Don Fitz, editor of Synthesis/Regeneration, a Green Party magazine, has an interesting, and controversial, thought piece up at Counterpunch. In the article, The Twisted Logic of Eco-Sprawl:
When Building Green Ain't So Green, Fitz argues that, aside from a few exceptions, green builders might be hurting the environment more than they are helping it.
He makes a number of very interesting points:
- "There's something terribly wrong with 'green' building practices that have no memory of traditions like renting bedroom space, designing cross-ventilation, and using fans instead of costly gadgets."
- "It ain't green to pretend that there is no advantage to building underground."
And, most notably, one very thought-provoking point that left us scratching our heads ... until we read his explanation.
- "Voluntary green ain't green."
Read the entire article here, and let us know what you think.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Voluntary 'aint green?
When discussing the committment of a politician to green building or planning it is certianly valid to point out that photo opportunities and lipservice are more common than going out on a limb. However, we need to consider the building IQs of politicians before we suggest that they determine the direction of building codes and mandates. Incentives like New Mexico's Sustainable Building Tax Credit are a good way to get builders up to speed and put some energy into the green product and service market.
Just find out a little more about who is giving technical advice to the politicians and what kind of handle they have on the ins and out of building before you ask them to mandate how your home is built. Leave room for innovation and creativity, and think about weather requirements are performance-based or prescriptive.
Before Mr. Fitz gets too
Before Mr. Fitz gets too excited about his attic fan idea, he would do well to understand that when he turns that big honkin' fan on (they're often 800 cfm+) he'd do well to make sure...
Going Underground
Now that I've moved into this place in Salt Lake City, I understand the benefits of having a basement. In some places, it's cost prohibitive to build a basement (or it just flat out won't work), but here, most places have them. We don't have AC, we have a swamp cooler upstairs, but we don't use it all that often. The basement is the chill space. It can be 10-20 degrees cooler, it seems, than the upstairs level. No matter how hot outside it is, it still feels chilly downstairs. So I agree whole-heartedly with that one.
Going underground with a living roof
It strikes me that the concept of a living roof brings a lot of the advantages of "underground" living to above-ground structures, and can even be a retrofit. We've published several items on living roofs, which you can find right here.
Most of the underground housing I've seen in magazines is built into a hillside, which often means that sweeping views on one side balance out the burrowing in on the other side quite nicely.
The main energy plus of
The main energy plus of underground or earth-bermed buildings is the tempering effect the mass and temperature of the earth a few feet below the surface has on temperature inside the structure. "Thin" living roofs (the kind that can sometimes be retro-fitted) do not have enough mass to work in that way. They reduce cooling loads by virtue of the "shading" of the roof they provide, but the plants and earth provide a very minor amount of insulation and thermal mass.
The big downside of the classic "bermed into the earth on one side, wall of glass on the other" underground house is that contrast between light and dark in the house is drastic and uncomfortable on the eyes. "Light on Two Sides" of every room is a worthwhile "pattern." (cf. Christopher Alexander et al, "A Pattern Language.")
Rob Harrison AIA
www.harrisonarchitects.com
lyrical sustainable design
underground
aha, now I'm getting the underground concept. Duh. (As I sit here in my downstairs room freezing my tail off...) - maxmsf