Rants, Musings and Sustainable Design

Victor Lebow

2011-07-19T15:22:00.000-04:00

This bastard started the whole thing rolling...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Lebow

Read his quote from 1955.

Now we have 1 billion people hooked on this notion and another 2-3 billion coming on board at a time when the planet is already reaching an exhaustion point of resource depletion, biosphere destruction, habitiat loss, wildlife extinction, global atmospheric and oceanic changes, and food production collapse.

Anyone who questions or doubts whether the perverbial S is going THTF, is not addressing reality.

And it seems that a LOT of people are not addressing reality. Case in point: on my short 15 minute walk today I must have seen a dozen people sitting in their cars (running of course) in parking lots, drive-thrus, or idling their vehicle at a shipping dock. It was a gorgeous, sunny day... 26C. If you had to wait, get out of your car. If you needed a drink, park and walk in and converse with another human being (face-to-face).

People either just don't seem to believe there actually is a problem, or are totally ignorant (it's hard to buy that argument these days) or simply don't care. I think it's the latter.

As a result, I honestly believe that we (collectively and unfortunately) will have to drive off the cliff, in order to realize that we were about to drive off a cliff. This is defintiely not going to be fun looking into either the rearview mirror, or the windshield.

Full Stop

2011-03-03T14:28:00.000-05:00

This is what civilization in the US and Canada is going to look like if we don't start to radically change practically everything we are doing.

Drive-thru Madness - It Gets Better!

2011-02-23T14:08:00.002-05:00

When it comes to Tim Horton's and similar "food" chains that have spread like a fungus across our landscapes, I have little praise to offer. So when I discover a bunch of "Timmies" fans have managed to put together a 'happy' song about Tim Horton's, my gag-reflex goes into full convulsions.

http://www.youtube.com/nelsonfolk#p/c/B1FF91E7A5C01410

This, if nothing else, proves hands-down how effective corporate strategies can be to convert those who don't ask important questions, into good little repeat customers (i.e. consumers).

When did a corporation ever deserve an anthem? They're supplying coffee and donuts for God's sake, not rules of law, institutions and governance. Let's get real.

The corporate marketting mavens at the top of this (and similar) companies have used the average North American's woeful addiction to caffeine (and sugar) and combined it with their inherent laziness to turn it into a full-blooded, environment-destroying cocktail. How? By way of the replication of thousands of land-wasting, stand-alone outlets scattered like architectural litter right across the entire country, complete with enormous drive-thrus. Check out any of their outlets, any time of the day, and you know exactly what I'm talking about.

Tim Horton's management and stock holders must be laughing not only all the way to the bank, but also on their way back to the office with this dewy-eyed tripe. "Suckers!", I can see them saying with their eyes shifting back and forth. (Mr. Burns definitely comes to mind.)

If thousands of people sitting on their jelly-donut stuffed butts in oftentimes gas-guzzling vehicles belching out fumes 24/7 around the country is your idea of something worth cheering about, then you obviously don't give a damn about the planet or your children's future on it. Partaking in these sorts of activities (using drive-thru's specifically) is the tip of the iceberg as to the level of ignorance and disconnect people have between their behaviour and it's subsequent impact on the environment.

(I have observed, and htis is only an observatoin, that the majority of people in these drive-thru's are women. Often with children in the car. Hmmmm. What kind of message does this send to them?

So next time you have a craving for sugar or caffeine, and MUST satisfy it while on the road, please think about these corporate fleecing experts who couldn't give a damn about your environment or well-being: choose an independent instead. Then park the car and walk up to the counter and speak with the person behind it as if they are fellow human beings. Otherwise we are about to discover that "convenience" is going to come at a very high price.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

If you check out their webpage, they have the audacity to include a "Making A True Difference"/"Environment" section, as if championing the garbage issue has absolved them of all other environmental crimes.

http://www.timhortons.com/ca/en/difference/environmental-events.html

Further, their environmental objectives http://www.timhortons.com/ca/pdf/2009CSR.pdf , although made to look triumphant, are pitiful if they are serious about making a real dent in staving off a global climate disaster due to excessive fossil fuel use.

