[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

GBlist: Consumption reduction



I want to add my two cents worth to recent discussions of building and
living to excess.

First.  I heard that fancy foyers and the stairways in main entry halls are
a remnant of times when formal living spaces used to be on the second floor.
Your guests, who entered the front door, were taken up these grand fancy
stairs to the main entertainment/living area.  These grand stairways
remained even when we moved formal living spaces downstairs and bedrooms
upstairs.  Recently, in coastal or waterfront homes, the spaces are getting
flip-flopped again.  Living spaces are being moved upstairs to get the
better view.

I couldn't understand why living spaces in homes from centuries past were
upstairs, until I visited Charleston, SC with a 5th grade field trip.  As
our tour guide talked about the houses in Charleston, she mentioned guests
being received on the first floor.  If the guests were important enough,
they were escorted upstairs, "out of the smell of the manure and garbage in
the streets, and away from the necessary rooms <outhouses>, and up where the
breezes were better."

As a society, we have pretty much done away with the street odors, but kept
these grand stairways.  I recently tried to do away with a formal
entry/stairway in some house plans, only to get severely chastised by anyone
I showed the plans to.  (I challenge the architects out there to redesign
houses so my kids don't need to cut through the more formal areas to get to
their bedrooms.)

Second.  I don't mind 9 or 10 ft ceiling heights (I question their energy
value with a modern HVAC system and good insulation).  But these tray and
vaulted ceilings are going excessive to the extreme.  The new houses around
here have such complicated ceilings, coupled with steeply pitched roofs that
you end up with many times the material and labor costs as a flat ceiling.
They even have to custom order the extra long rafters.  (They don't use wood
I-joists.)  What a waste of materials.  Plus you lose any attic space.  I've
seen unusable attic spaces that my whole house could fit in!  HUD has a
house that can be built for $30 per sq ft.  Some of the houses I've seen
have more than that in just ceiling costs.

Third.  The economics lead to excessive consumption.  As a builder, I deal
with a framer, plumber, electrician, etc. essentially the same regardless of
how big or complicated the house is.  I ask for bids, they give me one. The
winner does the work. I pay them.  My involvement with them really doesn't
change from a small house to a big one.  Their bid is influenced by an
economics of scale.  Regardless of the size of the job, they  have to
calculate bids, order materials, travel, set up, do the work, take down, and
clean up.  Nothing is linear with job size, except maybe material costs.
Bigger jobs are cheaper to do.  Everybody, except the buyer, profits more on
bigger jobs.  Even the banks, insurers, and tax collectors profit more.  In
my little town, I pay a $1,500 impact fee per new house permit.  Society
does not want me to build a $50,000 house; they want a $150,000 house.

For some light reading, get a copy of "Material World" from your local book
store.  It is a pictorial essay of the possessions of averages families from
many countries around the world.  I like the benefits of modern society, but
payback for our excessive consumption is going to be tough.

Craig DeWitt
SC Energy R&D Center

__________________________________________________________________
This greenbuilding dialogue is sponsored by Oikos (www.oikos.com)
and Environmental Building News (www.ebuild.com). For instructions
send e-mail to greenbuilding-request@crest.org.
__________________________________________________________________