We could build houses at least half as good the German Passive Houses.
We could build Half Passive Houses.
And it does not really have to cost much.
First things First (per Obee-Joe-Ka-no-bee)
Keep the rain out
Keep the outside air out
Keep the inside air in
Let the moisture out in both directions
Note:this will require a very good Air Barrier Strategy
Next
Provide healthy air for the occupants
Stop.. do not proceed until you can do all of the above!
Next
Build with stick frame or ICF or many other ways
Consider how much r-value or mass is best for YOUR climate
Minimize thermal bridging
Use very good windows
We can do those things and that would be at least
a Half Passive attempt
Of course we can do much more as we approach the Passive House Standards
Replies
"Keep the outside air out
Keep the inside air in
Let the moisture out in both directions"
I am not sure how to meet all three of these mandates. How do I let the moisture out but keep the air in (and out)?
Ah, Grasshopper, that is the secret! Same as walking on rice paper and leaving no mark.
and cultivate customers who will hire you to build itMike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Mike .. all you need to do is achieve air tightness and provide ventilation.
If your houses were as airtight as Riversong's and you provided a simple ventilation strategy as he has done... then you would have a kick-arse house.
Darn near as good as a German passive house.
You already have the r-value and the minimal thermal bridging...
And a good chance your houses are fairly tight already.. you need to get that blower door!
oh, damn..... another conflict
blower door...........new camera......blower door ......new camera
what's a guy to do ?Mike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Just borrow your friend's machine
"Keep the outside air out
Keep the inside air in
Let the moisture out in both directions"
I am not sure how to meet all three of these mandates. How do I let the moisture out but keep the air in (and out)?
Jim,
I stole these from Joe Lstiburek.
They are his fundamental laws for an enclosure.
I don't think that many folks besides the Germans and Robert Riversong are getting it.
We need to strive for airtight construction and we need to employ materials that are vapor permeable...moisture WILL get in so we must provide a way for it to get out.
Here is a link to a Lstiburek Video concerning enclosures
http://www.bestofbuildingscience.com/
Lstibuerk videos are a little past one third down on the list of videos.
Edited 1/13/2009 11:38 am by homedesign
I stole these from Joe Lstiburek. They are his fundamental laws for an enclosure.
More of Joe's Top Ten:
Our efforts to save energy and reduce the flow of heat through building assemblies have reduced drying potentials and, therefore, increased the importance of controlling moisture flow through building assemblies. <!----><!----><!---->
<!----> Ideally, building assemblies should be designed to dry to both the interior and exterior. In heating climates, the primary drying potential is to the exterior (but not necessarily exclusively so); in cooling climates, the primary drying potential is to the interior (but not necessarily exclusively so); and in climates with both heating and cooling, some drying potential in both directions is typically a good idea (but not necessarily exclusively so). <!----><!---->
<!----> Building materials last longer when their faces are exposed to similar or equal temperature and humidity. This is why the ventilation of claddings, particularly those that store moisture (reservoir claddings), can be important. <!----><!---->
<!----> Drainage planes, air barriers, and thermal barriers must be continuous to be truly effective. Being able to trace each of these on a full elevation drawing without lifting your finger (or pencil or pointer) from the elevation is a good test of continuity. <!----><!---->
<!----> In moisture control, the priority is liquid water first, particularly when it comes in the forms of rain and groundwater. In these forms it is referred to as "bulk" water. Following are air-transported vapor and then diffusive vapor, all other things being equal. It's always a question of quantities and rates, of wetting and drying, and the tolerance of materials (individually and in combination) for each and all of the above. <!----><!---->
<!----> Three things destroy materials in general and wood in particular: water, heat, and ultraviolet radiation. Of these three, water is the most important by an order of magnitude. <!----><!---->
<!----> When the rate of wetting exceeds the rate of drying, accumulation occurs. <!----><!---->
<!----> When the quantity of accumulated moisture exceeds the storage capacity of the material or assembly, problems occur. <!----><!---->
<!----> The storage capacity of a material or assembly depends on time, temperature, and the material itself. <!----><!---->
<!----> The drying potential of an assembly decreases with the level of insulation and increases with the rate of air flow (except in the case of air flow in severe cold climates during cold periods where interior moisture levels are high). <!----><!---->
<!----> <!---->
<!----> <!---->
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Edited 1/14/2009 3:07 am ET by Riversong
Joe also says:
"Things get wet - let them dry."<!----><!----> <!---->
"Things get wet from the inside, the outside and they start out wet."
In fact, a 2500 SF new house, with 100 yards of concrete, 10,000 BF of lumber, 6,000 SF of drywall, and paints and finishes can start its life with 3,000 extra gallons of water that have to be eliminated in the first year or two.
So, building a house that's hermetically sealed against moisture intrusion ain't gonna give that 3,000 gallons a path to escape.
And a family of four generates 3 to 5 gallons of water per day. And that has to be gotten rid of.
And, on top of all that, no house - no matter how well built - ain't gonna let some water in sometime during its 100-year lifespan.
"Things get wet from the inside, the outside and they start out wet."
Various strategies can be implemented to minimize the risk of moisture damage. The strategies fall into the following three groups:
1. Control of moisture entry,
2. Control of moisture accumulation, and
3. Removal of moisture.
These are best used in combination. Strategies effective in the control of moisture entry, however, often are not effective if building assemblies start out wet. In fact, these strategies can be detrimental. A technique that is effective at preventing moisture from entering an assembly is also likely to be effective at preventing moisture from leaving an assembly. Conversely, a technique effective at removing moisture also may allow moisture to enter. Balance between entry and removal is key in many assemblies.
For a moisture-related problem to occur, at least five conditions must be satisfied:<!----><!---->
a moisture source must be available, <!----><!---->
there must be a route or means for this moisture to travel, <!----><!---->
there must be some driving force to cause moisture movement, <!----><!---->
the material(s) involved must be susceptible to moisture damage, and <!----><!---->
the moisture content must exceed the material’s safe moisture content for a sufficient length of time. <!----><!---->
To avoid a moisture problem one could, in theory, choose to eliminate any one of the conditions listed above. In reality, it is practically impossible to remove all moisture sources, to build walls with no imperfections, or to remove all forces driving moisture movement. It is also not economical to use only those materials that are not susceptible to moisture damage. Therefore, in practice, it is common to address two or more of these prerequisites so as to reduce the probability of exceeding the safe moisture content and the amount of time the moisture content is exceeded.