What irks me even more, is that they intentionally use children's charities and hockey/sport (oh-so Canadian, eh?) as their "do-good-in-the-community" patronages, knowing very well that most people can't possibly see beyond the devious cloaking effect that these motherhood-and-apple-pie inducing sponsorships have.

The bottom line is that this is all a very, very clever marketing gloss-over of what is otherwise essentially a predatory business, that offers cheap, addictive products to as many people as possible with corporate profits being the primary goal. Don't be fooled. Tim Horton's (and their ilk) are not you buddies.

Eco/Green Features of our Home

2011-02-23T12:01:00.000-05:00

In a previous post, I outlined our experience in creating our 'eco-house'. I thought it would be useful as a follow-up to go into a bit of detail on the actual features of the home.

Essentially, this is an "eco-house", or "green" house. It addresses sustainability, low energy use, indoor air quality issues, low environmental impact and potential for off-grid living.

There is approximately 3000 square feet of interior finished space: 1100 sq.ft. for the basement and ground floor each with about 700 sq.ft. for the second floor.

On the surface, this may appear to be a rather conventional house, but from a performance perspective, it is very unique. It's our first year, so we can't get a true handle on energy costs just yet, but so far, it is proving to be about as low as you can get on a per square foot basis. It's looking like it won't take much more than $1600 in propane (including HST) for heating. this includes running the dryer, stove and hot water heating. These will prove to be long term energy savings.

Our previous house for example, (a century log home that we renovated back in 2000. It had a new roof, and a sizable addition resulting in about 1900 square feet of living space plus a partial basement coming to about 2550 square feet of actual heated space, cost well over $2700 in propane per year plus we needed to burn a minimum of $650 worth of wood with an identical fireplace to keep comforable. The new addition was built to code and the code insulation values haven't changed since then.

To compare heating energy costs alone then, the previous house cost $1.31/sq.ft. (including basement area) with the themostat set for 65F during the day and 63F overnight. This house, wiht the thermostat set at 68 day and night, will be more like $0.53/sq.ft., or 60% less. Or put another way, the previous place cost 1.5 times more than this new place to heat. When you add that up over the lifespan of the house, it is monumental. In 25 years, the previous house will cost $44,000 more to heat than this house and yet it is 17 percent smaller and the thermostat is set at a lower temperatures. And that's not accounting for inflation.

In terms of the major features they are as follows:

Heating:
Firstly, the house is passive solar designed, i.e. it takes advantage of the sun for indoor heating and uses shading devices for summer cooling. Two weeks before Christmas 2010 it was -25C outside (-13F) and sunny all day. The indoor temperature on the main floor and basement both were in the mid to high 20's (26C/78F)... just because of the sun i.e. no supplemental heat! The heat did not come on until late into the night after we went oto bed.

To assist with holding all this free heat, the walls, roof and other exposed exterior elements are super insulated. This has a gigantic impact on energy costs. They are insulated to almost double building code requirements.

Further, all windows are low-E (on the thrid surface) and are argon filled for superior performance i.e. minimizing heat loss in order to trap all that free heat.

The basement and ground floors are intentionally made of concrete to absorb the suns energy and re-radiate it out later in the day, which moderates the internal temperature. This also allows for in-floor radiant heating which is the most desirable and efficient ways of heating.

The fireplace in the Great Room can heat most of the house. (which is useful in a power outage). however we have found that we use it rarely as it tends to over heat the place. A central air system would have helped alleviate this by running a cetrnal fan and re-distributing the heat, but the cost would have been prohibitive in addition to all the other features.

Cooling:

Many ask about indoor conditions in the summer. Good question. We deliberately chose to not install air conditioning.

