I love this website becasue it has really helped me design and build my cabin and I am really proud of what I have accomplished so far!!
I am also a high school science teacher and this year I am teaching an AP Environmental Science class. It has really opened my eyes to what we are doing to our planet and has really got me thinking of ways in my everyday life to live "greener".
What I have found out through some research and constant discussions with my students is that living "green" or even building "green" is in most cases really expensive.
I know you can build with reclaimed materials and things like that but in most situations installing a solar electrical system or geothermal heating system has an enormous upfront cost.
If you want to buy a hybrid vehicle....the cost is much higher than a regular vehicle. Any building suplly that labels itself as "green" seems to have a much higher price tag!!!!
A great example is an article I just read about a new structure built in Maine called the BrightBuilt Barn (It has been mentioned on this site before). It is a 700 squarefoot home that is ultra efficient. Claims to not even need a furnace!! In fact it is "net zero plus" which means it creates more energy than it uses. It is really a cool looking place.
Here is the issue though...base price "just under $200,000". Things like water, septic, electrical are extra!!! Great idea but an enormous cost!! With the economy the way it is, it will be more and more difficult to have people on this planet live "green".
www.brightbuiltbarn.com
Coal is very, very plentiful in this country and very inexpensive to remove from the ground!! It is hard to get our society away from a "whatever is cheapest mentality". We see it on this forum. Lot's of statement's like "I have minimal funds" or "where can I get the cheapest materials?" are always popping up!! I don't blame anyone for this.
But until the cost of "going green" requires less green ($$$) it will be difficult to build and live this way!!!
Well, it kinda seems that there's two different green approaches, a rich man's and a poor man's... You could continue living a modern way of life in a fancy but "low-impact" house fitted with every high-tech "green" gizmo to keep life nice a cushy for $$$, or you could live in a small cob hut and bathe in the creek, which is a much cheaper way of going green. ;)
I hate to sound cynical, but I just don't see how building a new home can ever be called "Green" no matter how many solar panels you put on the roof. This is just an excuse for people with lots of money to burn to go ahead and have their vacation homes without feeling guilty.
To truly live "green" you should take an existing home that is close to where you work, rehab it, make it more energy effiecient and so forth.
My wife and I are planning on building a modest-sized, energy-efficient (and inexpensive) home, not because we want to feel good about ourselves, but because it fits our needs.
Quote from: jimgranite on February 26, 2009, 09:46:02 AM
I hate to sound cynical, but I just don't see how building a new home can ever be called "Green" no matter how many solar panels you put on the roof. This is just an excuse for people with lots of money to burn to go ahead and have their vacation homes without feeling guilty.
To truly live "green" you should take an existing home that is close to where you work, rehab it, make it more energy effiecient and so forth.
My wife and I are planning on building a modest-sized, energy-efficient (and inexpensive) home, not because we want to feel good about ourselves, but because it fits our needs.
I really like the second statement, as there are thousands of vacant houses in this country, and probably hundreds that get torn down every day because they are condemned. Many of them need about $20k investment to make them new again! I am puzzled though, about your third thing there. Why wouldn't you remodel instead?
IMO, the only way to truly be green with a new house, is to build it only as large as basic needs dictate (in other words, as small as you think you could live with, times .75), as many/most of the houses here are. If you can do it out of reclaimed, or natural, or waste materials, even better. Use as much local resources as possible. Last, build it to last...that means no MDF trim, particle board cabinets, pergo, etc. (I do realize budget does not always run along with this goal). And like Ern said, go low tech! If you become mortgage free, and raise/grow some or all of your needs, or can get it in the community, I think that is the ultimate in green, because all of your energy stays at your house. In other words, no commuting, truckers not needed for you to get your food and supplies, and when low tech, usually less dependent on the resources that are doing the polluting. The way I see it, is that enjoying and working this world the way God intended us to, that is green. If he wanted us to have refrigerators and computers, We would have read about them in the garden of Eden. I'm not saying we (personally) don't have these things, just voicing my opinions on the brass tacks.
Quote from: jimgranite on February 26, 2009, 09:46:02 AM
I hate to sound cynical, but I just don't see how building a new home can ever be called "Green" no matter how many solar panels you put on the roof. This is just an excuse for people with lots of money to burn to go ahead and have their vacation homes without feeling guilty.
To truly live "green" you should take an existing home that is close to where you work, rehab it, make it more energy effiecient and so forth.
