I was listening to NPR the other day and heard a very interesting segment on problems in the paper recycling industry. It seems that the bottom has fallen out of the market for waste paper to be recycled. The price recently fell from $150/ton to about $20/ton, making recycling very difficult from a financial perspective. The primary side effect of this is that more paper will be landfilled instead of recycled until the market comes back up. Interestingly, most of this scrap paper was going to China, filling up containers that came over filled with TV’s, Ipods, and the other consumer goods that we have been eating up for decades. China was in a position to pay a premium for the waste paper, since their ships would otherwise return empty, making their shipping costs essentially free. Now that our shopping binge is pretty much over, fewer goods are being made, reducing the number of boxes to package them in, which means that they need less paper to recycle into those very boxes. According to the LA Times, almost 100,000 Chinese plants have closed this year, putting millions of people out of work, and, indirectly, killing the US market for recycled paper.
So what is the moral here? Should we start buying foreign made consumer goods again to put people back to work and keep our old newspapers out of the landfill? Sorry, folks, I don’t have the answer, but these consequences of a global economy raise more intriguing questions. One of the primary side effects of our current financial crisis is increasing unemployment in all sectors of the economy. President Elect Obama plans to address this with a depression-era style stimulus package, investing heavily in infrastructure to create jobs, get Americans back to work, put money in their pockets, and get the economy going again. While deficit spending is complicit in what got us where we are right now, unfortunately, we will need to expand the deficit to keep from falling into a deep depression. I agree with the general consensus that the recovery will be long, slow, and painful, but the alternative is much worse. Thankfully part of the stimulus package includes investing in improving our buildings, putting people to work to make them more efficient, reducing energy use, saving money, and, ultimately helping improve our air and water quality from reduced power plant emissions. What I like about these projects is that they keep money in our local economies. When we spend money on power and fuel, we send it to multinational businesses that mine, refine, and generate power all over the world. When people are working to improve existing and build new buildings that are energy efficient, that work is happening right were we live and work. Workers buy food, clothes, and tools, go to movies, eat out, pay rent or mortgages, and invest where they live. Of course, many of the materials are purchased from other regions, but this work is labor intensive, keeping much of the investment in the local and regional economy. Once the work is complete, the occupants of these efficient buildings pay less for their energy - forever. Every dollar not spent on energy consumption can be invested or spent locally, invigorating the economy. Or they can be spent on a new TV or Ipod, requiring a Chinese factory to reopen, making more boxes from waste paper, restoring our recycled paper market, keeping last Sunday’s New York Times out of the landfill. Think about it.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Green from the start II
OK, so we talked about what not to do in designing a green house. Let’s take a more positive approach and consider what you should do.
Let’s start with the basics – design what you need and no more. During the (now mostly over) real estate boom of the past decades, it seemed like a good idea to build more and bigger. Home prices were always going up and someone would always come around and buy that behemoth for more that you paid for it. For most of us, those days are long gone. We have to live with what we buy or build, and actually consider paying down the mortgage over many years instead of selling or refinancing regularly, and I am guilty of some of that behavior myself. So, let’s think about how much space we really need. I would suggest that somewhere between 500-800 SF per person makes sense. That is much more than most other cultures are accustomed to, and if well designed, provides plenty of space to live comfortably. Take advantage of using roof volumes for living space by building 1 ½ story homes instead of two full stories with a huge unfinished attic. Don’t build a basement if you don’t need it. And if you think you need a full basement to store all your “stuff”, you probably have too much of it anyway.
Design for the site: limit excavation by working with natural contours, orienting for proper solar gain and shading, and limiting removal and damage to the existing landscape. Design for mechanical systems: group plumbing together to shorten hot water runs, saving energy and water. Leave enough space for HVAC ducts, and keep them inside the building envelope to make them more efficient. Design for your climate. If you get a lot of rain, build with larger overhangs to keep water off the building. Hot climates need reflective roofs. Almost every climate can use outdoor living space – include screens where bugs are a problem. Don’t build large decks in hot climates where they won’t be used much. Look at the indigenous architecture of your region and take the good stuff. Older houses were built the way they were for a reason – it made sense in that climate. Keep it simple, stupid. I built a house last year that, while very attractive, had over 35 different planes on the roof. This verges on insanity. It is quite possible to have a beautiful design with simple forms, based on 2’ building modules, which save materials and reduce labor costs.
Green building program guidelines and checklists are a great resource for ideas on how to make your project green from the start. They have home size guidelines and long lists of specific items that help you create more efficient homes. Incorporating the appropriate details from the beginning of the design process will keep you headed in the right direction and direct you away from doing too many stupid things. Now, if we can only get our clients to listen to us.
