Here is an excellent document published in 2009 related to the Paris Agreement, which states that buildings will be key in transforming the entire energy sector. For the simple reason that buildings today consume 40% of the world's total energy and over 70% of electricity. In any developed country, more than 70% of electricity is consumed by buildings. We are talking about all types of buildings, from residential to commercial, industrial, and so on. The same document says that technologies are available in the market to enable a significant transformation of this sector. We simply need to apply these products. We are not applying new technologies, we are not conducting analyses in this sector in the way it should be done. What we can see, for example, even in modern buildings with perfect modern control and monitoring systems, is that at the same time, for heating, cooling, ventilation, mechanical ventilation, all the windows are open, and the users are dissatisfied. How can this happen in the 21st century in a modern new building with a modern management system is now a question? It actually shows the inefficiencies of the entire industry. Today, sensors, something that measures temperature or any parameter, are very, very inexpensive. You have buildings that have thousands of sensors. All this data is collected on a central computer, which is phenomenal. You have so much data that you can work with, that you can immediately conclude something, look at two numbers and say, 'Wait a minute, on the 5th floor, I have both heating and cooling running simultaneously, something is wrong, someone should go up and see what's happening.' This hasn't become a standard in the profession yet. We still don't do that. In that segment, we still look at all the data, and we don't draw any particularly intelligent conclusions based on them.It's like going to a doctor, getting a bunch of tests done, receiving the results, looking at them, and not drawing any conclusions from them.

We can say that the problem with conventional construction is that it doesn't utilize the knowledge that could make it smarter and more sustainable. We are talking about the classic saying of ‘for as little money as possible, as many square meters of living space as possible.’

Actually, what's very interesting is that people, when they didn't have as much available technology, were much more intelligent in the way they designed the buildings they lived and worked in, and so on.

What's sad in Croatia, in my opinion, is that wooden architecture, traditional architecture, has been completely pushed aside, neglected, and discarded in favor of mass construction, the classic brick and reinforced concrete. People somehow felt the need to move away from those small structures that might not be suitable for larger family living, and they neglected the fact that it could be easily adapted to modern housing needs. Currently, we are in Trešnjevka, near Trešnjevački plac, in a densely built structure where, about half a year ago, we completed a residential building constructed with a wooden frame. My architectural office is located here, primarily dealing with designing buildings using wooden structures, and we often use natural materials for insulation, such as straw. In the house we designed for a client who wanted to build with wood and straw, it was constructed on a slope, where we adapted the structure to the terrain to minimize excavation work. There is a 1000-liter tank that accumulates heat, ensuring the house's energy needs for two or three days without activating the heating system. There is also a large south-facing glass wall that minimizes heating costs during the winter. Only the essential elements within the terrain are massive and concrete, which eventually leave an environmental footprint on the property. Everything else is biodegradable. The construction system used was a wooden frame filled with straw bales. For the interior finish, clay plaster was used, which is excellent for regulating the microclimate within the space. When it comes to facades, we often use locally sourced wood if it's available to the investor, promoting local production, which is ethical and environmentally friendly at the societal level.

We suffer from what is called the 'Sick-Building Syndrome.' The materials that originate from the chemical construction industry today, such as various solvents and synthetic substances, are the ones we inhale. This can have long-term negative effects on our health.

What bothers me the most is the feeling of being in a hermetically sealed space filled with plastic tarps, adhesives, and paints. In contrast, in old buildings made of stone, wood, or clay, you can feel that they are made of living materials that breathe. This feeling is crucial.

More and more architects are turning to natural materials and furthering their education to use them in their projects. In an upscale neighborhood in Zagreb, there are approximately ten amazing straw bale houses on a slope, which are not externally recognizable as such. Often, architects are the clients who have designed these houses for themselves. Living in houses made of natural materials offers significant benefits. Above all, the rooms are made from non-toxic materials and excel at regulating humidity within the spaces. Through good design, these buildings are often designed as intelligent passive houses and do not require complex technology for temperature regulation. Green roofs and rooftop gardens help maintain a comfortable room temperature in the summer without the need for air conditioning. Living in such buildings creates a special microclimate and contributes to an improved quality of life. Our houses are loyal companions and close friends of their inhabitants.

