See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/350789353

Sustainability in Façade Design: Approaches and Outlooks from Design

Practitioners

Conference Paper · April 2021

CITATIONS READS

0 571

2 authors, including:

Alejandro Prieto
Universidad Diego Portales
42 PUBLICATIONS 434 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

PrettyFace – Exploration of aesthetics in façade design View project

COOLFACADE: Architectural integration of solar cooling technologies in the building envelope View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Alejandro Prieto on 10 April 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Sustainability in Façade Design:
Approaches and Outlooks
from Design Practitioners
Alejandro Prieto*1, Mimi Oldenhave2

* Corresponding author
1 Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment, Department of Architectural Engineering +
Technology, Architectural Façades & Products Research Group, Julianalaan 134, 2628BL Delft, Netherlands, +31(0)618189151,
A.I.PrietoHoces@tudelft.nl.
2 Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment, Department of Architectural Engineering +
Technology, Julianalaan 134, 2628BL Delft, Netherlands, M.M.Oldenhave@tudelft.nl / mmoldenhave@gmail.com

Abstract
The concept of sustainability has risen in the last three decades, as a vehicle to guide our efforts to overcome major environmental
and societal challenges such as global warming and environmental degradation. The built environment is responsible for about 40%
of the global CO2 emissions, a fact that has led to countless debates, approaches, and new technologies for the design of our buildings,
and especially, the building envelope. The goal of this paper is to explore the current role and the impact that sustainability has in the
design of the building façade, based on the insights from practicing architects with relevant experience in the field. While we know of
countless theoretical approaches and design theories to deal with sustainability, the point of view from practitioners has hardly been
in the spotlight. So, the input for the assessment was obtained through a series of interviews with designers, representing 34 different
architectural firms in the Netherlands, between January and April of 2020. The 34 interviews followed a semi-structured questionnaire
comprising open-ended questions, structured around different themes concerning their façade design process. The present document
showcases and discusses the results from the following questions: what is the role of sustainability in your façade design process?
How does it influence the result?

The exploration of the gathered information shows that within the broader scope of sustainability, circularity is the most mentioned
set of aspects that currently have a clear impact on façade design, closely followed by energy related aspects, and further below issues
related to the user, nature inclusion, and val. Furthermore, it is possible to identify different and sometimes clashing approaches de-
rived from different notions of sustainability: some interviewees believe in permanence and timeless buildings, which leads to massive
structures and detailing focused on ageing and durability; while for others it mainly revolves around using less raw materials and re-
use/recycling potential of building components; which leads to light structures, with focus on connections aiming for total disassembly
and material recovery. These, among others, should be regarded as possibilities to choose from a set of potential approaches, whose
suitability should be carefully assessed to match each project brief, under the larger aim to design and build sustainable façades,
buildings and cities.

Keywords
Façade design, sustainability, design process

175 APRIL 9TH 2021 – MUNICH POWERSKIN CONFERENCE | PROCEEDINGS

Sustainability in Façade Design: Approaches and Outlooks from Design Practitioners
 1 INTRODUCTION

The concept of sustainability has risen in the last three decades, as a vehicle to guide our efforts to
overcome major environmental and societal challenges such as global warming and environmental
degradation. The built environment is responsible for 39% of the global CO2 emissions (UNEP, 2019),
a fact that has led to countless debates, approaches, and new technologies for the design of our
buildings, and especially, the building envelope. The façade is arguably the most complex system in
any building, having to deal with a myriad of requirements ranging from technical to symbolic, in its
dual condition of interface between inside and outside and literal face and expression of the building.
Therefore, it is there where said approaches and technologies collide during the design process.
Nevertheless, while we know of countless theoretical approaches and design theories to tackle the
issue, the point of view from practitioners has hardly been in the spotlight.

Architects are the main professionals in charge of putting sustainable measures in place within
our built environment, adding them to the inherent complexity behind the design of our buildings
and their façades. Understanding how they deal with these challenges in their design process is
regarded as a key issue if we seriously strive to make a sustainable built environment a reality.
New challenges will undoubtedly impact the design choices of said architects, thus indirectly
defining the performance, construction and aesthetics of building façades. However, it is not always
clear what these challenges entail, nor what is exactly being asked from a sustainable design. So,
what do architects understand under the broad term of sustainability when it comes to façade
design? How do they apply this in their practice?

