4 key differences between European and US residential architecture practice
While the two ways of approaching architectural design seem almost identical, there are several subtle differences between the two. These differences mainly come from the way the practice has developed in both regions. The European approach is more complex with multiple moving parts, while the US approach is faster to get off the ground and focuses on efficient construction.
This article will focus on small and medium-scale residential projects, so please note that as we go higher in complexity, the situation changes.
European architects have a specialist-driven approach to architecture, with a clear separation of responsibilities between architects, structural engineers, and MEP engineers.
This approach leads to a more complex design process with more people involved and more time spent in the design phase.
On the other hand, the US practice, especially for smaller residential projects, relies more heavily on the architect with other specialists coming in as consultants.
European architects tend to employ a research-focused approach that starts with site analysis, local jurisdiction research, and precedent study while US architects prioritize adapting solutions to design for faster and more streamlined projects.
European residential architecture has always emphasized energy efficiency and sustainable design, including passive and simple solutions, such as cross ventilation, instead of advanced technologies.
European architects focus on researching and using diverse materials in their designs, avoiding standard materials.
Specialist-Driven
Recreation Island House, 2by4 Architects, Breukelen, Netherlands
European architects put a strong emphasis on their specialist-driven approach to architecture. This approach is characterized by the careful allocation of responsibilities to each expert in the field of design. With this approach, the design process is more complex, with more people involved, and more time spent in the design phase. The design process is broken down into three main components: architectural design, structural engineering, and MEP engineering.
Each of these components has experts who provide the design. The architectural design is led by the architect and provides the foundation from which all other specialists begin their respective parts. Structural engineering is headed by a structural engineer who provides all the information, drawings, and details to build the structure of the design. MEP stands for mechanical, electrical, and plumbing, and depending on the complexity of the project, can be provided by one or multiple engineers. In EU jurisdictions, there is a clear separation, with every specialist in charge of their segment. This specialist-driven approach to architecture has led to the development of some of the most impressive buildings in the world.
In contrast, the US practice, especially for smaller residential projects, relies more heavily on the architect, with other specialists coming in as consultants. The architect provides almost everything, while the other specialists come in and advise. This architect-driven approach to architecture has made the design process more efficient, with fewer people involved, and less time spent in the design phase. However, it has also led to a lack of specialization and a lower level of complexity in the design.
Research Focused
Efficiency House Plus, ILEK University of Stuttgart, Berlin, Germany
European architecture is characterized by a research-focused approach to design. The design process starts with a research component, where architects look at the site, and local jurisdiction, as well as a design precedent study. A precedent study, while more common in larger-scale projects, is still extremely valuable for residential projects. It focuses on looking at various examples of similar typologies to create a starting point for the design, as well as potential best practices. At a larger scale, schools of architecture engage in constant research and development, further advancing this.
In contrast, in many US residential projects, the focus is placed on adapting solutions to the design. This makes the project go faster and more streamlined, but it loses some of the custom features of the precedent-driven design. The US approach is more pragmatic, with a focus on getting the project done quickly and efficiently. This approach can work well for simpler projects, but for more complex ones, it might not be the best approach.
Emphasis on Energy Efficiency
Apelle, Marco Casagrande, Karjaa, Finland
The concept of energy efficiency in European design predates the rise of energy codes and the climate crisis. All through history, there has been a strong emphasis on creating energy-efficient sustainable designs. There is also a focus placed on passive and simple solutions, such as cross ventilation, rather than jumping directly to advanced and difficult-to-install technologies.
From a political point of view, the EU has been pushing for more advanced energy efficiency, with legislation being adopted and advanced regularly. This translates into lower operating costs and a longer lifespan of the building. The US has also adopted its energy code, the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC), and is closing the gap in this regard. However, there is still a difference in the emphasis placed on energy efficiency in the design process.
Stronger Focus on Materials
Low-energy Bamboo House, AST77, Beukenlaan, Rotselaar, Belgium
In Europe, architects put a stronger focus on the use of materials in the design process. This research aspect pushes a more diverse use of materials, which expands creativity as well. European architects constantly engage with potential materials and see how to use them as well as possible. The idea of standard materials is avoided as much as possible, instead opting to select the optimum material for the situation. This approach has led to the use of some of the most unique and durable materials in the world.
In contrast, many US-based residential projects use go-to materials for most purposes, adapting their use as much as possible. This approach can save time and money but can also lead to a lack of creativity and diversity in the design. However, this approach has also led to the development of some of the most efficient and cost-effective materials in the world.
