Green mansions in USA: un test du SD
Wed, 2005-01-19 03:24 — admin
(Submitted by admin on 6 September, 2004 - 23:18)
Ecology
Fifty years ago, the average house size was 1,100 square feet, and the average household size was 4.2 people. Today, the average house size has increased to 2,150 square feet, while the average household size has declined to 2.3 people.
"In spite of everything we've done to make the building envelope more efficient," O'Brien said, "we're still using more energy in our homes."
If we all go solar, if we install rainwater catchment systems and use sustainably harvested lumber, so the logic goes, then there's no need to deprive ourselves of the luxuries that space -- and the furniture and accessories to fill it -- affords. But the issue of consumption, not to mention overconsumption, is curiously absent from the sustainability discourse. And in an era characterized by unprecedented consumer wealth, this could be the movement's fatal flaw.
There's the 4,200-square-foot solar-powered home featured in Salon last month -- a house "so spacious it includes an entire guest wing the couple never uses."
"We had many green features," Harrison said. "But ultimately, because of the size, we are still using more resources."
"House size," he says, "is probably the most important criterion and often the most difficult one for us to meet."
Not all green designers and builders hew to the notion that less is more.
a 1,500-square-foot home with low energy performance standards will use less energy for heating and cooling than a 3,000-square-foot house with high energy performance standards. Because big houses tend to have more design features, the NAHB also estimated that large homes consume proportionately more materials. Thus a 5,000-square-foot house will consume three times as many resources as a 2,085- square-foot house, even though its square footage is only 2.4 times greater.
Size matters even if a residence incorporates solar power, rainwater catchment and other "off the grid" technologies, says Newhouse. "Bigger houses use more materials," he said. "and there's no perfectly environmentally friendly material."
"We hope to spur education and discussion to get people to acknowledge size is a significant factor in green homes."
SMALLER IS BETTER http://www.notsobighouse.com/
Building small isn't nearly as sexy as installing photovoltaic panels for solar power. But there is a niche for small green homes, especially among young families in search of affordable housing.
a 21st century incarnation of modernist, mass-production architecture that bears little relation to the fake Tudors or trailer parks most people associate with prefabricated construction
http://www.livemodern.com/Members/Marshall/newsitems/qseries Q the "anti-monster home."
-- the housing equivalent of IKEA furniture: "good affordable design you can get off the rack."
-- pre-made
1,150-square-foot "LV House" comes in panels of corrugated aluminum. The basic LV kit costs $29,000 plus shipping, around $3,000 -- but doesn't include electrical or plumbing systems.
prefabrication reduces construction-related waste and square footage, and tends to privilege flexible spaces and plenty of light.
--limited, US waste habits
In the meantime, families who are content with smaller-than-average houses are still the exception. As for big green houses, well, they evoke the parable about boys who will turn any toy -- blocks, balls, stuffed animals -- into a war game. Give Americans sustainable technology, and we'll super-size it beyond recognition.
Ecology
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2004/07/07/green_big_houses/index.html
links:
http://www.builtgreen.net/
http://www.mcdonough.com/
>comment les principes écologiques peuvent être sacrifiés par l'aspect économique du SD.
Le risque de tendre vers une consommation "pseudo-justifiée" car du moment que c'est écologique, on peut consommer plus...
Green building is one of the fastest-growing sectors in the exploding market for environmentally friendly materials and technologieslinks:
http://www.builtgreen.net/
http://www.mcdonough.com/
>comment les principes écologiques peuvent être sacrifiés par l'aspect économique du SD.
Le risque de tendre vers une consommation "pseudo-justifiée" car du moment que c'est écologique, on peut consommer plus...
Fifty years ago, the average house size was 1,100 square feet, and the average household size was 4.2 people. Today, the average house size has increased to 2,150 square feet, while the average household size has declined to 2.3 people.
"In spite of everything we've done to make the building envelope more efficient," O'Brien said, "we're still using more energy in our homes."
If we all go solar, if we install rainwater catchment systems and use sustainably harvested lumber, so the logic goes, then there's no need to deprive ourselves of the luxuries that space -- and the furniture and accessories to fill it -- affords. But the issue of consumption, not to mention overconsumption, is curiously absent from the sustainability discourse. And in an era characterized by unprecedented consumer wealth, this could be the movement's fatal flaw.
There's the 4,200-square-foot solar-powered home featured in Salon last month -- a house "so spacious it includes an entire guest wing the couple never uses."
"We had many green features," Harrison said. "But ultimately, because of the size, we are still using more resources."
"House size," he says, "is probably the most important criterion and often the most difficult one for us to meet."
Not all green designers and builders hew to the notion that less is more.
a 1,500-square-foot home with low energy performance standards will use less energy for heating and cooling than a 3,000-square-foot house with high energy performance standards. Because big houses tend to have more design features, the NAHB also estimated that large homes consume proportionately more materials. Thus a 5,000-square-foot house will consume three times as many resources as a 2,085- square-foot house, even though its square footage is only 2.4 times greater.
Size matters even if a residence incorporates solar power, rainwater catchment and other "off the grid" technologies, says Newhouse. "Bigger houses use more materials," he said. "and there's no perfectly environmentally friendly material."
"We hope to spur education and discussion to get people to acknowledge size is a significant factor in green homes."
SMALLER IS BETTER http://www.notsobighouse.com/
Building small isn't nearly as sexy as installing photovoltaic panels for solar power. But there is a niche for small green homes, especially among young families in search of affordable housing.
a 21st century incarnation of modernist, mass-production architecture that bears little relation to the fake Tudors or trailer parks most people associate with prefabricated construction
http://www.livemodern.com/Members/Marshall/newsitems/qseries Q the "anti-monster home."
-- the housing equivalent of IKEA furniture: "good affordable design you can get off the rack."
-- pre-made
1,150-square-foot "LV House" comes in panels of corrugated aluminum. The basic LV kit costs $29,000 plus shipping, around $3,000 -- but doesn't include electrical or plumbing systems.
prefabrication reduces construction-related waste and square footage, and tends to privilege flexible spaces and plenty of light.
--limited, US waste habits
In the meantime, families who are content with smaller-than-average houses are still the exception. As for big green houses, well, they evoke the parable about boys who will turn any toy -- blocks, balls, stuffed animals -- into a war game. Give Americans sustainable technology, and we'll super-size it beyond recognition.