|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
phansford
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 534
Location: SW Ohio
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 10:29 am Post subject: |
    |
|
| csintexas wrote: | | We consume more energy per capita than other developed countries also. |
It would be interesting to know energy usage for the US from state to state - urban to rural - and so on. What are the environment factors that drive energy usage.
| csintexas wrote: | | Wow, I had not realized all those states haven't started using national building codes yet. Did they have there own state or local codes? Anyway I don't think that was the main cause. |
Pretty shocking when I found out. Obviously the magnitude of the storm was the largest factor. But that states that confront these types of natural events did not have residential building codes is shameful. My understanding is they had no code. I know I was asked to do a house in Georgia several years ago.... when I found out there was no residential code, I stated I would only do the project under the condition we made the design meet CABO (which was the model residential code at the time). That was enough for the client not to use our services. How do you protect yourself from that type of mentality.
You don't realize how backward parts of our own country are until you begin practicing outside of your region.
| csintexas wrote: | | Yeah, I would guess most people in the US would still not agree that energy consumption is a big problem. That means progress towards reducing consumption will be slow. |
Couldn't agree more. You said a mouthful.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
birgco
Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 302
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 4:46 pm Post subject: Re: conventional wisdom |
|
|
| Quote: | | Okay first..... feng shui.... please..... you should be embarrased to have even mentioned feng shui along side the other scholarly pursuits. |
Phansford........you are coming within a nano hair of becoming just like ....................."The Architect". Do you want that to happen????? Well do ya????? Next thing you know, all your sense of humor is gone, you think you are smarter than everyone and you'll be shrieking......... "I'm an artist...............I'm an artist!!!!!!! (not a pretty picture, is it??)
Btw, you should see the hate mail I received from the local Feng shui society.......
Anyway, back to topic....first of all.... I would be willing to bet the wart on Hillary's nose and the twinkle in Bill's eye that next time you're on a job, and you see an open exterior wall that it wasn't insulated properly. Locate an electrical wire and look behind it......what you most likely will see is air! I think a great improvement to our building codes would be a strict insulation inspection. Most inspectors tend not to look too closely (no offense) but billions of btu's would be saved if an insulation inspection was treated like a framing inspection.
Another energy saving idea would be to collect all the disco clothing from the early 70's, apply a little solar and voila, 300,000 barrels of oil..... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
phansford
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 534
Location: SW Ohio
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Your probably dead on concerning the insulation inspections. I think most inspectors have their hot buttons and that's what they focus on. One inspector here was known for always looking at fire-blocking, but she never would climb scaffolding or a ladder to review re-bar placement or truss connection..... go figure.
The foamed-in-place insulation is intriguing, but I have a problem with it being water-based. I used in on a few masonry buildings and had to wait as the water "leeched" out of the block. Not a confidence builder. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
birgco
Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 302
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 6:52 pm Post subject: conventional wisdom |
|
|
| It's funny you mention the foamed-in-place insulation not being a confidence builder. There was a large, local renovation project which featured completely foamed-in-place wall cavities and rafter/attic spaces. There was a general feeling regarding; what if something went wrong with the foam chemical/base formula (whatever). What do you do with the house, throw it away? It would be interesting to hear from someone with a long track record with the technology. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
phansford
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 534
Location: SW Ohio
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 4:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
It was not fun going to the jobsite a few days after the insulation had been placed to see large moisture stains all over the building. Evenutally it dried out (before occupancy) but I swore off the material immediately.
That is the real problem with some of the new technologies. Research and development hasn't been the best.
Take EFIS..... 20 years ago I asked the product rep how was the wall suppose to weep moisture. "Its a barrier system... it does not need to be weeped". I asked about air movement through the wall .... you know thermal loss and gain...... Of course, they had not taken that into consideration. Fast forward twenty years and a couple of case action lawsuits and we have EFIS with a water management system. And the same A-hole product rep as of about three years ago was still saying that it wasn't their faultly design, but installer problems....... What an idiot! All warm air has moisture, as it moves through the wall the air cools and condensates. If you install a barrier system on both sides of the wall (EFIS and Visqueen) the moisture is going to be trapped in the wall and...... the end result....... North Carolina.
Presently I am not specing Tyvek or any other house wrap. The problem.... builders are still doing double moisture barriers (housewrap and visqueen). I prefer the old tried and true method of 15# builders felt.
In fact, housewrap will wick moisture. One of our best contractors was sued because mortar droppings in the cavity touched the housewrap and moisture was wicking into the house and damaging the drywall. He removed the entire area where the damage occurred and there was one small piece of mortar that had come into contact with the housewrap.
If you have a client who wants to push the envelope, which is great, you really need to provide a clause in your contract that new materials and technologies are being provided and the Owner takes all risks and will hold the architect harmless.