My wife and I are planning on building a modest-sized, energy-efficient (and inexpensive) home, not because we want to feel good about ourselves, but because it fits our needs.
PFFT! To be truly green you must kill yourself with an organic poison and fall into a hole where your corpse will provide nutrients to Nature. d*
-- Pritch
heh
Living "green" can have so many different interpretations. Is it renewable, low impact, low embodied energy, or how long it lasts? I disagree slightly that building a new house is less green than an already built house depending on what the definition of "green" you use. More energy can be used in restoring fixing up a house that was built poorly than building it correctly from scratch. If you build a house from stone it will last longer and, depending on how you build it, use less energy than a restored log cabin. It depends on how you define green.
Quote from: Squirl on February 27, 2009, 04:09:41 PM
I disagree slightly that building a new house is less green than an already built house depending on what the definition of "green" you use. More energy can be used in restoring fixing up a house that was built poorly than building it correctly from scratch.
Agreed. Building green has to be cost effective. There are old buildings that are not worth spending the money on.
I agree that "green" can have wildly different meanings, depending on who you ask. I hope that Pritchs meaning (that the ultimate Green is just to die, thereby using zero resources) is not the one that wins out.
I spend a lot of time of time reading about green homebuilding techniques, and have found some very useful ideas, but I laugh every time I read about some 5000 sq. ft. log home built on a mountaintop, with a couple of solar panels stuck on the roof to make it "green."
Meanwhile I have seen a 5000 sq ft house that was built with a passive solar design and uses less energy than most 1500 sq. ft. houses. The shows that can really outrage me are the ones on the green living network. They incorporate one "green" idea into a 6,000 sq. ft house and call the house green. Normally the homes cost $800,000 to $1,000,000. Adding a $30,000 solar array to your house that can't even cover you monthly energy consumption isn't green to me. Green is cutting your consumption in my book.
I call the green movement the faux green movement. The real green movement big business talks about costs lots of money -- that is the reason for all of the green noise.
I'll go with my and Andrews green any day.... and yes - our solar off grid system is rather expensive but satisfying and it makes us true faux green.
We us about 1 1/2 to 2 cords of wood cleaned up off our property for heating - can't get much greener than that.
We're on track to burn about 5 cords of aspen this year, and it's been pretty cold.. Not too bad considering our walls have gotten rather drafty as the logs fully dried out. We need to apply a layer of plaster over the mortar outside to help in that department..
:P d*
I have always liked red, blue, and even brown better.
What's the big deal about buying all this green stuff? Its just dumb.
Green has certainly become a marketing term - and part of its allure is that it offloads the guilt of ecological responsibility. This confuses things as some want the badge of "green certification" mainly for the feel good aspect.
I think the green movement works to its highest purpose when the green of money is conserved at the same time as the "green" of the environment.
Things that do both:
• build small (less SF to maintain, heat, cool, etc)
• build simple (simple shape = less materials, recycle materials, etc)
• build efficient (good insulation, open floor plan, orient for use of natural energy like sun and breezes)
A good friend in BC Canada is involved with a demonstration project called "Harmony House".
Check out some of the planned features: http://www.harmony-house.ca/gallery.html
Interesting John. R40 walls! Wow!
That makes more sense, John. Once the marketers get ahold of stuff with their stupid little catch phrases, I tend to despise them.
Here in switzerland the word "greenhouse" means a small glass shed in the garden. ;D
Instead of "green house" we use "Niedrigenergiehaus" for buildings which means "Low energie using house". And this label is protected by clear government standards. So either you have such a house or you don't.
When I saw BP advertising themselves as green, I knew everyone latched on to the bandwagon. It is up to the consumer to do their due diligence.
Hmm - I have some BP Enron Solar Panels -- they have to be green, don't they?
