8 Comments

1. 
   Luke | Oct 13, 2010 06:09pm | #1

   a contrasting point of view from your colleague
   Well done! I agree with everything in this post.
   And I'm also finding ways of changing my opinions to understand the 'edge' of improving sustainability in our built environment.
   As an alternative point of view that got me thinking about this was Martin's post a year or so ago about "Green Homes don't have to be durable."
   https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/musings/green-homes-don-t-have-be-durable

   Another way to consider "durability" in a difference sense-- sometimes the hardest durability is the durability of the "program" and service that the home space provides.
   I live in a location where there are no longer available greenfields for development. Most projects are in previously developed land. One of the issues that often faces homeowners with whom I engage is the age-old "Remodel vs. new construction" question. Their existing homes are perfectly durable, well detailed, and well detailed and will survive until the next San Andreas earthquake. However, they feel that the space doesn't properly provide all the service they want out of their house. So, they consider remodeling, realize how expensive it is, and then they tear the house down and start anew, as it is currently the cheaper option.
   I am not an architect (as my architect colleagues constantly remind me), but the durability of space and program is the one that I have the hardest getting my mind around.
   To summarize-- perhaps I work in a self-selecting group of homes, but I always seem to work on houses whose "durability" has failed (and the house consequently torn down) in spite of all the good details and recommendations that you've described above.

   I suspect that you'll have some perspectives related to these issues in upcoming recommendations.

2. 
   Interested Onlooker | Oct 14, 2010 08:28am | #2

   Change and decay in all around I see
   “If material A will last three times as long as material B, we have three times as long to amortize the environmental impacts that were involved in producing that material. So even if material A took twice the energy to produce, our selection of that material will have a net benefit over the long term.” But only if it continues to be used for its original function. If material B can adapt or be re-used and the highly durable material A cannot then the choice is different. Over the timescales which are being considered here buildings, uses and neighborhoods all evolve. The capacity to adapt may become just as valuable as durability. Even if the two slowest shearing layers, site and structure, don’t change greatly the other four (skin, space, services and stuff) certainly will. Designing buildings which allow these changes with minimum disruption and environmental impact is going to be an additional ingredient in the mix of ‘green’ architecture. Real people are going to continue to want to change their buildings as they use them – it is not going to be enough simply to design an ‘optimal’ solution to meet current requirements.

3. 
   Alex Wilson | Oct 14, 2010 08:49am | #3

   Durable and adaptable
   Great comment on the adaptation of buildings and building components over time. This is, indeed, an important issue--and really an aspect of durability. I recommend reading Stewart Brand's book, "How Buildings Learn" for more on this issue.

4. 
   Charles Brown | Oct 21, 2010 02:15pm | #4

   Durabilty vs. Decompose
   Good points by Alex and M Holladay - again reinforcing the argument for integration and thoughtful responsiveness to design program. As Energy & Water appear to be gaining traction as the top two of conservation, I've been asking myself more about topsoil conservation. We do a pretty poor job of conserving soil at present and returning nutrients by decomposition. What LCA I have done tends to favor local inert natural materials like stone and rammed earth, but only because most materials are energy intensive to make and distribute.

   After watching a TED talk on the further development of bio-based greensulate http://www.ecovativedesign.com and EBN's article re; the carbon footprint of most board insulation, I conclude we need durability and compostability. To achieve that we'll have to change how we think of building envelope systems. I can't imagine mycelium grown greensulate will have the same moisture resistance as synthetic foam. Current building science is heavily dependent on oil for a combined moisture, air and thermal barrier.

   Not saying I have the answer, other than we need to keep imagining many options to achieve a carbon balanced future.

5. 
   user-659915 | Oct 24, 2010 11:00am | #5

   'How Buildings Learn'
   Important not to be led down the primrose path towards the idea that you can only make durable buildings with so-called 'durable materials', in fact quite the contrary may be true. Mass concrete buildings of the 1920's and 30's were often demolished within a decade or two because of their poor suitability to continued use in a rapidly changing world and the difficulty of physically adapting them to those new conditions. These buildings were impervious to the 'learning' that Brand describes. The durability of a building is the durability of its components not only in a specific assembly in a specific location and climate, but also in a specific cultural and economic context which is subject to changing substantially over time. This is frequently achieved with materials that are inherently quite degradable: the standard American frame house is a prime example. The ability of the structure itself to be easily modified with simple tools and modest skills is important, so is the flexibility of the spaces themselves to adapt to different circumstances without any modification at all. Standard stick framing (with all its substantial redundancies - sorry, smart framers) fits the bill well. So does small-unit masonry construction - brick and block, adobe, straw bale even, anything that can be worked with hand tools and hoisted into place with one or two strong backs and one or two pairs of hands. In my neighborhood cheaply built mill cottages dating from the 1920's (2 x 8 floor joists @ 24" o/c, brick pier foundations on dirt footings) are lasting better, through continued upgrades and in spite of only sporadic TLC, than lift-slab concrete malls. If we want to know how to make long-lasting buildings with low energy loads the lessons are all around us.

6. 
   smalld | Oct 25, 2010 02:39am | #6

   scientific superiority versus long term empericism
   Present day philosophy concerning modern buildings is nice and highly political if not moneymakers (last 100 years or so) . However why do you never refer to the empirical information obtained over may hundreds or thousands of years in climate very similar if not identical to yours throughout the world. It may simply come down to the ancient Japanese philosophy that it is easy to keep warm but it is also very important to keep cool. Look deep, look long, and look world wide, that is all across the planet and in many places that do not necessarily come to mind. You will find wonder in energy efficiency that has been going on for centuries without your 'scientific approach" but simply by 'empirical experience" over in some instances millenium
   Regards
   smalld.

7. 
   Interested Onlooker | Nov 01, 2010 04:47am | #7

   Smart Framing and Durability
   James,
   Is there anything in smart framing that makes it inherently unsuitable for the evolutionary development that you describe? The ability of a 'low-energy' house to allow such modifications will depend much more on the simplicity and obviousness of the measures used to keep it watertight and air-tight. The internal, visible and reparable nature of the Air-tight Drywall Approach fits the bill for the latter - perhaps a water-proof wrap (tar paper, felt, Tyvek or its clones, etc.) over sheathing would be most suitable for the former. The wrap would need to be protected by siding, of course, with a rainscreen detail, as required, in wet regions.

   The need for future owners to understand how their buildings work will place some limits on how complicated our technical solutions can be. KISS is a fundamental principle if buildings are going to survive and adapt.

8. 
   Janet | Nov 12, 2010 12:24am | #8

   Multi Family vs Single Family
   I wonder if it is easier to deal with reusing existing multi family buildings vs. houses. At least for the homeowner it certainly would be and in this day and age for low income housing especially, HUD financed projects are often refurbished and reused buildings that are being cleaned up, modernized and very often, made more green. I think when you get right down to it that it is easier to reuse and renovate multi family buildings because the home owner is a development company who understands the benefits financially and the benefits for their reputation by building green. I agree with the comments above and the article, that homeowners simply see starting fresh as cheaper (because it often is) but we need to discuss long term benefits not only to them but to the environment they live in.