Think of the most beautiful and uplifting home you’ve been in. What did you remember most, the builder’s material contributions—the granite counter tops, the walk-in closet, and the bathroom vanity? Or was it the feeling that you had while in the home—the feeling of peace and comfort created by a thoughtful designer who integrated the subtle and ephemeral qualities of nature with the built form?  And most importantly, why has this sort of designing all but disappeared in our home designs?

With rising energy costs and increasing concerns on the health of our planet, energy-efficient homes are more important than ever. In the green building industry, we are in a time period that is epitomized by the increased importance of designing and building homes that are more sustainable and energy-efficient. With the focus of green homes on efficiency and budget, has beauty been left out of the design process? An argument could be made that most energy-efficient homes have become technological containers rather than beautiful and uplifting living spaces.

In order to meet modern technological criteria, energy-efficient homes have become increasingly complex and now require an array of specialists, technicians, and building subcontractors to create them. Each one of these specialists is hired to implement and install technologies such as super insulation, heat recovery ventilators to provide fresh air, and LoE triple pane windows to keep heat loss and gain under control. The builder’s primary concerns when building a house are of the solid and concrete: the materials, tile patterns, and drywall textures. These are all important parts of the technology and construction of an energy-efficient home. However, the craft of creating beauty within the home is getting less emphasis and a smaller piece of the total budget.

Most homes today have flat 8-foot high drywall ceilings with boxy geometries. These homes are predictable and static, and sometimes they don’t even function properly. The rooms and spaces have been engineered to be static to keep the heat in, yet with fewer and smaller windows to keep the neighbor’s lawnmower noise out. Often there is little to no thought put into what views these windows are broadcasting into the home, to the extent where often you are viewing the driveway or looking into the neighbors bathroom.  The only dynamics in the room are the flickering TV or an electric fan to ward off the stuffiness. The odors present are often unnatural: off-gassing carpet, some cleaning agents, maybe an artificial bathroom freshener. Hue or color changes in sunlight throughout the day can clash with poor paint schemes, becoming too bright, too saturated, or even mixing to create unappealing colors.

I think we can all remember some spaces that we have been in that have integrated natural phenomena into them and how they feel dynamic and alive. From dawn to dusk the sunlight casts different qualities of light and shadows throughout the room. There are direct views of the constantly changing outdoors: a cedar waxwing that lands in a tree, the changing sunset, a blizzard of snowflakes blowing horizontally. Within the home, the movement of firelight from a stove flickering and casting an orange glow creates a sense of coziness and well-being. In the summer, a gentle breeze from the open windows flows across your forehead causing a cooling sensation and the floral scents of a lilac bush sweep past.

Making adjustments to heights, widths, lengths, and angles gives the home interior dynamics that can’t be arrived at through 2D plans and elevations alone. Adjustment of window locations, their heights off of the floor, and their proportions are essential considerations in order to harvest the available beauty of the outside environment. Moving shadows of shimmering foliage need surfaces on which to be cast. Part of beautiful, spatial design comes from recognizing cues that occur outside as well as inside the home then adjusting geometries, colors, textures and even furniture to highlight, contrast, or blend in with the existing phenomena.

Natural light, shadows, and colors are completely free resources that you can enjoy within your home, but must be integrated through proper design. All of this and more is possible and not prohibitively expensive. Let’s not throw beauty out the window in a misguided quest to save money…lets bring it in to create thoughtful and energy efficient homes that inspire us.

absolutely beautiful!

Thanks Bob... I just think its important to mention the aspects about liveability, comfort, and aesthetics too.  I do a whole lot of research and integration of energy efficiency into my designing and I find technology is beginning to take over the overall design of homes.  Sometimes we energy interested people need to take a break from the technological aspects and look at the aesthetics as an important part.  Unfortunately there are a lot of energy efficient homes being built that give a kind of dumpy impression of these types of homes, this needs to be addressed or we lose a lot of folks interested in having a new home built to the builder/designer who is totally focused on looks. 

The majority of my work has been "custom" mid-price-range homes where we build what the client wants. All too often that means fairly standard "colonials" or "capes" or "ranches"; and not often enough homes like you design. One issue is that so few architects or designers (let alone homeowners) around here stretch their imagination.

