Forward thinking.

 

All this talk about energy standards and what is possible got me thinking about my own family.  We can complain about the standards for homes and debate costs, but the fact of the matter is we should be building more resource efficient houses, period.   Each generation of builders looks at the last generation and can’t believe how energy inefficient the houses were.  

Nearly every day, I  can look at a house built by my  great, great grandfather,   one built by my grandfather,  one built by my father , one built by my cousin for his father, and one  I just finished.    It is kind of our family building heritage.   They are all on the same street, so they all experience similar conditions. All are built in a heating microclimate of 6800 HDD

In ascending order of efficiency when built 

2000 ft^2 farmhouse  built ~1890  18-20 cords of wood per year  no insulation single pane windows  after extensive renovations down to~ 1400 gallons oil/year  Built by my great, great grandfather.

1500 ft^2 ranch    built 1951  1400 gallons of oil/year,  walls insulated with  1” rockwool bats single pane windows.  Built by my grandfather.

2300 ft^2    modern  Martin Englebrect  (sp?) design   built 1969  1200 gallons oil/year  This house has ~ 800 ft^ glass  Passive solar design (kind of) overheats on sunny days cools very fast at night. Built by my father.

1700 ft^ ranch built as an ADA compatible design  for 80+ year old  parents  built 2007  580 gallons oil/year Nice comfortable house, fiberglass insulation.  Built by my cousin.

1150 ft^2 ranch  built 2009  Hoping for  ~ 3/4cord of wood per year and less then 100 gallons of propane per year for heat and hot water.  Built by me.

My grandfather built a new house in the 1950’s because it took him too long to chop  20 cords of wood per year.  This was the start of our energy efficiency program!   His brother in law, my uncle moved in to the old farm house and kept cutting wood.  I used to watch him  because he had a cord woodsaw that was powered by the rear wheel of his tractor.  It had a 6 ft diameter blade.  The house had about 100 acres of land so it was no problem.    He eventually gutted much of the house and in the late 1970’s added a toilet and some insulation.  At the same time they switched over to oil heat plus the wood stove.   

As oil hit 4 dollars per gallon plus, the older houses are looking at 4-6000$ heating costs per year.  Just from a simple economic standpoint it makes sense to build energy efficient houses here where I live.  Electricity is ~ 0.186$ kw so it certainly makes good sense to use efficient lighting and appliances.

The hardest part has to be educating the consumer/ homebuyer that they should be looking at the total cost of home ownership, not just the mortgage cost when evaluating construction.  Most people just don’t get it. 

As a industry, we should be focusing on efficiency with a emphasis on saving money not being cool or “green” .    Kitchens and bathrooms should be built to last for 50+ years. 

I think we also have to realize that some of the things our predecessors had to build with are not available anymore.   My father ordered a railroad car of redwood when he built his own house, shiplap siding, interior paneling,  all interior trim, window and door moldings, baseboard,  outdoor decking.  The beams for the deck were 3”X 15” 24 ft long redwood beams, the joists were 4X8 24 ft long redwood.    It was beautiful stuff,  clear, all heart redwood, but  try replacing it today.

The question today is how to build a long lasting efficient house with today’s technology and second generation wood products that will last for hundreds of years.  We can do it.  The problem is can we convince people it is worth doing make a profit doing it.  No easy answers to that one.
Eric

This one is tricky. True, most people *are* looking at just the mortgage cost when evaluating construction because that is their acute issue. Until green building becomes more affordable, it will be really really difficult to get your point across. Most middle class families just don't have enough to pay up front for technologies (solar, geothermal) that will give them a return down the road after several years of ownership, unless they give up 50% or more of the square footage of their house.

Green technology really should be cheaper. As an analogy, look at cordless phones, MP3 players, or external hard drives for your computer. When they were introduced the cost was ridiculous. But by now the technology is ubiquitous and you can get all those things for practically pennies.

By comparison green construction technology is taking *way* too long to come down in price. I guess this may be because the construction industry has traditionally been an industry of coyotes on one side and pigeons on the consumer end.

But then, I'm a cynic....

Here are my thoughts, for better or worse.  People live differently now than they used to.  How many people buy/build a house & stay there for 30 years?  Not too many, I'm guessing.  Reasons?

Job relocations are more common than in the past.  People seem more willing to pick up & move for various reasons - work or not.

The trend for quite some time has been to build bigger.  People are building houses significantly bigger than in the past (and bigger than they need, in many cases).  The flip side of that is that I think more people have the need/want to downsize at some point.

