Shakespeare's solar geometry

My friend John Perlin is a leading expert regarding ancient peoples' knowledge of solar principles.  He recently alerted me to this passage in Shakespeare's The Life and Death of Julius Caesar (1695).

source: archive.org

source: archive.org

Perlin is impressed by Shakespeare's high awareness of solar geometry.  Casca tells Decius Brutus, Cinna, and Cassius that the sun rises South-of-east (in Winter), but in the "youthful season" (Spring) it will rise North-of-east.

Perlin wrote the excellent Let It Shine: The 6,000-Year Story of Solar Energy (2013), which built upon and revised his landmark A Golden Thread: 2500 Years of Solar Architecture and Technology (1980).

Sunlight Towers, Lawrence Kocher, 1929

Here's an interesting project which was sun-responsive but not solar heated.  Therefore I place projects like this in the category of heliotherapeutic architecture as distinct from solar architecture.  (This is not a value judgement; it discerns that the architecture is not concerned with solar heating and therefore not designed strategically with regard to orientation and solar geometry.  Kocher is interested in sunlight for health and hygiene.)

The fact that Sunlight Towers was was sun-responsive but not solar heated is indicated by the large amount of glass, with corner windows in all major rooms, placed in every direction, irrespective of orientation.  Kocher oriented the towers at forty-five degree angles to the urban grid.  He sought daylight (and cross-ventilation) but did not optimize to gather solar heat and protect against the cold north.  This is classic 1920s architecture, influenced by the sanatorium movement and Le Corbusier.

The project was not built.  This was published in Architectural Record in March 1929 (just before the Great Depression).

Had it been built, it would have used a large amount of energy, and it would have been quite uncomfortable, by later standards.

See also: Le Corbusier and the Sun

2017 Solar Decathlon: Denver

News: The 2017 Solar Decathlon will be held in suburban Denver.  Link

When the contest was held in Irvine, California, I complained: "This is a significant and disappointing decision because it confirms that the contest is about solar electricity, not solar heating.  In Irvine in October, the average temperature is 64˚F, practically room temperature!  ... Why not hold the contest in Minneapolis a month later?"

In October in Denver, the average temperature is 49˚F (High - 65; Low - 36).  Heating will be needed!

See also:
Help Wanted: The Solar Decathlon
Too Expensive: The Solar Decathlon
#SD2015
The Solar Decathlon: Back to Irvine
The “Shading Decathlon”?

Reyner Banham on Household Energy

For architects and engineers who want energy-efficient buildings, it's natural to be interested in how buildings were heated, cooled, and lit before modern times.  I've taught a class about this myself.  Steven Mouzon, author of The Original Green: Unlocking the Mystery of True Sustainability (2010), writes on his website:

“Originally, before the Thermostat Age, the places we built and buildings we built had no choice but to be green, otherwise people would freeze to death in the winter, die of heat strokes by summer, starve to death, or other really bad things would happen to them.”

Mouzon's point is true, in a sense, but its truth depends on the word "green" being tied to a modern conception of energy use.

Reyner Banham had a different point of view, which took account of broader issues.  In this quotation he castigated educators who romanticized the low energy use in buildings before (what Mouzon calls) the Thermostat Age:

"It might also be a good idea to fire anybody, but especially historians, who pretends that vernacular or pre-modern architecture was ever conspicuously less wasteful of available energy than is modern architecture.  As penance they might be condemned to spend two semesters in a vernacular structure in some part of the world that does not have a freakish-benign climate (i.e., not New Mexico) carrying up wood and water, breaking ice, carrying out ordures, chasing flies off rotting food, etc.  The fact that no energy-consuming equipment is marked on the plans of such structures does not mean that no energy was consumed in themask any eighteenth century serving wench about Georgian houses!"*

Though Banham clearly was not politically-correct (and pointlessly gender-specific, since a lot of Georgian domestic workers were men), his comment raises the important issue of labor and class.  Pre-modern comfort depended on cheap labor and an underclass.  (It seems to me there is very little literature about this issue; perhaps it comes up in older British sources Banham would have read.)  Banham believed in "applied power": The Industrial Revolution, the rise of the middle class, and the development of modern comfort were directly interrelated, all contributing to the standard of living we enjoy.

My view?  There may be techniques and mindsets to be usefully appropriated from pre-modern building practices (especially, it seems to me, in daylighting), but it's not helpful to be naive about the standards of living in past eras, including issues of labor and class. 

Your view?  (Comments welcome!)

*"Educators Roundtable," Journal of Architectural Education, February 1977.

Previously:
A great Banham quotation
Reyner Banham on Solar Heating
Reyner Banham's Unwarranted Apology

Also related:
The "Surprisingly Sophisticated" Fallacy