Let’s start with the basics – design what you need and no more. During the (now mostly over) real estate boom of the past decades, it seemed like a good idea to build more and bigger. Home prices were always going up and someone would always come around and buy that behemoth for more that you paid for it. For most of us, those days are long gone. We have to live with what we buy or build, and actually consider paying down the mortgage over many years instead of selling or refinancing regularly, and I am guilty of some of that behavior myself. So, let’s think about how much space we really need. I would suggest that somewhere between 500-800 SF per person makes sense. That is much more than most other cultures are accustomed to, and if well designed, provides plenty of space to live comfortably. Take advantage of using roof volumes for living space by building 1 ½ story homes instead of two full stories with a huge unfinished attic. Don’t build a basement if you don’t need it. And if you think you need a full basement to store all your “stuff”, you probably have too much of it anyway.
Design for the site: limit excavation by working with natural contours, orienting for proper solar gain and shading, and limiting removal and damage to the existing landscape. Design for mechanical systems: group plumbing together to shorten hot water runs, saving energy and water. Leave enough space for HVAC ducts, and keep them inside the building envelope to make them more efficient. Design for your climate. If you get a lot of rain, build with larger overhangs to keep water off the building. Hot climates need reflective roofs. Almost every climate can use outdoor living space – include screens where bugs are a problem. Don’t build large decks in hot climates where they won’t be used much. Look at the indigenous architecture of your region and take the good stuff. Older houses were built the way they were for a reason – it made sense in that climate. Keep it simple, stupid. I built a house last year that, while very attractive, had over 35 different planes on the roof. This verges on insanity. It is quite possible to have a beautiful design with simple forms, based on 2’ building modules, which save materials and reduce labor costs.
Green building program guidelines and checklists are a great resource for ideas on how to make your project green from the start. They have home size guidelines and long lists of specific items that help you create more efficient homes. Incorporating the appropriate details from the beginning of the design process will keep you headed in the right direction and direct you away from doing too many stupid things. Now, if we can only get our clients to listen to us.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Green From the Start, Part I
Each year my business model shifts a little (or a lot), often having nothing to do with any actions that I take. Lately I have been certifying homes under several green building programs including EarthCraft House and LEED for Homes. Working with builders with a wide range of experience in green building gives me an opportunity to teach them how to make their homes more sustainable, and most of them appreciate the opportunity to learn and improve their work. One recent builder, whose client hired me to help “green up” his house, was very resistant to my suggestions, and it was a constant battle to get him to make any significant changes in his work. While that experience was annoying enough, what continues to frustrate me is getting called in too late in a project schedule. This usually means coming to the table after the plans are finished, and sometimes even after construction has started and asked to help make a project more sustainable. My internal struggle to avoid making rude comments about the plans remind me of an old definition of stress – “The feeling that overcomes you when you resist the urge to choke the crap out of some idiot who desperately deserves it”. Too often I end up working on a project that can’t be any better than fair, but if only someone had considered the implications of their design decisions, could have been a good, or even a great house.
The stupid things I see all the time: Huge expanses of unshaded west facing windows which pretty much cook the inside of the house in the afternoons. Bathrooms spread out all around the house with no consideration for how to run hot water efficiently. Obscenely complex roof and wall intersections which are almost impossible to flash effectively. No place to run HVAC ducts. And let’s not forget about the size of some of these houses. While I believe that it is important to make every house as green as possible, why are we building homes over 5,000 (and sometimes over 10,000) square feet for 3 or 4 people? There is a point where we have to stop calling these starter castles green – they just can’t be green when they have consumed enough materials to build 5-10 normal size homes. I admit that I am guilty of having made many of these stupid decisions throughout my career in construction, but I have seen the light and will not willingly do it again. Stay tuned for more rants on the subject.
The stupid things I see all the time: Huge expanses of unshaded west facing windows which pretty much cook the inside of the house in the afternoons. Bathrooms spread out all around the house with no consideration for how to run hot water efficiently. Obscenely complex roof and wall intersections which are almost impossible to flash effectively. No place to run HVAC ducts. And let’s not forget about the size of some of these houses. While I believe that it is important to make every house as green as possible, why are we building homes over 5,000 (and sometimes over 10,000) square feet for 3 or 4 people? There is a point where we have to stop calling these starter castles green – they just can’t be green when they have consumed enough materials to build 5-10 normal size homes. I admit that I am guilty of having made many of these stupid decisions throughout my career in construction, but I have seen the light and will not willingly do it again. Stay tuned for more rants on the subject.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Am I hallucinating or what?
