4987891
McGraw Hill Construction. “The Drive toward Healthier Buildings: The Market Driv-
ers and Impact of Building Design and Construction on Occupant Health, Well-Being
and Productivity.” SmartMarket Report, McGraw Hill Construction (2014): 1–104. www.
worldgbc.org/sites/default/files/Drive_Toward_Healthier_Buildings_SMR_2014.pdf
New Buildings Institute (NBI). “2016 List of Zero Net Energy Buildings.” Accessed Feb-
ruary 11, 2019. https://newbuildings.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/GTZ_2016_
List.pdf
Norwegian Architects’ National Federation (NAL)/Norske Arkitekters Landsforbund.
“Powerhouse Kjørbo.” Accessed February11, 2019. www.arkitektur.no/powerhouse-
kjorbo-barum?pid1 = 228528
Peters, Terri. “Architectural Strategies of Transformation to Modern Housing: Qualitative
Parameters for Analysis of Sustainability in 1960s and 1970s Multi-Story, Prefabricated
Concrete Housing in Denmark.” PhD diss., Aarhus School of Architecture, 2015.
Peters, Terri. “Architectural Interventions for Social Sustainability: The Renovation of
Modern Housing.” Sustainable Built Environment (SBE) Toronto 2016: 1–7. https://
sbcanada.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/T.-Peters-Architectural-Interventions-for-
Social-Sustainability.pdf
Peters, Terri. “Super-Architecture: Building Better Health.” Architectural Design (2017):
24–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/ad.2149
Powerhouse. “Why Choose a Powerhouse?” Accessed February 11, 2019. www.power-
house.no/en/why-choose-a-powerhouse/
Raman, Mahadev. “Mitigating Climate Change: What America’s Building Indus-
try Must Do.” Design Intelligence. Accessed February 11, 2019. www.di.net/articles/
mitigating-climate-change-what-americas-building-industry-must-do/
Salingaros, Nikos A. Biophilia and Healing Environments: Healthy Principles for Designing the
Built World. New York: Terrapin Bright Green LLC, 2015.
Singh, Amanjeet, Matt Syal, Sue C. Grady, etal. “Eects of Green Buildings on Employee
Health and Productivity.” American Journal of Public Health 100, no. 9 (September2010):
1665–68. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009.180687
Smith, Ron, and Nicholas Watkins. “Therapeutic Environments.” Therapeutic Environments
Forum, AIA Academy of Architecture for Health. Accessed May29, 2019. www.wbdg.org/
resources/therapeutic.php
Steven Winter Associates, Inc. “Net Zero energy buildings.” Whole Building Design Guide.
Accessed February11, 2019. www.wbdg.org/resources/net-zero-energy-buildings
Superkul. “Active House 2.” Accessed February 11, 2019. https://superkul.ca/projects/
active-house-2/
Ulrich, Roger. “View through a Window May Influence Recovery from Surgery” Science
224, no. 4647 (1984): 420–21. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.6143402
United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). “Emissions Gap Report 2018.” Accessed
May29, 2019. www.unenvironment.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2018
United States Green Building Council (USGBC). “Leadership in Energy and Environmen-
tal Design (LEED).” Accessed February11, 2019. https://new.usgbc.org/leed
USA Today. “In the US Green Building Industry, Is it too Easy to be Green?”
Accessed February 11, 2019. www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/24/
green-building-leed-certification/1650517/

Supermeasurement forSuperarchitecture 291
Velux. “Positive Energy: Maison Air et Lumiere.” Accessed February11, 2019. www.velux.
com/innovation/demo-buildings/maison-air-et-lumiere
Watts, Nick, Markus Amann, Nigel Arnell, etal. “The 2018 Report of the Lancet Countdown
on Health and Climate Change: Shaping the Health of Nations for Centuries to Come.”
The Lancet 392 (2018): 2479–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32594-7
World Health Organization (WHO). “Depression.” Accessed February 11, 2019. www.
who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs369/en/
World Health Organization (WHO). “Noncommunicable Diseases.” Accessed February11,
2019. www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs355/en/
World Health Organization (WHO). Preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Organ-
ization as Adopted by the International Health Conference, New York, 19–22 June, 1946.
Geneva: World Health Organization, 1948.