Greenest Home?
http://money.cnn.com/video/fortune/2010/06/02/f_v_greenest_home.fortune
I would love to build this home…. but…
I thinks we need at least two definitions of green (along with whatever your favorite variable is)
1- cost to build matters that it is low
or…
2- cost to build matters and one should spend as much as one can for all the goodies.
Some Paul Holland interview yap that I thought was interesting… “square feet? ahh… for this building…. (there are a few!) cost… ahh… not telling yaa”… tour continues… “there is no finish on wood”…so he is asked “what about kitchen air?…. well… we have no HVAC. (not going to talk about what his wood will be like 10 years from now… maybe he is not going to cook inside?… and on and on.
I like the home… but… this guy is a great politician.
Nice home in my mind… and in category 2. But Mother Theresa if she were alive wouldn’t be drinking too many Sam Adams at this place.
I’d have one with Paul though. Would you?
GBA Detail Library
A collection of one thousand construction details organized by climate and house part
Replies
Sure, it's "greener" than its peers. But anyone who claims to have the greenest home in america, doesn't. One of the greatest mantras that true greenies have is that there's always a better, smarter, greener way. A true green dude is not going to think for a second that there's not somebody out there doing something a little bit better (or way better).
You know what would be cool? A show, no a series, where two intrepid green architect/builder/engineer types go on a cross country quest to find THE greenest house in the U.S. They probably won't succeed, but on the way, the viewers would learn a lot of cool stuff and what "REAL" green is all about. They'd bring with them a cool team of energy modelers, and auditors, and be armed with tons of data from EBN and GBA and Building Science corp. They'd swoop in on the so-called "greenest house in america" and put it to the test. Hmmmm... maybe I should talk to someone... Hey Discovery Channel, call me. :)
Great idea Chris... get a enough in your contract to add me to the payroll.
Christopher, I love your idea, but limit it to homes at least a couple of years old and give the two stars full documentation on cost to build, actual BTU/ year to operate, water usage, and warranty events.
So who would be the two hosts? Joe Lstiburek and Robert Riversong? The dream team! Hmmm I'm not so sure I'd want those two to visit one of my projects. But it would sure be entertaining. Derision, insults, job-site fistfights, wild parties. Sounds like good TV for sure.
Okay how about John Straub and Arn McIntyre, more practical science, more diplomatic / less abrasive insults. (Speaking of which we need to get Arn to join the conversation here. He’s doing amazingly thoughtful stuff out in Grand Rapids Minnesota.) Perhaps a little too serious but I would sure watch it.
Peter Pfeiffer and Carl Seville? Maybe a little too habitually controversial, even Fox couldn’t afford the liability insurance. But it would be hysterical and informative at the same time, definitely good TV, and no problem finding sponsors.
If you were to pick two great building science educators to be hosts of this show who would make it entertaining and applicable to the folks who would watch it on TV or podcast, which two would you pick and why?
Now take it another step, if you were to stack up 20 representative green homes at least two years old what measurements would you use? Annual BTU per SF? BTU per occupant? First cost per SF/ occupant? Annual cost including mortgage and opportunity cost? Net global warming impact? Some sort of triple bottom line coefficient?
And if you had to choose just 20 homes to examine how would you choose and which ones would you choose? I recently negotiated the house selection for the NAHB green conference home tour and it was a fascinating experience. We did remodels, subsidized green affordable, market price green affordable, mid price green in a couple of different variations and mainstream green and luxury green. In addition one could choose to do Passive House, LEED-h platinum, NAHB green emerald, net-zero, living home, and natural built cob and straw. I think you’d want to draw a distinction between subsidized and market-rate since so many of the “Green Demonstration homes” are built with free materials which does sort of cloud the decision making process. I think you would need a number of different series to do any kind of justice to it at all.
Balls back in your court.
Folks mentioned above please understand that no offense was intended in anything written.
No offense taken.
But if I were part of the team, the trip would be short and simple. Find the nearest teepee or yurt or hogan or cliff dwelling. Green has been around for millennia (that's what makes it green), we just need to drastically simplify our lives once again to rediscover it.
I think the first season is "New Construction", the second is "Rennovations" (then hopefully it would get picked up for another season :). Because this is America, I think there would have to be a winner declared at the end of each season. I think you just made an awesome pannel of judges who could also provide commentatry at the end of each episode and be present for the final episode filmed live at green build (assuming that the USGBC could handle the many LEED complaints that would show up on various episodes) where the winner is declared (and honorable mentions handed out.. Mr. Riversong, you can be the "Simon Cowell" type judge.
