[GBlist] houses old, new, borrowed recycled blue

[Aimee M Houser <hous0088@tc.umn.edu> (Aimee Houser)]

This brings to mind some problems I have with focusing on a discussion of
sq footage per person for new houses. I guess I have not considered the
matter partly because I am not in the building industry, but in the
communications wing, and partly because I have never considered building a
new house or abode.

In the city in which I live, many people recognize the sprawl that has
occured and, rather than building more in the suburbs, choose to buy the
old and well built houses in the city proper. Its a decision I made, and
love. Which is not to imply that all new building contributes to
sprawl--its just what's happening in our metropolitan area. Of course, new
spaces will always have to be built unless the population rate steadies or
declines. This is where the sq footage discussion comes in. 

The only thing I think about designing for a specific usage is that it
does seem to limit what future occupants can do with it. Not in terms of
"adding on", but in terms of reconfiguring. For instance, I live in a 1200
sq foot house with my husband. It isn't actually 1200. The footprint is
more like 800 with the basement figured in as finished space and the
half-story bedroom also figured in. We will never add on, but have been
slowly reconfiguring the space--opening some walls, closing up other
spaces. The space can change with changing lifestyles without too much
problem, although sometimes I feel its a crapshoot even with the help of a
structural engineer. A portion of the shed dormer is buckling from 2 ft of
standing snow last winter.  

I recognize what you say about swedish, russian, etc. building as figuring
less space per person than here. This is where I think we need  to think
about an architecture of reconfiguration. That is, rather than building
new, talking much more about making do with what is. Catalogs and
magazines abroad talk so much  more about "dual purpose" spaces and have
scaled down appliances. I would like a vocabulary of architecture and
design in America that talks about working with existing spaces to
accomodate any number of persons. This is why I think of Susanka. It is a
way of thinking that, if applied to remodelling, would be very helpful in
reducing sprawl and reconfiguring spaces for changing lifestyles. That is,
not throwing out and moving on, but reimagining and recycling what is.

----------------------------------------

This raises another interesting design point. In designing a floor loading
for a specific usage am I limiting future usage of the space - Is this a
good or bad thing? Perhaps we have too much flexibility in terms of space
usage and can afford to set some limitations that begin to modify how we
use space.

John Salmen
TERRAIN E.D.S.

______________________________________________________________________
This greenbuilding dialogue is sponsored by REPP/CREST, creator of
Solstice http://www.crest.org, and BuildingGreen, Inc., publisher of
Environmental Building News and GreenSpec http://www.BuildingGreen.com
______________________________________________________________________