High-Performance Stock Windows
cedarknoll
| Posted in General Questions on
Hi All,
I’m currently designing my house and trying to take a simple and budget approach. I have no problem designing my house with a stock window size (all 3’x5′ for example). But it seems like super efficient windows are (always?) custom. Is this true?
I realize there would be some inefficiency in having stock efficient windows because you might have to pick just one type of glazing that wouldn’t be as efficient on the north wall as the south wall for example. But it seems like maybe there is a place for stock efficient windows in a “budget” build.
Anyway just curious. I’m in west coast marine 4C.
-Cedar
GBA Detail Library
A collection of one thousand construction details organized by climate and house part
Search and download construction details
Replies
For my recent build, I found Anderson 400 series double pane argon-filled windows to be an affordable alternative to high-end European or Canadian triple pane windows.
Cost of the Andersons ranged from about $83/SF (west-facing casement) down to $36/SF (fixed). Total SF ~ 122, total glazing cost ~ $7600 for a 1200 SF building. I was able to spec a variety of coatings to tune windows for each facade direction. The largest unit is a ~6' x 6' double casement, consisting of two 3060 casements with a center mullion. Lead time was a few weeks, IIRC.
Insulation performance is a bit lower than your spec (whole window U 0.24-0.22, or ~ R 4.17-4.55) but after modeling the difference in energy consumption and comparing that to the cost of PV to offset that difference, there was no way I could justify either the premium cost or long lead time for super high-end windows.
I'm happy with the build quality of the Anderson windows. After an initial blower door and fog machine test, I have no complaints about infiltration either. They may not impress anyone, but they look good and are functional.
I'm in zone 5 (North Idaho) FWIW.
Thanks for the reply, really great info. I will look more into Anderson 400 series. Those specs are close enough to my range to check it out.
I had numerous email exchanges over a few years with the most helpful people from this site
https://modernhomeluxury.com/In-Stock-Tilt-Turn-Windows-and-Doors_c34.htm
At that time, they did list prices, but do not now, perhaps due to currency fluctuation. The hardware was Winkhaus.
In the end, I ordered Andersen 400 series, given the excellent customer service, warranty, on-site service, and in-stock parts, as well as the installation familiarity of my builder. I could not burden my family with the weirdness and potential complications down the road.
I have no connection to this company, but did recently sell an item on Craigslist to someone who did buy those windows, and is satisfied.
(Climate Zone 6)
great thanks. interesting to see another satisfied Anderson 400 series customer. I think I have a dealer close by, so I'm going to have to check them out.
Seems to me with the exception of a few windows in box stores every window order is custom in that the window are only built after the order is placed and the complete order is shipped as a group.
The catalog will list dozens of “stock” sizes but the windows are not sitting in a warehouse waiting for someone to buy them. If for whatever reason you decide you must have a 13-inch-wide window because the “stock” 12 is too small and 14 is too big custom is an option.
As I recall getting mutable windows of the same size did not change the cost per unit. Of course, smaller windows do cost less and fewer window will lower the bill.
It seems unlikely R5 /U.2 window could recover its high costs in zone 4. You may want to build a BEopt model and run the numbers.
https://www.nrel.gov/buildings/beopt.html
Walta
As Walta says, all the manufacturers here wait for your order before making the windows, and there is no difference in price per sq foot between the ones in their catalogue and whatever size you want. I've never really understood why they publish catalogues for what are essentially entirely custom businesses.
This hasn't been my experience, both with Andersen and with Loewen. Going from stock size to one a fraction of an inch smaller means an upcharge of about 30%. Even though the windows are built-to-order.
DC,
Maybe that is a difference between large national firms and more local ones? Within 100 kms I have five or six good regional window manufacturers to choose from. All make windows in any dimensions I want, the only make-up being if the glazing exceeds certain sizes and needs to be reinforced.
I'm sure that the big firms do it as a form of price discrimination. It's like the way car manufacturers sell the same car in a stripped-down version and in a version with the "accessory package," it allows them to sell the same car at two different price points. In my experience smaller companies aren't as practiced at squeezing every nickel possible out of their customers.
I've never been a good haggler, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if there was more "flexibility" in the pricing of non-stock sizes.
Thanks Malcolm and Walta for the insight. This was pretty much my impression but wasn't sure.
I also appreciate Walta's thoughts about high efficiency windows in zone 4. I have been messing with BEopt a bit, it's a little advanced for me, I don't always know building material equivalents. But I'll keep pushing in the numbers. Thanks again for the insight!
I design and build both custom houses and "stock" houses that I try to make both relatively affordable and energy-efficient. (Duluth, MN and surrounding areas, zone 7) In my opinion, you'll put yourself further ahead by, instead of pushing in the numbers, pushing yourself to make smaller or eliminate entirely windows not required for egress, plus a few through which you can get some direct sunlight in the winter--not for any type of energy advantage, for a mental health advantage.
When you compare the energy use ramifications of an R-4/U-.25 window to those of an R-5/U.2 window, the answer is that they both suck compared to the wall that could be in their place, and for which you are already buying the material. Reducing your fun-estration isn't exciting (except when you're siding or sheetrocking a wall with no windows and you're flying through it) and it's not fun to geek out about, but it's by far the "greenest" choice you can make--both in terms of energy use and dollars.
Yeah this is an excellent point. I am definitely trying to design with minimal windows...but yes mental health factor is pretty big in the PNW. Although, I do live in a fairly temperate climate, so creating outdoor unheated covered 'living' spaces is a great way to mitigate the need for a lot of windows. Just finding the balance.