If you want to act sustainably, first consider whether renovation or remodeling is possible before considering new construction. his is often more environmentally friendly. If new construction is necessary, choose the location carefully, taking into account factors like sunlight, natural ventilation, water flow, and terrain. These forward-thinking considerations help avoid future issues such as excessive energy consumption.

When we talk about true sustainable construction, it should encompass the entire life cycle of the building, from the creation of the materials to their integration into the structure and the way the building is used. This is a truly puritanical approach to sustainability. However, the lifespan of a building is not just the period while we use it but also when the building needs to be demolished. The energy consumed during demolition is also something we need to think about.

The ideal of construction is somehow conceived in a way that there is no waste, but once something is produced, once that resource is extracted from nature and used, it can be used again and again. It's not from cradle to grave, but from cradle to cradle.

In the 20th century, we didn't know enough about sustainability. In the 20th century, we didn't know enough about sustainability. We built houses with large heating and cooling systems, relying on technology. And what about the consequences?

Until recently, the only criterion we thought about was how to make myself comfortable, and I was willing to pay the price of the energy that was currently on the market. An example of this is America, where the price of electricity is much lower than in Europe, and Americans consume about twice as much energy compared to some other European countries to meet their life needs. Why? Because it is specifically cheaper there. We have only recently started thinking that maybe we are disturbing the overall balance of the country in which we live, that some climate changes are happening, that energy is becoming very expensive, that it is becoming less accessible in some cases, that we may not want to use fossil fuels, and it is only in the last few, about two decades, that we have started thinking; 'Can I meet those needs in a smarter way?

We are in the office of Održivo in Split, where normally a team of 5 employees specialized in sustainable construction works. All 5 or 6 colleagues all participated in the design, but initially, of course, the basic idea was mine. However, it has been shown in practice to be quite complex to be both an investor and a designer and you need to manage the budget thinking and think about how it can be made feasible and not just remain on paper. The main concept of the house was, of course, we wanted to simply apply everything we have learned in the last 10 years. This means that, to the extent possible, we better design the house itself according to the principles of passive architecture, and also use materials that we think are optimal. The main massive construction is wooden, while the filling and the mass of the wall are made of hempcrete, because we simply did long-term research to find out which material would be the best both in terms of health, environmental impact, and maintenance, and we came to hemp. The house was initially supposed to be small, but as we had a third child in the meantime, the residential part is about 110 square meters, and there are another 50-60 square meters in the production and economic part. So, it's essentially a residential-economic complex, like a mini farm, just for intensive vegetable production. There were about 10 criteria. Southern orientation, a slight slope towards the south so that it is ideally lit and warm in the winter, and cooler in the summer. That it is relatively close to the city for the education system for children, that it is fertile land for food production, and that it is relatively protected from the wind, which is quite important in Dalmatia.

We searched for a suitable piece of land for years in vain - either the price, the location, or the complicated ownership didn't fit. Then, my husband happened to stop here and asked the man across the street if anyone here was selling land by any chance. He pointed to his cousin across the street, and that was it. A real stroke of luck. The project was designed not only according to our personal preferences but also for functionality. Here in this area, we plan a modern vegetable garden. Everything is designed so that everything works smoothly during harvesting, watering, or packaging. We have tailored everything to this garden that we will later manage. The idea is to grow a significant amount of vegetables in a regenerative way in a limited space. So, no invasive cultivation, no artificial fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides. We just loosen the earth with a broad fork. My interest in agriculture was mainly awakened by our macrobiotic diet, which my husband and I have been practicing for several years. He has some health issues, and so we started looking into this...

Fast foods, unhealthy eating, not thinking about what I eat and drink at all, just give me. And at one point, I hit a wall and realized it can't go on, and I lost 40 kg in 6 months, and, you know, I totally changed my life through nutrition, through... The biggest change is how the brain works.