We came across a home a few weeks ago that is in foreclosure, talked to a realtor about it, ended up going on a tour of it, and through the realtor's efforts, got a front page story about it in the local Concord Monitor. It was built in 1953; a single pitch roof, passive solar, with redwood ceilings, and almost completely original. This was the personal home of the architect who built lots of somewhat similar homes in the area.

I agree with you and congratulations for getting these out there.

Hi Bob,   Maybe its because of historic precedent in your area...read this article.   I have run into this issue when I was doing design back in Portland Maine.  Thats why I moved to Montana.  I was not able to practice what I believe in, modern energy efficient homes that dont rely on fancy molding and window treatments to be beautiful spaces. 

I sympathize with you.  Builder like to fall into formats, and this is coming from someone who had been a builder for 25 years then realized I wanted to learn to design and went and got my masters degree in architecture.   The problem with the existing formats that builders are sticking with are that they offer little solutions for modern day issues like energy efficiency, community building yet with privacy, etc,etc. 

Bob keep pushing the envelope... you might just find a niche market in your area.  There are definitely more folks out there interested in modernization.  
 
Mark at Greenovision Home Design

GOLogic and others are building modern houses in ME so they do exist, and they do sell. We need to make sure they aren't the only ones. The North Carolina house is a good example of bureaucratic overreach. I can't blame the neighbor for being upset, but that's her personal issue - the Town had no right to pull the permit. There are issues across the country where neighbors want to control their world without cost or obligation; in too many places they are the loudest voices and are listened to.

Why would Cherry, who understands design and compatibility and who apparently "but he is sympathetic to the design guidelines;" want to put a building like that in a neighbourhood like that?

I dont understand your question FBBP?  Is it that once a neighborhood is built than that neighborhood should always stay the same, hermetically locked in time frame in history?  This sort of makes neighborhoods very static and much like gated communities where everyone in that neighborhood is similar.... is this good community building.  There should be variety and yes it should have some sort of contextual agreement with the neighborhood, meaning that it draws from the context but doesnt copy it or replicate it.  Historic replication is not honest.... especially when you talk about energy efficiency issues.  Building of today should represent and exude the spirit of the times.   Just my opinion.

historical buildings are, in essence, artifacts of their time. An historical district should perhaps be limited to buildings that accurately represent their era. The 1790's-1820's colonials that dot my area are a good example, AS ARE the 1950's ranches and the 1930 bungalows and the 2014 contemporaries. Maybe the solution is to require that all building be authentic, and reproductions be required to get variances.

Bob and Mark
The point is not necessarily to keep the street historically accurate but the district must be complimentary.

Something tells me that Mr. Cherry would not do one room in that house up with all colonial mouldings and the rest of the house in a straight line minimalistic style. Yet that is what he is doing to the streetscape.

The neighbourhood can handle some big colonials with some smaller bungalows and some ranchers with clapboard siding. Hard (almost) straight lines do not fit in with this neighbourhood. It's the same as having a street with pastel colours and then someone paints their house fire engine red.

well, that's your vision for a neighborhood - that it all be complimentary. It isn't everyone's, but there are communities designed for people that think that way. Some of us like variety.

Excellent article, pics and home. Many of the "green energy" homes that one sees online are usually bland and ugly. Many look like a shoebox or shed with holes punched in for windows. This is a huge turn-off to those who aren't familiar with the energy builds, as they associate green with ugly.

Many people don't appreciate good architects and what they can accomplish in terms of design. Living in cookie-cutter houses is about as boring as it gets. Functional, sometimes, but boring. Variety is the spice of life and our place of domicile shouldn't be excluded in that equation.

Beautiful home! It shows that green doesn't have to be boring and ugly...

Many Thanks Lbear, I appreciate your commentary and agree about shoe box and cookie cutters... they are spawning generations of people that think this is what a home is, not to sound elitist but come on if a building is going to be there for 50 plus years lets try a little harder.   If you dont mind I will post a few pics of the exteriors of one of these passive solar homes I designed and built located in Liberty Maine.  The owners love the space... I tried hard to keep a sense of grandeur even though its a modest 1400 sq ft ... for 2 inhabitants.  You can see them here...   You can read about my thoughts on how I  used a balance approach here.... to make it sustainable material and energy wise. 