In reply to the original post, building green is not always expensive. The initial cost is more (im talking residential construction) but there is a estimated "payback." I toured the Great River Energy Center for one of my classes at school, which is a several million dollar building, and they had a four year payback on the "green" building style they used. Keep in mind that this is an office building that has the room for up the 300 or so employees. A windmill was built, they have a fairly small solar array on the roof, but what really interested me was their heating system. They have, if i remember correctly, three massive heat pumps that take care of all their heating and cooling costs. What is used is a small man made pond outside their building. This building was built more as an example by the energy company to how "green" something can be built. http://greatriverenergy.greentouchscreen.com/ (http://greatriverenergy.greentouchscreen.com/) Here is a link if anyone is interested, the building information is in a very simple form, but it is interesting. On the bottom click green pages, then green features to view some direct information. Oh, and forgot to mention about natural lighting. I was there on an overcast day, and no lights were needed in almost the entire building because of properly placed windows and open offices. All of the lights were on a sensor so when it got dark enough, the lights would come on. Right now in my carpentry class we have built a "green" home using ICF foundation and following the MN Greenstar certification process which is more strict than LEED. If anyone is interested I could provide some more info. By the way, I'm in no way new here, but just new to posting. Greetings from central MN. I will post some pictures of my on going "shack" as soon as I borrow a camera from a friend. Thank you all for all the useful information I have learned from this site.
Mark L.
Great information Mark!!
When I started the post...I guess I was commenting on how everything labeled as "green" seemed to cost more. Even at the grocery store you can buy "green" paper towels, but expect to pay a few cents more.
Its not suprising to see people making a profit off of it though...that is the society we live in.
I guess it depends on which "green" you're talking about.
Yeah but keep in mind a product labeled as green, is only as green as it is manufactured. It is easy to use that as a marketing technique but the company has to follow through. Like glenn said, the move towards being green is a "faux movement." It may catch on, hopefully it does and makes us more efficient as a whole. In no way am I an environmental nut, but to me it seems like this is something to look into. With the state of the economy right now nobody wants to spend the extra dollar for a product.
Like some others have said, one of the largest lies of the green movement, is that a house over 2000 square feet can ever be called a "green" house. It makes me so angry to see the amount of resources that go into a house that size, whether materials or money. Most of the time they use inferior materials too, so that they can still have a huge house in their budget range. If you have 4-6 kids, or more, I can begin to understand a house that big, but the largest houses are usually inhabited by no more than 4 people.
People argue with me, and say, "well, it's their money, let them build a big house", but how much good could that missappropriated budget do in the world? I mean, 30,000 people die each day for lack of clean drinking water! And that can cost as little as $3000 or less to put in a well that will service a whole village. So when I think about people using too much in the way of material or monetary resources on their house, it makes my stomach turn. It just seems like very poor stewardship of the Master's funds to me.
Ever heard the term, "greenwashing?" Like the Fonz jumping the shark, the green building hype is interesting to observe, and definitely overplayed. A lot of companies are claiming "green products" while really accomplishing very little in resource conservation. And yes, I agree that a 5,000 square foot house for one couple hardly qualifies as "green."
from Wikipedia: "Greenwash (a portmanteau of green and whitewash) is a term used to describe the practice of companies disingenuously spinning their products and policies as environmentally friendly, such as by presenting cost cuts as reductions in use of resources."
Some of the green ideas can be incorporated for very little additional expense, though. Things like orientation, window placement, ventilation, insulation, sealing for air infiltration, wise selection of framing design and insulation, and more can be done without spending a lot more money.
Quote from: Jens on March 04, 2009, 10:15:32 AM
Like some others have said, one of the largest lies of the green movement, is that a house over 2000 square feet can ever be called a "green" house. It makes me so angry to see the amount of resources that go into a house that size, whether materials or money. Most of the time they use inferior materials too, so that they can still have a huge house in their budget range. If you have 4-6 kids, or more, I can begin to understand a house that big, but the largest houses are usually inhabited by no more than 4 people.
People argue with me, and say, "well, it's their money, let them build a big house", but how much good could that missappropriated budget do in the world? (Excuse me, misappropriated!? Anybody who has cash is a robber baron and his assets belong to the world? ??? d*) I mean, 30,000 people die each day for lack of clean drinking water! (Yeah, and my mom used to tell me to clean up my plate because there were people starving in China. :) ) And that can cost as little as $3000 or less to put in a well that will service a whole village. So when I think about people using too much in the way of material or monetary resources on their house, it makes my stomach turn. It just seems like very poor stewardship of the Master's funds to me. (It seems to me The Master spends much more time telling us how to be good stewards of our own resources, not our neighbors'.)
Jens, it is always easy for you to point at somebody who has more than you and say that they are wrong/wasteful/have too much. 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. 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! >:(
-- Pritch
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.
Quote from: sjdehner on April 19, 2009, 02:59:21 PM
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?
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.)
Quote from: sjdehner on April 19, 2009, 02:59:21 PMAnd 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
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
Green has a price...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6211261.ece
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
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.