I got a press release in the mail today for a new product called “Doorbrow”, including the following points:
“…a revolutionary new product…” , “…will minimize water intrusion and sun deterioration…”, “…prevents leaks between a building and its entry door, effectively eliminating water intrusion…”
OK, I was intrigued, so I checked out the website (http://www.doorbrow.com/index.html), and man was I shocked. I will reserve judgment on the aesthetics of the product (give me time), but I can’t see how it will do much of anything to keep water or sun from reaching a door. On top of that, their primary marketing photo shows this device attached directly to the stucco. Now in my book, that causes two problems. First, you are punching holes in the stucco (or siding, etc.) creating wonderful little pathways for water to get into the house. Oh, but you can caulk the holes you say! Yeah, well, we all know how well caulk works in keeping water out – about as well as a screen door. Then, on top of that, they recommend caulking the top where it hits the wall, yet another fine example of hoping that water will flow uphill. I realize that this is a common delusion of builders – I can’t count the number of times I drive by jobsites and see people putting up weather barriers and window flashing totally wrong. They 
miss the point that felt, housewrap, and flashing all need to layer, shingle style from top to bottom. Doorbrow expects the caulk at the top to keep out water. It might do that, IF the caulk is PERFECTLY APPLIED TO CLEAN SURFACES, and even then it probably won’t last more than a couple of weeks. I am so tired of “building professionals” who have no clue as to how to build. Water ruins buildings. We need to keep it out. It only stays out if you build it to keep it out. If the door leaks, fix the damn door, don’t put a Doorbrow on it. You are just putting whipped cream on #$%&, and it probably is not as much an improvement as the whipped cream.
Oh, and by the way, it is pretty damned ugly too. My buddy Michael has this to say about it:
“Possibly one of the most irresponsible and worthless products I have seen in a while. Not only is the product “Butt-Ugly” it serves no purpose other than to possibly compromise the durability of the home. The flashing detail in the photo is backwards (nailed to the face of the stucco… Really? Who was the brilliant guy who thought of that installation detail… oohh I know, I bet it was the guy who dreamed this ridiculous thing up!). Besides, what kind of protection does a 6” overhand give you? I going to go out on a limb and suggest.. NOTHING!”
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Losing Ground
When I first ventured into the green building early in the 21st century, I was ahead of most people on the curve. Using materials and methods that were practically unheard of the industry, I was able to quickly take a leadership position in green remodeling. Over the next few years, the daily demands of running a construction business made it difficult to keep up with the industry as much as I would have liked, and now, having stopped building and renovating, I find myself falling farther behind every day. As a consultant, I still have the opportunity to work with homeowners and contractors, helping them step up their product to higher performance levels, but I still do not see as much state of the art technology as I would like.
When I see colleagues working on cutting edge projects, I find myself getting jealous, and consider getting back into building, just to stay on course and not fall further behind. Then I take a deep breath, and remember just how much the actual building process drives me nuts. I recognized a long time ago that being a contractor made me crazy most of the time. There are many things about contracting that I like, but they tend to be outweighed by the things that I don’t like, such as anxiety, loss of sleep, and a generally elevated stress level. I was always very impressed with my friends in the business who were able to leave work at work every day, simply not letting the stresses get to them 24/7. Unfortunately, I am not so lucky. Nearing the end of construction of a house I built in 2006-2007, my girlfriend looked at me and said “do you think that sometime we could talk about something other than how stressed out you are about this project”? Somewhat shocked, I thought about what she said, thanked her profusely for cluing me in, and made a concerted effort to separate my life from my work. If I take on any construction jobs in the future, I will have to keep that in mind.
Right now, I am toying with the idea of building myself a new house. I am worried about the impact it will have on my personal life and excited about the possibilities of pushing the envelope of green building. I am looking at alternative wall structures like Durisol and Hebel block, considering passive solar options (which could be a challenge with all the old growth trees on my intown lot), and mulling over in my mind how to design and build the most efficient house I possibly can. Chances are I will eventually go ahead with this project, but inertia is a strong force to overcome. I’ll have to see how the economy turns out over the next year or so before I commit to taking on more debt. Then again, if my work starts to slow down, I am going to have to find something to do with my time, since I live my work, and generally really enjoy it, I have never developed any hobbies to keep me busy. I’ll keep you posted.
When I see colleagues working on cutting edge projects, I find myself getting jealous, and consider getting back into building, just to stay on course and not fall further behind. Then I take a deep breath, and remember just how much the actual building process drives me nuts. I recognized a long time ago that being a contractor made me crazy most of the time. There are many things about contracting that I like, but they tend to be outweighed by the things that I don’t like, such as anxiety, loss of sleep, and a generally elevated stress level. I was always very impressed with my friends in the business who were able to leave work at work every day, simply not letting the stresses get to them 24/7. Unfortunately, I am not so lucky. Nearing the end of construction of a house I built in 2006-2007, my girlfriend looked at me and said “do you think that sometime we could talk about something other than how stressed out you are about this project”? Somewhat shocked, I thought about what she said, thanked her profusely for cluing me in, and made a concerted effort to separate my life from my work. If I take on any construction jobs in the future, I will have to keep that in mind.
