L’Invention constructive face à la norme
Today, and in the face of ecological risks, architects and building technicians are dealing with a contradictory double injunction. To comply with the new 2020 environmental regulations, they must propose low-carbon construction alternatives while also respecting the pre-existing regulatory framewor...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | fra |
| Published: |
Ministère de la culture
2024-05-01
|
| Series: | Les Cahiers de la Recherche Architecturale, Urbaine et Paysagère |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://journals.openedition.org/craup/14265 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Today, and in the face of ecological risks, architects and building technicians are dealing with a contradictory double injunction. To comply with the new 2020 environmental regulations, they must propose low-carbon construction alternatives while also respecting the pre-existing regulatory framework. The latter sets requirements in terms of safety, durability and comfort, and was implemented when building with concrete was the undisputed rule. The urgency of ecological transition is thus confronted with the regulatory framework’s cautious and slow approach to integrating features of low-carbon construction, such as the use of materials deemed fragile, i.e. natural or bio-based. The investigation first focuses on recent actions taken by timber industry players seeking fire hazard regulation revisions and how this has been received by authorities. This process shows how the regulatory framework is the outcome of an agreement between forces with conflicting timespans—innovation and caution—ultimately representing the legal expression of the risk level to which a society consents. Then, we analyze a project launched by the City of Paris for the École des Messageries, with exemplary ecological objectives and a strong emphasis on bio and geo-sourced materials, demonstrating how construction invention is trapped in a regulatory and normative framework, and thus can only be developed in conjunction with it. Although the studies conducted for this project reveal significant and conclusive research into risk management equivalence, they resulted in an increased use of fire protection layers and sophisticated construction techniques, both of which have a negative impact on its carbon footprint. Furthermore, by focusing exclusively on the definition of architecture’s material elements, this project ignores modern regulatory comfort requirements, which have a greater impact on a building's carbon footprint than its entire superstructure. It is therefore crucial to broaden our thinking to question current architectural practices and their relationship to social norms surrounding use and comfort. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2606-7498 |