Building "Green"

[sjdehner]

I second John's thoughts completely.

To them I'd also add that a "small" house might be loosely defined as one sensibly sized for a typical family of four. The bungalow movement that occurred in North America during the early 20th century is a perfect example of simple, small house design suited specifically for small families.

I'd also add that quality of construction and aesthetic appeal are always "green" techniques since well-built, attractive houses will last for generations. People are more likely to maintain such houses simply because they are beautiful.

Frankly, there are too many small houses being tossed together with the cheapest (poorly made) materials available for the sake of cost. There's no virtue in building a small house unless it is well-built, attractive and energy efficient.

Having remodeled two houses and built one I know that it is far less expensive to build an energy-efficient house than it is to remodel a fixer-upper to a similar standard.

Hiring local contractors and buying as much local material, especially lumber and stone, could also be added to a "green" tally sheet.

Reclaimed materials are great too although we find that these are often extremely costly at times.

So, to John's "green" philosophy I'm adding quality, beauty and the use of local talent (including your own) and materials whenever possible.

S.

And one small political postscript: Republicans AND Democrats alike think that they can be adequately represented by money. The giving of money has thus become our characteristic virtue. But to give is not to do: the money is given in lieu of action, thought, care, time.

[waggin]

And one small political postscript: Republicans AND Democrats alike think that they can be adequately represented by money. The giving of money has thus become our characteristic virtue. But to give is not to do: the money is given in lieu of action, thought, care, time.

sjdehner,
Your post was well-reasoned and non-partisan, and I especially appreciate the part quoted above; thank you. 

How did this thread degenerate into a partisan political rant anyhow?  Does that mean I should look for threads titled "conservatives vs. liberals" for discussions on green building?

[John Raabe]

I've always been uneasy when asked about Green Building.... it can often be just more stuff to buy. Another brand!

An architect who really wants to be green will talk their clients out of building entirely. That is the most green path of all.

Then, if you can't talk them out of building, help them to build smaller, more efficient houses that use the natural climate characteristics of the site.

Also, as was mentioned, build a house that will stick around for a long time.

There are two ways houses can be built to do this: http://www.countryplans.com/thrive.html (Good examples of both can be found on this site.)

[Pritch]

And one small political postscript: Republicans AND Democrats alike think that they can be adequately represented by money. The giving of money has thus become our characteristic virtue. But to give is not to do: the money is given in lieu of action, thought, care, time.

I agree with you that the giving of money can be used by a person to asuage any feelings of responsibility to become involved.  That being said, money is an abstract representation of our life energy.  It is the "battery charge" of the work of my hands or my head.  If I toiled to charge the "battery", I'll be damned if some ingrate is going to come along and demand unfettered access to it.  

I agree with the lament some have had that green has become chic and certain actions that just pencil out are embraced because of enviromental pretentiousness.  On the other hand, I'm gratified that the increased awareness the green movement has brought has resulted in more choices for consumers who wish to reduce their energy consumption, be more mindful of what they eat or increase their independence.  

Earlier I vented about people getting their hand out of my pocket and to quit telling me how to live.  This may have given the impression that I'm rolling in cash, living in a "McMansion" and driving a Hummer.  In fact, I sold my larger house in the burbs and moved back into town.  My wife now commutes a whopping two miles a day, and I work from home.  Yes, I drive a pickup truck, but nonetheless probably have a much smaller "footprint" than many of those pious greendamentalists that give me dirty looks from their hybrids.  

[/vent off]


Hey Don, what happened to ya?  

-- Pritch

[MountainDon]

I had some issues with myself...     but here's more or less what I had said...

Pritch's comment "I'm sick of people thinking it is their business how I spend my money!  I choose to give a significant part of our household income to charity because I take "The Master's" commands seriously.  Collectivists spouting this philosophy want to tax all of the fruit of MY LABOR and dispense it (or a few pennies on the Dollar after costs) to who they feel is deserving.  Studies have shown that these people don't tend to part with their own pennies for charity!" struck a nerve with me.

I'll try to reconstruct this... Three fourths of Americans give charitably; an average of $1800 as of a few years ago. Many, if not most, Americans would agree that liberals "care more" about the poor than conservatives do. However studies have shown that to be a myth.

Arthur Brooks wrote Who Really Cares. "When you look at the data," says the Syracuse University professor, "it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more. And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."  Incidentally, conservatives also give more blood.

Brooks found the people who give one thing tend to be the people who give everything in America. You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away.

Brooks also found while the rich give more in total dollars, low-income people give almost 30 percent more as a share of their income, a greater share than the very wealthy.

