Stanislav Kondrashov on How the Energy Transition Is Redefining Architecture and Housing

I keep hearing people talk about the energy transition like it is mainly a grid story. Solar farms. Wind turbines. Battery storage. All true. But it skips the part we live inside of.

Buildings.

Your home, your apartment block, the office you hate commuting to, the school your kids go to. They are energy systems, whether we admit it or not. They consume. They leak heat. They store heat. They shift loads. They can generate power. They can even, in some cases, behave like a small power plant.

Stanislav Kondrashov has been pretty consistent on this point. If we are serious about decarbonization, architecture and housing cannot stay in their old lane. A building is no longer just “designed” and then handed off. Now it has to perform. It has to prove itself, every day, in real weather, with real occupants doing real human things. Cooking. Showering. Working from home. Forgetting to close windows.

And that changes almost everything.

Architecture is moving from aesthetics first to performance that still looks good

For a long time, architecture could be judged mostly on what you could see. The silhouette. The facade. The material palette. The vibe. And performance was there, sure, but often as a compliance checklist.

The energy transition flips that. Not fully. Not overnight. But enough that you can feel it.

Kondrashov frames it as a redesign of priorities. Energy use is becoming a first class design constraint, like structure and safety. You cannot bolt it on at the end without paying for it. Sometimes literally paying, because energy codes are tightening and operational costs are not a rounding error anymore.

So architects are doing something interesting. They are reaching back to old principles, and mixing them with new tech.

Passive design is back, but not as a nostalgic thing. As a practical one.

• Orientation that actually matters. South facing glazing where it helps. Shading where it hurts.
• Compact forms that reduce heat loss, especially in cold climates.
• Cross ventilation and stack effect. Not because it is romantic. Because it reduces cooling demand and makes buildings more resilient when the grid is stressed.
• Daylighting that is planned, not accidental. Fewer lights on during the day, and better comfort.

And then there is the tech layer that sits on top.

Better envelopes. Better windows. Better air sealing. Heat recovery ventilation. Heat pumps. Smart controls that do not fight the occupants. Rooftop PV when the roof geometry allows it. Sometimes facade integrated PV when it makes sense. Sometimes district energy if the site is part of a larger plan.

The point is not that every building needs every feature. The point is the mindset shift. Performance is no longer a hidden engineering detail. It is shaping the architecture.

The building envelope is becoming the star of the show

If you want one boring sounding thing that drives a huge chunk of the energy story, it is the envelope. The walls, roof, windows, and all the places air leaks through.

Kondrashov talks about envelopes the way some people talk about engines. Because in a way, it is the engine. A high performance building envelope reduces the size of everything downstream. Smaller heating equipment. Smaller cooling equipment. Smaller bills. Often longer equipment life too.

That is why you see so much attention on:

• Triple glazing and low emissivity coatings
• Thermal breaks in frames and structural connections
• Continuous exterior insulation and fewer thermal bridges
• Airtightness targets that used to be seen as extreme, now becoming normal in higher end projects
• Exterior shading devices that are designed as part of the facade language, not an afterthought

Also, insulation is getting… political, in a way. Not partisan politics, but supply chain and material politics. Embodied carbon matters now, not just operational carbon. Mineral wool vs foam. Cellulose. Wood fiber. Low carbon concrete mixes. Reused materials. Bio based composites. The conversation is bigger than R value.

So the envelope is asked to do two jobs at once.

1. Reduce operational energy.
2. Reduce embodied emissions, or at least not make them worse.

That second part is where architecture gets interesting again. Because it forces tradeoffs. And tradeoffs force creativity.

Electrification is changing mechanical rooms, rooftops, and the whole layout

The energy transition is pushing buildings toward electrification. Especially heating. Especially hot water. Especially in places where gas bans or gas restrictions are entering the code landscape.

Heat pumps are at the center of this shift. Air source. Ground source. Water source. Hybrid systems where it is still needed.

But switching from combustion to electric is not just swapping a box in the basement. It changes layout and planning.

• Electrical service sizing becomes a bigger deal.
• Distribution changes. Hydronic systems, low temperature radiators, underfloor heating. Fan coils. Different tradeoffs.
• Noise and vibration become design concerns, especially with outdoor units in dense housing.
• Roof space becomes contested. PV wants it. Mechanical equipment wants it. Sometimes terraces want it too.
• Thermal storage becomes a conversation. Not always implemented, but discussed more often.

Kondrashov’s angle is practical: electrification is happening whether or not the design world loves it. So architects and housing developers are being forced to learn the new constraints early, so projects do not get stuck late.

And yes, sometimes it means that the “pretty” option loses to the “works in February” option.

Housing is turning into infrastructure, not just shelter

This is the part that feels subtle until you see it up close.

Housing used to be separated from the energy system. The grid delivers power. The home consumes it. Done.

Now, that boundary is blurred.