<!----><!---->
All enclosure design requires a balance of wetting and drying. Since wetting occurs at different times than drying, storage bridges the time between wetting and drying. If a balance between wetting and drying is maintained, moisture will not accumulate over time, the safe moisture content will not be exceeded, and moisture-related problems are unlikely. The storage capacity and the extent and duration of wetting and drying must, however, always be considered when assessing the risk of moisture damage.
In the average home approximately 4,000 to 5,000 lbs of wood are in the exterior walls. This yields a hygric buffer capacity of approximately 400 to 500 lbs (10% safe storage capacity) of water or approximately 45 to 50 gallons. From a performance perspective, the average home can easily accommodate 45 to 50 gallons of water via hygric redistribution. Most water leaks are not a problem because of this large capacity to store water. A wood-frame house insulated with cellulose, can safely store another 50 gallons.
So, once again, the key to moisture management is:
keep it out
store it safely
let it out<!----><!---->
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
"In fact, a 2500 SF new house, with 100 yards of concrete, 10,000 BF of lumber, 6,000 SF of drywall, and paints and finishes can start its life with 3,000 extra gallons of water that have to be eliminated in the first year or two."I'm having a "discussion" with a client about this very topic. I'm wondering if you could give me a source for that? This particular client has challenged me for sources for practically every statement I make about home construction (especially vapor and ventilation issues)I would love to drop this little bomb on him, but I don't want to mention it unless I can tell him where to look it up.Thanks!John Svenson, builder, remodeler, NE Ohio
"In fact, a 2500 SF new house, with 100 yards of concrete, 10,000 BF of lumber, 6,000 SF of drywall, and paints and finishes can start its life with 3,000 extra gallons of water that have to be eliminated in the first year or two."
I'm having a "discussion" with a client about this very topic. I'm wondering if you could give me a source for that?
The source is my cellulose insulation manufacturer, National Fiber (talking about how little additional water damp-spray cellulose adds). There may be a bit of hyperbole there.
http://www.nationalfiber.com/uploads/universe/docs/wysiwyg/documents/Spray_Applied_Cellulose_Insulation_and_Moisture_Facts.pdf
But, according to the NAHB, a typical new single-family home contains 76 cy concrete. Concrete is made with 300 lbs (36 gallons) water per cubic yard, for a total of 2732 gallons. I haven't found any information on how much of that is consumed in hydration and how much is residual after curing.
If a typical house contains 16,000 board feet of softwood lumber at KD 19% MC, and it reaches an equilibrium moisture content of 10%, then it will release 388 gallons of water.
There is also a lot of bound water in the drywall, some of which may release over time, and dozens of gallons of water in interior paints and finishes.
A typical family of four will contribute 3-5 gallons per day to the indoor environment.
So, while I can't offer a difinitive volume of water release in the first year, it's a lot.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Thanks.
We were roofing his house when a rain came up, not a hard rain, just a drizzle. My crew slugged through the panel they were on so they could get underlayment on and dry it in.
His brother stopped by and freaked 'cause we were "roofing in the rain" His brother contends that since we felted over a wet deck, it will never dry out and their house will now get the dreaded black mold.
If a homeowner wants a house worked on only in perfect weather, why would they sign a contract in December in northeast Ohio?
Customers never cease to amaze me.John Svenson, builder, remodeler, NE Ohio
svenny , roofing underlayments are designed to breathe , even the synthetic ones.. so, there can be drying to the outside as well as the inside
thank god for brothers , and other sidewalk superintendents... they make the rest of us look like very knowledgeable peopleMike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
svenny , roofing underlayments are designed to breathe , even the synthetic ones.. so, there can be drying to the outside as well as the inside
You know that, I know that, anyone involved in building knows that, but this guy wants documentation.
Black mold has become a buzz word, and with mold remediation companies looking to keep busy, there is lots of fear mongering out there.
Asbestos, lead, formaldehyde, now it's black mold-what's next?John Svenson, builder, remodeler, NE Ohio
roofing underlayments are designed to breathe , even the synthetic ones
Actually, all the synthetic roofing membranes with the exception of Vaproshield, are vapor barriers (perm < 1).
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Roofshield on that list had a rating of 86 perms
here's a link to Paul Fissette's article ( wall wrap... but it pertains anyways )
http://www.umass.edu/bmatwt/publications/articles/housewraps_feltpaper_weather_penetration_barriers.htmlMike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Roofshield on that list had a rating of 86 perms
That's what I said: all but Vaproshield are vapor impermeable.
And what does Fisette's article on housewrap have to do with roofing membranes?
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Edited 1/16/2009 9:30 pm ET by Riversong
synthetic roof underlayments are from the same familyMike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
synthetic roof underlayments are from the same family [as WRBs]
Perhaps distant cousins. WRB's are meant to be highly vapor permeable, while the synthetic roof membranes are vapor barriers. They serve entirely different functions, which is likely to be problematic. A roof should refuse entry of bulk water but should be able to breathe just like any other part of the envelope.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
If a homeowner wants a house worked on only in perfect weather, why would they sign a contract in December in northeast Ohio?
If they wanted a house worked on only in near perfect weather, they should buy a factory-built house (and then erect a quonset hut over it for on-site finishing).
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Edited 1/16/2009 2:31 pm ET by Riversong
<<<<In fact, a 2500 SF new house, with 100 yards of concrete, 10,000 BF of lumber, 6,000 SF of drywall, and paints and finishes can start its life with 3,000 extra gallons of water that have to be eliminated in the first year or two.">>>><<I'm having a "discussion" with a client about this very topic. I'm wondering if you could give me a source for that?>>I'd be real interested in a source for that, too. Specifically, whose numbers are these about the quantities of materials;<<a 2500 SF new house, with 100 yards of concrete, 10,000 BF of lumber, 6,000 SF of drywall,>>That is a sh*tload of material.
<<a 2500 SF new house, with 100 yards of concrete, 10,000 BF of lumber, 6,000 SF of drywall,>>
That is a sh*tload of material.
Actually, it is high on concrete and low on the rest.
A typical 2500 sf house will have about 75 cy of concrete (according to NAHB), but require more like 20,000 bf of lumber (8 BF/SF), and drywall would be closer to 7500-10,000 SF (4xSF) including waste.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
That is very useful info, and I thank you.This points to something that should be immediately apparent and for some reason isn't received that way. It seems to me that one of the greenest things we could do is build a smaller home.I just tallied up how much concrete I would put in a 1,800 sf ICF home on a monoslab, I come up with about 68 cubic yards.What's that, about ten percent less than the 75 cy the NAHB is talking about for an "average" home, and the average home will still have the <<more like 20,000 bf of lumber (8 BF/SF), and drywall would be closer to 7500-10,000 SF (4xSF) including waste.>>This is astonishing.
