Jan 26, 2009
LinkLove — I’m bad at it.
Thanks to everyone who’s been including me in their roundups lately! I don’t hate or ignore you, I’m just too scatterbrained to sit down and write something.
Steve got to eat at Eddie V’s. It was a soft opening, so maybe the food was free, but if I know Steve, he racked up a booze tab rivaling the national debt.
Kevin takes us for a tour of a new-construction Bungalow style home in Fairmount. Proof that modern materials can make classic architecture better, not worse. As expensive as this thing is, though, I’m surprised that there aren’t any overt “green” features.
BTW, Bernie likes a Booty Goo. I’m just sayin’.
Sonja — Yes, we’re more hip (as you have no doubt noticed by now, since you are now one of us), and yes, even an old Apple Notebook makes you cool.
FW Foodie rants about resolutions — I like the “Keep, Stop, Start” philosophy of resolving!
Jarid Manos, the Ghetto Plainsman
Thimblewicket gives us some insight into why oppressive governments are threatened by a well-educated populace.
Allen at The Whited Sepulchre finally posts his “Seven Things You Didn’t Know About Me” entry.
And now I’m tired. No more linkies from me for a while. If you’re good, you’ll get a video tonight.
Off the top of my head, I know it’s got a tankless water heater.
Though, traditional architectural forms are often inherently more green than modernist counterparts…
Please expound on this statement, Kevin. How is this house more green than the 100K House?
I know JPF’s bungalow also has double-hung windows, which if you open top and bottom panes, lets warm air out the top and cooler air in. Good way to cut down on a/c usage.
I agree. It’s a great way to cut down on AC usage, but it doesn’t explain how or why traditional architectural forms are “inherently more green than modernist counterparts…”
I did not say that your average standard home is more green than a home that’s entire existence is to use every green trick in the book – that’s hardly fair.
Though yes, traditional architecture is often inherently more green than modern architecture, especially before you start adding all the techno-tricks modernist architects love to use to make them more green. If you placed the 100k House next to Joe’s foursquare, Joe’s foursquare will have several advantages right off the bat. For example, the foursquare’s pitched roof with generous overhangs helps to shade its interior from the sun. That same pitched roof gives a sizable attic, giving hot air a place to go. The foursquare’s sane fenestration pattern allows a good, workable cross-ventilation scheme, and its traditional windows allow plenty of light and plenty of views but are not so big that they’re needlessly allowing heat to stream in. The 100k House’s oddly-sized/placed slits of windows don’t look to be able to allow the same sort of ventilation. The foursquare’s double-hung windows allow multiple sorts of opening, creating the ability to work with ceiling fans to move air of various temperatures around in a variety of ways.
(I am also a bit puzzled that you say that Joe’s home proves that “modern materials” make trad architecture better – there’s nothing overtly modern about Joe’s house’s materials. Pine siding, oak flooring, wood window frames…by nature of it being in Fairmount, it’s quite old-school.)
I refer you to the great Quinlan Terry’s essay on green design:
http://www.qftarchitects.net/essays/design.html
The thing that’s often missed in these discussions is that traditional architecture is inherently green – it has always been so, back before the dawn of the Air Conditioning Age. If it wasn’t green, its occupants would die. The things that made traditional architectural forms livable before HVAC are, handily, also the sort of things that make them pretty darn “green” from the start.
First, you still haven’t seemed to differentiate between modernism and “modernist” or “contemporary.” Modernism has ALWAYS been about efficient use of space and minimalism in materials.
There is more embodied energy in the materials used to build a home than any savings from reduced AC usage. Also, while the eventual owners of this home MAY be able to open the double-hung windows, let’s be realistic — are they going to? While we’re on that point, I’m sure you’re familiar with the concept of clerestory windows and using central vertical spaces as a cooling element. Cross-ventilation isn’t the only way to do it, and clerestory windows are more efficient than opening the top part of small double-hung windows because they’re higher and are at the highest point of the building (usually).
Also, hot air in the attic is a BAD THING. Ask any home efficiency specialist — they’ll tell you that you want to either seal that puppy off and ventilate it or insulate the hell out of it and make it conditioned space. While we’re at it, let’s talk about conditioned space. Peaked, black shingled roofs are completely WRONG for Texas, no matter how much they overhang. That’s just too much unoccupied (wasted) space that needs to be climate controlled.
You haven’t really proven your point “traditional architecture is inherently more green than modern architecture” by restating your thesis. Using your example of the 100K house next to Joe’s foursquare, two things jump out at me — 1. 100K house is a reasonable size at 1,150 square feet (inherently greener — modernist houses tend to be built on a more realistic scale). 2. There are not an excess of windows (one of your common complaints about “modernist” buildings) to heat things up.
Regarding the windows in the 100k house, it’s kind of irrelevant since it’s probably sealed up tighter than a drum when those windows are closed. That combined with the huge R-value of the insulation in the house make heating/cooling costs a non-issue.
I’m not sure where my “modern materials make it better” comment came from — maybe I was hoping that Joe chose to use SIPs or some other highly insulated manufactured material. Ignore that bit.
As for Terry’s essays — I’ve read them, and they’re accurate when the building is built with ancient design and ancient materials.
I suppose my ultimate point is this — It’s the 21st Century. Do you think that if the greats you extol had had the option of using reinforced concrete, SIPs, double-glazed glass, foam/concrete forms, etc. etc. that they would have stuck with bricks and adobe? Do you think they’d still be building buildings in the same shapes? Hell, even Frank Lloyd Wright’s style changed over the years from very Greene & Greene influenced to almost ruthlessly modern. A good architect (and good architecture) changes with the times in terms of materials used and overall aesthetic.