Welcome back,
How much space is necessary for a human being? Most North Americans see bigger as better. Not saying this is wrong, but it does raise an interesting point: how big, is big enough?
The average North American home is approx 2000 sq ft, but why so large? Can we handle a 300 sq ft or less apartment? I think it's feasible, as long as the design is thoughtful.
The L41 home is designed for a generation that understands the principles of “small is beautiful”. l41home.com
L41 is constructed of Cross-Laminated Timber, (CLT) a relatively new wood product in North America. CLT is solid wood and can be used as a substitute for concrete in mid-rise buildings. (the British have built 9 stories buildings from CLT) When one considers that concrete is responsible for 8% of the world’s carbon emissions, the implications become clear. A minimalist architectural masterpiece setting a new LEED standard.
Getting a little carried away, this ideal might be a little difficult to market. Might be seen as too small, not practical or a bit of an extreme in minimalist design. Cost effectiveness will be the key. Make it cheap and cheerful and people will buy it. Prefab will eventually sell itself.
Cheers
AP
Friday, July 16, 2010
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Sustainability for the masses
One-offs are great, they raise awareness and publicity, but applying these design concepts for the average Joe is what we need.
For instance, This fantastic three-apartment building on the outskirts of Bern, Switzerland. Built by architect Peter Schurch, principle architect of Halle 52. Natural and local materials, plenty of daylight and a unique footprint — the building even cost less to build than the other homes in the neighbourhood, yet it has r-52 walls and a solar-electric green roof. (credit to Inhabitat.com)
For instance, This fantastic three-apartment building on the outskirts of Bern, Switzerland. Built by architect Peter Schurch, principle architect of Halle 52. Natural and local materials, plenty of daylight and a unique footprint — the building even cost less to build than the other homes in the neighbourhood, yet it has r-52 walls and a solar-electric green roof. (credit to Inhabitat.com)
Reading thru all of the 'fun facts' of this development, the most important fact is the reduced cost. Providing a wide-reaching market is crucial to green design success. Return on investment, in the short term is necessary for a widespread sustainable construction.
Rethink what it means to get more, from less.
AP
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
The Future of Design
Architecture is a science not a process, and is an industry that affects each and every one of us. The complexity of modern construction is astounding but the idea of changing the way building are developed from design to completion is even more daunting. An architect studies, studies, and studies some more in order to gain a broader perspective of design, thoughtful, respectful, suitable design. But what if someone was to turn this process on its head. Innovative design is what the construction world needs.
A structure made entirely of wood, or examining the possibilities of sustainable self-sufficient buildings. Not new ideas to many, but these projects exist as one-offs. What is stopping this innovation? Industry demand is lacking
It seems like people, myself included, enjoy the rhetoric of sustainable homes, preaching the benefits of insulation, low energy lightbulbs or the next best plastic alternative. I'm beginning to digress...
From minor small scale home-building to multi-billion dollar developments, the bottom line is quite simply the bottom line. I'm not suggesting that this is wrong, but highlighting the necessity of satisfying the 'need for green' and the benefits that may follow.
As anyone if they want a green home, they'll say yes. Would they like a home with zero net emissions from production of materials to installation - yes. Back to the real world. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but surely the greatest challenge is to attract people to choose sustainable products/methods/ideals without a monetary incentive. Mission impossible perhaps - 'Willingness to pay' is most suitable phrase.
From a pure design perspective, the balance that needs to be struck needs to include all facets of sustainability. The short term costs need to make sense. Noone in their right mind will pay more for something unless they can see a tangible impact right now (or soon at least). A sustainable building must be competitive building - an economic decision not a lifestyle decision for engineers and architects.
AP
A structure made entirely of wood, or examining the possibilities of sustainable self-sufficient buildings. Not new ideas to many, but these projects exist as one-offs. What is stopping this innovation? Industry demand is lacking
It seems like people, myself included, enjoy the rhetoric of sustainable homes, preaching the benefits of insulation, low energy lightbulbs or the next best plastic alternative. I'm beginning to digress...
From minor small scale home-building to multi-billion dollar developments, the bottom line is quite simply the bottom line. I'm not suggesting that this is wrong, but highlighting the necessity of satisfying the 'need for green' and the benefits that may follow.
As anyone if they want a green home, they'll say yes. Would they like a home with zero net emissions from production of materials to installation - yes. Back to the real world. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but surely the greatest challenge is to attract people to choose sustainable products/methods/ideals without a monetary incentive. Mission impossible perhaps - 'Willingness to pay' is most suitable phrase.
From a pure design perspective, the balance that needs to be struck needs to include all facets of sustainability. The short term costs need to make sense. Noone in their right mind will pay more for something unless they can see a tangible impact right now (or soon at least). A sustainable building must be competitive building - an economic decision not a lifestyle decision for engineers and architects.
AP
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)