Hello,
I am looking down the road to when I retire and am able to build on land in the blue ridge mountains (western exposure).  As I troll forums, websites and articles about green or sustainable building and passive/active solar the less sure I am about the differences in technologies. I know a lot of it depends on regions, but it seems like an awful lot of opinions are not based on science, but what brands or solutions people are selling.

I have several goals in mind when trying to design a home: functionality, cost, efficiency and comfort (not necessarily in that order).

I like the idea of passive solar and siting a home to take advantage of that. I also like the concept of open, usable space with natural lighting. These features allow for efficient energy usage, but more importantly they provide a comfortable environment. I also like simplicity in design and construction (reducing waste and unnecessary processes). The end result I'm going for is a house that is right-sized for a family of 4 (then 2 in the not too distant future), has minimal or no utility bills, has near zero maintenance, and is comfortable year round.

Here is a great home plan that seems to take advantage of many of the concepts I'd like to incorporate:

http://www.sunplans.com/html/houseDisplay.php3?house=Sunset_Bungalow&page=first_floor_plan

However, I love maximizing light and warmth. After reading additional articles I'd like to incorporate features from these plans (namely the Clerestory windows and HRV/ERV):

http://www.builditsolar.com/Projects/SolarHomes/SunSavvy/Overview.htm

To give a better picture of what designs I like, here was a standard design that I liked - open, simple, plenty of space:

http://www.houseplans.com/2096-square-feet-3-bedroom-2.5-bathroom-European%20home%20plans-3-garage-%7B612

From some things I read, I thought using AAC as the main construction element would be the way to go; recyclable, low waste production, good R-value, sound attenuation, no toxic components or outgasing, etc.
However, at least on this forum, that doesn't seem to be a preferred method of green construction. SIPs and ICF seem to dominate, which seems odd considering the OSB construction of SIPs would seem to contain lots of chemicals and in my mind is simply normal stick construction with super insulation. ICFs would seem a little "greener" since the styrofoam isn't thrown into a landfill (although it's not the cleanest produced substance). But both of these methods require more finishing than AAC (exterior and interior), which again adds to the required components.

I'm sure I haven't thought of many factors here, so please don't flame me for my ignorance. (I'm just a DIY'er who would love to GC a building project 10-12 years from now)  What are your thoughts on construction methods, or other components to incorporate in the type of design I listed above? What sources would you recommend to find out more about the pros and cons of different construction methodologies?

Thanks!

Hello blueridge,

I found you inquiry to be of particular interest, as I live 10 miles west of the blueridge mountains here in Virginia. I think that you are looking in the right direction by coming here to inquire about different products, etc that are out there to consider. If you search this site over time and follow it on a somewhat regular basis you will be able to weed out who is just trying to sell you something and who is trying to help you.

If you are planning on building in 10-12 years (as the GC), there will most likily be several new technologies out that could make some current information expressed today invalid, but I think for the most part with where technology is today, this is great place for information.

If you are really looking at AAC (which I'm not a huge fan), some of it may come down to where you are specifically looking to build and if anyone there has experience with thay kind of construction. AAC may require more finishing that you think when compared to a SIP/ICF, especially on the inside when you get to electrical wiring. I would say that ICF is more energy efficient, stronger, than an AAC, though I would think there are some who will disagree.

Again, with your timeline many changes could occur in energy efficient building technologies. I think by there solar will be more affordable than right now. I would focus on building the tightest building envelope possible, walls, great windows and insulation in the attice, to ensure that the envelope is as energy efficient/maintenance free as possible. Once that has been done, look at solar, wind, geothermal etc., and where your budget allows you to go. I would look for the best bang for the buck and with the quickest roi.

renangle

Ren Angle

Ren has stated it pretty well.
Focus on the 'bones' of the structure first. These are the items that are firstly, are very hard to change if you don't like them, and secondly, give the most 'bang for the buck'. SIPS/ICF construction with superior quality windows and doors give the most value for the cost premium. Then you can upgrade to more energy efficient products, such as wind and geothermal as your budget allows.

There a number of free internet tools that put the focus on science. But you are going at things backwards. Your first step is is choosing a house design/energy strategy; choosing a wall system would be the last.