So it goes something like that. You start thinking about clothing, what you wear, then you start thinking about where you live, and you realize you live in an environment with a lot of plastic, particleboard with a lot of glue, and you can feel all that as you breathe. You come to the countryside, and it's a completely different air. You come to the city, and everything smells. So, you start to realize that it's not all the same anymore. Then, somehow, you end up here. In a wooden house made of hemp. I hope that in 2 years, it will be more or less finished. He [Mein Mann] thinks maybe in a year, but I think that's too optimistic.

If you, as the owner, won't be using that building, your approach and perception of how you build it will be significantly different. So, if there's an investor today who's building something to rent out later, and someone else will be paying the energy bills, it's, of course, very different.

If something comes back to me in 10, 20, 30 years, then it's in my selfish interest to make a choice that is ecological, even though today it may seem like throwing money away. I mean, that wind will return.

If I design a house that is energy... even produces more than it consumes, and these costs are up to 80, 90% lower. That means we're talking about serious amounts long-term, and people have learned to only look at how much they spend in the short term... It's amazing how people take buying a car more seriously than buying a house and designing.

What people are often not aware of is that the payback time for adding insulation is very, very long. When I say very long, I mean 10, 15, sometimes even more years. In contrast, there are changes in technical systems. That is, in heating, cooling, ventilation systems, which you can make and which will lead you to much faster results, with a much shorter payback period. Why doesn't this happen? Because it's easiest to replace insulation and actually subsidize such things, rather than looking at the whole system. It's an industry rule that every degree of temperature up or down increases your bill by about 3 to 5%. For heating or cooling. So, 20 degrees and 22 degrees is a relatively large increase in your bills. So, when we think about energy-efficient solutions, we never think in the context of saving energy at any cost, making people uncomfortable. I don't recommend anyone to reduce it to 18 degrees, but how to meet the conditions with the lowest possible consumption of resources. That's the right question.

The main problem with conventional construction is that things are not optimized. They are often oversized. And in that process, resources are not saved enough. That's one problem. The other problem is that the choice of materials is not questioned. The ecological footprint of a material is not questioned, what its real price is when that cement, that iron, that aluminum, that glass is produced... How much transportation is involved, and what is the actual cost our planet pays for this story. Because construction is a huge sector in the overall economic story, and as such, it is responsible for a lot of waste and a very large amount of greenhouse gas emissions. Modern construction doesn't take that into account.

Traditional cement production generates three times more CO2 than the global aviation industry.

The CO2 footprint of a material indicates how much energy and greenhouse gas emissions were consumed from the extraction of raw materials to processing, packaging, transportation, and eventually its use in buildings. This overall assessment allows us to evaluate the environmental impacts of different materials. Ideally, a material has a low CO2 footprint and a broad ecological footprint. However, traditional building materials like concrete, bricks, steel, aluminum, and metals, in general, have the disadvantage of emitting significant amounts of greenhouse gases during their production. This occurs especially in processes requiring high temperatures, such as brick firing or metal melting. Which often involve the use of fossil fuels like coal, oil, and gas. Which offers excellent thermal insulation and reuses waste products. In the near future, CO2 certificates for conventional building materials or a taxation of materials based on their environmental impacts could be introduced. This would make more environmentally friendly materials relatively cheaper than those with higher environmental burdens. An example is the use of styrofoam for insulation, which remains attractive due to lower taxes. However, there are more sustainable options like insulation made from recycled newspapers or wood fiberboards. Another eco-friendly building material is straw, which offers excellent thermal insulation and reuses waste products. The use of such materials can help minimize the CO2 footprint of construction projects and mitigate climate change. This is crucial as the construction industry significantly contributes to greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon storage in building materials like wood or straw is a sustainable method to slow down the CO2 cycle and relieve the planet.

What we honestly do is super romantic, and people find it appealing, but realistically, it's much harder and requires a lot more personal commitment and time, or more finances. That's why most people don't do it because building a hemp and wood house, fully green, is more complex than ordering these concrete blocks... Part of the issue is with the craftsmen themselves because we don't have enough specialized craftsmen for this natural construction.