Hi Cedarknoll,
In my view, it's not so much minimizing the size or number of windows (although that may be the result), as being very mindful of how both window size and window placement affect the experience of the space. This has almost nothing to do with how a building *looks* from the outside, or what it might look like in the pages of an architecture magazine. I'd argue throwing acres of glass at a building is usually lazy design, regardless of the effect on performance and budget.
Instead, you might use a series of small windows to frame a series of views, like a photographer or cinematographer might frame a scene. You might design the placement and size of another small window to create a particular experience of light, or use windows to alter how interior space is perceived. For example: pushing windows toward the corner of a room (esp. on both sides of the corner) to visually dissolve the corner, and the way a corner defines a room's boundaries, thus making a small room seem larger than it is.
On the modeling side of things, I think modeling for daylighting and glare are as or more important than modeling for energy performance, although you don't typically need to compromise on daylighting to meet energy performance goals or vice versa.
Of course, sisubuilder is right, and even great windows make lousy walls. A south-facing high-performance window may gain more heat than it loses in cold months, but the glare from over-glazing is almost always unpleasant, as is hard-to-manage solar gain in warmer months.
The SketchUp plugin Sefaira does a good job of visualizing daylighting and glare, and modeling energy performance, including overheating from too much glazing. Unfortunately, it looks like it's pretty expensive if you have to pay for it out of pocket. If you're in Portland or Seattle, SketchUp Pro + Sefaira is prob. less than 1% of your construction budget, and could be a wise investment.
I'd also recommend the book A Pattern Language (Christopher Alexander et al.). It's not perfect, but there's a lot of good stuff in it. The pattern 'light on two sides of every room' is one I think about almost every day.
—David
Even thinking hard about which windows need to open helps. Fixed windows are cheaper and more energy efficient. One or two operable windows per room is all you need.
Excellent point. Especially if you've thought about cross-ventilation, the direction of prevailing winds, and whether you can orient the outward swing of a casement window to act as scoop.
DenCo has some higher performance double pane tilt/turn windows in stock sizes with prices listed. They have decent pricing on triple pane as well.
https://europeantiltturnwindows.com/
I think the BEopt training video required before anyone can really use or understand the software.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLHC0xDtkdjgec8QhVt7exJY3tpSLEFk-d
I could not agree more with sisubuilder’s comments.
Walta
great! thanks for the training videos.
You can get triple pane windows in the $85/SF range from Panes (www.panes.com). I plan on doing more due diligence with them and others when it comes time for me to build. I suspect there are better windows, but these might be good enough.
For wood or pvc? I got some estimates from Alpen and Denco on triple pane uPVC. Bigger windows (24 sqft) come in around $40-45/sqft fixed and $60-70 operable. Cost per sqft is tough though, it's a lot more for small windows and less for big windows.
They were vinyl (PVC) and I'm glad you posted this. I'll check out Alpen and Denco. Panes is Canadian, so you might take 25% off the price I quote to get a comparable USD price.
I've been struggling with "how many windows" myself in my still-to-come old home restoration. The architect wants to hold pretty firmly to the exterior look, which translates to more windows than we really need. I'm going to do my best to limit which operate and which don't. Tha'ts about all I can do.
Hi nynick,
I'm an architecture professor. I teach my students that architecture is about creating spatial experiences, and spaces for living, not objects to look at. If you can't get your architect to get past curb appeal, it's probably time to find another architect.
ddrake,
Surely houses are a bit of both. The ones we admire, and the cities they make up, are pleasing to look at. Like most architectural decisions, it isn't a binary choice. It's a dance where every consideration needs addressing, and given appropriate weight.
Hi Malcolm,
I think I understand what you're saying, and probably we don't disagree. Of course, visual experience is a big part of how most of us experience space, not to mention light and views. The massing and materiality of a building and its integration with site can be stunningly beautiful, and seeing aspects of that from outside the structure and from a distance can suggest that experience that awaits on crossing the threshold. The same is true of photos of project exteriors, I suppose.
What I object to is buildings (especially residential buildings) that function mostly or entirely as exterior visual spectacle. I might characterize it as the difference between looking 'around' (which implies being a participant) and looking 'at' (which implies being outside and separate).
There's an argument to be made that in a full world, building is a zero-sum game. Using resources for one project necessarily limits resources available to other projects. If that's true (and I think it is) surely that should be part of how considerations are addressed and choices weighed.
Again, probably we either don't disagree, or if we do, it is in a way that would make for really interesting conversation.
BTW, I can't figure out a way to change my screen name to display my first or full name. It's David. And I also want to thank you for your always informative and enjoyable posts.
David,
Thank you for your input. I didn't mean to demean our architect. It's WAY too late to change the design anyway but there are extenuating circumstances, including our personal preferences and taste that come into play.
First off, the original very small house is from the 1850's to the best of our knowledge, and has had several additions since then. It is a somewhat typical modified Cape with double hung windows everywhere, which were probably for ventilation, not view. One of the problems we face is that there is a spectacular view to embrace and we need to do so. We also love this little old house and want to keep its character.
To that end, we suggested/decided to turn the water facing screened in porch into a sunroom; lots of windows! We also thought one or two picture windows would accentuate the view elsewhere in the house. We think our architect tastefully accomplished this, while maintaining the cozy, unpretentious appearance.
Of course, there are some small, unnecessary windows here and there but that fit the geometry of the old design. I'll most likely turn these into non-operable units or attic vents where I can. These old buildings are full of compromises.
We could've bull dozed the whole thing and built a McMansion for probably 50% more than we're spending, but we don't need much and we love these old houses anyway.
Thank you though. I appreciate any and all tips I can get on this project.
Nick