UCLA's Climate Consultant software shows you a comprehensive look at the weather data collected at the nearest NWS weather station to you, and helps you sort through energy strategies. CC4 is free and available here: http://www.energy-design-tools.aud.ucla.edu/ Your site and design may dictate your energy choice. A gorgeous view to the south, for example, argues for passive solar. A log house is by definition high thermal mass.

UCLA's HEED will help you evaluate specific designs. You build a model of your home with its proper orientation, window and door placements and insulation schemes. Using the same local weather data, it cranks through 365 days of simulated energy use.

If you are creative, consider Google Sketchup: a free, powerful 3-D modeling tool. You can download scale models of Marvin casement windows or a GE Profile refrigerators to drop into your design. You can drop yourself into it, to scan rooms at eye level. Better yet, you can sample designs by sketchup users worldwide. A search on "clerestory" in Google's 3-D Warehouse, turned up this house in Syndey Australia: http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=cc236d202f9ec89de23291dbdca3d7d3 "passive solar" brings back 171 designs. "daylighting" brings back 204. The trick is to collect design elements you like, a snippet at a time, until things fall into place. Sketchup is free: sketchup.google.com.

At this point you will be the world's leading expert on your home. Heed can predict its heat loss at 5 a.m. on December 28 based on historical weather data, and identify the leading culprits. (Windows in my case.) Sketchup, in conjunction with Google Earth, will show you how the sun strikes the floor at 3 p.m. on February 2. (Quite nicely, thank you.)

Don't be fooled into accepting the simulations as fact. The last step is to play what if. What if it hits 90 degrees on, say, April 7 before the overhangs shade the windows?

Green ultimately depends on how you define it. To me, it means making the house a part of its environment. The science is how to bring the outside in. The art is how to live with it on days when it isn't welcome. To most folks here, green means efficient technologies that keep the outside outside, with an emphasis on the technology they sell. There is no right answer. Active systems break. Passive systems lack fine control. Pick your poison.

Todd's post points out several things that I find wrong with the introduction of 'technology' into the design and construction process. People have so much information at their fingertips through the internet, so quickly, that they forget that the 'science' does not build a good home. It gives you all kinds of facts and figures, but there is still an 'art' to putting this information together in a good home.
Any fool can spent $50 at Walmart for a CAD program, and design a home. Unfortunately, most times, that plan is worth less than the cost of the program, when it comes to building a good home.
I guess what I am trying to say is don't all your faith in the facts, figures, and simulations. If you own the property where you plan to build, visit it often, year round. See how the sun, the winds, and the surrounding topography affect the site. You will see and feel things that no simulation can recreate. Things that will affect the way your home lives, and the quality of life you enjoy while living in it.
Lastly, and here I disagree with Todd strenuously, the structural systems of a home must be considered early on in design process. While most any plan can be modified to fit a particular system, a plan that is specifically designed for a system will build and live much better than the modified one. By the way, 'strategy' is a $5 word that I would apply to cathedrals and hospitals, but never something as personal as a home.

Attachment gods willing, my design is my response. My goals: a small house that lives big; lots of windows looking out on Friends Creek 300 feet below; a great room and deck that convey a strong sense of place. DIYable. Inexpensive to maintain. That led me to AAC and passive solar. But as Wes notes, some building systems fit house plans better than others, so your design journey likely will take you to a different solution. Mine started with an extensive review of Frank Lloyd Wright's Usonian designs. 

The peptalk: Your house can and should be the most personal statement you make. No one knows what you want better than you. While you probably are not a design professional, you don't have to get it right in three tries. Or 20. Or 50.  Hire pros when you need them. Jeff Fertich, a Gettysburg structural engineer, vetted my design and turned it in into blueprints.

And the jpegs, knock on wood:

Fascinating. My browser initially shows three of the pictures I posted. But if I click "add reply" and return to this page using my browser back button, I see all seven. Unless it is six. Here three  of missing. My apologies if this is just a firefox thing.

And the last:

Todd,
Really nice plan!!
Non of my business, but two questions that I would ask my clients.
How about repositioning the downstairs bath so it can be accessed from the hallway?
Is not the upstairs bath a little tight, space-wise, especially if this is a retirement home?