Right now, I am toying with the idea of building myself a new house. I am worried about the impact it will have on my personal life and excited about the possibilities of pushing the envelope of green building. I am looking at alternative wall structures like Durisol and Hebel block, considering passive solar options (which could be a challenge with all the old growth trees on my intown lot), and mulling over in my mind how to design and build the most efficient house I possibly can. Chances are I will eventually go ahead with this project, but inertia is a strong force to overcome. I’ll have to see how the economy turns out over the next year or so before I commit to taking on more debt. Then again, if my work starts to slow down, I am going to have to find something to do with my time, since I live my work, and generally really enjoy it, I have never developed any hobbies to keep me busy. I’ll keep you posted.
Monday, December 8, 2008
I've Been Out-Curmudgeoned
Not that I'm surprised about this, I don't claim to have cornered the market on cranky behavior, but I just read an article by Joe Lstiburek (It's The Energy Stupid) that, in addition to being an excellent critique of much of green building today, is just plain hilarious. This is the first quote that got my attention, and I agree completely:
"So what’s with all these “green” programs providing “points” for “durability” and “indoor air quality”? I mean it’s pretty pathetic if we have to reward architects and engineers when they provide details and specifications that should be basic to fundamental practice. If you design and install a controlled ventilation system that meets Standard 62 you get points. You get more points if you keep the rain out and design the building to dry if it gets wet. And you get still more points if the occupants are actually comfortable. Aren’t these code requirements? Shouldn’t these be “the standard of care”? "
I like this concept. I have always said that most of building green is just doing things right, like keeping the water out, installing HVAC systems to meet the code, etc. The fact that we get "points" in green programs for doing these things is slightly (if not completely) insane. I am reminded of an article I read somewhere a while back about how young adults are so used to constant praise that many of them don't work effectively without it. This stems from kids sports leagues where every kid gets a trophy every season -just for showing up and playing. We are now treating green builders like 6 year old soccer players. Just for showing up and not doing things wrong, they get a green building certificate - before anyone knows if the building even works the way it's supposed to. The way Joe addressed this in his article made me laugh out loud:
"And enough with the awards before a building is built and the performance is verified. Award plaques should come with removable screws. Show me the utility bills. Compare the building to a building of similar size and similar occupancy in a similar climate. And if you don’t show any savings—shut up. You can’t be “green” if you don’t save any energy. "
I can honestly say that parts of this article were over my head, but most if it is spot on, and I really appreciate iconoclasts who say what they believe, particularly if they are right and can back it up.
Too bad I didn't come up with this myself, but I am inspired to be more of a curmudgeon and take people to task when they deserve it. And besides, I hope Joe reads this since I spilled some wine on him at dinner a few weeks ago, maybe he'll forgive me.
"So what’s with all these “green” programs providing “points” for “durability” and “indoor air quality”? I mean it’s pretty pathetic if we have to reward architects and engineers when they provide details and specifications that should be basic to fundamental practice. If you design and install a controlled ventilation system that meets Standard 62 you get points. You get more points if you keep the rain out and design the building to dry if it gets wet. And you get still more points if the occupants are actually comfortable. Aren’t these code requirements? Shouldn’t these be “the standard of care”? "
I like this concept. I have always said that most of building green is just doing things right, like keeping the water out, installing HVAC systems to meet the code, etc. The fact that we get "points" in green programs for doing these things is slightly (if not completely) insane. I am reminded of an article I read somewhere a while back about how young adults are so used to constant praise that many of them don't work effectively without it. This stems from kids sports leagues where every kid gets a trophy every season -just for showing up and playing. We are now treating green builders like 6 year old soccer players. Just for showing up and not doing things wrong, they get a green building certificate - before anyone knows if the building even works the way it's supposed to. The way Joe addressed this in his article made me laugh out loud:
"And enough with the awards before a building is built and the performance is verified. Award plaques should come with removable screws. Show me the utility bills. Compare the building to a building of similar size and similar occupancy in a similar climate. And if you don’t show any savings—shut up. You can’t be “green” if you don’t save any energy. "
I can honestly say that parts of this article were over my head, but most if it is spot on, and I really appreciate iconoclasts who say what they believe, particularly if they are right and can back it up.
Too bad I didn't come up with this myself, but I am inspired to be more of a curmudgeon and take people to task when they deserve it. And besides, I hope Joe reads this since I spilled some wine on him at dinner a few weeks ago, maybe he'll forgive me.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
