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

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

These are excellent points. Indeed the not-so-big-house concept is not for
the poor. And in trying to make do with what space I have and creatively
rework it, I've run into exactly the frustration you mention--everything
big or gargantuan. I would like to find a 23 in width refrigerator--that's
all my husband and I need. Shouldn't be too hard, right? Nearly
impossible, unless I want to pay several hundred more for it than I'd pay
for a standard size and buy it online with little warranty. 

The centrespan issue is also one we've encountered. We've already removed
a wall and this required inserting a double microlam, etc. Further plans
are going to require a lot of this sort of thing. It is a pretty big
headache. Just doing this work is very costly and in the long run will
probably end up pushing our total expenditure on the house way above
building new, even given the fact that we are doing most of the work
ourselves because we don't have the money to hire anyone (though we do pay
to consult with a structural engineer, of course).

Isn't there actually a way to build houses that don't require the
centrespan? I'm thinking of the Philip Johnson Glass House, circa 1940s.
It's a steel frame house with no interior walls. The exterior walls are
glass sheeting. That part isn't particularly practical unless built on an
acreage, but the concept of a wall-less living space is intriguing.
Always, imminently, reconfigurable. With all the fervor for "open spaces"
these days, how come those kinds of designs aren't reemerging?

> One of the continuing ironies here is that small houses can be a 'luxury' -
> being outside the vernacular and outside the envelope. The scale of
> appliances has already been mentioned but it extends into most
> 'commodities'. I've often drawn a room and then tried to 'plug in' the
> drawing of some manufactured upholstered object only to find that it was
> designed to seat some giant and left room for little else. Everything in
> N.A. is big or gargantuan. A small soft drink here would serve to satisfy a
> daily liquid intake and at least a monthly sugar intake. I'm always amused
> at the recommended minimum clearances for toilets - generally enough to have
> a few people join you. Without careful planning it generally is easier and
> more cost effective to build a 'large house' than a purpose built small
> house. The dividing line is probably now about 1800 sq.ft. for standard
> assemblies, but even at that level there seems to be a lot of compromises or
> 'custom detailing'.
> 
> I was trying to be a bit of devil's advocate in bringing up the issue of
> designing with limitations. Most houses that exist from the 30's-50's have
> those limitations and people have experienced the frustration of remodelling
> them. Most are based on a rectangle or square with centrespan support
> generally within the 10-15' dimension. Centrespan is usually a wall divider.
> Remodelling for open concepts has usually required major structural
> reworking of the original plan, replacing walls with beams. I've actually
> been involved over time in a project that initially opened a floorplan up
> with a centrebeam support replacing the original dividing walls and then
> subsequently creating new divisions within that space. I think a basic
> generic concept for housing now is that is should be designed for open span
> between exterior support walls - and interior walls should become less part
> of the building process and more part of the finishing process, similar to
> how kitchen cabinetry is developing wheels and legs.  It would seem a
> no-brainer but having been involved in mult-family housing projects - it is
> not happening.
> 
> Despite the fact that this is my work, I'm continually and perhaps
> progressively amazed at how much income and energy is expended on 'homes'.
> Over the last couple of decades the concept of what it takes to 'house'
> someone has grown simpler but the details have become incredibly complex.
> 
> still enjoying this discussion.
> 
> John Salmen
> TERRAIN E.D.S.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Aimee M Houser (Aimee Houser)" <hous0088@tc.umn.edu>
> To: <deumling@socrates.Berkeley.EDU>
> Cc: <greenbuilding@crest.org>
> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 6:36 AM
> Subject: Re: [GBlist] houses old, new, borrowed recycled blue
> 
> 
> > 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".
> 
> 
> 
> 

______________________________________________________________________
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
______________________________________________________________________