Being so exposed, one would think we would just cook in there. Well, this past summer, when it was in the low 30's (high 80's) outside for several days straight and the solar shades were only 75% completed and the crank to operate the skylights wasn't available, the hottest it got inside on the main floor was 27C (80F). We kept the overhead fans going and kept most of the windows open and belive it or not, it was quite bearable. overnight, fortunately the termpature dropped to low 20's (70's) and the cool breezes would flow thru.

The solar shades on the south facade and the east and west porches shade the majority of the house which has a major impact on minimizing interior heating. The super insulated exterior also helps significantly in minimizing the heat build-up.

This summer we will attempt to keep the windows mainly closed (to keep the humidity out) and open the skylights. This will allow the earthtubes to draw in pre-cooled air into the basement and exhaust the hotter air out the skylights at the top. Stay tuned to see how successful that ends up being.
Water:
All water fixtures are low-flow and the well pump is a hi-efficiency type therefore cutting down on water and electricity use.

Electricial/Energy:
The house can be easily hooked up to a portable generator should there be power outages. And all the critical circuits, (fridge, water pump, boiler equipment and pumps, fireplace fan, etc.) are on special emergency circuits.

The house can be easily converted to an off-grid house as all appliances are Energy Star rated and lighting fixtures are predominantly compact fluorescent. The roof is also at the ideal angle for maximum solar benefit.

It also has "earth-tubes" which allow for the exchange of fresh air (as required by building code) but without using energy. Essentially they go underground to pre-heat (in the winter) or pre-cool (in the summer) the necessary fresh air.

Minimizing Chemicals:
All indoor finish materials are low VOC and made from native tree species.

The other aspect that is a result of the reduced heating costs and lack of cooling equipment is the reduction in CO2 emissions, which is also significantly less.

Solar shades installed on South Facade and Porches located on
East and West Facades
for solar shading in the summer.

Plenty of Light in Main Living Area

My Contact Info

2010-11-11T11:45:00.000-05:00

As an architect who has spent most of his career focused on green and sustainability issues both within my field and beyond it, I believe I have much to offer to both those in, and not in, the business. I am open to the opportunity to discuss the issues that affect our industry or simply to bounce ideas off each other. If we manage to dabble a little into economics, politics, religion or sexuality, I'm open to that too. ;-)

Due to professional liability concerns, if we get to a point in our discussions where I think it goes beyond bouncing ideas around, I will have to let you know and we can decide as to what steps to take next. If anyone is seeking architectural services, I am open to that as well.

I have set up a separate yahoo mail account for people who would like to either personally contact me in regards to this blog or to carry on a non-public discourse. It is envirofrigginmental@yahoo.ca.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Limewire Shut Down

2010-10-27T15:26:00.000-04:00

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/101027/us/usreport_us_limewire_music_ruling

Apparently, the music industry, believes it's not getting what it feels it deserves. From what little I know, the musicians are not the primary beneficiaries of what you pay for when purchasing an album or single. Middle-men, distributors and other leaches of the industry/system take a very healthy cut. This is true in the publishing field as well.

I don't think anyone, when asked, has a problem with compensating both artists and those that are directly involved in the production of music. But maintaining the gravy-train for the leaches (i.e. those that add no value to the actual product) is a non-starter. If the prices of the music purchased more accurately reflected the costs of production and went directly to those who produce it, then file sharing (i.e. the urge to get it free) along with the sites that support it, would be eliminated.

I am at a loss as to why I should pay for a file that represents a recording (as it is not the actual recording, it is merely a copy) that was made, in many cases, numerous decades ago, especially if it is for my own use. When cassettes were the rage, one could easily tape from the radio... or tape-to-tape. How is this any different?

As an architect who produces drawings, someone can take my design and easily replicate it by making only slight modifications, and get around copyright. This can have very negative consequences of course, especially if the replicated design is constructed in a jurisdiction outside that which the building was originally designed, but I digress. My point is that copyright laws are problematic in a world that has perfected the ability of replication. Protecting this intellectual property can only go so far.

