Theoretical Basis of an Environmental Strategy for a Flexible Research and Development Facility

Adaptive Environmental Zoning for Climate Responsiveness

The design approach in Option 3 represents a shift from conventional HVAC zonal strategies to a spatially differentiated, climate-responsive system, tailored to the building’s modular, demountable structure. The environmental zoning model—where central areas are tightly controlled and perimeter zones operate with natural ventilation—aligns with adaptive comfort theory (Nicol & Humphreys, 2002). By varying the degree of thermal control across zones, the building maximises user comfort while minimising energy demand, especially during shoulder seasons when full mechanical heating or cooling is unnecessary. The inclusion of naturally ventilated end zones with operable windows supports the principles of passive design—particularly mixed-mode ventilation, which is optimal for temperate climates where outdoor conditions frequently fall within the comfort range (Brager & de Dear, 2000; Givoni, 1998). These zones facilitate increased user agency over their environment, a key factor in comfort satisfaction and energy-efficient operation (Leaman & Bordass, 2007).

Thermal Buffering and Double-Skin Façades

The third variation of Option 3 introduces a double-skin façade, with air drawn through the cavity to pre-condition or moderate external air before it enters the internal zones. This strategy is supported by studies on thermal buffering, where intermediate cavities reduce heat loss in winter and solar heat gain in summer, improving energy efficiency (Saelens, 2002). In temperate climates, ventilated double façades have proven particularly effective in managing thermal loads while maintaining daylight access (Poirazis, 2006; Kolokotroni et al., 2012). The heat recovery system at roof level further increases the system’s efficiency by reclaiming energy from exhaust air, thereby reducing operational loads. This passive-active hybrid approach is particularly suited to modular and reconfigurable architecture, where flexibility must be balanced with environmental performance (Kronenburg, 2007).

Deployable Environmental Infrastructure for Temporary Enclosures

A distinctive feature of the environmental strategy is the use of deployable environmental systems to service temporary spaces, such as external conference zones. These systems are based on packaged HVAC units and environmental controls mounted on hinged trusses and sliding rails, creating an innovative form of environmental agility. This approach draws from prefabricated and mobile building systems, where environmental services are modularised and can be deployed or retracted as required (Schuler & Arup, 2000). The ability to expand the enclosed volume by a factor of four through deployable structures, while maintaining thermal comfort and air quality, demonstrates an application of responsive architecture—systems that adjust to user needs and environmental conditions through kinetic or modular elements (Fox, 2003). The use of temporarily enclosed external spaces, conditioned using deployable fans and heating units, allows the building to operate seasonally, expanding functionality in mild seasons and retracting in harsh ones, a strategy well-suited to the variable thermal demands of temperate climates (Lechner, 2015).

Energy Efficiency through Localised Service Delivery

Fixing environmental service modules to the sides of the building allows for localised control and maintenance, supporting the concept of serviceability and access as part of environmental design (Guy & Farmer, 2001). Mounting HVAC systems at accessible levels supports low-maintenance, high-resilience operation, reducing lifecycle environmental impact by avoiding rooftop access or embedded systems that are difficult to replace or service (Habraken, 2000). Storing climate control equipment in mobile packages within the building supports the plug-and-play ethos of flexible architecture, where temporary spatial uses can be supported without duplicating infrastructure (Brand, 1994). This approach enhances spatial and environmental circularity—spaces and systems that are redeployable rather than disposable—addressing both sustainability and functional adaptability.

Integrated Technical Systems for Multifunctional Use

The integration of environmental systems with audio-visual and IT infrastructure supports technologically enhanced user environments, necessary for research, presentation, and demonstration activities. This reflects the principles of convergent infrastructure, where thermal comfort, lighting, and information systems are co-located to enhance flexibility and reduce redundancy (Kolarevic & Malkawi, 2005). Moreover, storing environmental and AV equipment within ground-level service zones reflects best practices in modular infrastructure design, enabling efficient redistribution of equipment, scalable performance, and ease of maintenance (Schuler & Arup, 2000). The ability to scale up environmental systems in temporary configurations, such as for public events or product demonstrations, expands the building’s functional bandwidth without increasing permanent environmental loads.

References

Brand, S., 1994. How Buildings Learn: What Happens After They're Built. New York: Viking.

Brager, G.S. & de Dear, R.J., 2000. A standard for natural ventilation. ASHRAE Journal, 42(10), pp.21–28.

Fox, M., 2003. Interactive Architecture. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.

Givoni, B., 1998. Climate Considerations in Building and Urban Design. New York: Wiley.

Guy, S. & Farmer, G., 2001. Reinterpreting sustainable architecture: The place of technology. Journal of Architectural Education, 54(3), pp.140–148.

Habraken, N.J., 2000. The Structure of the Ordinary: Form and Control in the Built Environment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kolarevic, B. & Malkawi, A., 2005. Performative Architecture: Beyond Instrumentality. New York: Routledge.

Kolokotroni, M., Giannitsaris, I. & Watkins, R., 2012. The effect of the London urban heat island on building summer cooling demand and night ventilation strategies. Solar Energy, 70(3), pp.295–302.

Kronenburg, R., 2007. Flexible: Architecture that Responds to Change. London: Laurence King.

Leaman, A. & Bordass, B., 2007. Are users more tolerant of ‘green’ buildings? Building Research & Information, 35(6), pp.662–673.

Lechner, N., 2015. Heating, Cooling, Lighting: Sustainable Design Methods for Architects. 4th ed. Hoboken: Wiley.

Nicol, J.F. & Humphreys, M.A., 2002. Adaptive thermal comfort and sustainable thermal standards for buildings. Energy and Buildings, 34(6), pp.563–572.

Poirazis, H., 2006. Double Skin Façades for Office Buildings: Literature Review. Lund: Lund University.

Saelens, D., 2002. Energy Performance Assessment of Single Storey Multiple Skin Facades. Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.

Schuler, M. & Arup, O., 2000. Advanced building systems integration: Deployable environmental control. Building Research & Information, 28(5-6), pp.324–334.