Re: [GBlist] houses old, new, borrowed recycled blue

[deumling@socrates.Berkeley.EDU]

I am altogether inspired by your Not-So-New house ideas.  I'll buy your
book in an instant.

Though I remain concerned whether many who buy Susanka's book might not
find themselves less inspired to refurbish and reconfigure as you have
(and I like to), and more excited to emulate what she proposes--build
new, even lavishly, while _striving to_ remain in the vicinity of 2-3000
square feet. While some of us will agree that reconfiguring existing
spaces has its own rewards and might even trump building new, these two
approaches seem almost diametrical to me.

At the heart of an "architecture of reconfiguration" would sem to lie the
challenge of working with many of the existing constraints.  If we include
the size of the space as one such constraint it seems we are starting not
necessarily with the curse of living in cramped quarters but with all the
possibilities and challenges which such spaces present.  Starting from
scratch (my gloss on Susanka) seems inherently different in that there
really don't seem to be any hard and fast constraints or guides on where
to stop adding rooms (or square feet).  Not-so-big may be an attitude, and
a laudable one, but how much can it realistically be thought akin to/mimic
working with existing structures?

I wonder whether Ms. Susanka could be persuaded to put out a book along
the lines of what you propose?  Do such books exist?

One slightly different book your post reminds me of is
New energy from old buildings / National Trust for Historic Preservation;
[edited by Diane Maddex] Washington, D.C. : Preservation Press, c1981
(library of congress call # NA2542.3.N49)

Reuben Deumling

On Sat, 5 Jan 2002, Aimee M Houser wrote:

> 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. ... 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
>
> 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 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
______________________________________________________________________