Gallery: Passive House Debate Heats Up on the Future of the US Standard

 

When we first broke the news of the split between Passivhaus Institute (PHI) and Passive House US (PHIUS), it was a murky proposition to project what the results would be. That answer has become much clearer in the past months after a series of proposed changes and intense debate within the community. The conversation heated up in the last week as those aligned with PHI asked PHIUS to choose a different name for their certification system from Passive House, and Katrin Klingenberg, head of the American group, got personal in her response. The question on everyone’s mind is: “how much damage does this cause the movement?”

Read the rest of this entry »

LEAVE A COMMENT

or your inhabitat account below



6 Comments

  1. 42 August 9, 2012 at 7:58 pm

    PHIUS has as much right to the term passive as does PHI and all materials, construction styles and methods are non proprietary in both. I still don’t understand why any time is invested in this conversation at all, its not the “damage” – imagined or otherwise – that PHIUS needs to recover from, its the damage that all of us are doing to our profession and the goal of reduced energy consumption. For PHIUS to understand the vastly different climate conditions in this country only makes me want to incorporate their standard.

    Americans have a hard enough time understanding energy consumption and the way in which buildings are constructed, with the few in this nation that are truly striving to change that, this discussion of PHIUS vs PHI is a complete waste of time, its too late anyway – my guess is we passed the tipping point in October of 2010.

  2. hayden robinson April 3, 2012 at 7:53 pm

    Andrew, I hope that PHIUS recovers from the controversy and goes on to provide a clear alternative to Passive House. Direct, unambiguous competition would benefit the public and encourage both programs toward their full potential. -Hayden

  3. Andrew Michler April 3, 2012 at 5:52 pm

    Hayden,

    You have written eloquently about the need to keep Passive House as a single standard and how confusion will be inevitable as two systems use the same label. My point is that much more market confusion is happening now from both the media coverage of your petition and the resulting reactions to it. Whether it’s your intention or not, it is manifesting as a ‘us vs them’ conversation and calcifying into didactic sides.

    Katrin, Thanks for the information on the origin of Passive House. It would be interesting to know more about its origin and what ‘Passive’ means. That seem to be a missing component of the ongoing conversation.

  4. hayden robinson April 3, 2012 at 1:30 pm

    “Healthful” is in the public domain, but it would be dishonest to market junk food using that term. It is misleading for PHIUS to claim buildings constructed under its weaker criteria as Passive House.

  5. kklingenberg April 2, 2012 at 2:06 pm

    Andrew,

    The term passive house was coined in the US and Canada in the 70’s. It has been used in the building science discourse ever since. It is solidly in the public domain and describes a building science principle free for everyone to use.

    Katrin Klingenberg, Executive Director of PHIUS

  6. Hayden Robinson March 26, 2012 at 7:36 pm

    Andrew,

    Thanks for the column and this opportunity to comment; I have a somewhat different take on things. To me, the question is not U.S. vs. Germany (the directors of both PHIUS and the PHI are German), or even PHIUS vs. the PHI. No one questions that the Passive House standard has been developed, administered and refined by the PHI (headquartered in Germany) for over twenty years, or that the PH standard is used by hundreds of professionals across the U.S. There are a number of certifying organizations, licensed by the PHI, offering Passive House certification in this country. Until recently, PHIUS (headquartered in Illinois) was one of those competing agencies; however, it is no longer accredited by the PHI (as you might imagine, different people have different stories about how and why that came about). PHIUS has continued as an unaccredited Passive House certifier, but has recently announced plans to become not just a certifier, but also an independent standards organization. Most parties seem to applaud PHIUS’s initiative in developing its own standard; the controversy stems from the organization’s plan to claim its standard as Passive House (changed to lowercased in order to infer genericness), while establishing less-than-Passive House performance criteria in some climate regions. Creating a new service and referring to it by your competitor’s name is not competition, it’s appropriation. The resulting confusion and controversy would hurt everyone, not least of all, PHIUS, which would risk marginalizing itself as controversial and “not really Passive House”. I hope that PHIUS will distinguish its programs by using a different term and allow them to succeed on their own merit.

    Hayden Robinson, AIA

get the free Inhabitat newsletter

Submit this form
popular today
all time
most commented
more popular stories >
more popular stories >
more popular stories >
Federated Media Publishing - Home