"1. Does anyone know of any programs similar to Canada*s Advanced Houses
program (the generation after R2000) in the U.S.? Of the responses to the
2000 question, many focused, as did R2000, on energy (in a narrow sense). Do
the programs mentioned take a holistic look at the entire house, from design
through construction to occupancy to address not only energy-efficiency in
the narrow sense, but also embodied energy, recycled/recyclable content,
water use, heatlhy indoor environments, etc.?"
The last revisions of the R-2000 Program Technical Requirements have
attempted to deal with broader issues, by introducing an environmental
features (resource efficiency) "pick list" and indoor air quality "pick
list" as part of the technical requirements. In each of these a number of
choices are made available, and builders have to meet a minimum number of
items off the list (as applicable to the construction style, etc). While
this is not a very heavy requirement, as many of the items are already being
used, it does focus builders' attention to these issues.
The intent of the program is to make it accessible to mainstream builders,
so the requirements may seem somewhat light, but in comparison to run of the
milll code housing, they represent a significant set up.
Of course, an underlying principle bethind the requirements is that a "house
is a system" so that the interaction of all elements (not just energy) must
be considered.
"2. Do folks see knowledge from the Canada*s Advanced Houses program being
adopted in any wide-spread way in Canada? In the U.S.? (I notice that Tim
Mayo will be presenting a session on lessons learned from the Advanced
Houses program at the Affordable Comfort 97 conference in April)."
Tim Mayo will do a good job explaining the fall-out of the Advanced houses
in the general sense. From my perspective (as architect/project manager for
the BC Advanced House), while I wholeheartedly endorse the program, I
suggest the biggest lesson to learn is that such programs must have a
clearly defined focus - i.e. is it meant to be a demonstration of leading
edge technology, or is it an experimental demonstration that incorporates
experimental or prototype technologies. There is a big difference between
the two.
Lessons learned, and technologies demonstrated are now being applied (to
various degrees) in Canada. This is a result of the strong emphasis put on
the promotion of the program.
"3. What do you see as benefits/downsides/pitfalls-to-be-avoided in =
launching a similar *Advanced Houses* program in the U.S. at this time?"
A program like the Advanced houses can go a long way to bringing attention
to and educating the general public (the consumers) and the building
industry (the producers) on new technologies and concepts that must be taken
into account. It is also important to recognize that there will be regional
variations, based on climate and construction practices, sophistication of
local industry, etc.
You can't overload any house, just because the product is made available.
That is a sure way of confusing the groups you are trying to communicate to.
If you do look at a program like this, be clear what you want it to do for you.
Richard Kadulski
*****************************************************************
Richard Kadulski Architect
208 - 1280 Seymour St.
Vancouver, B.C. V6B 3N9
Tel/Fax 604-689-1841
e-mail: kadulski@cyberstore.ca
"Climate adapted, energy sensitive, sustainable and healthy design"
Editor: Solplan Review, the independent journal of energy conservation,
building science & construction practice
******************************************************************
__________________________________________________________________
This greenbuilding dialogue is sponsored by Oikos (www.oikos.com)
and Environmental Building News (www.ebuild.com). For instructions
send e-mail to greenbuilding-request@crest.org.
__________________________________________________________________