How do I get my design to meet expectations of comfort?

I was a gymnast and a National Champion in my grade at the age of 10. Now, I enjoy watching my boys compete in trampolining. Brilliant. What fascinates me are the different coaching expectations and outcomes on display at their competitions.

When I competed, my coach, John Taylor, expected us to do the simple things perfectly. I’m referring to the voluntaries, where competitors string together their own routines. Judging was based on levels of difficulty in moves and sequences of moves, with a minimum number of difficulty points required but theoretically no upper limit of "artistic expression," which for 10-year-old boys probably amounted to "not much".

John’s coaching directed us to the simplest routines executed with no mistakes. No mistakes meant no deductions and consistency, and some would argue that it is not particularly exciting gymnastics.

Compare that approach to what I observed within the last few weeks, where some trampoline competitors were pushing every possible combination of somersaults, double somersaults, some with a twist, all the while getting lower and lower and more desperate to maintain control of limbs — think gangly teenagers being thrown about inside a washing machine. Maybe that’s a good thought.

Other competitors were executing more straightforward routines flawlessly, and it was ultimately more enjoyable watching them.

While simpler in overall form, the flawless routines have a definite grace and elegance of control, and watching them is enjoyable. The flash and dash routines have a rawness, and there is a real expectation of a crash. It is definitely a picture of risk vs. reward because as I watched, it started to become disappointing and predictable, albeit somewhat compulsive viewing, waiting for the mistakes.

The competitors producing flawless routines were ultimately the winners.

My story is a tale of compulsive viewing for the spectators, but the winner here is really the spectator, not the competitor. I’m drawing a very short bow to residential house design, where the flash and dash home is for others' viewing pleasure and might, for various reasons, neglect the thermal performance required for comfort and liveability in the 21st Century. The good news is that the difference between an existing design and reasonable or good thermal performance is not massive and not massively difficult. A big glass box in Central Otago might not be in this category, however. So, how can occupant enjoyment be improved without designing boring boxes?

Calculate the right amount of insulation for our climate (in-use performance) for:

• Walls: The R-value of insulation is one thing, but what is the installed performance?

• Windows: Find out what U­g and Uw mean for performance.

• Ceilings: Is it possible to over-insulate to attempt to overcome old performance?

• Penetrations: How are they connected for insulation, airtightness and weathertightness.

I think this comes down to spending time getting past old habits (dragging and dropping generic details); one example is the expectation of thermal performance from a window that is only installed to meet requirements of weathertightness, resulting in condensation forming.

So work with us, apply for a scholarship to (or fund one of your team members into) a design course through the Passive House Academy New Zealand, where these concepts are explored in depth. It doesn’t mean you have to produce Certified Passive Houses; just increase your knowledge around improved thermal performance, indoor air quality, and comfort—it may take some re-education, but your clients will thank you for it.