|Re: Re: Density, detached vs attached||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: tom ponessa (tom_ponessatvo.org)|
|Date: Tue, 24 Jan 95 21:17 CST|
I am interested in the ongoing debate re density esp. Vicky's view about living lightly. If I have it right you believe this means row housing and your argument is that it saves on materials, energy etc... To me row housing almost always means a developer and standard construction practices - notwithstanding that you may go solar, high efficiency heating, high R-value glazing and so on. Now I decide to join you and being the unorthodox contrarian that I am I say I am building a single dwelling in post & beam with salvaged timbers and using straw bale (the ultimate solar building material) for walls. I also plan on using a masonry heater and a radiant floor (I want a one storey house for the day I can't navigate stairs) both of which store heat and release it slowly. I will be burning softwood at better than 90% efficiency. I will have R-40 walls. I might even top it with a sod roof and use the snow accumulation as insulation. Yes my home takes up more land than yours but yours will be a bigger drain on resources both initially in construction and in the long term for heating. I, too, claim to be living lightly on the land. Life cycle environmental costing would put my detached house ahead of any conventional row house.
- Re: Density, detached vs attached, (continued)
- Re: Density, detached vs attached RAYGASSER, January 22 1995
- RE: Density, detached vs attached Rob Sandelin, January 23 1995
- Re: Density, detached vs attached Jean Pfleiderer, January 23 1995
- Re: Density, detached vs attached vicky de monterey, January 23 1995
- Re: Re: Density, detached vs attached tom ponessa, January 24 1995
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.