To be apealing to a larger audience, the human element would have to be exploered as well as the technical. You'd have to get the lead carpenter's off hand comment that "these were the most ridiculous and time consuming window details ever, I'm still paying for them.." or the owner sayin "I know, but I just had to have a dining room that seats 24 comfortably for the holidays". Or, after interviewing the man whose home is made entirely from things salvaged from the dump, you get the neighbor's reactions. etc.
I think your last paragraph sums it up. The hosts and viewers could find themselves anywhere, on any project, with any funding , using any rating system, BUT in the end it all comes down to energy consumed verses energy saved, resources used vs. resources saved, money spent vs. money saved (ROI) toxins produced or NOT produced, etc. Each home would have merrit and each would have room for improvement. None will be perfect (Not even Robert's yurt) though it may be perfect for someone.
I would seriously try out to be host, though I don't have the credentials of those you mentioned and will be the first to recognize when I've been outclassed, but maybe they'd give me a shot? especially since work is a little slow in this economy :)
I do think that whoever the hosts are, they have to know their stuff, be able to play well with others and still be able to get away with a lot of good natured jabs.
Yeah, I'd totally watch that show.
Chris... we have to make this show happen. I seriously think it would have plenty of viewers and the subject matter could go on forever unlimited. I watch Holmes on Homes... and this show could be very similar. A USA base what is green show... starring your host Christopher Briley and his experts in the green industry.
contact time... I did build recently for a higher up at Comcast... here we go....
Now here's a couple of really green homes:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2751/4473658572_aecc62a107.jpg
http://www.performance-vision.com/gery-romania2/Tran14-MossCoveredRoof-on-MountainCottage.jpg
Ha!
Gorgeous! I know that's not supposed to be good for the houses (the materials) but I think its worth it. Very nice, Robert. I would love, one day (or one decade) to grow and shape a living house. Kind of like Sanfte Strukuren http://www.sanftestrukturen.de/index.html only less exhibition, and more "home"
Adkjac, hook me up. OR send them to the GBA and hook them up.
I know we're all building nerds here but there's an aspect of this which gets way too little attention in this forum and it's nothing to do with the construction issues with which we all tend to be so preoccupied. The 'greenest' home is not just about materials, not just about size, not just about affordability and not just about energy use. We all depend to a greater or lesser degree on a comprehensive human ecosystem for food, income, education and socialization. Building in locations which depend on fossil fuels to connect us with these needs makes our dung-fired yurt as unsustainable as a mcmansion. Single-family homes on rural acreage are still the dream for many in the sustainability movement. I believe this is a delusion for most. Sooner or later we must come to understand that living close together in towns, villages and cities is the only path to a truly sustainable human culture, at least for the vast majority of us who do not make our living from working the land.
What - my Yurt doesn't allow me to commute in my Hummer? http://tinyurl.com/242ubtu
Of course you're right, but I would take it a good bit farther. Cities, by definition, are unsustainable: they are a large-scale human habitation that exceeds the carrying capacity of its local environment, thus requiring the exploitation of resources from somewhere else.
If we are to approach sustainability, or "green" living, we must be living in large extended families, tribes, and villages. And most of us must glean at least part of our livelihood from the land.
Foolish in the extreme to dismiss cities so cavalierly. Cities are a natural expression of the human condition and in one form or another they have defined human sustainability for millennia. Of course for much of that time they had a natural population limit of 30,000 to 100,000 because of the logistics of food supply and effluent disposal, and granted, the supercities of today are far too recent to have proved themselves. But we have traditional cities to thank for much of what we have learned about social, economic and environmental equity. Tribalism? Not so much.
This is the kind of historical myopia that is responsible for out current fast track to species extinction.
For millions of years, humanity lived sustainably in small nomadic tribes that lived within the carrying capacity of their local environments.
Human civilization (from whence we begin the epilogue we call "history") is a very recent offshoot of human social evolution, and in every case it has resulted in desertification and other wholesale forms of environmental destruction.
What "history" books don't reveal is that there are at least four examples of civilizations just in the Western hemisphere that discovered their peril in time to return to their dispersed, land-based culture of natural harmony. These were the Mayans, the Olmec and Teotihuacan, the Hohokam and the Anasazi.
