More Building Matters
Rob Howard, a trailblazer in the housing industry and founder of Howard Building Science, famously quips, “I’ve never built a house to code.” His vision has always been to exceed the standard, beginning with Energy Star+ homes for Habitat for Humanity and North Carolina’s first Net-Zero Ready home in 2005. Howard’s distinctive approach lies in his knack for crafting sustainable and attainable homes that are not just houses but high-performance living spaces. “I aim to push the boundaries of performance while keeping my homes within reach of the average person in my area,” he elaborates. 
When asked how he could offer high-quality housing for under $300,000 (some just under $200,000) in a state with a median price of $389,800, Howard’s immediate focus is on size. “If you’re building the average size home in the U.S., and the cost per square foot of building continues to increase, then housing costs continue to increase,” he explains. “I can only control so many things related to the cost of construction, but I can decide how large these homes are going to be. I wanted to test the market with smaller houses. I call my developments cottage homes instead of tiny homes.”
Howard’s homes, ranging between 800 and 1,400 sq. ft., are much larger than the building-code definition of a tiny house—which does not exceed 400 sq. ft.—but still small by today’s housing standards. This focus on size and affordability, with homes priced within reach of the average person, has made sustainable housing a viable and reassuringly accessible option for many.
In his 11-unit Duke Street Cottages development, only two were larger. Howard moved into one of them. He began building the larger houses on spec, but they sat on the market. “I decided maybe I should let the market dictate…
Weekly Newsletter
Get building science and energy efficiency advice, plus special offers, in your inbox.
This article is only available to GBA Prime Members
Sign up for a free trial and get instant access to this article as well as GBA’s complete library of premium articles and construction details.
Start Free TrialAlready a member? Log in
18 Comments
I love this and would like to do something similiar where I'm at (western Washington state). I have even gone so far as to secure a suitable plot of land (for a single house, as an initial start) and met with builders. However, I have been unable to find a builder who is interested in anything other than building a way too big, tract-style house. No less one who is aware or interested in green techniques. The few green builders there are, are occupied building fancy custom homes - not small investment properties - and are unlikely affordable for this type of project.
I wonder if Mr Howard, the author, or any experienced readers could speak to this - whether they also have experienced this and how they may have resolved it. Any ideas or suggestions are much appreciated.
As a long-time builder of energy efficient housing I have wonder what has happened to innovation in this country? All of the whining builders who cannot and will not build out of their normal comfort zone shows how low the building industry has sunk. When I think of the projects we took on over the years with just a good work ethic and a darn small crew, I am embarrassed for today's (builders). I have worked with a number of self-builders over the years and these are folks committed to a great end result, follow this lead.
Doug
Failure today is very expensive: insurance claims make already-expensive premiums go way up, or you lose coverage altogether; people are much more willing to sue than they used to be; skills and work ethics are not what they used to be, since an entire generation of workers was directed toward white-collar jobs. I innovate more than most residential designers (or architects) but I often review the mistakes I might have made in the middle of the night. It turns out that a good nights' sleep is important for health and function.
Me, too, Doug. I am also appalled by our industry's reluctance to innovate--this is why tech folks are constantly coming in to revolutionize the industry with a new way of homebuilding, only to fail, even if the ideas are good when faced with the impossible task of getting enough builders on board to sufficient scale.
Hi Mowich. I know a company in Seattle that may be sympathetic to your proposal. You'll likely have to become the builder--or GC--and hire like-minded subs. I have a section in my book where I describe how to go about this: https://www.amazon.com/Building-Affordable-House-Fernando-Pages-Ruiz/dp/1641552131?ref_=ast_author_dp.
*strong opinion*
For the love of god do not use a three headed system! Figure out how to fit a small ducted head with one register in each room. (bathrooms get cold too) You can put a better filter on it as well. Mitsubishi has got to get over this ductless multi-split stuff. It’s
nothing but problems. Oversized, short cycling, bad filters, no way to integrate ventilation.
You’ve got way too good of a thing going here to ruin it with a multi-split.
I am sure Howard will keep tweaking and refining his approach.
Rob Howard is doing admirable work. I do question the three-head mutlisplit; like Andy, I think a low-static-pressure ducted system might be a more efficient choice.
My larger concern is the polyurethane spray foam in the SIPs (I don't care that the manufacturer doesn't like calling them SIPs; that's what they are, and polyurethane options have always been available.) They advertise R-7/in but like all closed-cell foams, over time they will drop to around R-5.6/in, or possibly lower due to the higher resin content. That's a drop of 20%.
Compare that to the R-value of EPS, which remains a constant R-3.8 to R-4 over time. Its sibling, GPS, maintains around R-4.8 over time. Closed cell foam has significantly higher carbon emissions than EPS or GPS, even with the newer blowing agents. I hope they look into using GPS instead of closed-cell foam, as they end up with a nearly comparable R-value.
There are also many ways to build without resorting to foam, of course. They are doing almost everything else right; why not extend their care to the building's embodied carbon emissions?
I'm glad you flagged the really high embodied carbon and GWP of the polyurethane SIP approach. Buildings like this are a reminder that there is a long way to go in getting folks to understand that Scope 1 energy use and emissions are not the whole picture.