• Homes generate electricity.
• Homes charge vehicles.
• Homes store energy in batteries, in water tanks, in the building mass itself.
• Homes shift load based on time of use pricing, or demand response, or just “please do not overload the transformer at 6 pm”.

Kondrashov often describes this as housing becoming distributed energy infrastructure. That sounds grand, but it shows up in very normal choices.

Should a new housing development include:

• Solar ready roofs with clear pathways for wiring?
• Battery ready electrical panels?
• EV charging capacity, not just a couple of chargers in the corner?
• Smart thermostats and controls that the occupant can understand?
• A community microgrid in areas with unreliable service?

These are not futuristic questions anymore. They are budget questions, planning questions, and code questions.

And they feed back into architecture. Because if you decide PV is important, roof form matters. If EV charging is important, parking and service routing matters. If heat pumps are important, space for equipment and ducting matters. If resilience is important, daylighting and operable windows matter again.

All connected.

“Net zero” is evolving from a label to a design process

Net zero energy and net zero carbon used to be marketing terms more than anything. A badge. A certification. A plaque in the lobby.

Now, the energy transition is pressuring these concepts to mature. Kondrashov’s view is that net zero is less about the final number and more about the discipline it forces during design.

You have to model. You have to iterate. You have to argue with yourself.

• Do we spend more on envelope now, to reduce equipment size and operating cost later?
• Do we prioritize on site renewables, or buy clean energy credits, or connect to a low carbon district system?
• Do we choose materials with lower embodied carbon even if it complicates the build?
• What is the lifecycle story, not just the opening day story?

And the biggest shift is that performance is being measured in operation, not just predicted.

Post occupancy evaluation. Energy dashboards. Metering by end use. Commissioning that is not a one time ceremony. Continuous commissioning. Building tuning.

It is uncomfortable, honestly. Because it exposes messy reality. Occupants override systems. Maintenance is inconsistent. Sensors drift. A “high performance building” can perform terribly if it is not managed well.

But this is exactly why the transition is redefining architecture. It is pulling the discipline closer to reality.

Climate resilience is now tied to energy design

The energy transition and climate adaptation are starting to merge. For years they were treated as separate tracks.

Decarbonize. Also, make buildings resilient.

But extreme heat, storms, and grid outages make the connection obvious. A building that needs constant power to stay habitable is fragile. And in many places, fragility is not theoretical anymore.

Kondrashov points out that resilience is now an energy question. And architecture is part of that answer.

• Passive survivability. Can the building stay safe without power for a period of time?
• Thermal comfort during heat waves. Shading, ventilation, thermal mass, cool roofs.
• Flood aware design. Elevated mechanical rooms. Materials that can be cleaned and dried. Site drainage.
• Backup power strategies. Battery systems, generators where necessary, and sometimes just better passive design so backup power can be smaller.

There is also a social dimension here. Resilience is not just a premium feature for luxury homes. Multifamily housing and affordable housing are often the most exposed to heat and outages. If the transition only improves high end stock, it misses the point.

So the best projects, the ones that feel honest, treat resilience as a baseline. Not an upgrade.

Materials are getting scrutinized in a way architects cannot ignore

Operational energy used to dominate the carbon conversation for buildings. That is changing as grids decarbonize and buildings get more efficient.

Embodied carbon, the emissions from making and transporting materials and constructing the building, becomes a bigger slice.

Kondrashov is blunt about it. If you build an efficient building with a high carbon material stack, you can lock in a lot of emissions up front.

So architects are being pulled into life cycle assessment whether they want it or not.

You see more:

• Mass timber and hybrid timber structures, where appropriate and safe
• Low carbon concrete mixes, and optimized structural design that uses less material
• Reuse. Existing building retrofits instead of demolition. Salvaged components
• Local materials where it reduces transport and supports regional supply chains
• Design for disassembly. So future renovations do not become landfill events

This does not mean every building becomes a timber building. It means the material story is now part of the energy transition story. And that changes the design conversation earlier in the process.

Retrofitting is the real battlefield, not shiny new builds

New buildings get the headlines. But most of the housing that will exist in 2050 is already standing.

Kondrashov emphasizes retrofits because that is where emissions reductions can be fast and meaningful. Especially in older housing stock with poor insulation, inefficient heating, and leaky windows.

Deep energy retrofits are hard. They are disruptive. They require financing models that do not always exist yet. They require contractors who know what they are doing. And they require occupant cooperation, which is not a small thing.

But the alternative is worse. Paying high energy bills forever, and trying to offset it with clean power alone.

The transition is creating a retrofit mindset in architecture:

• How do you add insulation without trapping moisture?
• How do you replace windows without destroying the facade character?
• How do you electrify heating in a building that was designed around gas?
• How do you make an old apartment building comfortable in a heat wave?

