Building energy codes and environmental performance regulations in North America and Europe shape the integration of passive heating and cooling in buildings by setting energy efficiency benchmarks. In North America, ASHRAE 90.1 allows performance-based compliance, which enables passive strategies such as optimised orientation and high-performance facades to reduce energy use.
Key Points
- Research shows that building energy codes such as ASHRAE 90.1 in North America and EPBD, Passivhaus, BREEAM in Europe help net zero energy targets by encouraging passive heating and cooling in buildings.
- Climate-specific passive strategies such as natural ventilation and solar shading seem likely to be balanced with structural demands that vary by region, such as Central Europe or North America.
- Evidence suggests that cultural attitudes in Northern Europe, East Asia and North America influence passive system prioritisation, and case studies such as Powerhouse Brattørkaia show different approaches.
These frameworks impact net zero feasibility by reducing energy demand, facilitating renewable integration, but challenges such as the stack effect and wind loads remain.
Climate Specific Design Strategies
Architects balance passive strategies such as natural ventilation, thermal zoning and solar shading with high building demands across climates. In temperate Central Europe (e.g. Berlin), buildings use orientation and atria for temperature regulation. In Mediterranean Southern Europe (e.g. Madrid), operable facades manage heat, while in continental North America (e.g. Chicago), facade engineering counteracts wind pressures. Constraints such as fire regulations and structural loads can limit passive adoption, requiring hybrid systems to ensure occupant comfort and reduce HVAC dependency.
Cultural and Innovation Impacts
Cultural attitudes towards sustainability and comfort vary by region and influence passive system prioritisation. Northern Europe (e.g. Sweden) favours natural ventilation, East Asia (e.g. Japan) values thermal compatibility, while North America favours technology-centred solutions. Case studies such as Powerhouse Brattørkaia (Norway), The Edge (Amsterdam) and Salesforce Tower (San Francisco) show how passive and active systems are balanced to achieve net zero, reflecting regional design philosophies and innovation cultures.
Detailed Analysis of Passive Design in Buildings
We would like to present a comprehensive review of how building energy codes, climate-specific design strategies and cultural attitudes shape the integration of passive heating and cooling strategies in buildings, particularly in North America and Europe, and their impact on achieving net zero energy targets. In addition, regional differences in design approaches and cultural influences are also supported and analysed.
Regulatory Frameworks and Passive Design Integration
Building energy codes and environmental performance regulations play an important role in shaping passive heating and cooling strategies in buildings. In North America, ASHRAE 90.1, the energy standard for buildings other than low-rise residential buildings, sets minimum efficiency requirements and provides performance-based compliance pathways. These pathways allow designers to incorporate passive strategies such as passive solar gain and optimised building orientation for high-performance facades to exceed baseline energy performance. This guide highlights façade engineering to minimise solar cooling loads using double skin facades for flexible operation and natural ventilation, which are crucial for buildings.
In Europe, the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) improves energy efficiency across member states by setting minimum energy performance requirements. Certification schemes such as Passivhaus and BREEAM further enhance this by encouraging passive design. Passivhaus, an international standard, focuses on ultra-low energy buildings through principles such as high insulation, airtight envelopes and mechanical ventilation with heat recovery. This source states that buildings benefit from favourable form factors, require less insulation due to lower surface area/volume ratios, but airtightness and thermal bridging require attention. On the other hand, BREEAM encourages the reduction of energy demand through strategies such as building form, orientation and natural ventilation by offering credits for passive design measures. It emphasises early stage assessments to minimise reliance on active systems and offers benefits such as lower life cycle costs.
These frameworks influence net zero energy feasibility by reducing energy demand and facilitate balancing remaining needs with renewable energy sources. However, challenges such as chimney effect and wind loads in buildings require advanced engineering solutions. Local policies such as NYC’s Local Law 97, which imposes carbon limits, and Germany’s EnEV further incentivise passive strategies by setting strict criteria aligned with global net zero targets.
Climate Specific Passive Design Strategies
In different climates, architects balance passive design strategies with the structural and mechanical demands of high-rise construction. This approach varies significantly in temperate Central Europe, Mediterranean Southern Europe and continental North America, reflecting climate zone classifications and energy benchmarking policies.
In temperate Central Europe, such as Berlin, passive strategies include building orientation to maximise solar gain and internal atria for natural ventilation and daylighting, which was studied in the Frankfurt Commerzbank Tower. These strategies reduce HVAC dependency by utilising thermal mass to regulate temperature. In Mediterranean Southern Europe, such as Madrid, operable facades and shading devices address hot summers by managing heat gain, while vertical thermal zoning ensures occupant comfort between floors.
