Re: Retrofit & Ecology | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Buzz Burrell (72253.2101compuserve.com) | |
Date: Wed, 24 May 95 18:23 CDT |
Susan Johnston wrote: << Every 2x4 stud, every shingle kills the living forest. These clearcuts, and the others I kayak past on the west coast of the Olympic Peninsula here in Washington State, are located where *you* can't see them, where you aren't *forced* to look at them and witness what we have done, and what we continue to do to the earth by building new buildings, and through our other wasteful bad habits. >> I think this is a significant factor to keep in mind. In the past, "Energy Efficiency" was the single consideration that emerged in the alternative building industry. Then people realized that some of these houses were basically toxic, and the "Healthy House" consideration was developed. Recently, we've also realized that both of these stop short of the wholistic approach, and "Sustainable" architecture is now being investigated. In other words, while your utility bills may be low, if the materials used in the structure have high "embodied energy", then it is not really a low-energy use house. (Actually, there are many considerations in home design, but I'm simplifing). Wood has been the traditional material in North America (but not in most other countries), and many people here still presume it's use. We've always thought it was renewable. But at the current population levels, it's not. I think it's good Susan pointed this out. I was doing a progressive home tour this weekend, and looked at a beautiful new timber framed house. Timber framing is gorgeous, in case you've never seen it. But all I could think was "I'de rather be walking through these trees than standing on top of them". However, the point of my reply is this: Retrofitting (and in-fill, clustering, common walls, shared houses, small-is-beautiful, good design, etc) is a good thing to do, but more specifically, if the goal is how to reduce material usage, then that should be approached directly. Susan naturally presumed that more houses means more trees cut down, but that's only if the houses are made out of wood! (Brilliant deduction). The rest of the world figured this out long ago, and only NA is hanging on to our wood fixation, with the bitter results that Susan barely alluded to (one forest activist was a victim of a car bomb, etc). To cut to the bottom line, EARTH is a rewable building material. Beside being plenty of it, when the house falls down, it becomes earth again. And the structures work really well... better than wood anyway, so there is no compromise. Some wood is usually used, and the technologys are just emerging, but keep this little factoid in mind in case you are writing this off as too radical: less than 20% of the world's population lives in wood frame houses now anyway (that's an anecdotal statistic). About 60% of us (I'm not talking about North America now) live in houses made of earth. Just like cohousing! A new/old technology. I just wanted to second Susan's concern, and let folks know that there are other options, which are very nice ones. Buzz Burrell Boulder "This is where other people put interesting quotes, but I can't think of any" - BB
-
Re: Retrofit & Ecology Buzz Burrell, May 24 1995
- Re: Re: Retrofit & Ecology Harry Pasternak, May 25 1995
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.