What was your impression of the debate at the symposium?

”There is a general understanding that passive houses have taken the debate to a certain level. The general consensus is that rules for passive houses can become restrictive, though, both in the design process and in terms of the way we actually live in buildings. I think we all agree that we need to go a bit further now.”

How do you see the role of the architect in moving the Active House idea forward?

“Today’s debate was very much about defining quality and not just reverting to quantity when describing the performance of a building. The issue of comfort is difficult to quantify, but there was an acknowledgement that quantifying quality is a crucial part of the solution. The role of the architect in general is to foster debate, but in specific projects it is to encourage a team spirit that can actually take the projects towards these goals and possibly beyond. But for a while yet there will only be few projects that live up to Active House standards”.

How do you envision the way forward at this stage?

“If the Active House can take root and drag the passive house with it then of course that will lead to much more widespread acknowledgement within the general public of what is to gain from what we are doing. The goals are there, and the question now is how to reach them. The role of the architect in this is to show the bandwidth, so to speak. We should demonstrate what the long term benefits are”.

The interview with David H. Cook was carried out immediately after the debate at the Active House symposium in Brussels on March 24^th.