Dear Peter, thank you for your questions, actually, I am asking for any kind of existing building, which might not be an example of a type of heritage building. Currently, I am working on my master thesis with the main focus on "energy retrofit of existing office buildings",  for this purpose, the energy and user comfort issues are the main objectives. However, I wonder if it would be possible to engage aesthetic issues (or formal interventions) in this case, which in reality, these kinds of interventions are known as vain actions. Recently, I've read Francoise Bollack book, entitled "Old Buildings New Forms" that classifies applicable architectural transformations on the old existing buildings. Indeed, that book encouraged me to rethink about these kinds of architectural renovation alongside with energy and comfort issues. 

You could improve the energetic performance of the buidling with many methods (for example 5 methods). For every method you can  define a new paraemter for aeshetic which will show if this change is good or not godo aestheticaly. This parameter can be (GOOD/BAD) or to take values 0 to 10. This parameter will not be something mathematically specified but an estimation in order to show if this change ion teh building is good aesthtically.

Yes, appropriate.  Some energy retrofits may take away from aesthetics or historical context of building and so that should be taken into account.  

Dear Evangelos, that's a great idea. Thanks for your suggestion.

I don't think that formal aesthetic interventions can correlate all the time with energy efficiency in buildings. That is to say, it may or may not lead to the desired objective of energy management in buildings.

Hope this helps answer your question.

Professor Yehia Khalil

Yale University

USA

Dear Professor Khalil, you're right. I definitely agree with you. thank you for your response. 

You're welcome Negin!

Professor Yehia Khalil

Yale University

USA

There is not a 'silver bullet' solution to this question and it should be examined on a case by case basis. Careful consideration should be given to the balance of maintaining as much as possible the history and architectural imperative on the one hand and on the hand, energy improvement actions and related aesthetics.

Dr. Emmanuel Ackom

UNEP DTU Partnership

Denmark

Thank you Dr. Ackom for your helpful response. seems it would not be a logic attempt to draw a general classification in this case. yea, case by case, region by region, there are many other factors preclude from outlining a general approach in this way. 

Building energy retrofits may involve design decisions that have impacts on the aesthetics of a building's exterior and interior. The application of external insulation is one example of an energy retrofit strategy having a visual impact to a building exterior. There are many more of course. Similarly, many interior retrofit strategies will have visual impacts. Consequently, heritage listed or not, there are likely to be aesthetic consequences. Energy retrofits may fall into the building science category and miss opportunities to improve not only building aesthetics but also user well-being. In other words, the science and engineering of energy reducing retrofits should be accompanied by the social science aspects of design. Unsuccessful retrofits, by which I mean, buildings that are functionally and aesthetically poor, will be retrofitted sooner or worse demolished. Therefore, from a life cycle energy perspective the consequences can be a waste of the energy embodied in the building and its subsequent retrofit(s). So yes, aesthetics should logically be considered when undertaking building energy retrofits.

There should be no retrofit that address energy only, since a retrofit should aim complying to all new requirements, at least to take advantage of symbiosis. For example, adding thermla insulation, improving the envelope airtightness to better control the air flows or installing a new control sysdtem improve both the building ehnergy performance and its indoor environmnent quality. I am a building physicist, not an architect, but I am convinced that aesthetics is one of the many criteria that should be takine into account when choosing the best retrofit scenario.

This is particularly the case when installing solar panels (PV or thermal) on a building (see attached link)

http://www.epflpress.org/product/40/9782940222469/Architectural%20Integration%20and%20Design%20of%20Solar%20Thermal%20Systems

Definitely, energy retrofitting of buildings is an interdisciplinary task. At least architects, building services engineers, mechanical/energy engineers, control & IT specialists and social sciences experts should be incorporated into the team. Successful projects usually apply integrated design concept. In my opinion formal interventions (aesthetics) can (or even should) be incorporated to the objectives of a building energy retrofitting plan. This decision may be forced by regulations (heritage buildings, buildings located in districts with a heritage value, upgraded indoor environment requirements, fire safety etc.) or just because of social context. Lately in our project we have been asked to preserve small mosaics from seventies XX century (at the beginning of the project the team regarded them as worthless). There is an interesting example showing how optimization of building shape and change of façade elements can simultaneously improve both energy characteristics of the building and aesthetics (see link).

http://task47.iea-shc.org/data/sites/1/publications/Norwegian_Tax_Directorate.pdf

I agree that aesthetics should be considered in any retrofit.  I also think that local and regional traditional construction and architecture often already incorporate regionally relevant efficiency measures (i.e. wind towers, courtyards, etc...), and an awareness of these should flow into the energetic retrofit strategy.  It thus makes it difficult to find a generic approach to assess the aesthetic correlation to the retrofit measure, but does require a local approach.

Yes, surely the aesthetic is very important after the structural requirements.

Some times the building is very strong and can be withstanded their loads but the big cracks deteriorate the building and it must be reformed.

Furthermore, the aesthetic represents civilization culture. The nation soul will be included.

PhD student

Faraj Khalaf

SHU

MERI

Therefore, from a life cycle energy perspective the consequences can be a waste of the energy embodied in the building and its subsequent retrofit(s). So yes, aesthetics should logically be considered when undertaking building energy retrofits.