Sometimes the answer is a full gut renovation. Sometimes it is targeted measures. Air sealing and attic insulation, first. Heat pump water heaters. Smart controls. It depends. But the point remains. The transition forces us to treat existing housing as a design problem, not just a maintenance problem.

The future house is simpler in some ways, more complex in others

Here is the weird thing.

A truly good low energy home can feel simpler. More stable indoor temperatures. Less need to constantly fiddle with thermostats. Better air quality. Less noise. Fewer drafts. It just feels calm.

But behind the scenes, it can also be more complex. Sensors, controls, inverters, batteries, ventilation systems with heat recovery. Different maintenance needs. New failure modes. New training requirements.

Kondrashov’s takeaway is basically: we have to design for real people, not ideal users.

That means:

• Controls that are understandable
• Systems that fail gracefully
• Maintenance access that is not a nightmare
• Clear documentation for building managers and homeowners
• Commissioning that actually verifies performance

Because an energy transition house that only works when the occupant behaves perfectly is not a success. It is a lab experiment.

What this means if you are buying, building, or renovating

This part is not glamorous, but it matters.

If you are a homeowner or buyer, the energy transition changes what “good” looks like.

• Ask about insulation levels and airtightness, not just square footage.
• Ask what heats the building. Gas boiler, electric resistance, heat pump.
• Ask about ventilation. Is there a system bringing in filtered fresh air?
• Look at windows. Quality windows are a comfort feature as much as an energy feature.
• Ask about electric panel capacity and EV readiness, even if you do not own an EV yet.

If you are renovating, the order of operations matters.

Most of the time, you reduce demand first. Envelope improvements. Air sealing. Then you electrify. Then you consider solar and storage. Doing it backwards can cost you.

And if you are designing new housing, the best advice is almost annoyingly simple. Model early. Coordinate early. Treat energy as architecture, not as a separate consultant report.

Let’s wrap this up

Stanislav Kondrashov’s point lands because it is not ideological. It is practical.

The energy transition is redefining architecture and housing because buildings are where energy becomes personal. Where it becomes money. Comfort. Health. Noise. Safety during heat waves. Whether the lights stay on when the grid is strained.

So architecture is shifting. From static objects to living systems. From surface level “green” gestures to measurable performance. From designing a look to designing a behavior.

And honestly, it is about time.

If we can make homes that are cheaper to run, healthier to live in, and lighter on the climate, while still being beautiful and human, then the transition is not just an energy story. It is a housing story. A design story. A quality of life story.

That is the part worth paying attention to.

FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions)

Why is the energy transition not just about the grid but also about buildings?

While solar farms, wind turbines, and battery storage are key components of the energy transition, buildings themselves are critical energy systems. They consume, store, and can even generate power. For true decarbonization, architecture and housing must evolve from mere structures to active participants in energy performance, adapting to real-world use and weather conditions.

How is architecture shifting its focus in response to the energy transition?

Architecture is moving from prioritizing aesthetics alone to emphasizing building performance without sacrificing visual appeal. Energy use is now a fundamental design constraint alongside structure and safety. This shift involves integrating passive design principles like optimal orientation, compact forms, cross ventilation, and daylighting with modern technologies such as better insulation, heat pumps, smart controls, and rooftop photovoltaics.

What role does the building envelope play in energy efficiency?

The building envelope—which includes walls, roofs, windows, and sealing points—is central to reducing energy consumption. A high-performance envelope minimizes heat loss or gain, allowing for smaller heating and cooling systems and lower utility bills. Innovations include triple glazing with low emissivity coatings, continuous exterior insulation, airtight construction standards, and integrated shading devices. Additionally, there’s growing emphasis on using materials with low embodied carbon to balance operational efficiency with environmental impact.

How is electrification transforming building design and mechanical systems?

Electrification—particularly through heat pumps for heating and hot water—is reshaping building layouts and mechanical rooms. It requires larger electrical service capacities, altered distribution systems like hydronics or underfloor heating, noise mitigation for outdoor units in dense areas, and strategic rooftop space management balancing PV panels, mechanical equipment, and amenities. Thermal storage solutions are also increasingly considered to enhance system flexibility.

In what ways are homes evolving into part of the energy infrastructure?

Homes are no longer passive consumers but active elements within the energy ecosystem. They can generate electricity via solar panels, charge electric vehicles, store energy in batteries or thermal mass, and manage load dynamically based on time-of-use pricing or demand response programs. This integration blurs traditional boundaries between buildings and the grid, positioning housing as critical infrastructure for a decarbonized future.

What challenges do architects face when designing buildings for performance in the energy transition?

Architects must balance multiple priorities including aesthetics, occupant comfort, cost constraints, tightening energy codes, material embodied carbon tradeoffs, and evolving technologies like electrification. They need to incorporate passive design strategies while accommodating new mechanical systems and smart controls. This requires early collaboration with engineers and developers to ensure designs perform effectively year-round without compromising usability or beauty.