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.
Quote from: Pritch on April 18, 2009, 10:47:22 PM
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".
The money scheme green, I call faux green. I think I know how to build real green. d*
I think you do too Glenn ;)
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. d*
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.
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.
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.
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.
(http://windyhilllogworks.com/Shop_files/bent2down.jpg)
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.
I build green and energy efficient too. TrulyHybridhomes.com
Hi and w*
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.
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.
Did somebody mention using local and recovered/recycled material?
(https://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y32/Phssthpok/P1010423.jpg)
(https://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y32/Phssthpok/P1010426.jpg)
(https://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y32/Phssthpok/P1010427.jpg)
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 (http://montanaiceweasel.wordpress.com/) heat among other things. No actual blueprints either...just a semi-detailed floor plan sketch on some graph paper. d*
**ETA**
A photo from his blog of the building finally 'in the dry':
(https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o254/montanaiceweasel/112.jpg)
[cool] What's inside those walls?
The house faces almost due south for solar gain.
In the SW corner of the house is the library. Looking SE/SW/NW:
(https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o254/montanaiceweasel/002-3.jpg)
(https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o254/montanaiceweasel/003-4.jpg)
(https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o254/montanaiceweasel/001-5.jpg)
Mad Powah!
(https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o254/montanaiceweasel/003-3.jpg)
(https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o254/montanaiceweasel/006-3.jpg)
Kitchen (first photo looking from NE cnr. of library)
(https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o254/montanaiceweasel/012-2.jpg)
(https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o254/montanaiceweasel/011-2.jpg)
(https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o254/montanaiceweasel/009-2.jpg)
(https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o254/montanaiceweasel/010-3.jpg)
Pantry (under stairs to upper loft)
(https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o254/montanaiceweasel/007.jpg)
(https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o254/montanaiceweasel/11-7-8427.jpg)
(https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o254/montanaiceweasel/11-7-8428.jpg)
(https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o254/montanaiceweasel/11-7-8429.jpg)
Home made front door....With genuine brass ship's Porthole!
(https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o254/montanaiceweasel/11-7-8413.jpg)
Random photo's of interest:
(https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o254/montanaiceweasel/255.jpg)
(https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o254/montanaiceweasel/228.jpg)
(https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o254/montanaiceweasel/115.jpg)
(https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o254/montanaiceweasel/223.jpg)
(https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o254/montanaiceweasel/223.jpg)
(https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o254/montanaiceweasel/011.jpg)
(https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o254/montanaiceweasel/0688496a.jpg)
Before:
(https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o254/montanaiceweasel/meetups024.jpg)
After:
(https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o254/montanaiceweasel/112.jpg)
And still a ways to go!
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.
I believe JRR may be onto something with that comment.
That's a well stocked pantry.
lots of Hershey's chocolate syrup and Aunt Jemima pancake syrup. :D
Yup, that's my place. Thanks for all the complements. I'm not sure it really classifies as a small home, though it started that way on paper. I meant to build it in 4 stages, but because of a windfall I was able to do all the 'crete in one go, and since I logged all the logs from right there just pushed ahead.
By-the-by the walls have between 3 and 3.5" of rigid insulation. One of the few things along with the roof decking "stud" 2X6s that I didn't scrounge.
Beautiful home! Those straight logs look like they'd be a joy to work with (as far as log poles go!).
Very nice prometheus. Nice place to call home. :)
Quote from: Ernest T. Bass on May 21, 2009, 11:05:43 PM
Beautiful home! Those straight logs look like they'd be a joy to work with (as far as log poles go!).
I love Lodgepole pines, our last place had Ponderosas which I had to mill most of the time.
I had several that a used that were 45' with the taper running from 8-10"
Seems to me this post has gotten lost somewhere along the line. I believe we can all get along on this issue
if we just do what we can to conserve as much as everything as possible. The main thing is I don't want Uncle Sugar passing more laws that make me do what I don't believe is needed. Let me make my mistakes out of my own ignorance the best I can!
And I don't believe that man is responsible for 'global warming'. I'm not even sure we are in a global warming period. Go back to 1079 Time magizine cover which states we are in a global cooling period, without question! But, wheather we are or not, wheather it is man made or not, I believe everyone should conserve all they can of everything. Why not? In most cases it's easier and cheaper. Just don't legilate it.
Okie Bob
Nice project Prometheus! w*