The goal of this paper is to explore the role and the impact that sustainability has in the design of
the building façade, based on the insights from practicing architects with relevant experience in
the field. This entails a dual purpose, aiming to identify certain concepts underlying the notions of
sustainability that are currently understood by a sample of practitioners; while aiming to understand
their façade design choices and the approaches they currently follow in the name of sustainability.
Hopefully this knowledge will provide relevant insights to the practical application of sustainable
measures in façade design, from the perspective of architectural designers.

2 METHODOLOGY

The study follows the qualitative evaluation of primary information by means of content analysis
techniques. The input for the assessment was obtained through a series of interviews with
designers, representing 34 different architectural firms in the Netherlands (based in Amsterdam,
Rotterdam, The Hague and Delft), between January and April of 2020. The 34 interviews followed a
semi-structured questionnaire comprising open-ended questions, structured around four themes:
(I) General design approach, (II) Façade design elements and intentions (III) Aesthetic perception of
façades, and (IV) Sustainability in façade design. The present document focuses on the results from
the last theme, which circled around two related questions: What is the role of sustainability in your
façade design process? How does it influence the result?

The architectural firms that participated in the study mostly comprise small-sized companies,
having between 10 and 49 employees (47%); being followed by medium ones (41%). Within the
latter, a sub-distinction is made, between medium-sized companies with less than 100 employees
(10 firms / 29%) and medium-large-sized companies employing 100-250 people (4 firms / 12%).
Lastly, 4 micro-sized companies (less than 10 employees) also took part in the study (12%). About
the interviewees, the vast majority holds a Partner position in the firm (85%, considering 9 Partners
and 20 Founding Partners); while roughly a third of the group has had between 10 to 19 years of

176 APRIL 9TH 2021 – MUNICH POWERSKIN CONFERENCE | PROCEEDINGS

Sustainability in Façade Design: Approaches and Outlooks from Design Practitioners
 experience in architectural design (32%), and another third has been designing for 30-39 years (32%).
The remaining third is composed of professionals with 20-29 years of experience (18%) and others
with more than 40 years in design (15%).

Figure 1 shows the complete sample in terms of their declared years of experience and the size of
the firm they represent. The graph shows a high dispersion in the years of experience declared by
the interviewees, evidencing an heterogeneous sample. Furthermore, this wide range of experience
is reflected across the different categories of company sizes. Moreover, the graph distinguishes
between the interviewees who stated to have more experience working on residential projects
(housing and mixed-use buildings), and who declared to have more experience with non-residential
buildings (commercial, cultural, educational and public buildings, among others).

FIG. 1 Years of experience declared by the interviewees vs. the size of the company they represent

3 RESEARCH

3.1 CONTENT ANALYSIS AND CODING OF THE RESPONSES

The interviews were recorded and transcribed; to be then coded for the assessment using the
software ATLAS.ti, resulting in a database in Microsoft Excel to allow for the qualitative and
quantitative analysis of the gathered information. By coding the responses, it was possible to identify
27 distinctive keywords, depicted in a word cloud in Figure 2. The word sizes reflect the frequency of
each keyword within the pool of responses.

177 APRIL 9TH 2021 – MUNICH POWERSKIN CONFERENCE | PROCEEDINGS

Sustainability in Façade Design: Approaches and Outlooks from Design Practitioners
 FIG. 2 Word cloud of identified aspects (keywords)

An initial exploration of the keywords showed that the consideration of passive strategies is the
aspect most mentioned by the sample (n=14), being addressed by almost half of the interviewees;
followed by material durability (n=12); permanence (n=12); and recycling & reuse (n=10). As a second
step in the assessment, the keywords were grouped into larger themes, categorising the gathered
information for a better understanding of the responses. Based on the 27 keywords, 5 main themes
were identified: (I) energy, (II) circularity, (III) user, (IV) nature and (V) value (Fig. 3).