An exceptionally large number of people are interested in building healthier homes. A very large number, indeed. I know this through our Z.M.A.G. advisory service. I have between 450 and 500 consultations per year, most of which are related to construction. If you consider that we're talking about a small country like ours, it's a significant number. We have interest, we have a market in formation, but we lack quality builders. What we do, through our Natural Building Academy, is conduct workshops and such, aiming to provide the technical knowledge, skills, and transfer expertise to people who will make a living out of it. So, our focus is on the builders. 5, 175, and 5, that's 185, plus 5 centimeters on each side for this peg. So, the height of this peg is 5 cm. We start with the design, positioning of buildings, site selection, and reading blueprints. We often build straw bale houses with wooden post-and-beam construction, straw infill walls, clay plaster on the inside, and most often lime plaster on the outside. Parts of the facades vary depending on the position and type of the building, whether wood, some kind of sheet metal, or whether they stay with extensive clay or lime plasters. We create green roofs, i.e., extensive roof gardens. We build rocket mass heaters... In short, a wide range of construction. So, the Natural Building Academy offers comprehensive education for builders, investors, contractors, and enthusiasts interested in this field. People often think that building with natural materials is cheaper because they frequently don't understand what it entails. They often imagine some primitive forms of buildings, primitive living conditions without electricity, water, and so on. Of course, materials like wood, straw, and excavated earth are cheaper than concrete, gravel, insulation, and steel. Indeed, these materials are cheaper, but we lack the systems for their widespread use.That's an aspect we still need to work on. There is significantly more manual labor involved, which increases the overall cost. You get a complete picture when you see how the entire eco-building concept operates in a place like Austria or Germany, where it's a significant part of the overall construction industry. However, it's still not a huge industry, not even in Germany. But roughly 3 to 5% of all buildings incorporate eco-friendly construction principles, and that's a substantial part of the industry.

In the European Union, especially countries like Austria, which is geographically close to us, as well as Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands, there's significant progress in eco-friendly construction. Many of these countries are extensively using wood for construction, and this doesn't just apply to small structures but also to large-scale buildings. For instance, Austria has incentive programs for housing construction where it's necessary to use materials like the cross-laminated timber from which this house is constructed. This practice supports the development of their construction industry.

I don't know how likely such changes are, but what I do believe is necessary is to push in that direction. These changes can be driven by local communities that understand the importance of their local economy. Non-governmental organizations can advocate for this. The construction industry itself can also promote these changes, as can architects, urban planners, landscape architects, mechanical engineers, and various experts who have influence in their respective fields.

How this is observed in practice is that you still have 99% of solutions that are conventional, ones that have been around for the past 50 years. People are not educating themselves, not adopting new technologies, and even if you want to implement new technologies, there is significant resistance from a certain part of the market's projectors. They don't know how to do it, so there's this resistance— "I don't want that, it's not good." So, when you don't know something, when you're not familiar with something, there's a natural fear of the unknown. Thus, the problems start first within the profession, and then they reflect onto a broader population that should be benefiting from the knowledge of that profession.

One of the challenges I encounter in working on such projects, meaning wooden constructions where we are trying to use materials that are not traditional, such as bricks, concrete, styrofoam, and steel, is that they are not readily available on the market. There are various materials like sheep's wool, straw, seaweed, and even hemp, but they are not widely distributed. This might be difficult for someone who needs these materials to be easily accessible in order to organize construction in this manner.

For instance, in many European countries, it is legal to build with straw. Building with certified straw is also legal in Croatia, but the certification process can be expensive. For a small market, it's a significant risk to undertake the certification of a new material, especially if it needs to transition from an alternative to a mainstream choice.

We conducted testing on the physics and chemistry of straw bales as part of a project funded through IGH. We concluded that our certified straw bale would cost around 5 euros during installation when factoring in all the elements we invested in it, and we have to. You can buy a bale now during the summer harvest season from 0,66 to 1,20 EUR. This is an absurdity. We have the most local materials available to us here, but we are in a situation where we have to navigate through regulations to legalize our buildings.

In a way, the system aims to protect consumers because not everyone has the knowledge about how dry the material must be, i.e., what moisture content is safe for it to be installed in a building, and how it should be covered on both sides to ensure its safety. People often confuse insulation with hay, which is something completely different. So, the system is trying to protect the general public from the use of materials that are not suitable.