This one is my opinion, not based on any published statistics or anything - low interest rates & the pushing of "the American dream" idea really sells the idea that younger people should "invest in their future' and buy/build instead of renting.  The idea of a 'starter home' is pretty much universally accepted - plan to buy, stay there for 5 years, then buy something bigger. (for the record, I think it's unfortunate that the idea of buying a house is "guaranteed money" has been sold for so long.  Home ownership is not for everyone, and you can make the argument that renting can make better financial sense)


All of these things lead to one conclusion - "why should I spend more on making my house more efficient if I'm not going to be here long enough to realize the savings?"  Green/energy efficient building practices are more expensive up front, no question.  In theory, you should be able to get a premium for that house when you sell because it's a better performing structure, but in reality I don't think it happens.  People are more interested in granite counters & viking ranges than in a house that is going to save them money year over year.  It's unfortunate, but that mentality needs to change before some of these things are really going to take hold.

No different in cars - the two 'cheapest' cars that I ever owned were Mercedes Benz. But then, I bought them used, cared for them well, and sold both for more than I paid for them!

Construction is the second stodgiest industry in America. And there is no particular comfort in second place because the stodgiest is a mortgage lending industry deeply committed to the status quo, or resale value as lenders put it.
Frank Lloyd Wright tackled affordable housing three times in his life: in a kit house introduced in 1917 and quickly withdrawn because of other events that year. In the 1930s he began a two decade dalliance with what he called Usonian design. In the 1950s, his manufactured housing venture with Madison, Wis., builder Marshall Erdman failed to overcome the prejudice against factory built.
Wright got it right to a surprising degree in his Usonian designs. Stressing orientation, he designed most of them for passive solar. He introduced the U.S. to infloor radiant and insulated slabs on grade. His floor plans anticipated today's "not-so-big" design features, complete with glass and great room. He had plenty of converts but his dream usually died in bankers' offices. "You want to build this.... thing?" (Size will be the sticking point for buyers and lenders who cling to the McMansion dream.)
Wright thought the answer was cement block. When his clients were not up to the job of casting and setting them, he introduced the Usonian Automatic, built with blocks that could be dry stacked as forms and finished with rebar and grouting. AAC is a worthy successor in areas with HDD of 5000 or less. Less expensive than ICF forms before concrete. Buildable with a handsaw, a trowel, a shovel and a bucket.
Whatever the successor, the legacy industries will not go quietly. http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/06/11/green.building.material/index.html
Wood is more like 19th generation. I picked up some 12/4 heartwood yellow pine planks last year from an 1880s barn in South Jersey. Resawn, the new surfaces were sticky with sap 130 years later. Wonder what your great, great grandfather would say about gluelam and OSB.

Wonder what your great, great grandfather would say about gluelam and OSB.

Probably the same as he would about the automobile. People generally don't like something different at first. However, that's not to be confused about the value of Gluelams and OSB. While recycled timbers can be absolutley gorgeous, and some old species are not available anymore, they pertain to emotion. Great grandad was probably just trying to build a dwelling with what was available at the time.

While I'd love to have a house filled with recycled lumber, the new materials that we build with today have numerous technical advantages over what was previously used. (why were tmbers so large? Because they had to be). The old fellow might not have been put off once he understood this. But-- then again, we are emotional beings.

just a thought.

I was puzzled at first when I stuck my head in this smallish, in-town barn. Where did they stable the horse? Then I saw the paw marks when I pulled up the threshing belt and linoleum they had laid on the floor. The horse was standing on this 12/4 yellow pine, which was set on yellow pine 6x6 beams placed four feet on center. The worn plank would have been at the front of the stall where the horse waited for its oats. I only got two 4/4 boards from that plank rather than three.

Eric;

You are right the typical consumer "does not get it", most look at the initial bottom line when buying  a home or car.
if you build energy efficent .............that is green!.........and the home pays you dividends for years.
If you have reduced your utilty bills by 50% that is more disposable income for life even after the mortgage is paid off
Don't limit yourself to new wood technology building methods to truly think outside the box consider thinking outside the wood box
The technologies are here now and continually being improved,  the intelligent informed consumer is seeking them out

A big factor is the amount of time the consumer plans on being in a particular home affects many decisions. If they build and aren't plan on being in it for more than a few years it might not make sense for additional bells and whistles if they feel they won't recoup the additional costs or get the payback during the period they are living in the home. I think the average time in a home will probably rise w/ the crappy real estate and economic situation along with rising energy costs. Those factors will make more sense to build better.