FIG. 3 Identified themes across the mentioned aspects

The keywords grouped under energy consist of aspects related to the energy flows required
for the successful operation of our buildings. The mentions by the interviewees consider
energy consumption (n=8) and energy generation (n=9), as central aspects for the design of nearly
zero energy buildings (NZEB), establishing demands and limitations for the design of their envelopes.
Likewise, in this group belong mentions of passive strategies (n=14) that may be applied as part of
the design of the envelope, such as the use of louvres or insulation; or the potential integration of
active systems and new technologies (n=6) to improve the energy efficiency of the overall building,
such as heat storage components or decentral ventilation units. The explicit mentions of the multiple
functions that façades need to increasingly accommodate were gathered within the keyword
multifunctional façade (n=2), making a distinction against mentions for the need for adaptive façades
(n=5), understood as façade systems that are “able to change its functions, features, or behaviour
over time in response to transient performance requirements and boundary conditions, with the
aim of improving the overall building performances” (Loonen et al., 2015). Lastly, this group also
considers mentions of energy standards and building regulations, due to their direct impact on
design decisions (n=7).

178 APRIL 9TH 2021 – MUNICH POWERSKIN CONFERENCE | PROCEEDINGS

Sustainability in Façade Design: Approaches and Outlooks from Design Practitioners
 The second group, dubbed circularity, considers first of all general mentions of circular design
(n=6), plus other aspects related to the efficient use of material flows and resources in the building
construction. Among them, there is a relevant number of mentions of material durability (n=12)
and overall material usage (n=4), alongside concerns for the embodied energy of materials and
components (n=9). Regarding the direct impact of these concerns on the design of façades, the group
gathers diverging approaches on the matter. On the one hand, it is possible to identify permanence
(n=12) as a relevant concept posed by interviewees advocating for long-lasting buildings that can
pass the test of time, by means of durable materials and a timeless design. On the other hand, the
conception of buildings as assemblies was posed by a section of the sample, with emphasis on the
design of construction details under dry connections (n=9), which allow for the easy disassembly
of the building and/or its components. Other mentions in the group refer to the recycling & reuse
of building components (n=10), either allowing the reuse of new components by ensuring an easy
disassembly, or incorporating reclaimed materials into a new design. Lastly, the ability of the façade
to accommodate changes during the lifetime of the building was reflected in mentions of the need
for more flexibility (n=7) and the easy upgrading of its components (n=5).

The third identified theme revolves around the user and groups aspects that were declared to have a
role in the design of sustainable façades, such as users’ requirements in general (n=3), where health
& comfort requirements were identified as distinctive aspects (n=4); and users’ acceptance (n=2)
was explicitly mentioned in a couple of cases. Here the distinction refers to the pragmatic nature of
answering to general and various functional requirements stated during the design process, while
acceptance speaks of the approval of the result, appealing to personal preferences. Single mentions
within the theme referred to user interaction (n=1), and the potential for customisation (n=1).

The fourth theme, nature, focuses on the use of nature-based solutions as a resource for the design
of façades, with the aim to benefit biodiversity in our cities. Within this theme, two keywords were
grouped: living façades (n=7) and nature inclusion (n=4). The former refers to the integration
of greenery in the building envelope, either as green façades, where climbers are attached to
building surfaces; or living walls, where plants directly grow on fertile modular panels (Perini et al.,
2011). Nature inclusion is a broader concept that explicitly tackles the aim of restoring the urban
ecosystem, which not also includes the use of vegetation, but also promotes biodiversity by actively
attracting bees and birds into urban areas.

Lastly, mentions of budget constraints (n=5), the relation with the client (n=4), and the commercial
value of the façade (n=2) were grouped under a theme labelled value. These mentions mostly
tackle practical aspects and difficulties of implementing sustainable measures in the design of
the building envelope, asking the designers for inventive solutions to keep projects on the agreed
budget; and constantly advocating for these measures in talks with the clients, trying to convince
them by means of quantifying the potential returns that these could have in the long run. Also within
this group it was considered a mention for cultural values (n=1), in the case of the renovation of
heritage buildings, broadening the scope of what value refers to in the application of sustainable
measures. The fact that these practical aspects appeared in the study shows the relevance of
considering practitioners’ point of view, being the ones dealing with practical matters in the
name of sustainability.

