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

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

I agree with your concern about lavish building of 2000 sq ft houses under
the misguided assumption that that is living small and in hindsight, I
would've clarified my stance in relation to her ideas, her books. The
post-war cape cod (my house) has some problems (it is difficult, tho not
impossible, to tighten it up because of the kneewalls), but one thing it
has to its benefit is inherent flexibility. I am working towards
accomodating my mother and hopefully a child in the coming years without
adding, only reconfiguring.

I see now where your ideas about sq footage come in--that there aren't any
such constraints, even suggestions, in the not-so-big house's way of
thinking. I guess I do not think that Susanka's ideas are akin to
recycling, but they can be used as a starting point in thinking about the
architecture of reconfiguration. I think that is where I got my ideas to
radically rethink my existing space. Its not that Susanka's ideas are
complete, but that they (to my mind) constitute the first representation
(iteration?) of rethinking mainstream residential architecture as "the
sky's the limit". 

But you are right. Ultimately, the work is still about "fine living." Its
about saving money that would be spent on sq footage in order to put it
"into the details". The sustainability aspect evolved, I think, later.
Still, by presenting possibility and imagination in a new light--that of
how to put space together so that every inch is used rather than in
building every inch a penny can squeeze out--Susanka provides a starting
point.  Anyway, that's how I read it.

Thanks.

> 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
______________________________________________________________________