Energy Positive Architecture: Why buildings must give back more than they take

When we hear the term “Energy Positive,” our minds usually jump straight to mechanics. We think of solar panels, batteries, and insulation. We think of spreadsheets balancing kilowatts in versus kilowatts out.

But what if a building could be positive in other ways? What if it could generate energy, but also generate community connection and human health?

In this episode of The Placemakers, I sat down with Alex Hoffman, Principal at Habitants. Trained in the UK and now practicing in Southeast Queensland, Alex is leading a shift toward what he calls “Energy Positive Architecture” (EPA).

For Alex, the goal isn’t just to lower the power bill. It is to acknowledge that our built environment fundamentally affects our mental health and behavior—and we have a responsibility to make that impact a positive one.

The Three Pillars of Energy Positive Architecture

Alex argues that sustainable design has to move beyond the technical and into the human. He breaks EPA down into three interrelated principles:

1. Energy: The baseline. The buildings or places designed must ultimately produce more energy than they consume.
2. Community: We must look outside the site boundary. How does this building leverage opportunities for the neighbors and the town?
3. Well-being: The ultimate outcome. Whoever uses these places—residents or passersby—should be healthier and happier as a result.

“We decide our responsibility is to mitigate environmental impact,” Alex explains, “both from an energy point of view but also at a human level.”

The “Spaces in Between”

One of the most common failures in modern architecture is the obsession with the object. Architects often focus entirely on the building itself—the “hero shot”—and ignore how it sits within the urban fabric.

Alex suggests that the real magic happens in the “spaces in between.”

“I think the interest and opportunity is understanding the spaces in between that building and whatever is already there,” Alex says.

These are the friction points where public life happens. By zooming out from the micro (the building) to the macro (the street and neighborhood), designers can create places that actually contribute to the public realm rather than just occupying it.

The Stuttgart Example: Architecture as a Thoroughfare

To illustrate this, Alex points to the Staatsgalerie in Stuttgart, designed by James Stirling.

Rather than being a fortress for art, the gallery integrates a public footpath directly through the structure. You don’t have to buy a ticket to experience the architecture; you walk through it on your way to work.

“Even when closed, you engage with the place. There’s a richness and neighborliness in that,” Alex notes.

This is the essence of social sustainability. If you remove the people from the equation, it doesn’t matter how energy-efficient the building is; it has failed as a place.

The Challenge of Measuring “Human Capital”

The difficulty, of course, lies in the metrics. We can easily measure electricity usage, but how do we measure the “neighborliness” of a footpath or the stress-reduction of a well-designed courtyard?

“It’s hard to quantify because there’s no direct monetary value,” Alex admits.

However, just because it is hard to measure doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be the goal. Alex advocates for a rigorous “lessons learned” approach—returning to projects post-construction to see how people actually feel and use the space.

By shifting our focus from pure utility to holistic well-being, we can create an urban environment that gives back more than it takes.

🎧 Listen to the Episode
We explore how to design for the “spaces in between” and why the best architecture focuses on people, not just buildings.

📄 Accessibility & Reference
Prefer to read? Download the full word-for-word transcript of this interview.