179 APRIL 9TH 2021 – MUNICH POWERSKIN CONFERENCE | PROCEEDINGS

Sustainability in Façade Design: Approaches and Outlooks from Design Practitioners
 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 FREQUENCY OF MENTIONS AND IDENTIFICATION

OF RELEVANT ASPECTS AND THEMES

The frequency of the mentions per identified aspect, and the total amount of mentions per theme/
group are shown in figure 4, arranged from higher to lower frequency for an easier understanding.
It is important to point out that the quantitative assessment of the responses serves an illustrative
purpose, to discuss the relative perceived relevance of these aspects within the interviewed
sample. Hence, these results must be understood as merely referential, needing further research
to unequivocally judge their overall importance. With this in mind, passive design strategies have
the higher mentions, their application being regarded as the most clear impact that concerns for
sustainability have in the design of the building envelope. Nonetheless, the energy group comes
second after the circularity group, which gathers most mentions, by being addressed by 30 out of the
34 interviewed professionals (88% of the sample). These two themes (energy and circularity) were by
far the most associated to sustainability in façade design by the interviewees, not just by the number
of mentions, but also by the number of distinguishable aspects identified in their responses and their
level of detail, which will be discussed in the following paragraphs.

FIG. 4 Frequency of mentions for each identified aspect and total mentions per theme

The fact that circularity, as a group, scored the highest comes as no surprise, given the current
attention and interest around such concepts. Notwithstanding, it is refreshing to see how embedded
it already is in Dutch designers’ practice and their concerns about the future. When answering,
several interviewees stated concerns about the lack of information and validated tools to assess
the impact of circularity on building construction. Moreover, and directly related to the previous

180 APRIL 9TH 2021 – MUNICH POWERSKIN CONFERENCE | PROCEEDINGS

Sustainability in Façade Design: Approaches and Outlooks from Design Practitioners
 statement, there does not seem to be a unified strategy to incorporate these concerns into
architectural design. Hence, based on the gathered responses, it is possible to see that the firms have
adopted particular approaches that suit their work flow and design views, as a way to wrap their
heads around circularity themes, aiming to stay ahead of regulations on the matter that they know
will come sooner rather than later. This issue will be expanded upon in section 4.2.

After circularity, energy appears as a major issue, although it is the authors’ opinion that the fact
that energy appears second might be explained by the early internalisation of energy requirements
in their daily practice. Thus, it seems to be taken for granted, skewing the number of mentions
and making it seem like it is a secondary issue (although the number of mentions correctly
reflect the fact that right now, circularity seems to be the major issue that Dutch architects are
trying to wrap their heads around). This statement is backed by the tone of some responses when
stating that “obviously, one aspect is the technical one. If you have to make an energy neutral
building there will be a lot of let’s say limitation or demands on the façade”, or “it starts always
with insulation and sun and all of that, in order to try and make sure it (the building) performs
energetically as well as we can”.

One of the major concerns declared in relation to energy aspects, refers to the impact stringent
regulations have on the final design, mostly regarding daylight availability and the decrease of
transparency in buildings. Thus, some interviewees stated as a relevant issue in their daily practice,
to find the balance between energy performance and daylight access when it comes to defining
window-to-wall ratios and window position in their façade projects. Moreover, some interviewees
expressed concern about the impact that increasing temperatures will have on Dutch buildings,
which is not considered in current regulations and building guidelines (“there is a sort of strange
contradiction between the fact that we insulate like hell and the climate is becoming warmer”).
Another relevant concern expressed within this theme was related to energy generation and its
role in energy neutral buildings. It was explicitly stated by some interviewees that the need for
energy neutrality in the built environment will make the integration of PV panels in façades more
common over time, due to the lack of roof space, which will bring completely different aesthetics.
While some interviewees merely referred to PV integration in buildings (BIPV) as a fact that
architects will have to increasingly deal with, others took a strong stand against the need for building
integration, arguing “why should architecture be defined by PV panels?! Come on! We should
find another way and take it away from the buildings. What do we do with all this technical stuff
in about 10-20 years?”

The user and nature groups, while less mentioned, are regarded as emerging themes. About a third
of the sample mentioned at least one user-related aspect, and several aspects were distinguished
within the group, which shows the multiple facets of an issue that is nowadays getting increasing
attention. Similarly, the application of nature-based solutions in the built environment has been
heavily promoted by the European Union in the last years, being defined as “solutions that are
inspired and supported by nature, which are cost-effective, simultaneously provide environmental,
social and economic benefits and help build resilience. Such solutions bring more, and more
diverse, nature and natural features and processes into cities, landscapes and seascapes, through
locally adapted, resource-efficient and systemic interventions” (European Commission, 2015). When
it comes to the building façade, nature-based solutions mostly refer to green façades or living
walls, as the responses showed; however other strategies for nature inclusion are also attracting
attention, evidenced by the integration of “bee hotels” and nesting zones in projects declared by the
interviewees. The fact that about a fourth of the sample mentioned these aspects is regarded as a
promising sign of their ongoing application, which is expected to increase in the coming years based
on their active promotion.