This is yet another corporation (or cluster of related corporations) surreptitiously taking control of government and subsequently arm-twisting the public into submission.

This has little to nothing to do with the actual musicians or those involved in the production of the art.

Drive-Thru Madness - The Numbers

2010-10-20T13:20:00.000-04:00

What I neglected to include with my previous post, to emphasize the scale of the problem, are the numbers.

At approximately 6 vehicles per outlet times 2,720 outlets, that results in 16,320 vehicles essentially running 24/7 -- and totally unnecessarily.

To put that in context, it's the equivalent of a 94 acre parking lot filled with vehicles running all day, all night, year after year -- simply out of the toxic combination of the sheer and utter laziness of their occupants and the subsequent support of the corporation.

And this is just one "food" chain. Multiply this by all the others across the planet and it gives you some idea of the scale of the problem.

I haven't noticed drive-thru's being closed down around here, especially in response to a global problem. Instead, there are more every year.

Drive-Thru Madness

2010-10-20T13:00:00.000-04:00

If one day you hear on the news that someone has gone postal at a Tim Horton’s franchise location, the stakes are high it will be me.

Tim Horton’s, for those unfamiliar, is a typical fast food chain with franchised outlets across Canada and is expanding into the US. Although not all locations are stand-alone, most are, and offer drive-thru ordering and pick-up.

Its main fare is basic: coffee and donuts, but they have since broadened their menu with offerings of sandwiches, soups and miscellaneous other "food" items to remain competitive.

There is rumour that their coffee contains some kind of additive substance, beyond the normal caffeine, that has many of their customer’s hooked to the point of franchise monogamy. Suggest a coffee other than from Tim Horton’s and they get right ornery. Whether true or not, there is a behaviour associated with a typical “Timmies” addict that goes beyond rationality, and there are millions of them.

Perhaps I should explain first why I despise Tim Horton’s the way I do, and I DO despise them.

About 15-20 years ago in Bolton, a small town north of Toronto, there was a grocery store sitting on a relatively large piece of property in the heart of the early 1900’s downtown core. It was too small for a “modern” grocery store, so the land was being sold off. And the reason the parcel was so large was because at one point in time, that side of the street had been razed by fire. Essentially the entire side of the downtown core was destroyed. This was a perfect opportunity to finally mend the gaping hole in the downtown core and bring it back to its former glory with appropriate and contextual development.

Tim Horton’s, who already had another location a kilometer south along “the strip”, proceeded to purchase part of the property. Even back then, drive-thrus were part of their template.

Upon discovering that TH planned to put a suburban-styled outlet complete with a drive-thru in their former 1900’s core, the Town Council as well as local community groups, were outraged and begged TH not to proceed. In Ontario, when disputes arise between parties that fall under the Planning Act, the disputes can typically be resolved through the local council in two ways: either thru committee of adjustment or the re-zoning process. Each requires the support of both politicians and staff and only differs in degree of transgression of the zoning in place. If agreement cannot be met in these ways, the case can be heard at the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), which, like a high court, has a judge whose decision is final. This is oftentimes a costly and time consuming process and is typically avoided.

The Town fought hard. There were petitions and much objection to the proposed development, but Tim Horton’s, despite those objections -- from their own customers even! -- took the Town to the OMB: and unfortunately, won.

The result: a suburban-style, stand-alone building was built complete with a drive thru that encircles the entire building in the heart of the old downtown. Their only tip-of-the-hat to the old downtown was the exterior materials, which had to be sympathetic to the old brick of the downtown structures. That was their “compromise”.

