‘This is a wonderful book that should be on the desk of every architect and planner. It shows how

Is the outside–in or inside–out better suited for value-adding ecological space?
They are probably about the same. We noted that traditional design can concentrate on the inputs and 
outputs at the building envelope or ‘box’.
49
In passive solar design, input–output thinking is manifested 
in many instances in the reliance on passive solar design ‘cross-sections’. That is, the passive solar 
diagrams typically used to explain thermal heat gain, loss and storage in materials and walls are 
understood and conveyed by cross-sections of walls, floors, ceilings and glass: the envelope. In turn, 
these diagrams (showing forces entering, exiting or warming up the box, depending on its shape, mass, 
insulation, etc) are often the starting point from which passive solar design begins. Many passive 
solar buildings, in fact, often seem to simply extrude two-dimensional passive solar diagrams into 
three dimensions. A cross-section of an ‘efficient box’ is generated to fit the spatial requirements of 
the client and planning requirements of the local authority. The elements are optimized for economic, 
social and environmental efficiency, tradeoffs are made, and the resulting green envelope is modified 
to meet the dictates of style. Then, once again, a quantity surveyor or tendering process confirms 
that the building is over budget and the green bits are excised from the plan
Can’t design templates based on input–output thinking stimulate good design? 
Good design generally results from synthesis, synergy and symbiosis, supported – but not driven – by 
a linear-reductionist analysis and iterative process. If there is such a thing as an ecological intuition, 
many design schools teach students to be counterintuitive. Of course, input–output thinking has 
provided many useful insights when applied to environmental and other challenges. It led to tools, 
like LCA, which help us to understand, measure and mitigate negative impacts [Chapter 5]. However, 
any pattern of analysis that is seen as ‘all-encompassing’ or ‘the solution’ will confine our thinking 
and eventually lead to blinds spots, or what we could call the Sorcerer’s Apprentice syndrome. Like 
our other tools of environmental management, the input–output approach in building design breaks 
problems down into forces or impacts at the boundary. This also reflects and reinforces a negative 
view of nature. The environment, in design, has been implicitly perceived as a constraint or threat, 
and buildings have often been described as ‘shelters’ from a hostile nature. The focus on ‘negatives’ 
limits opportunities for ‘positive’ thinking. Since forces or factors are conceived as acting at the 
building envelope (or castle wall), green design solutions are often a response to threats. Therefore, 
the building becomes a mix of 
defensive
strategies (eg shading, insulation, and sound and visual 
barriers). As suggested earlier, better design would come from affirmatively supporting nature by 
providing the infrastructure and space for nature to support us.

---

112
Positive Development
The environment has been represented by negative threats or forces that need to be mitigated by buildings, 
and more recently, forces created by the building upon the environment that need to be mitigated. That is, the 
perception that green design must control environmental forces on the building or user is simply the reverse 
of building impact assessment. This could be re-conceived as environmental flows with surpluses that could 
be captured for human use, if not unduly interrupted by development.
Outside–in: analysis of negative 
environmental factors impacting 
on the building envelope 
(resource-centred).
Inside–out: analysis of
negative environmental factors 
impacting on the building user 
(human-centred).
Impact assessment: analysis 
of negative environmental 
impacts of the building on the 
environment and/or humans.
Figure 9 ‘Outside–in’ and ‘inside–out’ approaches to design and assessment