How do I let the moisture out but keep the air in (and out)?
Jim,
Many materials are rather airtight yet vapor permeable.
Drywall is one....
You could employ Air tight Dry wall techniques.
Edited 1/13/2009 11:23 am by homedesign
There is another very important aspect to air tightness that the Germans understand...beyond just saving energy. They discuss it at the Passive House Website.
Our enclosures will be much more durable.
Most of the unwanted moisture transport is due to air leaks.
Funny you should mention that.
I came away from the ICF discussion with exactly the same idea.
Assuming that if everyone made some effort in what we suppose is the right direction, the collective result would be enormously beneficial. So fairly small changes to the way we work could have quite an effect.
With that, I'm thinking, OK, if this works (whatever "this" is, in my case ICF), how do I fine-tune it?
And as Mike says, how do I sell it?
Dr Crosby,
First thing is you might need a new computer and broadband :-)
It is likely that your icf walls are rather airtight...Do you use ICF for your ceiling?
How do you achieve your air barrier?
Have you done a blower door test?...what are the results?
How do you ensure healthy ventilation?
<<First thing is you might need a new computer and broadband :-)>>That is for sure. That lecture on mass in passive homes has been downloading for two hours now and it's only half done.<<It is likely that your icf walls are rather airtight...Do you use ICF for your ceiling?>>I've been thinking that over, actually. So far, no, either TJI or trusses or heavy beams, depending. There are some ICF deck products out there, and I've been thinking they'd make a great green roof.<<How do you achieve your air barrier?>>On the part that isn't ICF? Bunch of different ways to control the infiltration or exfiltration of air and the transmission of water vapor. Every situation is different, I model the specifics entirely on Joe Lstiburek's ideas about reliable drying. He is a genius.<<Have you done a blower door test?...what are the results?>>Yes. So glad you asked. <G> About 12 years ago when I was first looking at ICFs I got into quite the p*ssing match with an independent energy consultant who was convinced that nothing I had designed could possibly work. He was determined to prove that because it didn't work in theory, it couldn't work in practice, and one of the ways he was going to show me up was with the blower door test, which I had never seen before.But I understood the concept, so we set out to build the house tight, and we did.On the appointed day of the Big Test our consultant showed up, installed the contraption, and fired it up. It didn't take long to see how one barometer was outside, one was inside, and he was trying to measure a pressure differential.It was also easy to see by the expression on his face that he was disturbed by the result, that is, he could not make the house leak. He kept winding the fan up tighter and tighter, wiping his glasses, and frowning.As luck would have it, the plumbers were tending to some last-minute details in the bathroom. Presently they came out of the bathroom yelling, coughing, gagging, and making up new words. They looked like they were about to puke all over the new floor.I asked what was wrong, and they bellowed, "What the %^*! are you doing out here?"I walked into the bathroom and had the same reaction. It seems we were sucking all the gas out of the septic tank up through the toilet and into the house. You could see the bubbles in the water.I called that to the energy consultant's attention, and asked him if he thought the house was tight enough. He allowed as it was "pretty good."<<How do you ensure healthy ventilation?>>So far my clients are pretty good about opening and closing windows. If that ever became a problem I'd probably look at barometric dampers and bath fans.
Catskinner,
You do not need an elaborate ventilation system...but you do need one!!!
Aldes intake vents and an exhaust fan with a timer will do. Ala Riversong
Are you saying that the house was 100% airtight?
Absolutely no cfm??? if so your house is tighter than tight.
Are you monitoring the Relative Humidity?
Do you have Carbon monoxide detectors?
Are you going to wait until a homeowner complains or becomes ill?
<<You do not need an elaborate ventilation system...but you do need one!!!>>So windows and bath fans don't work?<<Aldes intake vents and an exhaust fan with a timer will do. Ala Riversong>>Got a link? Sounds very interesting.<<Are you saying that the house was 100% airtight?Absolutely no cfm??? if so your house is tighter than tight.>>I don't think anything is 100 percent, I'm quite sure this one wasn't, just enough to suck the gas out of the septic tank. That's tight enough, right? <G><<Are you monitoring the Relative Humidity?>>I leave that up to the homeowner, these folks are all pretty saavy. Most of them know more about passive solar and green living than I do.<<Do you have Carbon monoxide detectors?>>Everywhere, in everything, all time. I even keep one in my semi, and put one in the heavy equipment periodically to check for the health of the operator. Your preaching to the choir here, I have given CPR to asphyxia victims. They didn't make it.<<Are you going to wait until a homeowner complains or becomes ill?>>Nope. Hasn't happened yet, highly unlikely that it will. I've fixed a bunch of stuff from supposed green builders who got it wrong, and I'm pretty good at learning lessons by observation.
So windows and bath fans don't work?
<<Aldes intake vents and an exhaust fan with a timer will do. Ala Riversong>>
Got a link? Sounds very interesting.
Cat, Maybe Riversong will describe his ventilation.
If not.... I will dig up a link to a discussion at JLC
The problem with windows and exhaust fans is that the homeowners will have to somehow sense when they need fresh air. They may overventilate and waste energy or even worse under ventilate. What about a future homeowner that is not too savy?
Your ventilation strategy is probably not in compliance with the building code.
Sounds like your homes are aproaching Passive House standards.
Even better than intake vents and timed exhaust fans would be an HRV.
hey...... you said hrv...... course , you're in Texas ... does that have to do with your choice of words ?
i mean..... i'm inclined to start using ERV's but always eager to learnMike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
hey...... you said hrv......
Mike...you got me there ..good point...I am a climatist too
I was just guessing at Catskinner's climate
I should be more generic.
Maybe we should call them Energy Transfer (or Exchange) Ventilators.
Most of the time in North Texas I want to recover "the Cool"
There are also times when I want to recover "the Dry"
Edited 1/13/2009 5:52 pm by homedesign
Cat, Maybe Riversong will describe his ventilation.
Jeez, homedesign, you're doin' a lot of namedropping ;-)
OK, I just stumbled into this thread.
Catskinner, if you're building houses that suck the sewer gasses and not providing controlled mechanical ventilation, you should be strung up by your toes.