Opportunities like this are few. TH patently placed corporate greed over community interests. Ironically in the years since, their advertising and marketing campaigns have focused on their “community” service, with ads deliberately designed to tug at your heartstrings, as they peddle their support of local hockey clubs -- one of the pillars of Canadian identity -- and the like. But this is a very thin veneer clearly devised to connivingly dupe their drug-induced patrons into believing that nothing but sheer goodness and motherhood flow from Tim Horton’s loving bosom.

So why do I want to go postal? They are proliferating the drive-thru model throughout their franchise locations, and as we all know, drive-thru’s do nothing but promote automobile use, which we can safely conclude is having devastating impacts on global resources, the atmosphere and about everything else one can think of.

There are approximately 3400 locations across Canada. The majority of these locations have drive-thru’s. I would estimate in the neighbourhood of 80-90%, resulting in 2720 locations minimum. Typically when I pass by one of these locations, as few as 3 cars and as many as 15 cars are waiting in the drive-thru’s. I’d say an average of 6 or 7 would be a typical count, regardless of time of day.

To add insult to injury, the jelly-filled donuts they offer to their adoring patrons are about as healthy as, well, a jelly-filled donut; essentially they are nothing but edible “products”, not to be mistaken with real food. Real food implies the ingested material provides actual nutrition and contributes to healthy living. Further, their coffee -- their raison-d’être -- as we all know, has no nutritional value to it whatsoever. Add the sugar and cream to it and you’re well on your way to a diagnosis of diabetes and heart disease down the line.

There is nothing of value to society that they are providing. They encourage sloth with their “convenient” drive-thru’s, they offer products that do not contribute to a healthy diet, they practice duplicitous advertising campaigns to deceive the public in their motives and subsequently don’t practice what they preach when it comes to what’s best for the community.

Every time I see a vehicle pull up to their drive-thru, especially on beautiful days when the sun is shining and the temperature is great, I just want to stop and ask them: why in hell don’t you get out of your gas-sucking, fume-belching vehicle and walk to the door to get your coffee, you fucking lazy-ass slob? Oftentimes it’s as fast (and sometimes faster) to go to the counter than it is to wait in the drive-thru lines. Plus, you have the benefit of interacting with a human being as opposed to a voice thru a speaker and then an arm that stretches out to exchange your hard-earned money for their inferior products.

Complaining to Tim Horton’s would be a waste of time. Their argument to closing drive-thru’s would be the classic “we’re giving the customer what they want” drivel.

Like all corporations, they have no interest in making this a better place to live in.

House Pictures

2010-10-18T09:57:00.000-04:00

I neglected to add a few pictures. The interior is currently being painted. Once that's done I will post a few shots.

The first pic is a view from the highest hill on the property before the house was built. The house is located just behind the clump of cedars in the middle of the picture.

The grading was just recently finished and now we need to do a little landscaping, but the intent is to let most of it naturalize. We want to do a small formal garden off the basement walkout for both decorative and kitchen garden purposes.

Journey to a Sustainable House

2010-10-17T17:11:00.000-04:00

Before I get into the story about the creation of our “green”/sustainable house, I must clarify what this piece is not about as well as preface this story with some context.

This is a description of our journey in trying to create a sustainable home for our retirement. What it doesn't do is get into any degree of detail about the actual systems that we used; it’s more about the process, what we learned and how we got to where we are. If anyone wants more detail on systems, feel free to contact me.

As for the context: we live in Southern Ontario where heating is our most significant operating cost and issue to address.

I am an architect and my partner is an interior designer and it’s probably a miracle that over the past 25 years we have not killed each other over design-related activities. But miraculously, over time, we have actually managed to agree on many things when it comes to design. The good news about this story is that we were more (than less) on the same page about our new house. That is critical when entering into a venture as complex and demanding as this.

For further context, I am in the process of trying to extract myself from the drudgery of full time employment. The frenetically paced, endless cycle of 8-5, Monday to Friday, crank-out-another-environment-sucking-edifice BS has lost its lustre. My partner has been self-employed for over 20 years now, so he can be as busy or laid-back as he chooses and that’s essentially where I’d like to be as well. Neither of us is interested in getting rich or famous, so we’re not hamstrung by those superfluous needs.

