Paris Proof Mehoela

"Is your building Paris Proof? That's the question every building owner gets today when a corporate client wants to lease. The entire office building stock is severely outdated, and I'm not just talking about the Netherlands. In hotspots like the Zuidas in Amsterdam, the buildings are relatively young, and I estimate that at least 80% do not meet the Paris Proof standard. It has now become not just a desire but an obligation from the tenant, who in turn needs this qualification to achieve their own sustainability goals.

As the owner of Mr.Green offices, I experience the struggles of our clients and other large office users. Simply developing a new location with the Paris Proof certificate seems like a sustainable action, but there are so many more factors involved. What I notice is that most executives of corporates in the Netherlands, whom I meet, are decidedly intrinsically motivated to do the right thing. The desire to build a Paris Proof building is, therefore, a sincere intention. But the issue needs to be expanded: why do I need a building, really need it, what is the role of the company in society, and what is the weight of this company in society? How can we make the right decision with this, and is moving to a new building the only option? Do we feel responsible for the empty building that is left behind? Especially considering that 15 years ago, it was quite common to develop single tenant buildings based on the specific wishes of the user. This resulted in moving after 10 years because then we can calmly do everything all over again. This is particularly the reason why we have a large office stock that no longer meets requirements. The sector involved in the execution, namely the builders and installers, often deviates from this intention and delves deep into the rules and figures of the mandatory requirement. My experience is that these sectors are often get smarter than the rulemakers, and a game emerges where the rules have to be continuously revised. The entire collection of EPC with energy labels G to A to A+++, BENG, BREAAM, and now Paris Proof. All evolution in other domains. There, BREAAM was groundbreaking because it looks not only at sustainable technology but also at the user's responsibility. A simple example I like to mention: the light can also be turned off when no one is there.

And this simple approach is often lacking, its precisely where I see things going wrong. NVM reports indicate that between 15% of Office Netherlands is vacant, depending on the region. This is incorrect; it should read 15% is for rent. Of the remaining 85%, the inefficiency is bizarre. My assertion that on average only 16% of the office is effectively used is confirmed time and again, and several large corporates with real data have confirmed that it is only 10-12% for them. That is, to say the least, shocking. Indeed, I have discussions with people who say, "No, Sam, we are on top of this, and we measure an average usage of 32%." Well, congratulations, I say, but then you have 68% inefficient office. Bravo! Madness...

A simple check when you are in the office: look around and count a number of empty and occupied spots in the office, meeting room, or canteen, it doesn't matter. What percentage of occupancy do you count? That was a bit of a shock, wasn't it?

So making your office Paris Proof seems fantastic to me, but with an occupancy of 16%, it's quite a fa?ade, if you ask me.

But what should you do then?

For homes, sustainability has now become a fairly optimized domain, but for offices, sustainability and innovation are still far off. The vast majority of the office stock in the Netherlands, for example, does not even meet the energy label C, and with the obligation to meet this at a minimum, this sector is slowly starting to move. Again, smart ways are being sought to easily obtain the label, and there is not yet a label C police that really comes to check, so the reliability of the certification largely rests on good faith.

Redeveloping to Paris Proof is really completely out of scope for these building owners, and this is a separate profession in which only a few innovative parties succeed. Many can take an example from EDGE ; this is one of the few parties that really manages to do this on a large scale successfully. They understand that It's not just a party for the builder and the installer, but the complete positioning of the building and its implementation that makes the difference. I don't even think 10% of the Architects, project developers, builders, and installers really understand that they first have to challenge the client. And Really Challenge it. And don't tell me that it doesn't work like that, that you won't get the contract. You need to change the rules, because if you don't, someone else will. Thomas M. Rau wrote in my book "the office is empty" "The role of the architect - we are not the host on this earth, but the guest. Nothing is yours. Moreover, we live in a closed system where everything is temporary, and what you use is like a gift. And this is precisely the holistic approach that is missing in the large Paris-proof building conglomerate."

The investments involved in sustainability are substantial, and we recently purchased a dated building from 1972 for a new Mr.Green location in Vianen. The task here is simple: you have to make it sustainable and Paris Proof. But it becomes a lot more difficult if the building on the Zuidas is in as new condition because the installations have been renewed in recent years. The immediate transition to Paris Proof for such a building is, in my opinion, capital destruction and far from sustainable. There is no clear-cut answer, but common sense remains. The biggest problem is that we think we need that label, despite our common sense saying: actually, it is wiser to investigate how we can further optimize the existing installation. The Mr.Green concept allows for 400% more users in a building and that is groundbreaking sustainable, but not yet capturable in a label. And if this or some other solution is the best solution in your opinion, then that is the best solution and that's that. And if you want to tell that, then that's a real message that will resonate better than the absurd excuses we all end up with when asked if we are sustainable."

Paris Proof is fantastic especialy if we could start over in a new world. But for now, we still have to deal with a mega outdated office stock that still has homework we first have to do to catch up. We can all agree with Coen van Oostrom , 'The world needs better buildings,' but not without the addition, 'These buildings need better utilization. Because a building where 4000 people can work, while on average there are only 640, is not what Paris Proof was intended for, I think."