I anticipate that the study will become our bedroom in 20 years or so. And because there is no guarantee that we'll last that long, I designed it as code compliant now and gave it a private bath. To be able to advertise the house as a 3-2 is an important nod to resale value. Many buyers refuse to look at 2-2s.

The upstairs bath is cramped because it shares space with a stacked washer/dryer. That would be an early concession to old legs. Visually, I hope to make the corner tub area so dazzling that visitors forget that their elbows are tucked in.

Gotta say that a small house with no basement is a huge challenge. To the extent that my design works, most of the ideas and all of the inspiration are Frank Lloyd Wright's. One hopes that he will be as famous one day for his small houses as he is for his big ones.

Very nice well thought out, rational design.  I like the open floorplan. 
The one thing that would worry me is getting stuff upstairs.  I would design an exterior stair to the upper outside deck (if you have not done this already).
I always thought it was much harder to design a small house then a big one.  Any idiot can solve problems with more square feet. 

Cheers,
 Eric

There will be an outside staircase. I drew it at one point but the elevation looks much better without it so it disappeared in a long-ago version (not so mysteriously.)

So the access from the garage to the house is enclosed? It looks that way from the pic's but in the drawings it looks open. Being enclosed would be my choice to avoid potential weather, but I like the option of opening it up as well.

I am with Wes, I understand your reasoning behind the bathroom being off the office (3rd bedroom) but I would make the bathroom a little larger and add a second door to the living space. If you had a bunch of guest's over you would have to walk through the bedroom to use the bathroom, two doors would solve that, but you would lose some wall space for the access.

Either way though I really like the plans, simple and straight forward, very little wasted space, nice and open.

I have a pair of patio sliders to mount on the outside of the walkway, or 80sf of south facing glass. The idea is that ingress and egress on bright winter days will let warm air into the house. (My air infiltration goal is 0.) That said, the walkway exists because a bedroom can't be a bedroom if it has direct access from the garage.

We are not big entertainers, and a bedroom needs a closet, even for geezers, so the downstairs bath is what it is. The slab is in now and these spaces look really small.

Todd - very nice.

Slabs always look smaller than the space that they will eventually define.

My suggestion - listen to suggestions! Good people like Wes can offer extremely valuable factual help because they are experienced and also removed from the passion of it being their own design.

I am pretty satisfied with my own house design, but I wish I had had a little more input earlier on.

Beautiful elevations Todd!! Sounds like your place will be a small slice of heaven. Is that a wood cookstove I see off the kitchen? Also, do you know what tool your engineer friend used to create those?
Good luck with the build!

Will

Wow, this is like a flashback. You are at the point I was 5 years ago, with the same questions. I think that it would be best for you to look at the HGTV clips that were done 5 yrs ago on my home. This will probably answer most of your questions. If you have more questions, either Google my name or email me. Try this first:

http://www.hgtvpro.com/hpro/di_green_sustainable/article/0,,HPRO_20616_3614209,00.html

http://www.hgtvpro.com/hpro/di_gree...08,00.html

Thanks, Will. You are in fact looking at an Esse Ironheart cook stove. I reluctantly abandoned it as too small for passive solar backup purposes and bought this stove instead: www.eco-boiler.com

The modeling software is Google Sketchup, and the work is mine rather than my engineer's. Even my wife the technophobe sings its praises after I showed her how to use a color wheel to try paint schemes.
The downsides are how easy it is to move on, and how difficult it to keep track of all the moving parts, like missing stairs and wrong stoves.

Wes, you are right that I should accommodate public access in the downstairs bath, if for no other reason than covering resale bets. Downsizing 'boomers would expect a public bath.

Posted By toddm on 09 Apr 2010 01:05 PM
most of the ideas and all of the inspiration are Frank Lloyd Wright's. One hopes that he will be as famous one day for his small houses as he is for his big ones.

That was very clear to me - bringing outside in, prairie style rooflines, etc.  Very nice.  I like it.

I've been fascinated with Wright and his designs for many years now.  It still amazes me how ahead of his time he was, and how modern his designs still look,

Todd,
Have you done any energy modeling on the home?