Why does GBA promote PHIUS as opposed to the Passivhaus Institut?
You say the PassivHaus Institute is in Germany. No such organization exists. The least you could do is accurately spell the name of the organization you reference. The Passivhaus Institut who coined the term “Passivhaus” and established the global “passive house” standard in or around 1990 exists in Germany. You then draw a direct comparison by falsely stating that “we have a branch here in North America called…”PHIUS.” Who is “we?” What authority associated with the Passivhaus Institut gives you authority to claim that you have a branch here in North America???? Founded by Katrin Klingenberg (sp?) after the Passivhaus Institut abruptly terminated the relationship between them for apparent cause. She then started PHIUS creating their own own unique thing. Your statement suggesting that PHIUS is a “branch” of the Passivhaus Institut or that it in fact has any relationship with them seems absurd. To the best of my knowledge, it’s completely false. Set the record straight. Show the world how PHIUS in any manner is connected with the Passivhaus Institut of the International Passive House Alliance.
https://www.passivehouse-international.org/
http://passivehouse.com/
http://naphnetwork.org/
GBA Detail Library
A collection of one thousand construction details organized by climate and house part
Replies
WOW! Slow down Michael. Were you given bad wine last night and got up this morning against the world? If you bother to look at many articles and Q&A comments at the GBA, you would see a clear understanding of the PHI vs. PHIUS stand in this website. I can't speak for Martin, but generally "we" means the US when we talk about a US vs the "International" side conversations.
Sit down, sip a good cup of Colombian coffee (I hear "they" make good coffee) and relax!
Michael,
I have no idea which GBA article you read that caused you to write this comment.
I searched for the phrase "we have a branch here in North America" and came up with zero hits -- except for your comment, of course.
One of your objections seems to be that the Passivhaus Institut in Darmstadt, Germany should always be spelled without an "e" at the end of "Institut." In fact, GBA agrees with you on the spelling -- we strive to omit the "e" (although guest bloggers and some commenters at GBA choose to spell "institute" according to the English convention).
Concerning the divorce between the Passivhaus Institut and PHIUS: We never took sides on that issue. In fact, most of our articles on the topic managed to anger both sides. If you want to read our coverage of these issue -- there are lots of articles on the topic -- here are some links:
The Passivhaus Institut in Germany Disowns Its U.S. Satellite
The American Passive House Institute Responds to Dr. Feist
Round 3: Wolfgang Feist Discusses the PHI-PHIUS Split
Passivhaus Combatants Continue To Speak Out
Possible Relaxation of Passivhaus Standard Stirs Debate
A Petition Strives to Defend a Certain Definition of ‘Passive House’
Is This Building Passivhaus-Certified?
Report from the Passive House Conference in Maine
Passive House: PHIUS or PHI?
It's hard to find instances of GBA doing anything remotely like "...promote PHIUS..."- if anything there seems to be a fair amount of editorial criticism of PHIUS (as well as Passivhaus) here. The paradigms are similar and clearly related, but neither are perfect. (The carbon accounting methodologies are particularly crummy, are updated far too seldom, and are not sufficiently site/grid specific, but maybe that's just MY pet peeve. Everybody needs a few pets, right? :-) )
The readership of this site being predominantly North American (just a WAG, no statistics to point to), it should come as no surprise that PHIUS may have a bigger following/relevance here than the Darmstadt crowd, but it's hard to find instances of preferential treatment of one over the other.