By ASHRAE standards, a tight house requires 0.35 ACH to maintain a healthy indoor environment. I design for 0.25 ACH, since I build with mostly non-toxic materials and not-toxic homeowners, and because I don't use HRVs (though I'm considering it).
The simplest, low-tech controlled ventilation system uses a 24-hour programmable timer wired in parallel with an intermittent-operation switch to the bath exhaust fan(s), and set for enough daily runtime to equal the target ACH rate.
For makup air, there are several passive fresh-air inlets on the market, made by Panasonic, Reton and American Aldes. Located strategically in bedrooms and living areas, they'll provide a gentle flow of air whenever a fan is depressurizing the house. Like any ventilation system, the intakes and exhaust must be balanced.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
By ASHRAE standards, a tight house requires 0.35 ACH to maintain a healthy indoor environment. I design for 0.25 ACH, since I build with mostly non-toxic materials and not-toxic homeowners, and because I don't use HRVs (though I'm considering it).
Robert, Thanks for describing your ventilation scheme. I have decided to start using the fresh air inlets that you describe. I am glad that you are considering Energy recovery ventilation.
It was your total heat loss coefficient table from another thread
102383.131
That convinced me that Energy recovery could be worthwhile in a high performance home.
If you increase the wall and ceiling r-values in your example and assume that there will actually be more than 0.25 ACH..then Energy Recovery becomes the low hanging fruit.
Edited 1/14/2009 7:08 am by homedesign
ok... so the quest begins.... ERV or HRV.. ?and which mfr ?which model ?Mike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
ok... so the quest begins.... ERV or HRV.. ?
and which mfr ?
which model ?
Mike, I apologize...I do not have an answer for you.
I would love to get some more feedback from others who have employed energy recovery.
I am just begining to study this myself.
I just started looking at what the Germans are doing and realized how important the Energy Recovery can be.
The better we build our houses the more important it becomes.
However bear in mind we can use a simple ventilation system(non-ERV) and still go beyond Half-pass...We must mechanically ventilate
Edited 1/14/2009 10:56 am by homedesign
so the quest begins.... ERV or HRV.. ?
The standard answer is HRV for cold climates and ERV for warm climates, but that answer is too simple.
If your cold-climate house needs to evacuate moisture in the winter, then you don't want an ERV that humidifies the incoming air. If your cold-climate house is dry in the winter, then it's already exchanging too much air and there's no reason to install mechanical ventilation (except spot exhaust ventilation in kitchens and baths, as required by code).
Any heat- or energy-recovery ventilator in a cold climate must have a defrost cycle, though an ERV is less likely to frost up except in very cold weather. If the defroster is cycling too often because you're not exhausting bathroom moisture with a separate fan, for instance, then it's going to dramatically increase operating costs.
In a hot, humid climate, an ERV can serve as a dehumidifier, but only if it's ducted separately from the AC/heat pump, with balanced intake and exhaust, and does NOT evacuate 100% RH air from the bathrooms. Any of those three mistakes can turn the ERV into a whole-house humidifier in the summer.
While a properly-sized and properly-installed ERV in a hot, humid climate can reduce the load on the AC/heat pump by removing some of the latent heat of water vapor from the incoming air, an improperly-installed unit can increase the operating costs of the AC unit and make the indoor environment less comfortable.
See http://www.advancedenergy.org/buildings/knowledge_library/ventilation/erv.pdf for more.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Edited 1/14/2009 4:43 pm ET by Riversong
all well and good... but that link was for a hot, humid climate
and i am neither......... fish nor fowl
we are coastal Rhode Island, most of my work is either on the island of Conanicut ( Jamestown ), or Aquidnick ( Newport ) , and sometimes the mainland ( North Kingstown ).
in the winter, tempered by the sea... most COLD days are about 15 deg overnite
in the summer, hot & humid for about 6 weeks, maybe 90 deg...... but occasionally the fog will sit on Rhode Island Sound for the whole month of August......
so... 3 hard months of winter
2 hard months of summer..... the rest of the time indoor temperature and comfort levels can be controlled by opening and closing windows
so....... ERV.... or HRV ?
Mike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
all well and good... but that link was for a hot, humid climate
and i am neither.........
so....... ERV.... or HRV ?
Well, I didn't think you were a climate, just another guy stuck in one like the rest of us.
Since you're in a mixed climate, how 'bout using one of each ;-)
But, given the marginal additional energy savings from an ERV and its potential to cause havoc at least half the year, I would recommend a good high efficiency (don't use the manufacturer's numbers) HRV.
But, given that the actual operating efficiency can be as little as 50% (lower outdoor temp - less efficient), and electrical costs can become excessive if a lot of defrost is necessary, and careful ducting is necessary to avoid cool (or warm) air drafts, and the system has to be balanced properly to function properly, and with HEPA air filters the electrial consumption increases substantially, and routine inspection is neccesary (as blocked filters or exchangers can reduce air flow by 50%)...
It ain't the panacea some would like to believe.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
panacea ? no it sounds more like a downer.... oh wellMike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
so....... ERV.... or HRV ? .
Mike,
I have to admit....this issue of selecting the correct HRV/ERV seems daunting and confusing.
Maybe most of us are just not ready for it.(YET)
Let's not forget what we can all do meanwhile even without an HRV/ERV.
We can strive to build our houses air tight and provide good simple mechanical ventilation.
Most homes that are just built to code or even to the minimum Energy Star Standards are leaking air that wastes a significant amount of energy....An HRV can not recover energy from air lost through infiltration.
Here is a link to the other advantage of airtight construction.
http://www.passivhaustagung.de/Passive_House_E/airtightness_06.html
And one more thing..If we can eliminate infiltration... we will never get frost on our Pella windows.
well....... assuming or next project actually gets to contract stage
the owners want what they wantincluding 3 fireplaces..... i always provide for outside air combustion anyway and the question of how to provide A/C within budget probably hrv / erv is the least of my problems... but it sure is nice when an elegant solution solves myriad problemsMike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
including 3 fireplaces..... i always provide for outside air combustion anyway
Mike,
If I were you ..I would not allow my clients to put 3 (non-sealed) fireplaces(even with make-up air)in a modern built to code home....it is usually a waste of energy and maybe a potential for disaster.
I would rather install 3 plasma tvs.. dvd players.. with yulelog dvd's.
The plasma tv's are cheaper,safer and probably a more efficient heat source.