We need to cut emissions yesterday to stem global warming so front-loading the emissions of your building is a particularly questionable decision.
That's the climate argument. The old hippie conservationist in me also wants to know what happens to those polyurethane panels when this house is torn down (as all homes will be one day). The lumber, nails, and (hopefully cellulose insulation) from a code-built home will decompose back into compost. What about OSB bonded permanently to polyurethane? That's destined for the landfill forever.
I live an a rural area where old stone and wood buildings are often just buried on site at the end of life, without major consequences to the health of the site. Do you want to bury all that plastic in your yard? If not, what makes you think we should bury it on some other piece of land for eternity?
bgoldendesign,
Well put.
For reference, here's the info they provide on their website, most notably a claimed GWP of less than one, and of course no mention of the thermal drift.
"Eco-Panels only uses the most advanced closed-cell polyurethane foams on the market today. Our highly efficient insulating and structural foam core offers almost twice the R value – or thermal resistance – of expanded polystyrene foam. Using a poly-alcohol base derived from post-process sugar beets, our custom blended foam will never melt, is fire retardant (Class 1) and has post-consumer recycled content (PET). Our foam has a global warming potential (GWP) of less than one, no ozone-depleting potential (ODP), no styrenes, no formaldehyde, no volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and no brominated flame retardants (common with EPS foams)."
If that's all true, that is an impressive GWP rating. But the foam industry has been very effective in making people think that the GWP of the new, HFO blowing agents (of 1-5) are the GWP of the entire foam product, which is not the case. The resins carry a substantial GWP load as well.
“If” indeed...
Their content leans pretty heavily into hyperbole, to the extent that I would take any of their claims with a big grain of salt. My favorite line from a recent blog post by the CEO “Stud frame construction - the WEAKEST and least energy efficient way to build a home!”
I emailed them for more information and got this reply:
"We are stating the GWP of the HFO blowing agent we are using, not the foam itself. When people are talking about the ODP or GWP of foams, the common convention is to be talking about the blowing agents."
Their website explicitly states "Our foam has a global warming potential (GWP) of less than one."
I really don't want to downplay the overall excellent work that Rob Howard is doing, but the foam industry's penchant for claiming one thing and delivering another needs to be called out. By repeating a lie, they cast doubt on everything else they claim.
And for the record, they only confuse consumers when they state that they have an ozone depleting potential of zero. That just means that they are following a law put in place over ten years ago.
bcade,
That proponents of one system feel it necessary to disparate the alternatives doesn't seem very useful to anyone.
Very nice. Smaller houses are what we need. Not only are they cheaper, but less room means less spent on furnishings, furniture and "stuff." Americans are addicted to acquiring too much "stuff" and it has a terrible cost over time. My dad is a prime example. He has a house full of stuff and now that he is in his 90's we see the overall cost to him and our family of collecting his stuff, storing it, moving it around and ultimately when he passes: junking his stuff (junk). Better to live with small spaces and be more frugal.
Two other suggestions. First, there are very few stick builders with this guy's knowledge, quality and savvy. If this small (er) house concept is to flourish in many jurisdsictions nationwide, it will probably need to go with factory built modular. Otherwise, I don't see how in the larger context this type of house can be replicated in many jurisdictions; particularly given the huge labor shortages we face as immigration restrictions take hold and skilled laborers also retire.
Second, I suggest the builder explore wood foundations instead of block or poured foundation walls on full perimeter footings. Masonry foundations of thsi type are very expensive, require coordination with the excavation and masonry crews and is the largest source of embedded carbon in residential building. I suggest exploring using treated wood pilings driven into the groond or augered in, especially where the soil is not full of boulders. Millions of homes on the Atlantic Coast are built this way. If people are worried about wood, then use small concrete permacolumns on augered footings or even helical piers. On houses this small and simple I have seen these types of foundations laid out and installed in a day at a cost cometitive with full masonry. And the mess is far less as there is no need for so much excavation as you have with full perimeter footings.
Great article and comments, especially from @michaelmaines. A couple of thoughts/questions:
* As @nickdefabrizio pointed out, why not make these houses even more affordable and carbon-neutral-ish by putting them on helical piers?
* Is anyone else less than impressed by the eco-panel cost savings compared to stud frame with fiberglass? I guess you get the benefit of the cathedral + loft. But I can imagine stick frame + TimberHP batts (or TimberHP boards on the outside) as another way to green-up this build.
At any rate, buying your book, Fernando. Thanks for the link!
This an impressive project! Ingenuity is the key to bringing up the floor of the building industry. So many builders default to mantras like “this is just how we have always done things”, “this is how I was taught 30 years ago”…
Many of the strategies that Mr Howard is using in this project are not radical and in fact most of the material/systems he is using are pretty standard and have been around for decades. What is revolutionary though, is that he is being creative about what he is doing and his process is forward thinking. The industry needs more builders like Mr Howard that are willing to put an extra effort into the thought process and move beyond the “this is how we have always done it” mantra.
Log in or become a member to post a comment.
Sign up Log in