181 APRIL 9TH 2021 – MUNICH POWERSKIN CONFERENCE | PROCEEDINGS

Sustainability in Façade Design: Approaches and Outlooks from Design Practitioners
 Lastly, value related aspects were mentioned as the most practical impact derived from the
application of sustainable measures, evidenced by statements referring to the return of initial
investments (“budget versus how much money the building can generate once it's finished”), or
maintenance costs associated to complex measures (“we had a complex double façade with solar
shades in between, ventilation and openable windows… the maintenance costs were constantly
a discussion”). Nonetheless, while budget issues are of course central for the implementation of
sustainable measures, the same interviewees that declared this also stated that they have seen an
ongoing change on the clients’ wishes and willingness to implement sustainable measures, which
greatly facilitates the process.

4.2 RELATION BETWEEN THEMES/ASPECTS

AND IDENTIFICATION OF TRENDS

Sustainability is a multi-variable concept, which tackles multiple areas of knowledge and practical
applications. Thus, the responses of the interviewees usually considered mentions of multiple
aspects, touching upon more than one of the previously discussed themes. The average number
of identified mentions per interviewee was 4.8; divided across 2.4 themes in average. Because
of that, these cross-mentions were explored as a second part of the assessment, aiming to show
the interviewees’ understanding of sustainability in façade design, not only considering isolated
mentions of certain aspects but also potential relations between them.

FIG. 5 Position of the interviewees’ responses based on the themes they tackled

Figure 5 shows a 5-way Venn graph showing all responses in relation to the themes they tackled
(using the online tool developed by Bardou et al., 2014). So, each dot represents a different
interviewee, and its position shows which themes shape their understanding of sustainability.
As discussed earlier in the text, circularity aspects were mentioned by 88% of the sample, while
energy aspects were mentioned by 71%. Moreover, interviewees that mention aspects contained
in either one or both of them add up to almost the total sample (97%); cementing their position as
the themes most commonly associated to sustainability when it comes to façade design. Only one
interviewee did not explicitly mention any aspect within those themes, placing the focus on users’
behaviour and their interaction with the building envelope in order to control or at least modify their

182 APRIL 9TH 2021 – MUNICH POWERSKIN CONFERENCE | PROCEEDINGS

Sustainability in Façade Design: Approaches and Outlooks from Design Practitioners
 comfort. Nonetheless, this posture does not negate the relevance of the aforementioned themes, but
simple chooses to actively place the focus somewhere else (the user).

As another layer in the assessment of the responses, an effort was made to identify trends based
on potentially distinguishable relations between groups of aspects, that would allow to identify
different approaches to the topic of sustainability; and then compare these trends against basic
characteristics of the surveyed sample, in an attempt to check for the existence of potential
designers’ profiles when it comes to following these approaches. This, of course, as an exploratory
exercise constrained within the boundaries of the sample size considered in the study.

Given the multi-variable nature of the overall concept of sustainability, in general there were no
discernible patterns or trends. Nonetheless, two clashing approaches were distinguished when it
comes to circularity: (a) permanence; and (b) design for disassembly. Figure 6 shows a 4-way Venn
diagram depicting the relations between these aspects from the interviewees’ responses; where it
is possible to see on the one hand that mentions of permanence and material durability are highly
correlated; while on the other hand, fairly distinct from the first group, there is also some correlation
between mentions of assembly and material usage.

FIG. 6 Interviewees’ responses related to selected aspects within the circularity theme

A more detailed overview of the responses effectively shows that designers who declared
permanence as one of the aspects related to sustainability, also mentioned to strive for timeless
buildings; besides a predilection for the use of “real” materials such as natural stone or concrete,
over steel or aluminium, based on how well the former sustain the passage of time. Therefore,
in these cases, the design of the envelope follows massiveness as a guide, with façade detailing
focused on improving the durability and aesthetics of the building surfaces over time. The reasoning
behind this approach entails that long-lasting buildings make a more efficient use of the material
and energy resources embedded into their design and construction, aiming to keep these on-site
by prolonging the operation phase for as long as possible (Foster, 2020). Consequently, besides
massiveness and the use of materials that do not require major maintenance; a key aspect in the
design of façades within this approach is an embedded flexibility and resilience, that allows the
façade – and the building behind it – to accommodate to changes that will occur along its lifetime.