Back in the late summer of 2008 we bought 56 acres of picturesque rolling hillside an hour and a half north west of Toronto. There were two goals for this: one, to have lots of privacy and two, to have the ability to grow our own food, and perhaps grow enough to share with others.

At that time, the real estate market was quite hot, even out in the boonies, and large acreages without development were tough to come by. If you weren’t willing to pay close to asking price almost immediately, you would loose it.

The area where we were looking was strategically chosen for its topography, distance from Toronto and cost of land relative to other areas of similar appeal.

Our current home at the time, a century log house that we added onto in 2001, was costing us more than we cared for in heat and electricity. We figured that we had maximized our growth potential in both physical space and equity, and as such we didn’t want to invest more money into “green” upgrades being as we wouldn’t likely make that money back upon selling. So it was time to cash in.

It was the fall of 2008 when we listed our house; two weeks before the worlds stock markets tanked. Our place was a perfect second home for well-heeled Torontonians (i.e. too expensive for locals) but that market dried up faster than a cup of water in the Mojave Desert. It took almost a year to sell and our sale price was substantially less than our original expectations.

So, by the fall of 2009, we had a beautiful, albeit expensive property, with a diminished cache to fund the new house construction.

We started the design process in earnest as soon as we sold the house. We figured we might be able to commence construction in the spring of 2010, but fortunately discovered in October that the contractor who did our current house was available for a winter build. That had a huge bearing on a lot of our decisions, so schedule became a significant driver.

The main objective was to not have a mortgage and to try to build-in as many “green” features that would minimize our operating costs down the road. But the battle between building what we could with the money we had, and building what would be readily marketable should we decide to sell, was the true tug-of-war we wrestled with constantly. Unfortunately the latter took precedence at the expense of the objective, but that is history at this point.

What we ended up with was a three bedroom house, but built in a not-so typical arrangement; one bedroom and full bathroom on each floor with the Master on the main. The site is sloped so the basement had a walkout. The footprint was just over 1100 square feet. When one includes the basement and a partial second floor, we ended up with around 2900 sq.ft of finished space; but that was about 1500 sq.ft. more than what I would have been happy with.

As a firm believer of doing the “right thing” when it comes to the environment, I was compelled to put my money where my mouth was. As a result, the list of sustainable objectives was long: it was to be built of straw bale construction and be super-insulated elsewhere, be off-the-grid, have passive indoor air quality control, radiant floor heat, and be passive solar design. It had to have EnergyStar appliances, a high-efficiency boiler, minimal interior finishes, composting toilets, solar hot water heat and rain-water-harvesting with a built-in greenhouse for growing veggies over winter. Unfortunately, this turned out to be a tall order for our budget.

The first thing to get axed was the composting toilets. In this case though, cost was not a factor. Besides the logistical issues of locating all the bathrooms above the composting unit, we were really concerned about the future salability. Nobody wants to, or is ready to, defecate into a black hole. The ‘eew’-factor is significant and I couldn’t convince my partner to take the leap. The sad thing is that these systems are fantastically effective, produce great compost and require little electricity to run, which is important when designing an off-grid residence.

The second item on the chopping block was, most unfortunately, going off-grid. The cost was almost double that of connecting to the grid and running cable underground for ½ kilometer! Even though we were prepared to pay for our electrical needs up-front, the specter of it putting us into a mortgage was enough to axe the initiative. The simple payback was somewhere in the neighbourhood of 15-20 years, so we figured if it pushed us into a mortgage, then borrowing costs would make the payback even worse. It was a very sad decision to have to make. Despite that, the house was designed to be converted to off-grid very easily and may still happen.

The next items to get jettisoned in quick succession were the solar hot water heating, rainwater harvesting and strawbale construction. The costs of the first two, like going off grid, were prohibitive as well as requiring significantly more space in what was to be a predominantly finished basement. Plus, all three would also require considerably more effort regarding approvals.