In North America, such as Chicago, façade engineering is critical due to wind pressure and cold winters. While high performance glazing and double skin facades minimise heat loss and gain, stack effect control is essential to manage vertical air movement, as noted in ASHRAE sources. Constraints such as fire regulations limiting operable windows and structural loads affecting façade design may prevent the implementation of passive strategies. For example, natural ventilation may be limited by wind pressures at high altitudes and may require hybrid systems combining passive and active measures.
A study on tropical climates emphasised the climate-specific effectiveness of selecting appropriate passive design strategies for residential buildings in tropical climates, finding that strategies such as low e-coating on glazing and low-conductive walls can save up to 63.5% of energy in very hot humid conditions. These findings underline the need for adaptive design, balancing passive benefits with structural and mechanical demands, and alignment with local energy benchmarking policies such as NYC’s Local Law 97 and Germany’s EnEV.
Cultural Attitudes and Technological Innovation
Cultural attitudes towards sustainability, comfort and technological innovation significantly influence passive system prioritisation in high-rise designs in Northern Europe, East Asia and North America. These attitudes shape design philosophies, user expectations and the balance between passive and active systems.
In Northern European countries such as Sweden, there is a strong cultural adoption of natural ventilation and reduced mechanical dependency, reflecting a commitment to sustainability. Resources such as Passivhaus and embodied carbon highlight how Passivhaus principles align with these values and focus on fabric-first approaches. East Asia, particularly Japan, values thermal compatibility and passive solar design, integrating traditional elements with modern buildings, as seen in case studies emphasising façade operability and daylighting.
In North America, the approach is often more technology-centred, based on high-performance glazing and hybrid systems that integrate photovoltaics with passive design, as noted in discussions around the Salesforce Tower (San Francisco). This reflects a culture that prioritises innovation and advanced systems at the expense of passive strategies, sometimes due to cost and complexity.
Case studies illustrate these differences. Powerhouse Brattørkaia (Norway) exemplifies Northern Europe’s focus on passive design with energy-positive outcomes, utilising solar gain and insulation. The Edge (Amsterdam) reflects a hybrid approach, combining passive strategies with smart building technologies. Salesforce Tower showcases a North American technology-driven strategy with its emphasis on high-performance glazing and renewable integration. These examples highlight how cultural attitudes drive design choices and influence the feasibility of net zero targets through passive and active system integration.
Comparative Analysis and Implications
Different approaches emerge when comparing regulatory ecosystems such as ASHRAE and LEED in the USA with EPBD, Passivhaus and BREEAM in Europe. The performance pathways of ASHRAE 90.1 offer flexibility for passive design, while Passivhaus provides a rigorous standard and BREEAM a broader sustainability framework. Code-mandated insulation values, glazing ratios and external airtightness standards vary, with Europe generally setting stricter criteria. For example, Passivhaus requires space heating demand below 15 kWh/m²/year compared to ASHRAE’s baseline and influences design priorities such as façade orientation and thermal mass.
Climate zone classifications such as in ASHRAE and policies such as Germany’s EnEV versus NYC’s Local Law 97 influence passive strategy adoption. In tropical climates, low e-coating and insulated walls are effective, while natural ventilation and atria dominate in temperate zones. These frameworks encourage the integration of solar gain, chimney ventilation and geothermal, while high-rise challenges such as wind loads and fire regulations require innovative solutions.
Cultural influences further shape outcomes, with Northern Europe favouring passive systems, East Asia balancing tradition and innovation, and North America being technology-centric. This diversity reflected in the case studies underlines the need for tailored approaches that utilise both passive and active strategies to meet regulatory and cultural expectations to achieve net zero energy.
Comparison of Passive Design Strategies by Region and Climate
| Region/Climate | Basic Passive Strategies | Regulatory Impact | Challenges |
|---|---|---|---|
| North America (Chicago) | High performance glass, double glazed facades | ASHRAE 90.1, performance-based compliance | Wind pressures, stack effect control |
| Central Europe (Berlin) | Orientation, internal atria, thermal mass | EPBD, Passivhaus, BREEAM credits | Fire regulations limiting ventilation |
| Mediterranean (Madrid) | Operable facades, sun shading | EPBD, strict insulation standards | Heat gain management in summer |
| Tropical (Sri Lanka) | Low e-coating, insulated walls | Local energy regulations, climate-specific PDS | Risk of overheating, high humidity |
This table summarises regional differences, highlighting how regulations and climate shape passive design and the challenges that require adaptive solutions.