Just think of the super bowl parties...
not my choice... not my house... not my money..... i've discussed this politely many times
they want 3 fireplaces.... i want to build their houseMike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
If I were you ..I would not allow my clients to put 3 (non-sealed) fireplaces(even with make-up air)in a modern built to code home....it is usually a waste of energy and maybe a potential for disaster
I don't know what alternate universe you live in, but in mine, I make suggestions to the client, I don't dictate.
A fireplace is not not an issue to draw a line in the sand over.
It's not like their wanting a B vent placed by the baby crib.John Svenson, builder, remodeler, NE Ohio
I don't know what alternate universe you live in, but in mine, I make suggestions to the client, I don't dictate.
hmmm... you might be right ..maybe that's why I don't have enough work right now.... Actually I should not have said "not allow"
I do however strongly suggest to them that they are taking a risk and wasting energy.
Not to mention that the fireplace almost always screws up a perfectly good tv watching seating arrangement.
Not to mention that the fireplace almost always screws up a perfectly good tv watching seating arrangement. Not the best set of priorities I've ever heard.
Not to mention that the fireplace almost always screws up a perfectly good tv watching seating arrangement.
Not the best set of priorities I've ever heard.
Henley..I guess I am going to have to go to humor school..or else put a smiley face after all of my jokes... ;-)
And I guess I am prejudiced against fireplaces and attached garages.
My father in law had a good wood stove and that did make sense to me...
I just don't get that fire thing and I know I am a very small minority.
Sorry I didn't get it :) Fireplaces don't make sense, but there is nothing nicer.
Fireplaces don't make sense, but there is nothing nicer.
Perhaps you've never sat in front of a 75% efficient air-tight woodstove with double self-cleaning glass doors?
You can also get the same efficiency in an airtight fireplace insert, which is just a woodstove disguised to fill the front of a fireplace.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
I'm very familiar with airtight stoves and inserts. Not even close to the feeling of an open fire. I've made several Rumfords that perform OK. not up
to modern efficiency by any means thou. Hey, if anyone knows of a stove or insert that truly
has an open face feel to it, please let me know. I'm
stuck with an old Heat"O"Later that looks nice and
produces no heat what so ever.
Hey, if anyone knows of a stove or insert that truly has an open face feel to it, please let me know.
Lopi and several other quality woodstove companies make double-door airtight fireplace inserts that can be run with doors open and screen in place. Vermont Castings woodstoves can also be run the same way (though in both cases there'll be significant exfiltration losses, like with an open fireplace).
There's plenty of radiant heat thrown off by a steel or cast iron stove or face, in addition to what passes through the glass.
But these inserts will burn at 77% efficiency for 12 hours at a loading. What's that worth in terms of a little less intense radiant heat? Even a good Rumford fireplace is not going to run better than 40% efficiency with glass doors and typically less than 30% run open.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
thanks,
I've looked at all of those. Some are very nice machines and I'll probably use one of them eventually.
Yet, not one of them comes close to a Rumford in ambiance.
Even a good Rumford fireplace is not going to run better than 40% efficiency with glass doors and typically less than 30% run open.
Robert,
I knew that Fireplaces were not efficient. You also have to consider the time that the flue damper and air intakes are open after the fire goes out. Does the homeowner wait up until the last ember dies out and then close damper and air intake?
Does the homeowner forget or not bother sometimes?
How do the firestarters make it through the summer without a good fire?
Would it be smart to operate a fireplace while the airconditioner is running?
Of course not..it is a waste of energy.
Is it smart to operate a fireplace in the winter?
What do these wood burning devices do to the outdoor air quality?
Some jurisdictions are banning wood stoves!
http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blog/quebec-town-bans-wood-stoves
I knew that Fireplaces were not efficient. You also have to consider the time that the flue damper and air intakes are open after the fire goes out.
The salient point is that a fireplace, even a good Rumford, is inefficient when it is operating. A non-Rumford fireplace can even be a net heat loss.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
I just don't get that fire thing
There are a lot of descendents of Nero around these days.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
And one more thing..If we can eliminate infiltration... we will never get frost on our Pella windows.
How do you figure that?
Infiltration in winter lowers indoor RH. Infiltration at the windows can contribute to frosting, but it's primarily high indoor RH and poor window frames and thermal breaks that cause frosting - exacerbated by poor air circulation and thermal window curtains or shades or shutters.
And the PassivHaus website is talking about exfiltration moisture problems even with insufficient infiltration for indoor air quality.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Edited 1/15/2009 1:42 pm ET by Riversong
Sorry..lame attempt at humor from another thread
nevermind
And the PassivHaus website is talking about exfiltration moisture problems
Robert, I agree with your correction to my comments.
I just want to add that the exfiltration moisture problems that the cold climate Germans are concerned with can also be infiltration moisture problems in a hot humid or mixed humid climate.
this is quoted from passive house site
In hot humid climates infiltration of humid outside air can damage construction. The problem can be solved by thorough, air tight design.
Edited 1/16/2009 7:37 am by homedesign
If you increase the wall and ceiling r-values in your example and assume that there will actually be more than 0.25 ACH..then Energy Recovery becomes the low hanging fruit.
Absolutely. But let's be careful to differentiate between HRV and ERV - they are two very different beasts. I woiuld not use ERV in a cold climate like VT.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
<<Catskinner, if you're building houses that suck the sewer gasses and not providing controlled mechanical ventilation, you should be strung up by your toes.>>Go back and read it again.This was during a blower door test with the blower running at maximum capacity.No sewer gas has or could enter the house under normal conditions.
Go back and read it again.
This was during a blower door test with the blower running at maximum capacity.
No sewer gas has or could enter the house under normal conditions.
Catskinner, I not only read every word but every punctuation mark. I didn't miss anything.
My point was, if you're building so tight that a blower door test will suck sewer gasses, then its criminal not to provide controlled mechanical ventilation (and it violates the IRC).