Because everything is overregulated, bureaucratized, and standardized. You know, there's an example where you can build a house that meets all the regulations but is very unhealthy for the occupants and has a negative environmental impact, yet it complies with the rules. On the other hand, there's another direction that benefits the environment and nature, but it's not fully regulated by the rules.

Why is there so much inefficiency, a large amount of entropy, chaos in our construction? Because we have laws that aren't enforced. Because there are no consequences for those who break them. Because if we have people who stand up to these things, they're still too few, not big enough to form a critical mass.

How much am I as a member of a community responsible for something, As a member of the community? how much am I as a global citizen responsible for something? As a global citizen? This is a matter that shouldn't lead to blame but should lead to awareness, and then to choices and decisions.

I just want to say that real changes won't happen until there is a certain political will. Because all this is just pulling and pushing, which is normal in the development of a young society.

What bothers me the most is when I see the potential is there, the system is in place, and the gap between where the potential lies and where reality stands is very large. This can be observed in various things, including industry, education, and the profession. There are incredibly qualified people, students at this faculty and other universities who are absolutely world-class in terms of knowledge and expertise. However, there are many things that hinder the realization of that potential. There are many obstacles, many people who just want to maintain the status quo. In well-organized systems, these people wouldn't be able to hold these positions, have a seat at the discussion table. We are simply in a static position, a situation where there's a small number of experts, the same companies are always in rotation, and things are done in a similar way. There's not much competition that would drive those who can do better to strive for improvement because there's a relatively small number of firms and some level of dominance. So, I'm always in favor of bringing in new practices, people who can introduce something new. They can help us raise the level of results we deliver, the projects we create.

Here's the driveway. All compost, wood chips, and materials for the garden go in there. There's an economic terrace, a laundry room, a tool shed, a storage room, and a greenhouse for seedlings. So that's the hub where everything comes in, and at the same time, everything we grow, vegetables and seeds, is somehow weighed, stored, organized, and sent to the market in Split. You enter through the tool shed, greenhouse into the entrance area where there's a cloakroom. On the southern side, we have a veranda, which is the entrance for guests, especially during workshops. It's the "representative" entrance. So, we have this service entrance and the economic one. This is practically the main entrance to the house. The main part of the house is this kitchen, deliberately designed to connect the inside with the outside, connecting the economic and residential parts. It's like a chambered bridge. From this point in the kitchen, you can see the entrance, the whole view of what's happening in the garden, and a fantastic view of Mosor, 1300 meters high. So, it's all connected. On one side is the residential terrace, where you dine outside, have lunch, dinner, and breakfast outside, connecting to the summer kitchen and the educational part. Here's the dining room and the living room with a wood-burning stove and a fireplace. In front of that is the residential terrace. This is where most of our life takes place, making the most of being outside. What's essential is that it's protected on three sides, allowing us to spend time outdoors even in the winter, even when it's windy, and so on. This is the most sheltered part of the house. So, under this residential terrace, there's a 100 cubic meter rainwater tank, which collects rain from all the roof surfaces, supplying all the house's needs. All the water overflowing from this tank flows into this natural pool, which is envisioned as a small eco-system. Here, reeds, water lilies, and all aquatic plants help purify the water. What's crucial for us is that it serves as a microclimate zone that moderates the climate and provides a habitat for biodiversity. The water heats up and cools down very slowly. The more water there is, and the deeper it is, the more constant the temperature becomes, usually around 15-16 degrees. It doesn't overheat, nor does it cool down too quickly. This is a fascinating solution because during the summer, when it's 40 degrees outside, this water cools the terrace, making it a pleasant place to be. When you open the windows on the north and south, it allows cross-ventilation, the ceiling provides shade, and that's the whole idea of a passive house: to make it more comfortable for living. Similarly, in the winter when it's cold and the temperature is below 4-5 degrees, this 15-16-degree water heats the entire area. There's another part of the story where this accumulation serves to reflect the sun's heat, particularly in the low winter sun, further warming the space. I'm aware that even in the case of our own house, we haven't met all the criteria. You reach a dilemma. You need a solid, high-quality foundation, and you can experiment with stone or beams to a certain extent. But at one point, you decide to have a concrete foundation, only for the foundation, not the entire house.