One of the things one must understand about the architecture business is that the approvals process is a minefield, so for in order for us to keep our schedule, we made every effort to not exacerbate it with unfamiliar systems. If you are planning on using unconventional systems, be sure to allow ample time for the approvals process.

Further, from a construction perspective, the strawbale turned out to be poorly suited for a multi-storey application. It also increased the footprint (22” vs. 10” thick walls), which resulted in significant increased material requirements and therefore cost implications.

The good news is that the remainder of the objectives was met. We have radiant in-floor heating with exposed coloured concrete slabs in the basement and ground floor... very chic looking. The envelope is around R40 above grade and R-15 below grade, consisting of a wrap of rigid insulation all around in order to minimize thermal bridging (a huge source of heat loss) and therefore allows the internal mass to moderate temperature swings. (If you’re interested in more on thermal mass go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_mass and http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/home/construction/solardesign/thermal.html )

The house faces due south to take advantage of solar gains in the winter. It has permanent sunshades on the south face and large porches on the east and west faces to minimize the solar gains in mornings and evenings. There is no air conditioning. So this summer, after several days of + 90F temperatures and high humidity (80%), the house only managed to get up to 79/80F, despite being completely exposed to the baking sun. Large ceiling fans in the Great Room made that space comfortable and portable fans are used elsewhere as needed.

Now in the fall, the sun warms the place to 78F when it’s only 45-50F outside all day and 35-40F overnight: it’s wonderful free heat.

The windows are large on the south, east and west facades but are protected by the sunshades and porches respectively. We decided to choose low-E coated double glazing for the all the windows from both a cost and functional perspective. Because we wanted large casements, triple glazing would have limited their sizes. Unfortunately our budget only allowed us to purchase PVC windows. PVC is one of the bad-boys of constructino materials. The toxicity of their manufacture is extremely high and you should avoid them if you can. Fibreglass is a far better solution, or wood.

Practically every window is operable, enabling flow-thru breezes during the summer. Both skylights in the Great Room are operated manually to readily exhaust heat thru natural convection if required.

A wood-burning, zero-clearance, EPA rated fireplace becomes the centerpiece to the Great Room which includes the kitchen. In our previous house we had the same unit, and by virtue of running the furnace fan constantly, it could heat the entire house when it was as little as 32F outside, without the furnace heating element kicking in. But it only worked well because we had an air distribution system. The new place does not, so I am expecting the fireplace may end up super-heating the Great Room but with little benefit to the rest of the house. Stay tuned.

To meet the requirements of air exchange for the very air-tight construction that is needed today, we incorporated an "earth-tube" system. This is simply comprised of 4 - 4" diameter tubes that are buried 4' below the ground to pre-heat or pre-cool the incoming air. Heat exchangers typically do this function but they are expensive and require long term electrical supply, which we wanted to avoid.

To conclude, if we had to do it all over again, I would not have excluded all the features that got eliminated, but reduced the size of the place to try ot offset the increased cost. It must be noted though, that this is not a direct proportional relationship. A custom home is expensive, regardless of what your systems are. Reducing square footage will not garner you significant savings; however adding square footage will definitely guarantee you extra cost!

If you want a sustainable house, IMHO, excessive square footage flies in the face of sustainable principles. Work hard with your designer and architect to pare down your square footage as much as possible. A new house is an assault to the environment by virtue of all the products that go into it and the waste stream that ensues. Further, the carbon footprint of operating and maintaining that structure over its lifespan are colossal. “Smaller, smaller, smaller” should be your mantra.

There are numerous techniques to achieve this goal. Vertical space often compensates for lack of horizontal space. Large expanses of glass also work to eliminate that closed-in feeling. Multi-purposed rooms can rid you of those “dead” rooms that only get used on rare occasions. Determine your needs, not your wants, and follow through with only addressing those. Get rid of bulky furniture or don’t buy it when shopping for any new stuff.