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
<<My point was, if you're building so tight that a blower door test will suck sewer gasses, then its criminal not to provide controlled mechanical ventilation (and it violates the IRC).>>I understand your point, and while it is generally well-taken, "criminal" might be a little bit of an overstatement.The house in question is now a little over ten years old, I visited the place when it was eight years old just to check in with the homeowner. It looked as good as the day it was made (the architect was choked up at the housewarming party, he could not have been happier with the execution of the design). We also had no trouble with the C/O inspection, being an alternative design, we got a lot of attention. I guess the bath fan and the windows were OK for the inspector.The homeowner, after eight years, was still thrilled. He said that the only complaint he had was that the heating system we put in was a waste of money. The place smelled fresh and clean, no hint of mold or fungus anywhere.The house was sold two years ago, I have since visited the new owner, he is equally happy with the home. These folks love the place, it requires no maintenance, and both of the owners were complete health nuts. Sorta extreme, actually.I had to think about this for a few days before I replied. Once again, I've got something working in practice that some folks will insist doesn't work in theory, so I can't possibly have done it. That's ridiculous, right on the face of it. I don't want to see these discussions deteriorate into the pedantic foolishness or pointless sophistry so evident elsewhere.There is much good to be had here from the diversity of experience and thoughtful participation by skilled, knowledgeable professionals.You've got some ideas and practices that work for you, and without a doubt they have some applicability for others. Please just bear in mind that it's a big world with a lot of different situations that need to be addressed. Look at a sectional chart sometime, in the American West there are a few MOAs that are not much smaller than Vermont, there are ranches not much smaller than Rhode Island.Lots of different problems, lots of different solutions. I'm not saying my way works for everyone, and I'm not saying anyone should necessarily even use these ideas. It's just something that worked, and if anyone is willing to look deeply at what is green building, there might be something worthwhile there.
Cat,
I am sure that you have built a very fine home and it is no wonder that the energy performance has been good. Air changes consume energy.
It is fortunate for you that the original and current homeowners are using good judgement about how often and when to ventilate.
I think Riversong exagarates sometimes.. but I think you should at least consider mechanical ventilation in your future projects...
At least the homeowner would have options and could turn the ventilation off if they really understand what they are doing.
<<I think Riversong exagarates sometimes..>>yeah, maybe a little, but I think his heart is in the right place <G> <<but I think you should at least consider mechanical ventilation in your future projects...>>I am here to learn, and anything you have to offer will be duly considered.Got any web links I could look at?Thanks.
Got any web links I could look at?
Concerning mechanical ventilation sytems:
I bet you can find something at the BSC site..
I will poke around a little later and see if I can give an exact link.
There are many examples in Joe Lstiburek's builder's guide for "your climate"
I fortunately have a mechanical contractor who knows his BS well and he set up my system.
I have forced air heating with air conditioning.. my make up air is controlled by a honeywell controller set to ashrae standard 62.2
Your mechanical contractor should know this stuff..if not you need a new one.
Do not rely on your building inspector...there are some good ones and a lot of bad ones.
I currently like the sound of Riversong's sytem that he described earlier in this thread.
And as I learn more I plan to incorporate heating and cooling recovery.
Edited 1/16/2009 8:49 pm by homedesign
If you could find anything specific that you know is reliable I'd be more than happy to look at it.So far this has simply not been an issue for me, but I am always enthusiastic about doing a better job. One of the things I've been thinking about in this regard is how to put a passive solar home under very slight positive pressure with fresh outdoor air. Radon is a problem in many places, and radon mitigation systems are a little expensive. I'm not so sure they are all that reliable sometimes, either.Seems to me if the house were ever so slightly pressurized relative to the gas pressure in the soil, we could kill two birds with one stone.
One of the things I've been thinking about in this regard is how to put a passive solar home under very slight positive pressure with fresh outdoor air.
In the heating season, it's not good to have positive pressure as this will increase both exfiltrative losses and push more moisture into the thermal envelope. In the cooling season, it is wise to maintain positive pressure as this will prevent humid outside air from infiltrating the themal envelope.
Radon is a problem in many places, and radon mitigation systems are a little expensive. I'm not so sure they are all that reliable sometimes, either. Seems to me if the house were ever so slightly pressurized relative to the gas pressure in the soil, we could kill two birds with one stone.
There are few things cheaper in new house construction than radon mitigation. All it requires is an interior perforated drain pipe bedded in stone and filter fabric (just like an exterior footing drain), which can serve double duty as an interior sub-slab drain if it's tied into the footing drain. A vertical stack running through the roof connected to the drain pipe will usually create enough negative soil pressure from the stack effect to eliminate 90% of all radon problems. In an unusually high radon concentration site, an efficient in-line fan can be installed into the stack, but this is not necessary unless the house tests high (> 4 pC/L) in the first winter.
It makes much more sense to passively depressurize the subsoil than to pressurize the entire house and risk moisture problems. And, of course, the house will not remain pressurized when the windows are open, which can draw radon gas from the basement by the stack effect.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Makes perfect sense. Thanks.Reason I was wondering this aloud was twofold; where I live it's almost always (at least 360 days a year) more humid inside than outside, and almost everything we build is slab on grade. One more process under the slab gets expensive in terms of time, materials, schedule, damage to existing work, on and on.I'd kinda like to get away from slab on grade, which is part of the reason I'm hanging with this discussion.
If you could find anything specific that you know is reliable I'd be more than happy to look at it.
Cat,
I can not tell you that anything is reliable...we can always find a way to screw things up.
I do recomend having a ventilation strategy!!!
You can not depend on luck.
What is wrong with the Riversong scheme for your tight house in a cold climate?
described earlier. ... 115122.20
Do your houses even have one dedicated intake opening?
When you have a long cold spell do your homeowners really open the windows when they use the exhaust fans?
Do you think the next owner will always open the windows and operate the exhaust fans at a healthy rate?
I don't just mean the occupant health....but also the health of the home.
Once again, I've got something working in practice that some folks will insist doesn't work in theory, so I can't possibly have done it. That's ridiculous, right on the face of it.
What's ridiculous, Catskinner, is making either generalizations or conclusions about the validity or functionality of a building system based on anecdotal evidence.
What you dismiss as "theory" is the accumulated wisdom of decades of building science, both from the lab and from full-scale mockups and from analyzing as-built structures. And it is upon such "theory" and the cumulative field experience of thousands of builders, engineers, inspectors and others that our codes are based.
While those codes aren't always consistent with the very latest findings (there is a lag time and professional inertia), such as with vapor barriers, they do represent the collective experience and wisdom of the building industry.
For this reason, codes now require controlled mechanical ventilation in all tight houses, which means any house built to minimum energy-code standards. While I might disagree with the amount of ventilation suggested for the "typical" house and the "typical" family (since my houses are far less toxic), I don't disagree with the principle.
Lots of different problems, lots of different solutions.
