אדריכלות ישראלית - גיליון 119

93 / 95

2019 נובמבר 119 אדריכלות ישראלית | שיחת ווטסאפ עם פרופ׳ יאשה גרובמן 93 |
and I’m deliberately using the term
‘project’ rather than ‘building’, knowing
that today architects produce far more
projects than buildings?
Well, most of my projects are the product
of architectural competitions and I’m
naturally proud of the results, particularly
those where there was cooperation
between entrepreneur, project manager
and consultants. An architectural project
requires good team-work – when this
doesn’t happen tensions arise and the
level of achievement is affected.
Compromise is the most challenging
factor in architecture, and since
architecture is always the product
of balance between defaults, this is
exactly what distinguishes between a
computer rendering and a real building
that survives all the upsets and
constraints. I guess you're referring
to the Porter School of Environmental
Studies?
I planned the School of Environmental
Studies with Chen Architects and Dr. Yossi
Cory, and it’s a wonderful example of
excellent cooperation between architects,
consultants, entrepreneur and the project
manager. And indeed, I’m very proud of
it because in my opinion it constitutes a
landmark in green building and climate-
aware planning in the country.
Well, since we’ve touched on a building
that ostensibly represents the issue
of sustainability, it’s logical to ask
whether its intrinsic and, in my opinion,
rather exaggerated climatic concepts,
have indeed proved themselves to be
energy saving.
To the best of my knowledge the building
is working well. It’s saving more energy
than was planned, which indicates that it
is possible to plan and construct a building
with abundant green systems. It doesn’t
only save energy in its daily operation but
also contributes excess energy to other
buildings on the campus. And no less
important, the building constitutes a social
focus in terms of sustainability.
Is there any quantitative energy-
consumption data to compare with
other buildings in the area?
The university compares its energy
consumption with other buildings, and the
data is available at https://environment.
The last
time I checked, energy-saving exceeded
expectations - the building produces cold
water and transfers excess water to the
neighboring building.
Do you really believe that a building
should produce cold water even if it
isn’t an ice factory?...or is it simply
supposed to save in heating costs,
cooling and ventilation, knowing that
about seventy per cent of energy-
saving in the world is wasted on
building maintenance?
Cold water is a type of energy. A building
has to maintain a state of balanced
energy in daily consumption during its life
cycle. Today it is possible to attain such
balance albeit with a high investment that
will return itself over time. However, the
problem is that neither entrepreneurs nor
private or institutional clients are prepared
to make the necessary investment, and
consequently the end consumer lacks the
awareness to demand it.
Allow me to focus on our differences
of opinion in two main areas: One,
the misleading viewpoint whereby a
building should consume no energy at
all. As I see it, it would be sufficient if
we could reduce energy consumption
by forty percent to give us some relief .
The second issue is no less mistaken,
believing that planning an energy-
saving building requires more
investment than basic, climate-aware
thinking; here, I refer you again to
the obligation of architecture schools
where, instead of dealing with the A B
C of basic architectural planning, they
advance idols such as computerized
robotic technology, which at best, give
points to researchers.
And here is an example. Once, about
ninety five percent of apartments had
solar systems for hot water. Today, with
multi-storey buildings, it is impossible
to install solar systems on the roof
and so this has been made redundant.
Have you considered alternatives to
the roof such as, for instance, placing
solar systems in other places on
the building, like porches? Simply
put, doesn’t the popular work with
computerized robotics in the academic
ivory tower place the irrelevant before
the essential? Why, for instance, do
architects (primarily students) still
adhere to passive shading devices,
when there are excellent means of
active shading devices?
A building that produces its own energy is
not a fiction but a reality. We attain such
devices due to the correct combination
of passive planning and active systems.
Working with technology helps in these
contexts as well – due to the ability to
quantitatively measure light-saving -
insulation, ventilation, and solar energy –
abilities that did not exist until a few years
ago.
That’s obvious, but what does a
student learn to do with it? How
does this knowledge actually find
expression in the planning of an actual
building? Are graduates aware of the
heating problem beyond the level of
an individual building when a cluster
of buildings creates on one hand
uncontrolled self-shading, while on the
other hand becomes a heat-trap from
which it is impossible to escape except
via well-functioning air-conditioners,
which is the problem in the first place?
The flag of the faculty is architecture,
landscape architecture, and industrial
design, and not computerized robotics
as you described. We teach advanced
building methods and the use of
advanced assessment tools. Robotics
and computerized CNC is one advantage
over other institutions.
Other institutions in Israel do so as
well and I know they’re just as good.
We’re going in the right direction…
but your answers are still too smooth,
let’s get real, after all, you are first and
foremost a practicing architect. You’re
aware of the fact that the professional
aspect has for some years now
been taken out of the hands of the
architect and placed in the hands of
the Registrar, and not without reason.
There’s a problem with the material
being taught in architectural schools
and, consequently, in the professional
aspect of architecture; this is not new
of course, but it is getting worse and,
in my opinion, it's because there is a
lack of focus on basic subjects.
I understand your criticism of the
Registrar’s intervention in the schools'
syllabus. But I believe he plays an
important role in advancing the profession
by supervising architects' professional
knowledge. I believe that the academy
and the registrar are on the same side
and cannot be presented as adversaries.
Our faculty understood the issue you raise
here and we’ve accordingly promoted a
Master’s Degree in architecture.
Which means that you don’t view
someone with a first degree as an