EcoHomes -should the concept be integrated into mass housing

[ErgoDesk]

[P.C.]

Now please don't think I don't apriciate brick houses no it not that, it's just how many houses build today i-- in fact just concrete building parts with a thin layer of fake brick paneling.

Bricks is allright no doubt , and millions of houses develobed this "simple technike during centuries ----- emagine what building just one house with 3D-H technike could provide in terms of new experience , and if you don't understand this argument ,then use it to realise what Massive conservatism is embedded in the Brick ; is it the Brick that fail when things go wrong no, it is the timbers the sheer weight of the structure the ground foundations ,and still we think about The Brick as being what make our houses yet, it's not these are what is not worth keeping when the timbers vorn out.

But "strength this argument , realy have to be used comparing the houses in the "Plywood States" --- The "strength of plybox building walls consisting of the cheapest plywood, and the cheapest fast grown timbers producing the boxe structures that is not worth rebuilding, while the structural strength rely on what can be washed away or pulled down easy by nature forces , leaving ruins that is not worth rebuilding --- then emagine how different houses are build and what it would mean , if a house was based on a rebuildable structural system , a system that allow new building parts cut with N.C. in 10 years aswell as in 200 years, emagine that the basic structure finaly will be the strongest part, that it is not a number of plywood boxes but a reliable basic structure that will be still standing, when the roof is blown away, when the panels are trown off then rebuilding could be seen in a compleatly different perspective.

How often is it so, that even the brick walls are still standing, then rather pull them down as what must be assed, is the real expensive part.

And then think about the million s of brick houses and what a burdon of conservatism these mean towerds new technikes even not tested.

[TJCaine]

I'm not sure why it's thought that cheaper is equivalent to better, or that innovation is represented only by cutting costs, or that cutting costs is at the forefront of sustainable construction.

First of all I think that if architects can accomplish anything it's to convince homeowners to put more money into their homes, not less. We are a service industry, we do not design products for a low-cost market. An ecologically friendly or sustainable home doesn't have to cost less. On the contrary it could cost more. When you factor in energy savings from a tighter envelope and alternative power created on site combined with the amount of capital that you have to allocate to the natural environment itself, it's an investment that should be made the norm, not necessarily a lower-cost solution.

Secondly, craft is an inherent part of our creations. People, even without architectural education and training, relate good architecture to great craftsmanship and it's not because they're ignorant of how things work, it's because the correlation is real and vital to good architecture. That is not to say that brick is great or it's not because it requires more craft than putting up CFS Studs, but it's a factor that shouldn't be lost in what we produce.

What Architorture has also highlighted is that brick lasts. Bottom line is that buildings that last are more sustainable than ones you have to repair ever 20-30 years. Some people think that the innovation of these great glass curtain walls for buildings are so fabulous while the skyscrapers with double hung windows are a thing of the past. The fact of the matter is, a double-hung window, punched-opening building is usually more energy efficient than it's modern, glass counterpart. But more importantly, the Empire State Building is the tallest building in New York City, and it's still standing for longer than new curtain wall manufacturers are even guaranteeing their products. How great are these innovative structures that will fail in 40 years or be in need of massive repairs?

I'm with Architorture. The focus should be on design and ways to incorporate energy efficient wall systems, new sustainable materials both for structure and finishes, building solar and wind orientation, etc. I'd say it's more important to build the same home at a third of the waste, a third of the off-gassing, a third of the latent energy and a third of the power usage than it is to build it at a third of the cost.

Could this happen? Certainly. I think the LEED Homes program in the US has just gone through it's pilot phase and it's reaching a lot of success. I guess that LEED is similar to a BREEAM equivalent in the US, only LEED seems less privatized. In the US, I think the green market for housing is on the rise, and it's only a matter of time before a smart developer realizes that he can get an edge up if he starts building LEED Certified home, or LEED Silver homes rather than the status quo.

[P.C.]

"Bottom line is that buildings that last are more sustainable than ones you have to repair ever 20-30 years. "

Yes quite right but, then why all that Plywood ---- sorry to say but it is not bricks that make the rebuilded houses, ot is not either Brick or innovation that rebuilding spark , it's the cheap build plybox -- and everyone know what that is made of and how long it last.

"Some people think that the innovation of these great glass curtain walls for buildings are so fabulous while the skyscrapers with double hung windows are a thing of the past. "

Right --- but please don't think that what is claimed to be the innovative edge are only this, but remember that it is not the curtain wall that is the faliour it is the sad structure allowed to hold it --- you can prepare huge building walls at factory but these must "melt" into a structure, be secured and fit without fiddeling but true, it's not the curtain wall that need attention it's the building structure that requier that, the walls and floors the way a structure enforce that.

"The fact of the matter is, a double-hung window, punched-opening building is usually more energy efficient than it's modern, glass counterpart. "

Yes - and modern manufactored old-fasion double face windows are long lasting and nice ,but why not melt them into a modern building structure, take the best, leave the bad craftmanship behind, invest that in new and efficient methods.


"But more importantly, the Empire State Building is the tallest building in New York City, and it's still standing for longer than new curtain wall manufacturers are even guaranteeing their products. How great are these innovative structures that will fail in 40 years or be in need of massive repairs? "

Yes they will ,but please don't scrap all innovation just becaurse some leads turn out dead-ends.

[TJCaine]

I'm certainly not an advocate of stagnation. Architecture has developed over millenia because of it's ability to adapt. I'm simply one that promotes a balance of precedent and innovation, of olde and new. I think people should constantly ask if innovations are the result of improvement, or just being different--I don't think the latter makes a great case. I'd say I'm certainly in support of:

"take the best, leave the bad craftmanship behind, invest that in new and efficient methods"

To tie it into the thread of the topic, I think that sustainability itself is an innovative stance that is brought about by clear goals for how to respond to the natural environment how to achieve them. The same grain may begin to introduce a stronger dedication to engineered materials. Sometimes you can get the best of both. Bamboo plywood (plyboo is an example) is an engineered product made from sustainable, rapidly renewable resource. CFS framing for wood studs... TJIs for solid timber joists. I'm with you on all that.

[lekizz]

Thanks TJCaine for eloquently trying to bring this thread back on track!

Bricks and timber are actually excellent for building sustainable homes. They are low-embodied energy, flexible, replaceable and easily understood. There are many examples of new technology and research that can be used in sustainable buildings. But IMO a vital part of sustainable building is to use simple, locally available materials wherever possible.

The big problem with all these sparkling new modern buildings is that when they go out of fashion, they get demolished and replaced. Incredibly wasteful, I heard yesterday that the UK building (or should I say demolition) industry creates 70million tonnes of waste a year. Meanwhile brick and timber buildings can be adapted, changed and re-used over many lifetimes.

[P.C.]

Lekkiz -- and the rest of you ;

Leikkiz you are quite right about what you say , Bamboo as an example is a material I try to learn more about. I am a boatsbuilder and my "foundations so to say, are realy more Eco focused than what my words say ; what you learn being a tradisional boats builder is valuable knowleage in architecture, wood rot but not if it is kept dry-- each wood specie have their specific use and the "strongest wood are not alway's the right one they each have their use where they are the best choice "rather a good pine planking than a bad Oak one" --- and the issue about damp and how to avoid condisions for rot , well if anyone know it is boatbuilders --- so please don't misunderstand me when I promote the modern methods, the innovation and the inspiration in the very materials and tools ; but these tradisional means can still be develobed , as long as you know that each specie have their own special use and putting "things together is combining materials with each their ability.