Absolutely. I've never said otherwise. But there are minimum standards and basic principles that all solutions must provide for.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
<<<<Once again, I've got something working in practice that some folks will insist doesn't work in theory, so I can't possibly have done it. That's ridiculous, right on the face of it.>>>><<What's ridiculous, Catskinner, is making either generalizations or conclusions about the validity or functionality of a building system based on anecdotal evidence.>>Now see, once again we have no disagreement at all. I made no generalizations nor did I draw any conclusions. I'm pretty sure I wrote something to the effect that I wasn't recommending it for anyone else, and was just pointing out that it worked for me. Unique client, unique circumstances. <<What you dismiss as "theory" is the accumulated wisdom of decades of building science, both from the lab and from full-scale mockups and from analyzing as-built structures. And it is upon such "theory" and the cumulative field experience of thousands of builders, engineers, inspectors and others that our codes are based.>>I'm pretty familiar with all that, I think I'm fairly up to speed on building science, and I have a great deal of respect for the accumulated wisdom of our trade. That wasn't the theory I was referring to, I think you understand that. What I'm referring to are some of the interpretations of that wisdom that I see here. Seems a little dogmatically positioned and overly generalized sometimes, but hey, whadda I know?<<<<Lots of different problems, lots of different solutions.>>>><<Absolutely. I've never said otherwise. But there are minimum standards and basic principles that all solutions must provide for.>>OK. So if I'm making it work, the clients are happy, the building inspector is happy, the house is happy, the regional ecosystem is happy, everybody is happy, perhaps you will kindly admit that just because it wouldn't work in Vermont, it might actually work somewhere else?
OK. So if I'm making it work, the clients are happy, the building inspector is happy, the house is happy, the regional ecosystem is happy, everybody is happy, perhaps you will kindly admit that just because it wouldn't work in Vermont, it might actually work somewhere else?
Catskinner, you're missing the point entirely.
I understand that you believe your house works, and that the occupants believe it works. But that tells us nothing about whether it actually, measurably, demonstrably works.
Most people believe that Capitalism works. Most people believe that American democracy works. Most people believe that the modern way of life works. And most people are mistaken, because either they haven't really examined all the ramifications or they haven't compared it to something else, or they are simply basing their conclusion upon perception born of prejudice and ignorance, or they are influenced by social consensus...
You have offered nothing whatsoever to prove that your house "works" other than opinion or absence of evidence to the contrary.
Bernard Madoff's investment scheme "worked" for decades - everyone was happy, until they discovered that no one was looking behind the curtain to see how it really worked and realized that Madoff never offered a bit of evidence of how his system worked.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Edited 1/16/2009 10:18 pm ET by Riversong
<<<<OK. So if I'm making it work, the clients are happy, the building inspector is happy, the house is happy, the regional ecosystem is happy, everybody is happy, perhaps you will kindly admit that just because it wouldn't work in Vermont, it might actually work somewhere else?>>>><<Catskinner, you're missing the point entirely.I understand that you believe your house works, and that the occupants believe it works. But that tells us nothing about whether it actually, measurably, demonstrably works.>>I have no way to adequately describe how funny that strikes me. Emoticons just don't do it.If I did not see so much real, practical building knowledge being shared in this discussion we'd put that philosophy degree of yours to work. But I'm not that bored, and I would not derail this wonderful discussion for the world.Man, I gotta tell you, I'm really glad you're here. <G>
If I did not see so much real, practical building knowledge being shared in this discussion we'd put that philosophy degree of yours to work.
I believe we have very different understandings of the value of "real, practical building knowledge". And I don't have a philosophy degree. I studied philosophy and religion years ago until I felt sufficiently grounded intellectually to act responsibly in the world. I dropped out of more colleges and universities than most people ever attend. I went to school to learn, not to get a degree. (My father had done the same as a youth - he snuck into Harvard classes for three years when he was too poor to go to college).
But I've found, in the building trades as in the auto mechanics trade that was my first career, that most practical knowledge is extremely limited and narrow. Technicians, whether mechanics or builders, often know how to do something but almost never how it works (or whether it really works). Very few delve into the theoretical foundation of their technical trade, and those who do dabble in it and rarely comprehend it adequately.
And it's for that very reason that I've chosen to teach building science, engineering and technology - to offer people the kind of grounding they need to make good decisions about materials and methods and systems.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
<<And it's for that very reason that I've chosen to teach building science, engineering and technology - to offer people the kind of grounding they need to make good decisions about materials and methods and systems.>>By any standard, that's right livelihood.
Hi Cat Up here in the frozen north a slight positive pressure will come back to slap you. My sealed and ventilated house had the key holes freeze and the door sweeps freeze to the threshold. Nothing worse than trying to get a key into a lock with ice in it. My plan is to build porches ( as I should have) to reduce the air blast and hope and water escaping will get a bit farther outside before it reaches the dew point/ freezing point.any one think about building a house facade to impliment all the "needed" roof lines etc. and stick a good house behind? like on a movie set. Think Blazing Saddles.
any one think about building a house facade to impliment all the "needed" roof lines etc. and stick a good house behind? like on a movie set. Think Blazing Saddles.
Shoe...I like it
Nothing worse than trying to get a key into a lock with ice in it.
What, you don't have heated keys up there?
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
<<Hi Cat Up here in the frozen north a slight positive pressure will come back to slap you. My sealed and ventilated house had the key holes freeze and the door sweeps freeze to the threshold.>>Got it -- thanks.<<any one think about building a house facade to impliment all the "needed" roof lines etc. and stick a good house behind? like on a movie set. Think Blazing Saddles.>>I've been kicking the idea around for a few years, but haven't done anything with it yet. Closest I've seen is a few people putting roofs on posts (lie a pole barn)over serviceable but compromised or poorly designed structures. It worked.
That's what I was shooting for when I designed and built our place five years ago.
In our climate in southern Colorado, we get heat from the sun, have minimally enough mass, and supplement with about 3/4 cord of wood per winter. We also use some electricity for heat, but get almost all of that at less than half the usual rate since we use it during off-peak demand hours. If it is unusually cold for more than a day or two we wind up adding electricity to the mix. I know I could have done better than I did, but site restrictions held me back a bit.
I built a similar place in Montana in 1983 and have always wondered why such techniques weren't spreading like wildfire.