As far as systems are concerned, insulate it as much as possible and eliminate thermal bridging. (The building “envelope” is considered a system.) Disregard the talk about diminishing returns on spending more on insulation. That worked in a pre-peak oil world. The more you can do to slow the transfer of heat (either into or out of the building) the better.

Thermal mass is important. This helps to regulate the internal temperatures. New construction has become flimsy in order to cut costs, and subsequently fails miserably at being an efficient heat sink. Concrete, although not the most environmentally friendly materials, is very effective at providing internal mass which helps to regulate internal temperatures; in either hot or cold climates. Water can also be used but is more complicated for achieving this objective.

Prioritize your sustainable wish list. The things you need to consider are: physical footprint, carbon footprint, water footprint, long term operational and maintenance costs, indoor air quality (toxicity of construction materials), and embodied energy in construction materials. It is still more expensive to build a sustainable house than a conventional one, no matter what anyone tells you. You may need to let go of some of your ideals. This is where addressing square footage is key.

Further, attempting to go about a project like this on your own (i.e. without an architect and/or contractor) might sound appealing, but then be ready to spend a lot more money and time than you otherwise would by hiring professionals.

It will also take its toll on your relationships and any other activities of your life at the time. It is a demanding process, so make sure you, and those around you are prepared for the additional stress. Despite us being in the business, we found it to be a very taxing and exhausting experience. Both the design and construction process is fraught with constant challenges.

And when you do hire an architect, make sure they practice substance over style, and that they are local to your area. Architecture was always indigenous, up until the late 20th century. It’s time it went back to its roots. Your contractor should also have as much experience as possible in sustainable construction techniques. Check out their respective work and make sure they are not simply blowing “green”, as is becoming common these days.

Finally, you will get immense satisfaction at knowing that your project tread more lightly on the earth, will cost less to operate and maintain, won’t make you sick to live in it, and will serve as a working model for other sustainable projects in your area.

Mutilated Urbanism

2009-01-26T13:28:00.000-05:00

This man has managed to say everything I believe in and have been ranting about to my friends and anyone who else would listen for the past 20 years.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/james_howard_kunstler_dissects_suburbia.html

2008-03-07T17:26:00.000-05:00

In my last entry I erroneously said all the buildings were in Dubai. This is incorrect. the pic of the two towers together are in Bahrain.

Doubling of Current Building Stock in 40 Years

2008-03-05T12:59:00.001-05:00

A friend from my car club just came back from Dubai. Can you say "enormous"?
Can you say "unsustainable"?

According to the latest editorial in this month's issue of Canadian Architect it was stated:
"An equal number of buildings will be constructed over the next 40 years worldwide as there have been throughout the course of humanity."

If we combine the following facts regarding the pathetic rate of truly sustainable architectural projects being built or proposed today, our pending encounter with reaching peak oil production in the next couple years, that climate change is already evident, and that natural resources are being extracted at a mind-numbing pace, not only will our unrenewable energy resources be almost completly depleted by the end of that 40 year period, but there will be little "natural world" left to appreciate from your condo window. The planet will begin to resemble the death star from Star Wars or, save for the shape, one of the Borg Cubes from Star Trek.

This may be somewhat overstated, but the reality is not far from this nightmare scenario. There is absolutely no evidence that any of this activity is being abated. In fact, it is accelerating, with China, India and a multitude of developing countries clamouring to become more North American every second of the day.

Why am I confident this will be the shape of the futre, because there is no mention of the pending catastrophe in lead-up to the US election, and if the US doesn't take a stand, the rest of the world won't either... and why should they? Where is the leadership as the (for now) richest and most powerful country on the planet?

Instead we will all go, eyes-wide-open, into the environmental abyss resulting from the deadly cocktail of pure selfishness and intentional blindness.