Posted by Dave on April 20, 2009
Well, here is a potential answer. A week ago I commented on the difficulty of morally responsible consumerism in regards to finished wood products. I found this great resource via “Materialicious” and had to pass it on. Woodbank gives you a place to buy and sell salvaged, reused and certified wood. It’s pretty cool and an ingenious method of helping consumers fight back against irresponsible and immoral timber harvest and production.
Posted by Dave on April 15, 2009
Oh the misery of being morally responsible in a morally corrupt world. When should a corporate entity be given a break on their sustainability policy and when should they be bypassed for the lesser of many evils? I will be the first to admit that the waters are shark filled and the fields are filled with mines today when it comes to tracking original sources for refined and fabricated materials. But some actions and policies by companies have to be held to account, right?
It has been known for years now that almost half of the timber coming from East Russia is harvested illegally and that much of what China is using in its growing factories comes from
East Russia. It is also widely known that much of the finished products that we buy here in the United States are fabricated in China. Companies such as IKEA and Home Depot have even been visibly seen making efforts to discover and root out illegally and immorally harvested timber. But at what point do we consumers call the bluff and say enough is too much? WAIT! There is more to read… read on »
Posted by Dave on April 11, 2009
I’ve been following the Northeast Sustainable Energy Association blog, and particularly Paul Eldrenkamp. I don’t live in the Northeast, and a lot of what is discussed sails over my head, but I like the depth of intelligent conversation going on there. It’s fresh and new for such a vapid chap as myself. And who couldn’t be struck with thought by statements such as, “This, I believe, is an honest assessment of what a building is—that is to say, about as inefficient and unnatural an act as our species does on any similar scale.” WAIT! There is more to read… read on »
Posted by Dave on March 23, 2009
I found a recent study, albeit a small one, done in the UK that brings up an interesting question (even if it doesn’t provide too many answers). New Tricks With Old Bricks, a study done by the Empty Homes Agency, tries to show that an old refurbished home can be just as “green” as a new build. Now by “green” in this particular study they are referring only to the home’s carbon emissions, or as we refer to it across the pond, carbon footprint. While they did include embodied carbon and operational carbon they only studied six homes, and they projected the totals over a fifty year period.
WAIT! There is more to read… read on »
Posted by Dave on March 18, 2009
Darn it all, but I can’t keep ignoring reality. My dirty little secret is that I live in a 1920’s brick on brick home built by a Mormon pioneer who’s last name apparently started with “S”. (I am assuming this because of the large iron “S” that was built into the front of the home.) This little home has a rounded front door, sloping Northern roof face, high pitched roof made of cement tiles, a 14 SEER 93% efficiency furnace, insulation wherever we could add it, cork floors in the basement, some cob wall in the basement, reused materials, a small garden/vineyard/orchard in the back and caulk and weatherstripping galore. I challenge anyone to look it in the eyes and say it’s ugly. Honest, it’s a cute home, but…
WAIT! There is more to read… read on »
Posted by Dave on March 12, 2009
Here are some cool earthen homes that use a creative mixture of ingredients and style. This is the kind of stuff that gets my imagination going.
This one was build by Gary Zuker in the Texas hill country outside of Austin.
Here is a neat combination straw, cob, stone, wood, etc. being built in NM by Clay and Straw.
And here is my favorite. This one was built by Simon Dale in Wales.
There are endless possibilities. If you have some great examples of creative use of materials in homebuilding let me see ‘em.
Posted by Dave on March 10, 2009
I know that there are two main circles in “green building.” One follows mainly prefab, shipping containers, and all things modern. The other is in love with the dirt and all things old. Again, I might be saying too much about myself, but I am a dirt guy. I can appreciate the efficiencies of prefab and the practicality of reuse with containers. But…
How can you get more sustainable than dirt? Surely we could all build our houses from dirt and the earth wouldn’t mind. Dirt is completely recyclable. I will admit building with dirt has problems. First off, it is labor intensive. This makes building with dirt just as or more expensive than traditional stick building. Unless you are a hippie living in the forest then it may not be practical to spend a year or two building your house by yourself so that it only cost you $10,000.
Second, building with dirt within city limits can be complicated. Most states and cities have poor building codes when it comes to alternative materials. This probably does not mean it is impossible for you to build with dirt in a city, but it does mean that it will be painful and slow. Pioneers need to step out and make a way for the rest. (I like what these guys are doing in California for starters.)
Even with these two limitations I think that earthen building has a future in Urban America. Believe it or not, cities have been built on dirt. The natural stuff is still down there if you are willing to dig it up. America has need for employment right now, so why not earthen builders? Not skilled labor, not high pay either. And whatever happened to barn raising? And planning departments? Where there is a will, there is a way. With some creativity to combine some of the best of modern construction, shipping containers and earth I think some bold individuals can lead Urban America to a better home of tomorrow.
Posted by Dave on March 3, 2009
The Tulou are clan houses built in the Fujian province of South East China. It is believed that these structures were built as early as the 13th century, and many of them survive today at varying ages. Some are several hundred years old. I first heard of these structures from Earth Architecture’s website and they grabbed hold of my imagination for a few different reasons.