183 APRIL 9TH 2021 – MUNICH POWERSKIN CONFERENCE | PROCEEDINGS

Sustainability in Façade Design: Approaches and Outlooks from Design Practitioners
 On the other hand, reviewing the responses that contain mentions of façade design as an assembly
of components, it is possible to see assembly-related aspects along concerns for the recycling and
reuse of such components and materials. Moreover, the responses also referred to the need to use
less raw materials; which of course circles back to the reuse of already processed building materials
and components, but also entails the design of slender structures and lightweight façades, where
material usage has been optimised for their particular performance. If the first approach was based
on permanence and usage flexibility to achieve a ‘never-ending building’; thinking of buildings
in terms of assemblies focuses instead on their components’ lifecycle, under the assumption
that buildings do not need to last forever, but their parts and components need to be designed to
allow for their reuse in other buildings under a smart output approach (Heesbeen & Prieto, 2020).
Consequently, a key aspect in this is the design of the interfaces between components, based on dry
connections and mono-material components, striving for total disassembly and material recovery.

When comparing the mention of these approaches against other responses from the interviewees,
no clear correlations were found. This means that the predilection for either approach does not
seem to follow any discernible pattern that could help defining designers’ profiles. This holds
true when comparing the responses against basic sample descriptors such as their declared
years of experience, the size of the firms they represented, or their particular expertise in either
newly built projects or renovations; and also other responses from the questionnaire such as their
understanding of the main role of façades, the role of façade design within their building design work
flow, or aesthetic preferences when it comes to façades. The only exception to this, would be a faint
relation encountered between the mention of these approaches and the declared main experience of
the interviewees in terms of either residential or non-residential projects. Hence, it was found that
designers who mentioned permanence and durability as aspects related to sustainability, tended
to be the ones who declared to have more experience with residential projects; while the mentions
for assembly were almost equally divided among the ones who declared to have mostly worked in
residential and non-residential projects, slightly favouring the latter (Fig.7). This fact seems to make
sense, considering the different nature of both types of projects (arguably, housing is generally meant
to last and blend with the urban layout; while the usually iconic aspect of non-residential buildings
means that they are subjected to more changes during their lifetime); nevertheless, although this
fact is worth mentioning within the exploratory aims of the study, further research activities with a
larger sample are needed in order to test and fully corroborate this finding.

FIG. 7 Relation between mentions of the identified approaches and the main experience of the interviewees

184 APRIL 9TH 2021 – MUNICH POWERSKIN CONFERENCE | PROCEEDINGS

Sustainability in Façade Design: Approaches and Outlooks from Design Practitioners
 5 CONCLUSIONS

The paper aimed to explore the role and the impact that sustainability has in façade design, through
the analysis of gathered responses from several interviews with experienced architects, from 34
architectural firms based in The Netherlands. Based on the responses, it was possible to identify
several aspects that have an impact on the design process, which were categorised in 5 distinct
themes: energy, circularity, user, nature and value. Energy and circularity themes clustered most
aspects, and received the highest amount of total mentions. As an isolated aspect, the integration of
passive design strategies was singled out to be the most mentioned; while the highest total mentions
of the circularity theme are regarded as evidence of the current interest around these issues in
architectural design.

The fact that the interviewees mentioned multiple aspects across different themes within their
responses; perfectly shows the multi-variable nature behind the concept of sustainability, tackling
multiple challenges that respond to diverse areas of knowledge and practical applications. It is this
multitude of aspects, that need to be considered at once, which makes the application of sustainable
measures a complex matter. The interviewees acknowledged the fact that more information and
tools for a comprehensive evaluation of these measures are needed, to assist them throughout
the design process. Also, particularly in the case of circularity, it was possible to identify certain
approaches that architects have adopted to navigate through these issues, aiming to incorporate
them in their daily practice.