I prefer to sleep at night. So I push for our clients to use time tested materials or we VERY clearly identify problems they might encounter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
crouton976
Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Posts: 2
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi all,
I'm not an architect (though I'd like to be...), but I am definitely a big fan of architecture. I am also a fan of saving money, being efficient and progressive. So far, i think everyone has brought up some good points (we all know that feng shui is THE most important part of green design  ), but as someone who is not an architect, I'd like to say that as a consumer, I can understand the concept of long term savings vs. short term payout. Maybe most people in the U.S. are just idiots. Why not pay tens of thousands of dollars more over the next 20 years due to loss of energy in my home rather than spend a few more thousand up front to build efficiently, right? But, then again maybe most Americans simply don't know that there IS a better way to build and live. I'd wager that if most Americans knew that mini fluorescent bulbs use one third of the energy it takes to power a standard light bulb, and they last up to 7 times longer, then we would see a drastic decline in the amount of energy we consume as a country. I'm no architect, as I said before, but my common sense logic tells me a few things. Better insulation means less energy lost. Solar panel systems mean I'll pay less to the electric company every month. Building with SIPs or even going modular (yes, I live in Alabama... no I DON'T mean trailer...) can help save me money or at least give me the most for my money because there is more efficient labor and less wasted material. I remember getting excited when I first learned of radiant heat systems being used under flooring!! I mean, what a great idea... more heat at a lower height, therefore using less energy to heat your overall space. Wow!! There are more things one can do to build and live green, that I realized as a common man. Use more windows to create natural light during the daytime, and make them out of insulating glass, then use tinting or other methods to control the heat gain. If possible, use designs where cross ventilation is present so that on those not so hot afternoons, you can utilize the nice breeze outside. From my understanding, using denim insulation is far more effective than fiberglass, although it costs slightly more up front (plus no itchies). Not to mention that we've effectively used a could be waste product, since the insulation is made from scrap and used denim. Also, if we would pay the costs to have A REAL ARCHITECT do our design work, then we would eliminate a lot of our problems with wasted energy. And yes, local and federal government agencies are doing things to promote green building. In AL, depending on how much energy you produce with a solar panel system, the power companies will actually buy electricity from you. Not to mention tax breaks.
In short, in order to make more Americans aware that green is the way to go, we need to show them what their incentive is... cash!! Good ol' cash!!
And who doesn't like a little bit more hefty wallet in their pocket??
BTW, Phansford, I'm from GA and used to be in the construction industry there... what specifically did you mean by "no code"?
Keep in mind, this is simply the opinion of a common man, dreaming he was an architect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
phansford
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 534
Location: SW Ohio
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 5:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Welcome aboard.
Concerning your ideas about tax credits and so on.... that already exists. We have been directing our clients to talk to their tax consultants. We specify manufacturers who have energystar certification and we insulate our design above code minimums.
Check out Energystar for more information. Energystar is a government program.
| crouton976 wrote: | | BTW, Phansford, I'm from GA and used to be in the construction industry there... what specifically did you mean by "no code"? |
Just what I said. This was a vacation house located on a recreational lake in northern GA and there was no residential building code. I confirmed this fact (at the time it was fact) with a classmate of mine who owns a large architectural firm in Valdosta. Now it is possible that larger cities had adopted a code, but the entire state hadn't at the time and nether did the locale of this particular project. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1776
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 6:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here in Texas, once we get outside city limits there is no building code enforcement. Although all the builders I know build the same way no matter where the house is located because of liability issues.
I think you make some good points crouton976. I wish we could easily produce a piece of paper at the end of every design job that said:
This will be your energy cost: _________
This will be your mortgage payment: ___________
This is what it will cost to maintain this house: ____________
This is the total cost per month to live in this house: __________
Then everyone could easily understand the bottom line and make better decisions.
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
birgco
Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 302
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| well said....and even if it doesn't make perfect economic sense, it will make a difference. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mx2
millennium club
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1968
Location: Miami, Florida
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 11, 2007 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Of course this is "residential design" but it is also "building" forum...and I just wanted to point out to our young ones that although there is no code for residential, commercial public buildings require code compliance, at the least on a federal level, ie. ADA accessibility. And I mention this ONLY to segway into the "green" design by suggesting that I feel it would best serve everyone if "green" design were mandated, just as they did with the ADA. Otherwise, people will continue to opt out of the lower up front costs and build for "more bang for their buck". Today I see far too many McMansions going up and they're often insulated with blown newspaper...and a few soda cans. 
mx2.5
_________________
*Art of Architecture: The conscious use of skill and creative imagination in the production of an aesthetic building.
