Eco-friendly houses and cities are better without smart technology
A) Here comes the future, here comes smart everything. Google sells us thermostats, Bosch and Philips sell us heat pumps and electronic controls so that we can seal ourselves up in our smart homes. Soon they will offer us smart self-driving cars so that we can travel to our smart office while looking at our smart phones.
B) We expect that if we turn a knob on the wall it will give us the temperature we want within a degree or two, all the time. That means our fans, furnaces and air conditioners are running all the time to keep up with our demands. We think we will be happy if our office lighting gives out enough foot-candles to do petit point when in fact it's easier to work at lower light levels and we are less tired when we are exposed to natural daylight throughout the day.
C) Many people think that going green means putting in more insulation and more solar panels on the roof, more smart building controls and more ground source heat pumps. The aim is that we can be happy with uniform temperatures like we always had and save the planet too, all by throwing more green gizmos into our houses and buildings. Does this make us happy? Does it even make us comfortable? I am not so sure. Comfort isn't just a function of temperature; it also is a function of air movement and humidity. Most of all, comfort and happiness is all about you. What are you wearing? How are you feeling? Those computers don't know that (although with Google making thermostats and Google glasses, perhaps soon they will).
D) I suspect that people are happier in stupid houses, stupid buildings and stupid cities. Take a Passivhaus for example. These houses don't have a whole lot of green gizmos; just a whole lot of insulation and carefully designed and placed high quality windows. The temperature doesn't change much inside; a smart thermostat would be bored stupid. People are more comfortable in them, because all the surfaces are pretty much the same temperature as the air. Engineer Robert Bean explains that your body absorbs or radiates heat from the surrounding surfaces. "The less efficient a building, the greater the temperature difference between your skin and the temperatures of the walls, windows, doors, floors and ceilings. It is the temperature differences between you and the building which causes discomfort."
E) Pumping in heat to counteract the draughts of cold air falling off lousy windows is a poor second best to a wall with a foot of insulation in it, even if that heat comes from solar panels on the roof. Building a stupid but happy building is hard work. As Alain de Botton wrote in The Architecture of Happiness: "For us to deem a work of architecture elegant, it is hence not enough that it look simple: we must feel that the simplicity it displays has been hard won, that it flows from the resolution of demanding technical or natural predicament."
F) Office buildings can play dumb too, with awnings to keep the sun out instead of running equipment to remove the heat after it gets in. Nice stairs that make people actually want to walk a flight or two instead of taking the elevator. Light wells and air shafts that put everyone near an operable window. High ceilings so that natural light can penetrate deeply. These make for happier and more comfortable spaces that take control from the stationary engineer and give it to the occupants. A bonus of designing like this is that the construction costs are lower, while the operating costs can be as much as a third less, since if there is air conditioning at all, it is needed very rarely.
G) Finally, there is the stupid but happy city that is based on the simplest and most basic forms of transportation: by foot and bike. Neither of these are particularly sophisticated or high tech and don't need a whole lot of training and management. Yet cities that emphasize and promote their use have vibrant high streets, less congestion, and happier, healthier citizens. Both modes of transport are free or cheap, they let you go anywhere within reasonable distances, not forcing you on to particular train or bus lines or motorways. They give you freedom to choose where you want to go and when, and did I mention they are cheap?
H) In fact, the dumber the city, the better it works. The late Hans Monderman demonstrated that when you take out all that smart urban control stuff like stop signs and traffic lights, people actually interact and work together to avoid hitting each other. People are happier when they have control. Monderman told author Tom Vanderbilt: "When government takes over the responsibility from citizens, the citizens can't develop their own values anymore. So when you want people to develop their own values in how to cope with social interactions between people, you have to give them freedom."
I) There is both freedom and happiness to be found in a city where you can walk or cycle. As Charles Montgomery writes in Happy City, “Why would traveling more slowly and using more effort offer more satisfaction than driving? Part of the answer exists in basic human physiology. We were born to move - not merely to be transported, but to use our bodies to propel us across the landscape. Our genetic forebears have been walking for four million years.”
J) In the end, you can look at the trend among young people to not even bother to get a driver’s license, let alone lust after cars like their baby boomer grandparents did. Their connection to the world is through their technology; for them the happy city might be that described by author Taras Grescoe in my favourite tweet ever (slightly modified) "The real future of the city is 21st century communications (smartphone apps, twitter, texts) and 19th century transport (subway, trams, bikes, walking)." That sounds like a happy place to me.