First they are built from earthen materials, the outer walls being essentially rammed earth with wooden structures sometimes internally. I am fascinated with earthen building materials because you just can’t get more sustainable. Literally the whole world’s population could build their homes with dirt and the earth would be no worse for wear.
Secondly, they have stood the test of time. Not only in the sense that the buildings have lasted for hundreds of years, but also people in China have continued to actively live in them and construct them up until the last 100 years. Practically, they must have worked. Not only did they succeed in providing defense from other warring clans, but there must have been more.
Lastly, the tulou were built to house entire clans. Some of the ones still in use today house up to 600 people. Yet in Western culture it is rare to even find a handful of extended family members under the same roof. I myself live in an urban bungalow with my wife and child, but we have often sought ways to shake this formula up. International students have lived under our roof, friends who needed a place to go, and students who I have worked with and shared life with. But these arrangements have been temporary. Should we be so ardent about our values for individualism and personal space? Are these things the earned privilege of a wealthy and affluent culture? Or are they blights on what would otherwise be a more meaningful and sustainable life?
What other residential models like the tulou are out there but withering in the brutal heat of modernity? Can we take some lessons from the dying clan lifestyle of China? Or at least build homes that we expect our children’s children to be able to come home to some day, if only for a visit.
Posted by Dave on February 28, 2009
The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System has been around now since 1998, and lots of people are talking about it. But just incase there are others out there like me (who talk alot about things they don’t know much about) I thought there could be some more to say about it here.
LEED gold
The LEED rating system was developed by the U.S. Green Building Council, and it has several different standards: LEED for residential, commercial, for new structures, existing structures, commercial interiors, retail, schools, etc. LEED is a third-party certification program that can be applied for after completion of construction. Anyone can apply for LEED status on any structure, but if LEED certification is to be achieved there are two important types of qualifications. First, the structure must meet all of the prerequisites for certification. Second it must achieve enough total points throughout the catagories that LEED assesses.
If any of the prerequisites are not met than the structure is disqualified right away. These can include things like ventilation systems to construction site pollution. If the structure meets all prerequisites then it must achieve a minimum number of points. For new commercial building (version 2.2) certification requires 26-32 points.
Here is where LEEDs ranking system comes into play. LEED commercial silver status requires 33-38 points, gold status requires 39-51 points, while platinum requires 52-69 points.
The rating system is finding acceptance worldwide, but will it work? The LEED system is developed by committees and these committees have agendas. Some of these agendas are being criticized. One such criticism is that LEED encourages too much use of fossil fuels. Another concern is that LEED’s requirements for older homes isn’t economical or affordable for the majority of Americans. Is it the sustainable path to encourage all Americans to remodel their seventy year old bungalows to qualify for LEED certification? These homes, build by the thousands all over America, have innately poor circulation, and this is an important prerequisite for certification.
It certainly seems that the LEED system is here to stay. A positive for the rating system is that it should be able to flex and adapt affectively as more people become aware of it and participate in implementing it world-wide. Find out more at the U.S. Green Building Council’s page.
Posted by Dave on February 24, 2009
I know that many see it as a fool’s quest, but I long to see the barrier broken. Can “green” homes be built without subsidy for under $100 a sq. ft.? I am glad to see that there are folks out there working to do just that. I am especially interested in the work being done by the guys at EcoUrban Homes.
EcoUrban Home for sale in St. Louis
But… there are still several hurdles that are plaguing the pursuit. The most obvious to me is property prices. EcoUrban is working in St. Louis. With urban lots going for under $10,000, keeping the overall cost below $150,000 becomes possible. But what if you don’t want to live in Detroit or Cleveland?
Second, there is labor. I am encouraged to see more and more contractors and builders increasing their repertoire of green products and processes. But still, paying for skills in more sustainable building practices can be cost prohibitive. Some apparent “silver bullets” of sustainable building run into trouble with labor costs as well. I am a personal fan of earthen building because the basic materials are dirt. I have some basic building skills and a job that doesn’t pay much (so my labor is cheep). But for most, it just isn’t affordable to pay people for hundreds of hours of labor to ram earth or lay adobes.
Third, there are materials. It is still more costly to build smart than to build the “Home Depot Special”. (Home Depot is getting better about its products, and I am impressed that they are partnering with LEED to develop “Affordable LEED” housing.) Of course some of this is simple supply and demand. Until new products take over a significant market share they will be more expensive to produce and harder to find. But even prefabricated modular style homes falter, in my opinion, when it comes to material cost. In most cases it makes no sense to me to pay $50,000 to $100,000 for a modular shell that has to be transported to the sight, and then have to spend another $100,000 to various contractors to finish on location. Often I feel like the true cost of the materials is still not being represented in the final price tag. Yet, there are some people working to use actual sustainable materials and lower the prefab costs far enough to make modular a possibility.
Lastly, we have to overcome indifference toward the poor. Mostly, the “green” building industy is focusing on making money. I understand this, and at a certain level, endorse it. But, if we are going to make a real move toward sustainability it can’t be just for the rich.
Personally, I think the answer to the $100 a sq. ft. dilemma lies deeper in the cultural values we use to define home and our deeply guarded individualism. Maybe if we valued community and relationship in slightly different ways we could find answers to our housing woes without killing the planet.