On an episode of 20/20 John Stossel led an experiment. They went to San Fransisco (liberal bastion) and to Sioux Falls, SD (conservative). They had the Sally Ann choose locations to setup the familiar Christmas donation buckets. They were manned for two days. Even though the San Fransisco walk by traffic was three times that of Sioux falls, Sioux Falls collected twice as much money. The liberals, fond of saying they want to help the poor by redistributing income, were shown to less in favor of sharing their own cash.

So, I too get upset, quite upset, when I'm told that redistributing wealth is what we need more of. We are comfortable, better off than some, but not rich by any definition. We got where we are all by ourselves and I'd like to see that as the expectation for all. There will always be some less fortunates who require assistance. They need to be helped as needed.

I believe that's more or less what I stated before

[glenn kangiser]

Green has a price...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6211261.ece

[Don_P]

Going back to the water comment, "you'll never miss the water till your well goes dry". These are good folks;
http://www.watermissions.org/about.html

[pagan]

Define "green." It's all subjective.

Someone who builds a McMansion with solar electric/water, has a super efficient building envelope with a hot air exchanger and state of the art Energy Star rated appliances can run around patting himself on the back all the while touting his "green" home. Is it "green?"

Is someone who builds a small home out of local materials, cob, straw bale, etc. and lives without running water or electricity more "green" than the so called "green" McMansion?  Or is someone who has a small off grid system and lives simply the "green" giant?

Where do trucks fall in with this equation? I don't have a truck but am certainly considering purchasing one because I need to have one at my disposal. What about power tools?

Is the "greenest" house built with no power tools, constructed with lumber felled and hewn by hand, using peg construction and no nails, using nothing supplied via the home building industrial complex?

What if you live in a Teepee made out of Elk fur? Is it "green" to kill a living animal to use as shelter? Would this be suitable housing for a vegan?

These are all real questions and I would like some input as I've had this discussion with other people.

[ScottA]

I would define green as taking no more than you need. With that said I need running water, electricity, heat and A/C. I don't need a big house or a big car. I drive a small truck most of the time and only drive when I need to go somewhere otherwise I stay home. A small house (300 sq. ft. per person or less) is green by the simple fact that it is small regardless if it is off grid or not. Want to be more green? Stop buying all the crap that china sends over to fill our landfills.

[Jens]

Jens, it is always easy for you Just me?  or is this rhetorical? to point at somebody who has more than you and say that they are wrong/wasteful/have too much. 

Surely you assume that you know me too well.  I look at our life (my family) and still see ways that we are wrong/wasteful/have too much.  I am constantly looking for ways to streamline our life so that we use less, and have been for the last 10 years.  It pains me to think of the $37,000 that we have invested in our house, and how much good it could have done for others if only we would be allowed to live (by both the government, and DW ) in a hut, or tent, if we were truly free here in this country.  Unfortunately, this system is set up (as are many countries) so that the only things you are free to do are spend money buying things, and get taxed.


Of course, many of those in those parts of the world that you were voicing concern for would probably say the same thing about you.  I'm sick of people thinking it is their business how I spend my money!  I choose to give a significant part of our household income to charity because I take "The Master's" commands seriously.

then you wouldn't consider it "your" money, would you?  Go learn what this means, "I desire mercy, not sacrifice".

  Collectivists spouting this philosophy want to tax all of the fruit of MY LABOR and dispense it (or a few pennies on the Dollar after costs) to who they feel is deserving. 

I don't want to tax anybody, in fact I would like to see the IRS dissolved, and either a 10% tax levied to everyone, with no exceptions (keep in mind that I have gotten a refund every year, and include me in this too), and no credits, or simply the fair tax.  And I think that one should be free to choose who he wants to donate to, and not have that decided by any bureaucrat, as they are usually the nogudniks of society who haven't got a clue.

Studies have shown that these people don't tend to part with their own pennies for charity!  

we are almost flat broke at the end of every month, and still give plenty of our resources and ourselves, so don't try and bog me down with self-righteous propaganda, almost nobody ever gives all they can.  When you are truly giving, you give all you can afford, and then give some more, it should hurt a little bit, its supposed to.
-- Pritch

My point must have been missed, or just unable to be understood.  To build a house of that size, for a small amount of people, is wasteful.  Instead of one 4000 square foot house, how about two 2000 square foot houses?  60 years ago, the average new house size was half of what it is now.  People have gotten larger on average, but the thing that has really changed it is the good old American view of "bigger is better", not to mention the standard western view of it being ok to destroy today, since you won't be here tomorrow.  You know what happens with the two smaller houses too?  You put more people to work in the community, house more people, build houses that are generally more efficient, and make a profit on the extra house.  You also end up with a smaller mortgage, that your kids don't get saddled with when you die.  Like Scott said, "not more than you need".  Or maybe like Gandhi, "Live simply, that others may simply live".  Any of you who think that this means forcing you to part with what is "rightfully yours", think again.  Go and learn what this means, "I desire mercy, not sacrifice".