I'm a big fan of the concept. But while I think that North Americans are ready for the idea in general, they are not ready for the reality of the design. Are they ready to give up muiltiple roof lines, bump outs, etc. Are they ready to site the house properly and will developers do the same, are they ready to limit window placement etc? I don't know enough about the consumer to know - but the passive house pictured in the Wiki reference seems a very long ways from the typical design ideas that I see being used (and presumably wanted) right now. We have a ways to go
I'm a big fan of the concept. But while I think that North Americans are ready for the idea in general, they are not ready for the reality of the design. Are they ready to give up muiltiple roof lines, bump outs, etc. Are they ready to site the house properly and will developers do the same, are they ready to limit window placement etc? I don't know enough about the consumer to know - but the passive house pictured in the Wiki reference seems a very long ways from the typical design ideas that I see being used (and presumably wanted) right now. We have a ways to go
Mark,
That is exactly my point..we can continue to do the stupid architectural stuff and still dramatically improve our homes..If we could at least do the half-arse stuff right.
I agree completely - it has been a huge eye opener for me in the designing of our new home. When we starting asking for things that are beyond code - extra insulation below grade, R60 roof, R 40 walls, seamless infiltration barrier - we had some raised eyebrows from the architect and the builder . . . . .
After living in an 1880s Victorian that is an uncomfortable sieve, our new home has to be comfortable and efficient . . . and we have done alot of the legwork ourselves. Interestingly enough, the builder has caught on to the ideas quickly and is as enthusiastic about the idea as we are. We were really fortunate from the outset, the house design and siting were done right - and the fenstration is right. All of the other stuff was easy in comparison.
It does seem to be the wave of the future.
Mark
we can continue to do the stupid architectural stuff
Watever do you mean? ;-)
[The attached "10 House" was created by the founder of Yestermorrow Design/Build School (where I teach) and one of the creators and proponents of the design/build movement]
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
cool....... did you get your face molded on one of the buttresses ?
View ImageMike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
[The attached "10 House" was created by the founder of Yestermorrow Design/Build School (where I teach) and one of the creators and proponents of the design/build movement]
Riversong...now that's what I call a radiator....
He certainly maximized the exterior surface area :-)
(note smiley face)
I don't know enough about the consumer to know
The key may be in getting TB, PH, and that ilk to pump out 10-15 houses per week per subdivision, no matter how marginal the siting works out.
That's the primary "product" the consumer sees. 5-6 floor plans with 3-4 facade variations on generally homogenous streetscapes. That, after having lived in identical, replacable, entirely homogenous apartment blocks and complexes. so, what do they have for comparision?
All of their friends and acquaintances have lived in white-on-white-on-white sheetrock-returned boxes with all the character of generic vanilla ice cream cartons.
Now, maybe if the big national builders had to supply half-passive requirements for every lot in a putative subdivion (even just a written list of plan requirements), then we might see some changes. If the civil engineer laying the lots out has to then coordinate with some sort of certified process, so that we might not have entire streets that can only have bad siting . . . Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
yes, I think it will have to start with regulation. Homebuyers in this part of Canada are a funny lot. They move to the suburbs with a variety of presupporsitions. Some of them are (and this is a bit tongue in cheek):1. Fancy means multiple roof lines, bump outs, juliette balconies (that we'll never open)2. French Chateaus, alpine chalets, Faux Georgians and Tudors all look in the middle of an open field that has been stripped of every living thing and battered into oblivion and then called Fox Hollow (no fox, no hollow)3. The suburbs get them out of the city - and the neighbour is 4 feet away4. It's perfectly ok to have a brick facade on the house and every other side has brick half way up and then vinyl to the roof line (one of my pet peeves)And then they wonder why they didn't achieve what they wanted to achieve in moving to "the country"So yes, move on the regulations for siting, energy systems etc. I think it is the only way to get large scale changes in a short time. I'm generally against beingtold what to do but I think this is one place where it seems the only way to start the change.I think we have forgotten what it feels like to live in well designed comfortable housing - maybe we havn't really known generally. But there is a deep level of comfort that comes from being in a home that is well designed and comfortable to live in.
I think we have forgotten what it feels like to live in well designed comfortable housing - maybe we havn't really known generally. But there is a deep level of comfort that comes from being in a home that is well designed and comfortable to live in.
Mark,
I like your priorities.
What kind of mechanical ventilation did you choose for your home?
For heat, geothermal source with radiant infloor heating. For cooling - as much passive cooling as possible - windows and doors, skylights. Active cooling with air conditioning in the HRV system. Everything is in the design stage right now but those are the overall plans.In the guest house, shop, and garage, radiant infloor heat with a boiler until the geothermal system is on line, then geothermal as the primary source. Cooling - mostly passive at this point and the remainder to be determined, sp for the guest house.
"I think we have forgotten what it feels like to live in well designed comfortable housing - maybe we haven't really known generally. But there is a deep level of comfort that comes from being in a home that is well designed and comfortable to live in."
I think you make an important point. How to sell green building was brought up in one of these green threads. I think you need to come from a positive viewpoint to reach the most people. The fear factor: dwindling resources, future price of energy, etc.,while true, only seem to be preaching to the choir.There's a lot of literature on the "spiritual" side of home, just like fly fishing or golf. Christopher Alexander devotes much of his writing to this. "A Pattern Language" is a great resource. Health and comfort are qualities that appeal to almost all. With proper planning, a house can be both stylish, affordable, and use the green features we have been debating.JohnEdited 1/18/2009 11:48 am ET by JohnCujie
Edited 1/18/2009 11:49 am ET by JohnCujie
with a variety of presupporsitions
And the classic one, the one which sells so much tract housing in the US:
A new house has to be better--fewer or no problems--than an old one, right?
A supposition frought with assumptions.
Not least of which is that tract construction has never been the best example of construction, and that standard has declined in the last few decades. Ok, so, those who "learned" design in junky, older, even more shoddy, high-denisty housing, might be forgiven the supposition.
Sadly, though, they are the cohort with the money that buys tract houses in the quantities that make national builders profitable. This same group has lived in near-featureless boxes with only the most tacked-on architectural appurtenances. That they find dormers, turrets, pointless bays, and the like unique is also understandable. Especially when we consider that too many of the big builders employ people at the very bottom of the wage scale as "designers." Hiring people with only apartment experience is even less likely to result in usefull architecture.
These putative designers are also least likely to have the experience of both construction and design to be able to best integrate even half-efficient design into mass-production housing.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Mark,
When my kids were younger, we'd play a game every time we drove to Canada -- "Who can find a three-siding house?" They're very common in Quebec: brick veneer on the front, with cedar shingles on the sides, plus vinyl siding on the gables. It looks like every house was built by a contractor using up his leftover materials.
They are common everywhere - even the top flight subdivisions here have this being done now - a 6000 sf million dollar house with vinyl on the back upper. I guess the homeowners just don't se how stupid that really looks. Funny if they had just spent less on sf they could have finished w one material