[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GBlist: Re:Housing Costs etc.
I can't resist making a couple of comments in this discussion.
Mike O'Brien raised the point that:
>If we were to approach the question from a slightly different angle...how
>would we build an affordable house that was easier on the environment?
>What's involved, besides the wall structure?
A lot of discussion has been about the wall systems, but what about
floors
and roof structure? These account for a significant portion of the
structure
- and always will. You can't isolate one system in the house, and ignore
(or
downplay) significant others!
>Taking the long view, I can imagine that today's experiments with new
>materials and construction methods could lead to changes for the better.
>So they should be encouraged!
Full agreement with this point.
>However, the reality today is as Buzz describes it. The home building
>industry is geared to building what most everyone in society agrees they
>want: a savings account they can live in. Everyone in the industry is
>cashing in on rising land values and rising home prices, at the same time
>they bemoan the lack of affordability and point the finger of blame at
>zoning or environmentalists.
>... The expectations built into these houses are driving the costs through
>the roof, NOT building technology. The average new house size right after
>WWII was about 950 SF for a family of 4; now it's 1850 SF for a family of
>2.2. Today, fireplaces and garbage disposals are mandatory, not optional,
>luxuries. ...
I think the key point has been raised here: EXPECTATIONS. As we know,
people are irrational creatures. A lot of our decisions are made
irrationaly, on a whim. Fashion and styles as the driving force behind
design and purchasing decisions has been with mankind since the dawn of
civilization. Facts sometimes enter the picture, but not exclusively.
The
post WW II generations, especially in North America (but now worldwide)
have
been influenced by the development of mass media, which has shaped our
lifestyles much more than we want to admit. In the housing sector it
translates into people's expectations of what a house is supposed to look
like, what features it must have, etc. (Just think what the TV show
Lifestyles of the Rich & Famous has done!)
One little vignette: I grew up in northern BC. At the time, the community
(as the entire region) did not have TV - it was only introduced the last
year I was in high school (early 1960's). The local Hudson's Bay co.
(department store) is a national chain. As often happens in national
chains,
some merchandise arrived un-ordered by local staff, but part of national
buying decisions. The furniture department, where I worked part time,
received a couple of automatic dishwashers. They were unable to sell them
-
the machines stood on the floor for a couple of years! I left town to go
to
college. On coming back at Christmas break, I discovered they had a whole
range of new dishwashers on sale. On questioning, I was told that that
since
the start of TV broadcasting, (and with some commercials as well) people
saw
these machines on TV and started buying the dishwashers!
>
>This year there will be about 6,000 such houses built in the Portland
>metro area. The whole industry is geared to building and selling the same
>thing. How do we redirect this juggernaut, away from consumerism and a
>neurotic focus on style, into a wholesome preoccupation with living
>lightly on the earth? And make housing more affordable?
The only way we're going to change this preoccupation with consumerism,
et
al is to use the same tools that were used to create it in the first
place -
make it unfashionable to buy into the standard subdivision special. It
will
mean using the mass media to shift public attitudes. It may sound like a
daunting task, but it can be done.
Just think about the propaganda machines that are unleashed during
war-times. We don't have to go back to WW II, or the Korean war, just
think
back to the Vietman war, the Gulf war, the Cold war, etc. If you take an
objective look, you'll see how media manipulation created, at least for a
while, an uncritical mass outpouring of coverage, so that by the time any
critical questions are raised, it is hard to alter the course of the
discussion. The large multi-national corporations have learned this, and
employ high priced public relations companies and lobbyists to keep the
public agenda focused onto issues that are of interest to them, and to
minimize unfavourable or embarassing coverage.
>
>Affordable houses do get built here in Portland, and here's what they seem
to have in common:>
>They consider the family's costs for transportation and shelter as coming
>from the same pot of money. So features that allow the family to live
>without a car, or with only one car instead of two, are integral to an
>affordable housing package. Features like close-in locations, easy access
>to bus and light rail (and soon a trolley line), mixed uses (living above
>the grocery store), higher densities, no built-in or attached garages,
>secure bike storage, bike lanes and safety measures, and a feeling of
>personal safety because lots of people are always walking around the
>neighborhood, especially at night, so you can too. And--suprise!--many
>people actually like living without a car in affordable neighborhoods that
>are vibrant and alive.
>
Here again, it is an issue of lifestyle, and the image that goes along
with
it. One of the key issues that you've raised is a higher density urban
planning. It is a highly liveable configuration. Unfortunately, too many
people in North America have locked into an idealized suburban ("Beaver
Cleaver, etc") image, and in fact many become paranoid when you talk
about
higher density communities. They are seen as breeding crime, and all the
bad
things in urban living - again ignoring the facts, which are that urban
decay and the problems associated with it are largely economic, and not
necessarily due to the inherent built form.
