|Re: Energy savings & safety, was: security in cohousing||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: Bitner/Stevenson (lilbertearthlink.net)|
|Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 23:36:04 -0600 (MDT)|
I didn't mean to discount the energy and efficiency aspects of your well considered post. You're right, of course. I'm surprised you haven't mentioned water conservation, as that must be a part of your plans. I guess it didn't really go with the whole "safety" theme. Would you care to let us in on any interesting ideas your group has? -- Liz Stevenson Southside Park Cohousing Sacramento, California ---------- >From: Joe Gotobed <jgotobed [at] LPL.Arizona.EDU> >To: Multiple recipients of list <cohousing-l [at] freedom.mtn.org> >Subject: Energy savings & safety, was: security in cohousing >Date: Sun, Aug 1, 1999, 9:15 PM > > > The responses to the "security in cohousing" thread make it clear we > all agree community is the most effective security. That is the primary > reason our family is involved in the Sonoran CoHousing project here in > Tucson. > > While I agree with Liz's statement "there is no such thing as safe" > it's important to try. I advocate automated systems for safety and > energy savings and simply note they can be extended to other uses. > > Fire safety. Smoke alarms are essential and I'd like to be able to hear > my neighbors' alarm as well as my own. Ours CoHo will have ten three & > four-plexes. So in addition to the inside horns that wake you from your > sleep, one more on the outside of the building wakes the neighbors. > Make sure it's high enough off the ground to avoid tampering. > > Energy efficiency. Interior lighing is a big heat load. Leaving lights > on more than needed wastes energy and adds cooling costs to counter the > heat (I live in a desert). Doors/windows left open also increase > utility bills. Door and window sensors along with motion sensor light > switches (with an on-off overide) will all be paid for by their energy > savings. This is based on current utility costs (which may well rise > over time). > > A growing number of lenders are willing to listen to this simple > pitch. If you lend me the money for the efficiency foo-foo the utility > bill reductions will more than pay the increased mortgage. You're > simply offering to send the bank some of what you save from the gas & > electric folks. They like that. > > Extending these safety and energy savings devices to perform as alert > systems is not complicated and very reliable. I may be a *bit* biased > due to twenty years as a computer-geek but my 5 yearold can turn our > alarm on & off and the three yearold could if we'd thought to put the > panel lower on the wall. If it was on the outside next to the door > then it could unlock the door for you too. They are used routinely > on autos now which is far more demanding than residential use. > > Many homeowners insurance policys are less if you have a "security" > system. > > It's certainly true that "security" systems don't make you safe. > Reliable ones alert the community (with few false alarms) to the > presence of burgulars that might otherwise be missed. As a consequence, > word gets around among the thieves, and your space is less of a > target. > > Quality designs do not have the horn where the bad guys can silence > it. The buildings' fire horn, out of reach and easy to see, can do > this duty. > > Of course I've not talked my neighbors into any of this :-)... by & > large we're just struggling to keep prices in line & get built. The > extra $1,000 may only be spent by my family when it's all said & done. > And if I only reap the energy savings and never set off the fire alarm > that would suite me just fine. If my teenager is so clueless as to set > of the alarm I've got a real problem :-). Yikes. > > Cheers, > > Joe Gotobed >
Energy savings & safety, was: security in cohousing Joe Gotobed, August 1 1999
- Re: Energy savings & safety, was: security in cohousing Bitner/Stevenson, August 1 1999
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.