I like variety... I come from Maine I like the old to look at as a sort of folly but boy after remodeling them for years I am very tired... very tired of them.  Most of the time it was a battle making them into something they never were.... energy efficient... and with flowing spaces.   Most of those old homes are compartmentalized by rooms...  this is because during the winter many rooms would be close off so you would lose heat in the main living space.  Also it was a function of not having central heating.  Its amazing how homes are still designed like this even though most inhabitants like open spaces and more flowing plans.  Ok back to work.  Mark

Interesting that this topic just came up as this exact issue is being played out right now in North Carolina:

Neighbors Object to Modern Home

Lbear,
Having spent a good bit of time on the Planning and Zoning Commission of the town I live in, this comes as no surprise. I would hate to be on the board in that town. It sucks getting sued by both sides. Personally I like the house the guy built. If it was in Connecticut, in the end the town will have to reissue the building permit, or eat the costs incurred to date because they issued the building permit.
 
It is hard to mandate good taste, because every ones opinion is different. Fortunately, where I live we have a mishmash- houses from the 1700’s- today ranging from colonials- ranches, split levels, contemporary’s, log homes, modernistic houses, newer mcmansions, and a couple of quanset huts. It is good to have a few outliers to shake things up.
 I grew up in a Robert Martin Engelbrecht designed Modern house, my parents still live in it. It looks cool, and it had some neat ideas, but I never liked it that much. I like very simple houses with open layouts and lots of built-ins .  I would call my taste Scandinavian modern.   If I were building another house, I would build it smaller than what I have now, ~ 600 sf would be about right, but with a large barn.
 
Fortunately, no historic district here, they suck.
Cheers
Eric

Well to keep the hysterical historicism thing going .   Read about the remodel I somehow survived of a early 1800 home in historic Portland Maine West side.   The whole job is written up and can be found under 67 Gray street on my blog.  But the following link would get you started in the convoluted thinking going on in the "historic planning board " there.    Basically the building had never seen insulation, had its original windows still, two antique oil furnaces, plumbing and electrical of all vintages... a complete gut job... and this is what the planning board thought was important... replica windows.  See that write up here.   This neighborhood is considered a historic working class neighborhood.   I dont do these types of remodels anymore, too unhealthy.

Mark: I'm mostly with you, but I'd argue that a fiberglass marvin Integrity with SDLs is a good choice for a rehab like you describe without being exorbitantly expensive. I've wondered why the residents and District Board Members of these histerical districts don't drive 1897 cars or horse and buggies. They are clearly picking and choosing what they like, not what makes sense.

Bob... they wanted an exact duplicate.... which is impossible because once you do double pane everything is different.  To the extent that one of the Historic 'officers' (and they are like gestapo) wanted wavy glass even ... like the originals... which may not have been original as a matter of fact the existing windows were really for the time cheap factory windows.  What we ended up doing was having a friend who is a cabinet maker make them... they turned out really nice but cost 1500 per window...see them here.
The rest of the renovation can be found in my blog here.  The posts are from the latest to oldest so its chronologically backward (scroll all the way down to start in time).  Also if you click on each post you get larger images.  In the end we got the 2nd floor apt. finished very nicely and the owner is gradually finishing his 1st floor as money allows.  Complete gut, new electric, new heating (hydronic euro style radiators), new plumbing, Insulated floor roof walls, new interior finishes.  We saved the beast! Never again for me.  You would think that the Historic folks who see how being a historic "working class" neighborhood that maybe the window treatment might be put to the back of the importance list and energy efficiency and livability at the front. 

Posted By Lbear on 01 May 2014 03:34 PM
Interesting that this topic just came up as this exact issue is being played out right now in North Carolina:

Neighbors Object to Modern Home

Good article L. It reminds me of chickens. My wife raises them and you don't want to be the new chicken in the hen house. Freedom starts with property rights. If he has a permit there should be no legal recourse unless harm can be proven. There clearly was no intent to harm. The only clear intent is for one neighbor to force another to build to suit them. Without a covenant its just so much whining. Bad taste is not against the law...yet. PS I live in a 1921 renovated farm house.

I think builders fall into profitable buildings that people want to buy. I don't live in one, but I understand economy of scale.