There are many prescriptive approaches in the market, that provide generic answers on how to build a ‘high performance’ building’

While simple answers are attractive, prescriptive approaches don’t address specific needs of a project.

An example of a prescriptive approach looks like: “in Climate Zone 5, you need 4-inch exterior insulation, triple glazed windows, and an HRV continuous ventilation”. An approach like that does not tell you how a product will perform by itself (do all triple glazed windows perform the same?), nor how it will perform in your project conditions (do you need an ERV or HRV?), nor how it will perform in combination with other products (what if I have 3-inch insulation and better windows?).

Basically, a prescriptive approach is when one knows the answers before being asked the question.

To draw an analogy, it’s like going to the doctor and they put your arm in a cast, without even knowing if it’s actually broken.

From a prescriptive checklist, you may get that you need better windows than what Code-minimum requires. What you don’t get is how the better window package performs in combination with the higher R-values, or the tighter air barrier, or both.

• How comfortable is it going to be?
• Do you need those extra good windows?
• How much better is product 1 compared to product 2?
• If I do A, can I avoid doing B?
• If I beef up my building envelope, how much smaller does my heating and cooling system become?
• How much less energy is the building going to consume?

Prescriptive checklists cannot answer this type of questions, because there’s nothing specific about your project in the way they are developed.

Unlike prescriptive checklists, a performance-based approach is based on identifying specific needs of a project, and using a science-based method to achieve them.

‘High Performance’ in buildings is often identified as energy efficiency alone. While energy efficiency is important, our motto is ‘buildings are for people’.

There are way to quantify the level of comfort in buildings, based on the Passive House science. We apply that to all projects we work on, whether or not they seek certification.

We use that to provide guidance to project teams, and help determine what minimum performance a project needs to achieve thermal comfort in the specific climate conditions of the site location.

Similarly, our specifications with regards to fresh air systems (ERV/HRV), heating/cooling systems, and other aspects of the project are based on what we determine from the energy model.

We use the Passive House science to determine what you need, why you need it, and how badly you need it.

In other words, the energy model is used as a science-based tool to support specific, informed decisions. It’s just like the doctor uses X-rays to determine if your arm is actually broken before putting it in a cast, or recommending something else.

Most people know that the international Passive House standard is recognized as the most stringent standard for energy efficiency in buildings.

What many don’t know is that Passive House contains performance metrics that make buildings much more comfortable, healthy, and durable than conventional buildings.

The goal of the Boost is to use the Passive House science to significantly improve the performance of the building, in terms of thermal comfort, indoor air quality, and energy efficiency.

Based on the results of the Boost, teams can make informed decisions for the next steps of their project, That allows to refine the design and its performance goals, and develop the project budget based on specific needs.

While the Boost is based on the full Passive House energy modeling of the project, it is not indented only for project seeking Passive House certification.

The Boost answers questions such as ‘how much insulation do we need?’, or ‘do I need the extra performance in the windows for my project?’.

The Passive House science provides the handrail to navigate the needs of the project, and provides guidance to avoid overkill as well as performance gap.

Ideally, the best time to run the analysis is the schematic design stage. That allows to make the most impactful improvements to the project, at a time where it is easiest and cheapest to do so.