Second Life: Cutting up Houses
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 07.14.07
Canadian TV design star Kimberley Seldon wanted to build her own dream home but her existing cute little house was in the way. So she found someone who wanted it and moved it. We have complained before about moving houses and the loss of the context for which they were designed, and small touristy towns like Creemore, Ontario have their wonderful character because they are full of "sweet, little country clapboards" and not McMansions.
From the Globe and Mail:
[Purchaser] Ms. MacEachern hired an independent contractor, Ivan Weatherall, who has been moving houses for more than 25 years.
First, Mr. Weatherall had to separate the house into five sections. After the eves and shingles were removed, a sawsall, or reciprocating saw, was used to make precise cuts along the walls of the house to ensure that everything would easily fit back into place.
Once the house was separated, Mr. Weatherall began lifting each section onto a trailer, using wooden stilts and large airbags. Temporary plastic tarps are attached to ensure the exposed walls aren't damaged in the moving process. When the house is transported to its new lot, the sections will be reattached using nails and fresh drywall.
Kimberley Seldon says it is green. "Living in Toronto … I see all these bungalows being torn down and these monstrosities set up. I totally believe that if someone had the vision to start something up where these little bungalows can be relocated for affordable housing, it would just save a lot of garbage in the landfills."
While I have no doubt that she will not build a monstrosity, those little bungalows and her cute little clapboard are big enough for a talented designer to do wonders with. I guess she couldn't find one. ::Globe and Mail
This article bothers me. The global environment is severely suffering already and is likely to get worse before it gets better. The only way it will get better is if we all do our bit - actually way more than just a bit - to go beyond being part of the problem to being part of the solution. This will require some level of sacrifice from virtually everyone in the first world, and especially those in the first world with elevated 'standards-of-living' - to put it politely. We will have to learn to live within not just our means, but that of our local and global environment as well. W e all have 'dreams' - things we woud like to do in our lifetime. Travel the world. Build a dream house. Sail the high seas. Learn to fly. Read all of the 50+ books in the classics collection provided with every purchase of an Encyclopedia Britannica set. And so on. But this planet can no longer afford dreams that damage it unnecessarily. If their dreams are an unnecessary luxury, then people need to learn to accomplish their dreams in a way that doesn't harm the environment or they simply have to find a new dreams - or, better said, prioritize other dreams. I, for instance, would like to see much of the world - not so much because I want to travel but rather because it is one of my wife's 'dreams' and I want to share that dream with her. For now, she gets to do some travelling due to her work - whenever she goes somewhere (most recently Vienna), she stays longer than her work requires to be able to experience the place. But I don't go with her because I don't NEED to go. One dream of mine is to do a lot of sailing. But I want to have a sailboat that is largely self-sufficient (in water, energy, food) and requires no fossil-fuels to operate. I plan to design and build it. Only then will I sail. And then my wife and I can share our dreams - sailing and travelling - with little to no environmental impact. I've also dreamt of learning to fly. But I've largely put that dream on the back-burner, and if I ever do take it up it will be to learn gliding or paragliding. In the meantime, I am finishing up one dream - designing and building my own self-sufficient eco-house and land - and sliding into a 'transition' dream of reading those 50+ books until the day I can start sailing. Some of my 'dreams' were/are a necessity - my wife and I didn't have a house and we needed one so I designed the greenest, most naturally self-sufficient house that I could afford to build myself; I want to eventually have a truly green car (PHEV powered through its own renewable energy system and biodiesel which is made at home) - and some needs are simply luxurious desires - travelling, sailing, and (especially) flying.
I am not in her shoes. I don't know her reasons. But I am wondering if her 'dream' was necessary. Or was it a luxury desire? Only she can truly answer that question in her heart. If she honestly says 'need' to herself, then at least she is trying to recycle her old house (and hopefully the new house will be ultra green AND small). If her answer is 'want', than her dream sounds like it is probably excessively taxing on the environment.
I disagree. It's better than knocking the little house down, which we've all seen.
We're going to continue to have growth, but as long as the house she built was sustainable by modern standards, we can't grudge it to her. In fact, there are probably some dwellings which are probably less efficient to green retrofit than to demolish. Growth just has to be sustainable (or even 'more sustainable" would be a plus on a wide enough scale.)