Enough Ideas and Future Tech, More Action Today Please.
 | |
| The Future of Green Building? Really? (Credit: Inhabitat) |
"What's wrong Ryan?" you ask. "Why are you so snarky and bitter today?" Well I'm not bitter, but searching around online today, I can't help but see a pattern of articles, and well, the pattern sucks after a while. Let me explain.
Today I ran across an article from Jetson Green. Now Jetson Green is one of my favorite blogs in the green building world. Always decent information on the green building/design realm. No qualms there. Keep up the good work.
What my particular issue is today is the crazy shit that people keep dreaming up to make "green" houses. Perhaps it's just a product of our times, entrenched with consumerism and mesmerized with the integration of technology into everything someone can dream of. I'm actually a big fan of this kind of "technology porn." But there is diminishing returns on what you are trying to achieve by tacking on so much bullshit onto a house. Case in point: Putting windmills next to a house does not inherently make it "greener" by association. But that won't stop "display" or "concept" houses from putting one in the front yard, as if when you put it there, it makes wind blow no matter where you are.
What we really know that without going planning and a look at the ROI, most of the time it just raises the price tag, exemplifies to ones neighbors how little one might know about making a house less impactful, and builds a pretty strong case for the "default" argument of green building, that green building is impractical, expensive, and ugly. When I see a "concept" house like that, I fully agree.
So back to my issue today. As I mentioned I was reading through Jetson Green and ran across the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging (AAHSA) Idea House 2010. It's titled as a "Net Zero" energy house. From my previous posts, I've stated my case against touting "net-zero" as an admirable goal. It can be (if there is an effort to reduce consumption first), but often isn't. Instead, most builders and architects use "Net Zero" as a gold star for environmental conciousness, when in reality they may have done little to none to reduce any sort of energy consumption. Instead they throw expensive onsite offsets (IE PV Panels and Wind Turbines) and call it a day. I call Bullshit.
The result gets back to that default argument again, that green building is expensive and ugly because of the added cost of solar panels, and thus impractical for most builders because the majority of homeowners won't go for it. I wouldn't either.
You need to systematically reduce loads and then offset, not "offset it and forget it".
 |
| Credit: AAHSA via Jetson Green |
This project doesn't seem any different. It's got some pluses and they have seemed to cover their bases with the "green" aspects, including "southern exposed courtyards, exterior shade devices, proper ventilation, recycled-content materials, water-saving products, and energy-saving devices." It's obvious they may have read the first chapter of a green building book somewhere, because they've nailed most of their green building categories. I read 6 LEED points alone in the first sentence.
Great. So at least this building is addressing some of the other issues linked to green building practices besides just energy use. But then I feel all creditability is lost in the next sentence:
"In terms of technology, the Idea House includes a HydroWorx pool for massaging and exercise, a robot named Bandit to interact with and keep seniors active, and a no-threshold Masco Bath for easy showering."
Now beyond the no threshold bath, which I consider a good use of universal design on their part, throwing a large exercise pool, and a robot into the mix makes this house a mess on the "green" front. I know it's an "idea house" and I get that, but this is where "net zero" as a green criteria fails. This house is obviously designed for a hot climate with few heating days. Why? first off because it is missing almost 50% of it's walls in an apparent "open" design. I know it was made for the traffic of a trade show, but if you are touting energy efficiency, I would be curious about what you are considering doing with those missing walls. The exterior shell is kind of an important part of the building design in regards to energy efficiency you know? And I don't know about you, but if you're saying to leave it open for natural "heating and cooling", I know my grandma would be more worried about her safety than the power bill.
But that aside, pretending like they were planning of putting some R-value between the inside and outside with those missing walls, I fully question if they could get to "net zero" by throwing in solar panels and a wind turbine, considering that the building is touted to be "5000 square feet of indoor/outdoor living space" and has what seems to be 50% of it's total wall area covered with windows. Maybe adding a lot of PV and wind panels (considering they are in a place that has wind) would get it to zero, but it's added power sources only make up for it's "exuberant" design. Two wrongs don't make a right.
The second issue I have is what I would consider technology intimidation. Alright so this is considered a home for the elderly in the "future". Got it. But how far into the future? You want the elderly to be living with robots? With no insult intended, let's not act like we're giving these high priced "exercise" robots to a technical savvy generation if we're talking about doing this anytime soon. And even if these robots don't even need help to operate, is that any better? I know my grandmother, parents, and perhaps even I would be a little scared living with a robot as an elderly person that operates around my home all on its own. No offense to you either robots, but have you seen IRobot or Terminator? You guys don't have the best reputation so far.
You want to make a house green? You don't need to look to the future and but robots and aquatic fitness centers in our backyards. You don't need 30K worth of solar panels and wind turbines. The house of the future is doable now. Air tight, insulated, and ventilated right. Low energy appliances and lights. Low VOC products. Source locally as possible, and consider embodied energy of your products. Finally educate the home user how to actually "use" the home. It's a system made of all parts, including the occupants. It's not sexy, it's common sense.
The more I see "concept" homes in my news feed that aren't concept, but a real workable solution, the less I will have to use this type of blog therapy. Until then, bring on the Crazy Pod Sky Scrapers, Houses made from living trees, and other "conceptual" work that feed egos, and solve nothing.