Prefab? High Concept? Green?
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 10.20.08
Whitney Sander's House on left; Charles Eames on right
That is what the New York Times calls Whitney Sander's house new house for Thomas Small and Joanna Brody. Michael Webb writes that "Inspired by the house that Charles and Ray Eames created in 1949 from a prefabricated steel frame and doors, windows and the like ordered from a catalog, the architects took the project on the condition that they could pursue a novel strategy." The clients instructions were: “We want the greenest house you’ve ever designed, but we have almost no money.”
It really does have all the green ingredients, from crushed sunflower husks for wall panels and blue denim insulation. It has natural ventilation, simple industrial materials and came in at $125 per foot, which is extremely cheap for California and for ceilings that high- on a price per cubic foot basis that is remarkable.
But is it prefab? as I said in our previous post on Sander, his definition of it is a bit absurd. "Prefab is anything that is manufactured off-site and shipped in. A lightbulb is prefab." which means everything and nothing is prefab. He trademarked the phrase "part prefab, all custom™" so even he is ambivalent. The steel rigid frame is prefabricated in a shop, but so is the steel for all steel buildings.
Is it High Concept? Definitely, to get rid of drywall, to have such an Eamesian Case Study House aesthetic, to have 30 foot ceilings.
Is it Green? This is the toughest one. Certainly in terms of pounds per square foot, this is a very efficient use of materials, and many are innovative and unusual. If such a big volume was air conditioned I would really question it, but since it is naturally ventilated a case could be made.
But how I long for the day when these ideas and materials are used by such talented architects to create healthy green spaces for families "with almost no money" that are less than 4,200 square feet. ::New York Times
UPDATE Owner Joanna Brody informs us that the 4,200 square feet of area includes a rental unit. They also both work at home, all of which mitigates the size issue somewhat. I also really like her statement: "some of our greenest strategies came from just saying no - For example, we have no extra floor covering on the main floor - our floor is the concrete slab."
More Modern Steel Houses in TreeHugger
Sander Architects' Hybrid House
Happy 100th Birthday, Charles Eames
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Passivhaus in the New York Times
- New York Times Predictions for 2009, from 1909
- The Best of the New York Times' Year in Ideas
- Quote of the Day: New York Times on Why We Need A Gas Tax
Yes, 4200sqft is positively spoiled: my family of 3, soon to be 4, is happy in ~900sqft, and with a space/water heat demand of
I think the average US family is going to think very very hard about their 'necessary' energy use quote soon.
Rgds
Damon
4200 square feet?! At $125/sq.ft. that's $525,000. Where exactly does the term "with almost no money" come in? I get so frustrated when I see projects like this. These are the kind of projects that distance people from the green movement. Your average homeowner could never think of dropping over a half million dollars just to have green home.
Hmm you seemed to lose my heat/electricity figures of 9MWh/year and 2MWh/year approx...
Rgds
Damon
It's a sharp-looking house. As for the "green" question: This is a relative assessment. In many respects, it makes sense to simply evaluate or compare individual choices in the design and construction process. Recycling construction waste is a green choice. Installing low-flow or dual-flush toilets and in-line shower valves are green choices. In any project, there are lots of opportunities to get this right and to get it wrong.
Taking a step back to assess the entire project as "green" or "not green", it's hard to say without some information that isn't in this article. For instance, how many people live in this house, and where is it located, relative to public transportation and common destinations (like town-centers, shops, grocery stores, and the occupants' places of work)? If there are only 3-4 people living in 4200 sq ft, and they have to get in their cars to do absolutely anything, it doesn't matter if the structure is made of granola and rainbows. On the whole, it's not green.
If that's the case, a greener home choice would be to buy a smaller existing home in a city (or on its outskirts), close to a transportation hub. The money saved on the indulgence of a one-of-a-kind new house could then be spent making green renovations.
As the homeowner, I am happy to fill in some of the blanks. First of all we both work from home, so we don't need to get into our cars for work. We bought "the street" - tree-lined cul-de-sac (great shade which helps with heat gain) that is WALKING distance to the main part of Culver City where there are a Trader Joe's, farmers market, schools, cafes, movie theaters, bank, post office, park for the kids, etc. We specifically wanted to be walking distance from all of our primary services so we wouldn't have to get in the car. Also, there is a light rail that will go from Downtown LA to Culver City currently being built with a stop three blocks from our house. Eventually, we hope, the light rail will extend all the way to Santa Monica. This was another major incentive for us to buy in this location. Lastly, for those of you who read the article closely, there is a rental unit included within the 4200 sq ft. So there are five humans and three dogs living on one property. And most days, none of us gets into a car to work or play.
And yes, we have low-flow toilets, non-toxic paints, etc. And some of our greenest strategies came from just saying no - For example, we have no extra floor covering on the main floor - our floor is the concrete slab.
We all can't be perfectly green, but we're doing the best we can.
My idea of green is what's alread there, from a log cabin to using an old caboose, without the wheels. This is what is green to me. Using what is already there, and using it to it's maxium effect.
Re: Joe's comments-
I work in the real estate industry, and $525K is a great deal. In NYC, you'd be lucky to pay $600K for a 2,000-SF house built in 1960 or earlier in a good neighborhood. Most homes of similar considerations built in the last 10 years will easily go for $800-900K and up.
A new house build in the last two years of 4,200 SF would easily be $1.2-1.4 mil.
Even with the land purchase as another purchase, consider $525K for a brand-new green home to be a great deal.
Looks nice - but it's not a template for big change...
if we want sustainable low-carbon living to get out there in numbers big enough to have an impact, the price has got to be right for people with average or low budgets.
I've worked on 'green' technology and ideas for some time - was involved with the usbcell www.usbcell.com, solar power companies and am now on a project which aims to bring low energy housing into the broader market in the UK - not just for the well-off who want to experiment with green living. No disrespect to those guys, those experiments have laid some useful foundations....
Housing is one of the few areas where it's actually possible to have it all - comfortable lifestyle, low or zero carbon, and at the right price. We're aiming to create the kind of houses that in future could be replicated at scale not just in the UK, saving huge amounts of CO2 emissions and waste.
www.cloudnine-living.com treehugger community comments welcome...