*Science of Architecture: The calculated use of technical skill and knowledge in the construction of a functional building. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
phansford
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 534
Location: SW Ohio
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 5:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sort of..... There are residential building codes in many states. Here in Ohio we use a modified version of the one of the model codes. (either we are stuck in the 90's with CABO or we actually using a version of the ICC).
My point being is that in Ohio you must submit an energy code analysis along with your drawings for a permit, using ResCheck basically. You have to meet the Model Energy Code (which is developed by the DOE)
Much of the "green" in LEED is energy usage, so this is a good start. I recently heard to get a building LEED certified it cost nearly $25,000 in additional architectural fees. Mmmmm....
I really think that since the LEED checklist is out there in the public domain, we might see a lot more people willing to be green without the need (or ego trip) of getting certified. We are doing alot of "green" things in our projects, but there is no desire on the parts of our clients to get certified. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1776
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 6:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
We have to do a rescheck report here also. I think the codes continue to evolve to meet our needs. The efficiency required by code these days is higher than it was twenty years ago.
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
phansford
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 534
Location: SW Ohio
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 8:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| csintexas wrote: | | We have to do a rescheck report here also. I think the codes continue to evolve to meet our needs. The efficiency required by code these days is higher than it was twenty years ago. |
Yeah.... I am always watching and fretting over that line that shows what % of non-compliance/compliance to the Model Energy Code as I enter info in ResCheck......
I want to know how some of the "modern" houses past Rescheck with all of that glass. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1776
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 8:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
My guess is that most of them are in the most temperate parts of California.
Like this one:
http://www.livinghomes.net/welcome.html
In such a climate I guess all you need to do is stick some solar cells on your roof, screw in some florescent bulbs and your done.
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
usarender
millennium club
Joined: 01 May 2004
Posts: 1258
Location: San Diego, Ca
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 12:28 pm Post subject: The implications of energy conscientious thinking |
|
|
Much is to be said. The excessive codes do indeed stifle simple, cheap and affordable options to more expensive solar heating systems. For architects to believe they are being energy conscientious by following "codes" is pretentious. This veers to a technical discussion that sounds convincing, but is bs in terms of the effect we are having on the environment. The same to blame the lack of regulation.
This country has long been lacking in a general overall energy "consciousness". Take the US stance on green gas emission reductions, it's non compliance with many international agreements in emssions, is long lack of cooperation with countries proposing alternate energy systems or technologies, and the like.
The fact that people need an economic stimuli to consider more efficient technologies is a mere reflection of the fact that we as a society are not willing to make a difference unless we must comply with something. Society and the world as a whole needs constant re-education on energy conservation, preservation, the environment. The obvious result of our indiferrence can be seen in the latest news on tv - natural disasters, reduction of polar ice and on and on. Man, in complying with codes, local laws and regulations feels secure until a new earthquake, natural disaster or greater calamity spurs him into enforcing tighter standards, that are still "politically correct".
If most of the houses in the country were designed solely by architects, the builders, owners, political system would still favor the big oil interest groups, more economical systems, one that meet immediate needs at lower costs and on and on.... so the lack of enough architects is not the only factor involved, in my opinion. So Phansford is correct in what he says.
I have seen new simple systems being used in developing countries were you can heat all the water of a house and build the whole system for US$150 dollars ! This is human ingenuity and creativity at work ! So there are solutions, the problem is the political desire to implement these.
True, modern codes have evolved and made houses more efficient. But it is a double sided sword. At the same time, they complicate the implication of human ingenuity, alternate systems. The growing number of codes, rather then promoting diversity, ends up forcing compliance with pre-designed, pre-conceived notions of how to achieve the greatest thermal efficiency, ,energy efficiency and the like. These are based on archaic construction technologies, that, under the systems of codes, get propagated over and over again. The result, the same bs over and over with nothing new. Creativity is completely stifled, and we keep getting more and more of the same. The countries that have access to first world technology, but where the codes are more relaxed are those that enable the most human creativity to implement alternate solutions to energy compliance, in my opinion. True, in this country we have brilliant people. But, when they try to implement a new means of energy conservation on a mass scale, they will always be met with a barrage of regulations, codes, energy compliance material requirements that are a bunch of bs - end up favoring the same industries, methods, and ways of building of the past. And we as architects embark on the bandwagon, thinking we are informed, intelligent and community conscious by faithfully applying every technical aspect in minute details in our energy conscious mind, to the extent that we feel we are being socially conscious and environmentally friendly. We deceive ourselves.
Furthermore, as Phansford notes, these "tight" houses and buildings which are completely code compliant end up creating unfriendly environments that propagate stale air and indoor air issues.
A new bridge collapses, a new earthquake, a new structural problem, and suddenly we realize our codes, standards, means of implementing and ways of regulating are completely foul. Take the latest Minneapolis bridge collapse, for instance. Seismic codes are always being re-vamped based on some new stronger natural disaster and it' s impact on existing buildings.
