RE: [GBlist] house thoughts

["Ralph Bicknese" <ralph.bicknese@christnerinc.com>]

Ruebin wrote:

<I think one of the most creativity-inducing strategies I can think of would
be to identify what some would undoubtedly consider "unrealistic" or "undue"
restrictions on one or another parameter (embodied transport energy in
materials, house size, minimal energy demands, location vis-a-vis
infrastructure, etc.) and figure out how to design/build/furnish/dwell in
houses that met those requirements.  How to (why) be creative if there are
no limits established from the outset?>

Ruebin, I respect your and others on this lists opinions. I believe in most
cases you and I and the people on this list agree on the big issues.  The
differences between my view on this issue of what has become "small size VS
evil" and some other's views, seems to be a "is the cup half-full or half
empty" kind of a thing. I choose to act as if it is half full.  In some
sense we are arguing semantics, in others, not.

I agree restrictions can indeed be (often are) a catalyst to creativity. The
scarcity of the earth is causing us all to need to be very creative.  Part
of my point is that simply limiting square footage is not the answer. We
have been dwelling (pun intended) on that issue these last several days with
the practical exclusion of thinking outside of that box (again pun
intended). While having something to do with material and energy use,
restricting floor area is far too simplistic a strategy and that strategy
misses the bigger issue.

Contrary to the inferences some on this list have made, those that desire
what some might consider an "opulent" and excessive "creative, personalized,
self-indulgent, over-sized dream house" at 2500 sq. ft. are not evil. I
submit that a strategy of green improvement that has as part of its basis
the ongoing damning of usually well-intentioned, considerate people who are
usually trying to do their best with the knowledge (and market forces) at
hand, will fail. Rather than curse them we should unite with them to produce
what they want in a better, significantly greener way. Many savvy product
manufacturers have realized their long-term success depends on doing just
that.

It is indeed possible to have a 2500 sq. foot house that uses 1/4 of the
non-renewable materials, leads to 1/4 less pollution and uses 1/4 of the
energy as the same size house next to it. Such houses are being built in
North America now. So why should we be trying to tell people they are wrong
to want a 2,500 square foot house especially when they are using only half
of what a 1250 sq. foot house, half the size of theirs, might be using? How
can we be so arrogant?  And if we are intelligent enough to be able to build
a house that uses 1/4 of what a similar size house uses, how much smarter
will we be in 10 or 20 years after we have really have some experience and
market transformation is in steady swing? Could I not have a 3,500 square
foot house that is more efficient and effective than a standard 1,500 square
foot house is now? So in this case at least intelligence can be used so that
size does not really matter.

With this focus on minimizing square footage we are loosing focus on the
things that make buildings special.  Perhaps we should be focusing on what
it takes to make a place humane or inspirational, on what it takes to create
comfort and provide a sense of well-being, warmth and hominess. That is in
part what Susanka is talking about. She is showing us a path for people that
want "the good life" to have many of those things as possible and still
leave a smaller mark on the earth than before. Are those houses not
considerably more appealing and effective at providing a humane and
inspirational domain than typical bigger tract houses? I do not believe
anybody ever suggested Susanka was professing this to be the answer for
everybody.  Susanka is making positive steps not negative ones.  She is
taking but one set of steps that will help lead some people to better
alternatives. Obviously her ideas are not earth shattering revelations to
save the world.  But I do think they will help make it a little better.

And really, some on this list have spent a few days arguing about 6" of
width in a toilet room.  Should the room be 30" or 36"?  Is green design
really that mundane? Perhaps I should not have this attitude but who really
gives a crap (or craper)?  If someone needs 6" more room to function
comfortably will it kill the whales? There are much bigger fish to fry.
(Sorry to all those whales I may or may not have offended).

There is plenty of room for fresh thinking. In that quest, I suggest we
embrace the bounty the earth and human intelligence provides. We must learn
from it, and work with it. If we treat it right it will continue to provide
(unless or until nature plays one of its cosmic tricks on us). (Ouch! That
is gonna' hurt). If we don't we will not need a cosmic disaster to cut us
short. (Ouch! That is gonna' hurt a lot sooner).

I hope people accept my rant in the (generally) good humor that was
intended. I liked your crack, Ruebin, about "the long hall".

Cheers,
Ralph

-----Original Message-----
From: deumling@socrates.Berkeley.EDU [mailto:deumling@socrates.Berkeley.EDU]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 3:28 PM
To: Ralph Bicknese
Cc: FUnger@aol.com; hollandfoley@acadia.net; greenbuilding@crest.org
Subject: RE: [GBlist] house thoughts


On Thu, 10 Jan 2002, Ralph Bicknese wrote:
> impose unrealistic and undue restrictions on our thinking and ourselves,
> or we can get creative and work to solve the problems in a way that will
> allow people to have what they want, including certain 'things", and a
clean
> and healthy environment.
> Let's get those thinking caps cranking on something else other than square
> footage impositions or restrictions.

I disagree that we much choose between creativity _and_ restrictions.

I think one of the most creativity-inducing strategies I can think of
would be to identify what some would undoubtedly consider "unrealistic"
or "undue" restrictions on one or another parameter (embodied transport
energy in materials, house size, minimal energy demands, location
vis-a-vis infrastructure, etc.) and figure out how to
design/build/furnish/dwell in houses that met those requirements.  How to
(why) be creative if there are no limits established from the outset?

"Square footage impositions," as you put it, are but one way to set
ourselves the challenge of living within the kind of limits we (will)
face--either in the long hall* (good chance of encountering such in
Susanka's houses), or in the long haul (a tougher, if more honest
spatial challenge--perhaps akin to a journey?)

> the point is valid that we in North America have outstripped the
> earth's ability to provide for us over the long hall* and need to change
> our ways.  Obviously most of us understand that.
> We are all (on this list) trying to figure out what we are going to do
> about it.  There are multiple paths.

Reuben Deumling


______________________________________________________________________
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
______________________________________________________________________


______________________________________________________________________
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
______________________________________________________________________