Therefore, when it comes to circular design, it was found that some believe in permanence and
timeless buildings, which leads to massive structures and detailing focused on ageing and durability;
while for others it mainly revolves around using less raw materials and the reuse/recycling potential
of building components; which leads to light structures, with focus on connections aiming for total
disassembly and material recovery. The identification of such strategies helps gathering a set of
potential responses, which should of course follow the particularities of each case. Thus, it would
be wrong to declare one strategy as generally better than the other; instead, they should be seen
as possible approaches, whose suitability will be assessed after a careful consideration of the
context and brief. This of course, circles back to the need for tools for the assessment of these or
other approaches in terms of their response to a given set of requirements.

The exploration of the façade design process and the new challenges that sustainability brings to it,
directly from the practitioners’ experience; is regarded as a key issue to promote further application
of sustainable measures in the built environment under a grounded discussion that includes both
theory and practice. Hopefully the identification of diverse strategies and approaches, along with
similarities and differences across various points of view; will help designing a common vocabulary
for the understanding of sustainability in façade design, which enhances synergies between the
different stakeholders responsible for the design and construction of a sustainable future.

Acknowledgement
This paper is part of the project PrettyFace – Exploration of aesthetics in façade design, aimed at exploring the façade design
processes and aesthetic preferences of architectural designers, to gather insights from their practical experience. The project
was funded by The Dutch Research Council (NWO) through their programme Creative Industry - Knowledge Innovation Mapping
(KIEM), under the dossier number KI.18.037. The consortium behind the project comprises Delft University of Technology, KAAN
Architecten, BARCODE Architects, Thijs Asselbergs architectuurcentrale and ArchDaily.

The authors wish to acknowledge the architectural firms that took part in the study (in alphabetical order): Architecten van
Mourik, Arconiko, Thijs Asselbergs architectuurcentrale, Atelier Kempe Thill, BARCODE Architects, Benthem Crouwel Architects,
Braaksma & Roos Architecten, Cepezed architectenbureau, De Nijl Architecten, Dok Architecten, DUS Architects, Ector Hoogstad
Architecten, Gaaga, Gortemaker Algra Feenstra, Heren5 Architects, Hulshof Architects, KAAN Architecten, KCAP Architects&Plan-
ners, Kraaijvanger Architects, MECANOO, mei architects and planners, Moederscheim Moonen Architects, Mollink Soeters PPHP,

185 APRIL 9TH 2021 – MUNICH POWERSKIN CONFERENCE | PROCEEDINGS

Sustainability in Façade Design: Approaches and Outlooks from Design Practitioners
 MVRDV, MVSA Architects, NEXT Architects, ORANGE Architects, OZ Architects, Paul de Ruiter Architects, Team V Architectuur, UN
Studio, V8 Architects, VanSchagen Architecten, and WDJ Architecten.

References
Bardou, P., Mariette, J., Escudié, F., Djemiel, C., & Klopp, C. (2014). jvenn: an interactive Venn diagram viewer. BMC Bioinformatics,
15:293 doi:10.1186/1471-2105-15-293
European Commision (2015). Towards an EU Research and Innovation policy agenda for Nature-Based Solutions & Re-Naturing
Cities. Final Report of the Horizon 2020 Expert Group on 'Nature-Based Solutions and Re-Naturing Cities'. Directorate-General
for Research and Innovation - Climate Action, Environment, Resource Efficiency and Raw Materials.
Foster, G. (2020). Circular economy strategies for adaptive reuse of cultural heritage buildings to reduce environmental impacts.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 152. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104507
Heesbeen, C., & Prieto, A. (2020). Archetypical CBMs in Construction and a Translation to Industrialized Manufacture. Sustainabili-
ty, 12(4). doi:10.3390/su12041572
Loonen, R.C.G.M., Rico-Martinez, J.M., Favoino, F., Brzezicki, M., Menezo, C., La Ferla, G., & Aelenei, L. (2015). Design for façade
adaptability – Towards a unified and systematic characterization. Proceedings of the 10th Conference on Advanced Building
Skins, Bern, Switzerland, pp.1284-1294
Perini, K., Ottelé, M., Haas, E.M., Raiteri, R. (2011). Greening the building envelope, façade greening and living wall systems.
UNEP - Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction, International Energy Agency and the United Nations Environment Pro-
gramme (2019): 2019 global status report for buildings and construction: Towards a zero-emission, efficient and resilient
buildings and construction sector

186 APRIL 9TH 2021 – MUNICH POWERSKIN CONFERENCE | PROCEEDINGS

Sustainability in Façade Design: Approaches and Outlooks from Design Practitioners

View publication stats