When designing buildings, we should not merely consider "codes". We need more environmental consciousness, more connectivity to modern technology, means of achieving more energy efficient homes using passive techniques in energy conservation. This is quite a complex fieldd, and there is some merit to those who believe many problems are caused by the lack of sufficient properly educated architects who can truly apply these techniques to residential construction. There is much to be said in this regard. But the problem is also tied to the other issues above, as cited. `Birdco expresses these points well.
Also, should we rely on government research ? bs. There is plenty of human creativity in the world ready and willing to implement new systems. The problem, in our society, is certain things, attitudes are "politically correct" and others are not. So everyone is forced to follow the "status quo", or be damed as a heretic. Foolish pre-conceived notions of what engineering should and can do. Maybe we as architects and society need to start asking the engineers to make the final decisions in terms of energy conservation. Or, take that back, we don't want a city designed by engineers who have no aesthetic value......hummmmm..... is this a catch 22 ?
Now government is good in educating, informing. But can we really entrust them with environmental friendliness on a global scale? But can we entrust them with at least energy education ? The government working on energy efficiency ? Is this a joke ? They rip up Iraq, dis-consider national treaties on energy conservation, and there are those who are still willing to trust bureaucrats ?
How many people here from different countries actually read these posts, ? Do you agree the US has the best codes, the most involved government in terms of energy efficient homes ? Does the fact that the US not build out of mud or straw justify is massive piggish consumption of global resources ? Is this ignorant capitalism at it's best ?
If lighting is the problem, are we addressing the source by simply demanding more efficient light bulbs ? bs. Instead of ripping up Iraq, we should have been more involved in developing energy efficient systems, fuels, natural energy, new power plants based on natural energy production and the like.
If there are people seriously addressing the issues, they are facing a barage of interest groups, of pre-conceived ideas, of cultural determinations, of pre-conceived building construction technology methods and the like that force the majority to be "near-sighted", ,blind", and pursuing solutions that are only adding more fuel to the fire of the American appetite for energy.
Does Feng Shui have any implication on energy conservation. This is a good point. To ridicule those who suggest so, without a detailed investigation is preposterous. This would need to be explored further. It seems the orientals are the most environmentally conscious when it comes to paasive solar systems being used on a large scale, so this, in essence can be connected in some way to Feng Shui type of thinking. To intimidate the poor guy who suggests this is Western Ignorance at it's best. Feng Shui is concerned with the earth, with our connection to the earth, to the Earth, Wind and Fire elements. This connectivity certainly leads to more environmentally friendly materials, methods and ways of thinking, as it is an inherent part of this way of thinking. To submit the orientals to ridicule, as less culturally, less technologically or less architecturally developed is Western ignorance at it's best.
Statements such as "Okay first..... feng shui.... please..... you should be embarrased to have even mentioned feng shui along side the other scholarly pursuits. " shows the explicit weakness of those who in there western technical mind do not admit the possibility of alternate ways of thinking. They scoff, they mock, while the Western World goes on to consume the rest of the planet in its hunger for Earth, in its destruction of land and Fire, in it massive fuel consumption, the result of the "industrial revolution" that is truly revolutionary yes, but that is also destroying the planet.
In this context, my hat up to the comments on the "polyester suit" of "politically correct" discussion.
It seems mamy of these posts follow a reductionist, a simplified reaction to issues that are complex; This reveals our naivety.
A good point brought up by phansford on the backwardness of certain parts of the country. One can argue, under this context that it is not the codes in themselves that are stifling the implementation of greater energy efficiency. The issue is quite more complex. Codes can be a benefit, and can be a barrier at the same time. It has to do with deeper issues of social consciousness, of cultural orientation, of ways of seeing the world and the resources available to us that seem to be the greatest determining factors in our current use of energy.
Regarding the use of time tested materials, there is much to be argued. The application of materials as it relates to energy conservation. But many of these materials are still new materials trying to fit old methods of construction. The problem rests therefore, on our pursuance of the same construction methodologies, the same codes. When new materials are implemented in old wine-skin envelopes, the issues start arising. We must put new wine into new wine-skins. We need therefore new construction technologies to replace the outdated environmentally unfriendly and tree-consuming methods of construction. If we are to use trees, we need more massive implementation of species that can be more readily replaced, in my opinion. Much has been done in this regard, but there is a huge vacuum here as well. The vacuum is not only in our walls.
The issue of liability is another subject to be pursued. This is another factor that is incredibly stifling creativity and the implementation of new building technologies and greater energy conservation systems. We need to lobby for a system to allow us to explore new technologies without the fear of being sued in the process.
"Mansions being insulated with blown newspaper and a few soda cans" ? Plausable, given that the biggest spenders are frequently the least energy conscious. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