[glenn kangiser]

The money scheme green, I call faux green.  I think I know how to build real green.

[Jens]

I think you do too Glenn

[glenn kangiser]

Thanks, Jens.

When I was in school we always talked about our natural resources and using them.  The code - requiring manufactured corporate produced goods - legislated sales of corporate products, has pretty much outlawed the legal use of natural resources.  So I'm an outlaw.

Look at the successful old houses - or even the ones that were successful for the life of the inhabitants of old days - the homesteaders and pioneers.  Nearly all were based on the use of locally available materials and some have lasted for centuries.

[Jens]

Wait a minute.  Are you saying that ungraded lumber is structurally sound?  Now, where did I put the number for the commerce police?  I have been reading Everything I Want To Do Is Illegal, by Joel Salatin.  Awesome book!  covers some things with codes and building departments that I have been ranting about for years.  Also talks about the organic movement, and how it is now basically just a money, and satisfying the government game...kinda like the way the green movement is going.  It is a shame that the intent of pioneers in every venture gets perverted until its just more garbage.  Unfortunately, I think that is just the way in a corporatistic (yes, that is a new word I just made up that I think more accurately describes our economy), democratic society.

[pagan]

Jens,

Corporations are always looking for the next easy way to make money for doing as little as possible. Take organic food. Corporations get into organics and then pay lobbyists millions of dollars to get the federal government to reduce the standards for what they, the corporations, can still declare their products as organic. Then, because they're being such outstanding corporate citizens by providing "healthy" products, they charge more money. You know, because it costs those more to produce everything.

Unfortunately some suckers fall for that line of bull.

Grow your own. Can, dry, freeze, root cellar.

I'm sure you're there, Jens.

[Don_P]

Nope, those local trees don't contain anything useable. The stump on the bank provided some of those timbers. The rest were imported from as far away as across the road. One recent house we built had stamps from multiple european countries.

In all reality for most folks the grader would cost a few hundred bucks and for non structural wood it is not required at all. One thing that really bothers me on jobsites is to see good timber dozed and burned and then we go buy inferior wood for cabinets and trim.

[Truly Hybrid Homes]

I build green and energy efficient too. TrulyHybridhomes.com

[MountainDon]

Hi and 

Just so we're all clear on the rules here; we encourage participation in our discussion topics and have rules against advertising. A link to a website may be included in the members profile.

[ballen]

I have soo many comments about this conversation but will refrain (from sharing my frustration).

I am currently negotiating with a neighbor to allow me to dismantle their already falling down Barn to salvage the wood (if they'll accept my Hold Harmless letter in place of actual workers comp insurance...a different frustrating topic altogether).  I'll use either those timbers or wood from my land to build my cabin.  To save hassles for future generations, I do want to build to code so I guess I need a wood grader.  Any suggestions about how to find one in NE PA?

I'd also like to do a double dry stone foundation with insulation (free recycled styrophone packaging) in between but have given up on getting that one approved.  Without morter, there's nothing to attach the rebar supports and tie-ins to (even though the stone walls are solid as a rock).

Sometimes it does seem that everything I want to do (for all the right reasons) is illegal.

[Phssthpok]

Did somebody mention using local and recovered/recycled material?







That''s my (hopefully) soon to be neighbor's (mumble) x (humminah) semi earth-bermed timber framed home.

He put some thought into the design with an eye toward thermal mass and passive solar heat among other things. No actual blueprints either...just a semi-detailed floor plan sketch on some graph paper.


**ETA**

A photo from his blog of the building finally 'in the dry':

[MountainDon]

    What's inside those walls?

[Phssthpok]

The house faces almost due south for solar gain.
In the SW corner of the house is the library. Looking SE/SW/NW:







Mad Powah!





Kitchen (first photo looking from NE cnr. of library)









Pantry (under stairs to upper loft)









Home made front door....With genuine brass ship's Porthole!



Random photo's of interest:


















Before:



After:



And still a ways to go!

[JRR]

As long as we want our little and efficient hutches "far, far away" ... our houses may be somewhat "green", but our lifestyles will not be. 

(Unless we refuse to build driveways and garages ... and travel only by foot, horse and/or bike, etc.)

Perhaps "green living" is high-density living .... totally urban ... complete with public transit, etc.

[MountainDon]

I believe JRR may be onto something with that comment.

[pagan]

That's a well stocked pantry.