>using a lot less materials. "Intelligent design" uses materials to provide
>living space and amenities, as opposed to creating an artificially inflated
sense of style (One of my faves: the "soaring ceiling"...nine foot >walls
and a vaulted roof...but ya gotta have 'em, say the realtors.).
>
Let's not be too harsh on things such as high ceilings. We've been
brainwashed to some extent into thinking that low ceilings are more
efficient. Let's not forget that low ceilinged spaces were pushed by
Frank
Loyd Wright, who had a lot of influence on suburban housing design (he
was a
short fellow, and insisted on low ceilings, no matter what your height
was
[he was very uncompromising on real human or client needs]. I understand
that many people can't walk straight through his doors because they are
too
tall!). Today's generation is much taller, so that an 8 foot ceiling is
ok
for me (I'm short), but a person who is 6'6" or more may feel more
comfortable in a taller space. A nine foot space can have a beneficial
effect on interior space, especially when it has a small footprint.
>
>The affordable house is durable so the occupants don't have to spend a lot
of dollars on maintenance that should never have been needed--a better
exhaust fan that eliminates mold in the bathroom is a typical example. In
the long run, durable equates with beauty, because it's the attractive
house
that gets renovated instead of replaced, so affordability includes
beauty.
And, it's cheaper to renovate than build new.
>
Excellent point! Design is much more than just skin deep.
>Affordable housing is healthier, so families will spend less money on
fixing health problems created by their house, such as chemical toxins,
allergens or other air pollutants. A moldy basement, or a damp carpet, or
a
>toxic foundation, can cost a family a fortune in repair, lost work time and
>health care costs, yet could easily be avoided or prevented by design and
construction measures.
>
>I worry a bit about houses being built out on open land, away from the
>city, that the accounting may get skewed...for example, maybe a wall made
>of (insert your earth material here) is cheaper than a framed wall, but the
cost in gasoline goes way up, for hauling people and stuff to the site?
>
Can't agree more with you on this point. It goes back to my earlier
thoughts
that it requires a re-thinking our entire approach to community. I know
that
someone is going to question this. Then I came aross Bruce Brummitt's
comments.
>I was with you up until this point. I agree ... if the home becomes a
>bedroom for someone "needing" to commute to a town or city to create money
>wealth to pay for stuff. However, for folks able to live on the land,
>create their wealth in place, build their own structures from locally
>available materials, with their own hands and without the use of a
>mortgage, it is extremely viable and efficient.
>I'll use us as an example. Our structures built from local materials.
>Rafters, girders and lumber obtained on this land through thinning of our
>forested area.
I'll bet that Bruce has a fairly complete set of electronic goods in his
home (He obviously has a computer, for he's tied to the 'net and is
communicating with us by e-mail).
But what is forgotten is that those electronic toys and tools are the
direct
product of the bad urban environment. Maybe the person living in the
exurban countryside is not directly plugged into the wage economy, but
unless he is totaly unplugged from today's world, he is still tied into
the
economy, albeit it at a lower level than the regular commuter.
The reality is that most people living in the rural areas tend to rely in
the automobile much more than city folk need to, and probably drive much
more, because they have no option but to drive when they need milk,
bread,
visit firends or almost any other thing - far more so than city people.
I think that it would be interesting for someone to take it on as a
project
to do an environmental impact study of a late 20th century North American
lifestyle in an urban, suburban and rural context. It should also
consider a
"normal" lifestyle and a "conserver" lifestyle. I suspect that some of
us
espousing the glories of a low impact lifestyle may be surprised.
[perhaps
someone has already done such a study?}
>Wei wu wei. Decreased fire danger, less pine borers, still plenty of
>standing dead trees for pileated woodpeckers, etc. One building (Cher's
>wholistic health studio) built from strawbales. House underground. No
>septic system. Waste matter composted. Gray water systems reuse water.
>Rainwater catchments in place for gardens. Photovoltaic systems for each
>building. Built as we went without borrowing. No interest payments, no
>debt load, low taxes, low overhead.
>Grow the majority of our own food, supplemented by local sources. Strong
>community attachments, here.
I applaud your efforts here, and don't deny that it may be a low impact
lifestyle. However, this is an individual response. How easily can your
lifestyle be translatted into housing for masses? They reality is that we
have a large population, and everyone has to be brought on board.
It may not be popular here to say it, but if 10 milllion people were
induced
to reduce their water consumption by 1 gallon per day, energy consumption
by
500 Watts per month and their car useage by 200 miles per month, it would
have far more benefit to the environment than 100 people setting up
perfect
autonomous homesteads built from low impact local materials!
*****************************************************************
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 CREST <www.crest.org>
Environmental Building News <www.ebuild.com> and Oikos <www.oikos.com>
For instructions send e-mail to greenbuilding-request@crest.org.
______________________________________________________________________