A hunter-gatherer who needs 2,000 calories a day to live has to expend only 400 calories to get them. By contrast, a farmer who needs 2,000 calories a day to live has to expend 1,000 calories to get them. Modern "civilized" farming requires 20,000 calories of ancient sunlight in order to produce 2,000 calories of food.
The rest of my posting got lost:
Every civilization is based, initially, upon agricultural surplus. Surplus leads to hoarding and wealth and power and control and hierarchies and systemic inequity. Inequity always leads to war. In fact, it requires warfare for its perpetuation. And modern scientific materialism (today's religion) is based upon the control and subjugation of the physical world.
The story of civilization is a story destined to failure. Catastrophic failure, as we're witnessing in this time of simultaneous global crises, none of which can be averted with the tools and the mindset of civilization.
The remnants of the tribal peoples you disdain are the ones who've been warning us for decades about our path of destruction and offering to teach us how to return to a sustainable and just path. But foolish moderns continue to believe that they know better than those who never lost the way. And in that foolishness (or what the Greeks knew as hubris) lies our tragedy.
Hubris - Flight of Icarus
Hey Robert, so maybe we ARE on track for the catastrophic failure of our global human culture. The thing is, looked at dispassionately this would probably be a good thing for everything on the planet, except of course for humans and their domesticated species. It would also be be the only sure path back to the tribal hunter-gatherer condition you so covet: the problem getting there otherwise would obviously be recruiting volunteers for a 95% reduction in human population. I'm certainly not putting my hand up.
Oh! the irony of conducting this conversation over the internet.
James,
I certainly don't "covet" the hunter-gather lifestyle. I never learned to hunt (actually detest guns) or fish and can't tell one mushroom from another, though I could probably survive in the wilderness a lot longer than most.
But there is no need to recruit volunteers for downsizing the human population. Gaia will take care of that for us. But, if volunteers were required I would be among the first to raise my hand. I have no fear of death and my life's purpose is service to the Web-of-Life. The true warrior arises every morning with the words "It's a good day to die".
Fact is, the Earth could probably survive with a human population of one billion, but only if those one billion didn't include too many who would't raise their hands when called to serve the greater good.
I had a graphic I used for a slide once that was a matrix that showed my philosophy on this subject. Darned if I can find it. But it had time on the bottom (the past on teh right, the present in the middle, and the future on the left) and sustainability running vertically on the left. (the bottom was complete sustainability, the top complete anihilation). So at the bottom left corner I had a native-american arrowhead symbol, perfectly sustainable. Structures were temporary sometimes only seasonal, consumption and regeneration perfectly balanced.
Then I cast upon the graph the influence of technology! It blows from the bottom to the top. Then I chart man's progression through time... go ahead get another beer, I'll wait... got it ? good. Man's path through time drifts toward anihiltion. Man must deal with this influence! as man's course hits the center (present day) we find his trajectory is maybe parabolic? maybe it's slowing down and headed back to sustainability? or maybe its going to to just get another boost and we're done as a species. Then I chart the future with a dotted line it heads back to sustainability and ends in the future in at the bottom again perfectly sustainable with the startrek symbol (very similar to the arrowhead) The point being, that WE have to deal with the technology we create, we have to shed some of it, shape some of it, and create some of it. We will never give up dominion (willingly) and go back to the ways of our ancestors, we have to learn from them and then deal with the now.
Wait, was was this string about...?
The past on the right - the future on the left! Is this some kind of time-reversal quantum warp?
OK, the arrowhead is on the bottom left. Whew! We moderns know that time is a line that runs from left to right, don't we? Not like that primitive notion of cyclical time which brings our karma back upon us!
I like the image, though, and it reminds me of my favorite evolutionary "curve": http://www.clemson.edu/caah/history/facultypages/PamMack/lec124/evolution.jpg
or, maybe more accurately, this one: http://lollitop.anel.cc/blog_files_2/human_evolution_2.jpg
But the one place you've missed the mark is your statement that "We will never give up dominion (willingly) and go back to the ways of our ancestors". Our futile attempt at dominion (or scientific/technological control) is the very root of the problem. While it may be impossible or inappropriate for us to return to the hunter-gatherer level of technology, unless we relearn the hunter-gatherer paradigm of living in service to the Web-of-Life - rather than the converse - we will continue our trajectory toward annihilation.