You're trying to use ecological materials, but you can't achieve a complete solution. It's not as comprehensive as you'd like it to be. But then, when thinking about it, I realized that these local interventions and even those smaller steps that you manage to implement on a building are enough to create small shifts. Over time, these shifts can accumulate and eventually lead to more substantial change.

In 2005, there wasn't a single house made of straw bales in Croatia. Today, 16 years later, there are more than 100 of them.

I would say that in the last 3 to 4 years, I've seen significant changes in the Croatian market. However, I want to emphasize that the industry's inertia is not unique to Croatia; it's a global issue. Changes are starting to happen, but they are not originating from the industry itself; they come from educated investors. They are coming with ideas, having read about advanced technologies, and wanting to apply them to their buildings, regardless of whether it's more complicated or requires additional consultations, experts, time, or resources.

I believe that within the next 10 years, certified straw and certified hemp will be much more commonly used building materials. Furthermore, within 20 years, I anticipate that a substantial portion of the cement, brick, and even steel industry will transition to renewable energy sources. I believe that even if you are building with bricks and concrete, the carbon footprint will be significantly smaller than it is today.

26% fewer emissions than in 1990 - today we emit a quarter less CO2 per ton of produced cement.

Well, I must admit that I don't feel like I'm fighting windmills. The truth is that I consume an enormous amount of energy in an attempt to make a change and so on. Fighting windmills is when you're fighting for something and nothing succeeds, and I feel that, at least, something is working. Maybe it's not as much as I would like, maybe it's not as much as I expected, but it's just as much as is possible in this system with all the other parameters that are in place. I somehow feel that I can contribute a lot here. Maybe I can point out a different way to organize and do certain things. And working with fantastic young people with whom I work at the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture is a sufficient incentive for me to stay here.

I dream about waking up on our property. How we enjoy it with the children, and I really can't wait. Every day, we work for 16 to 18 hours towards that goal, and I dream about it every day. There are more and more of us every day. Today and tomorrow, 10, then 100, then 1000, so we can regenerate both Dalmatia and Croatia. We cannot feel free or have happiness and satisfaction if others are not doing well, if others don't experience that positive impact.

I dream that our beautiful country fully embraces green technologies. I dream that the full potential, well, not just the full potential, but dozens of potentials that we have, are realized, and that we turn towards such markets, such guests, and such habits. It will come to pass that this society will mature, and we will indeed be mature and grateful stewards.

All the things that currently seem economically unaffordable for us to be eco-friendly, in the end, society has to pay for them. All the negative consequences of ecological problems are also problems for our health. When I say society has to pay, who is society? Taxpayers. So, all of us will ultimately have to pay for it. I would like us to look at, okay, if we currently have some environmentally negative practices, who benefits from them? Are there perhaps companies and individuals, financial institutions currently benefiting from environmentally negative practices and maybe even making a significant profit from them? Where does that profit go? Does it go to offshore accounts? Does it go into the treasury? Does enough of it go into the treasury so that we can use that tax money to remedy all these environmentally negative effects and could we possibly make a turnaround so that we don't just remedy but also prevent? In other words, can we invest that money in changing and engaging in different industries, using different materials, renewable sources of energy, and so on?

There's an old saying that goes, 'Let your enemy live in the new construction for a year before you move in.

A high-quality wooden house with straw walls costs us about as much as a concrete and brick house if we hire someone to do it.

Paradoxically, when people buy a car, they pay attention to the consumption per kilometer and plan their expenses accordingly. However, when it comes to building a house, they often forget about the long-term water and electricity consumption over the next 50 years. The real savings, however, occur precisely within this lengthy time frame.

I'm actually very pleased by the fact that my very own house, one day when it becomes no longer usable and might need to be rebuilt or demolished, will leave much less waste behind. It will practically be able to decompose naturally.

What is sustainable in this circle is not actually sustainable; sustainability is determined by what's sustainable within a much larger circle, beyond my small building, my small community, and my small country. It's about expanding the boundaries of the system, as the engineer would say.

CONSTRUCTION