Awhile ago I was driving down one of our main local roads and noticed a house in the middle of it. I didn't remember a house being there and thought that I was seeing a strange mirage. The closer I got, the more real it appeared, until I was forced to slow down and drive around the thing, at which point there was no doubt about its authenticity.

A big truck tractor was towing this entire 1200 square foot house balanced on two huge steel I-beams and a bunch of wheeled dollies. Progress was slow but steady as it inexorably moved toward its next incarnation. Just that morning it had departed its original home where it had been seasonal housing for migrant workers.

The owners of this seeming mirage had searched for just the right orphaned house to adopt as their own, lovingly place it on a new foundation, and refurbish it. Many houses would not be suitable for such a trip; generally only well-built wooden structures can withstand the stress of such a move. This house had all the qualities they were looking for: charm, integrity, and affordability. The entire cost of the house and having it moved was $10,000.

By the time they have it completely fixed up with new plumbing and electric service, an insulated stucco exterior, new energy-efficient windows, a metal roof, a completely rebuilt front porch, all of the interior walls resurfaced, and miscellaneous repairs, they estimate that the total cost of the project will be about $50,000, including the land. Not bad for what in most regards will be as good as new!

Of course new is not what they wanted; they bought this early twentieth century house (it's actual date of construction is unknown) precisely because of its special vintage quality. It reminds one of the owners of the house his grandmother lived in, with 9 foot ceilings, three smallish bedrooms, tongue and grooved fir flooring, cast-iron radiators, built-in cabinets, drawers and even ironing board, and the intangible quality of a by-gone era. They plan to retain the original floor plan intact, only altering a walk-in closet to become the mechanical room and turning a room off the kitchen into a dining space.

The house made the entire trip with just a few places where the plaster cracked in one corner, which is easily repaired. This is one very solidly-built house, made from the sort of fir that no longer can be bought. There was only one place under the kitchen sink that had suffered leak-induced rot over many years; everything else is as straight and true as any carpenter would want.

Another late twentieth century vintage home of about 800 square feet came from property leased from the Federal government and the house needed to be moved. With local help, the buyer of this little home added an additional room onto the original to comply with the homeowners' association square foot minimum. She has thoroughly enjoyed the process of remaking this simple cabin into her charming home, imbued with the wonderful quirky qualities that spring from her fanciful mind.

Once a house is moved it must comply with current plumbing and electrical codes, so these elements were completely redone. Most of the windows were replaced with second hand units that gave her just the views that she wanted. The exterior was resurfaced with rough-sawn lap siding and a new metal roof was installed. The original interior plastic paneling was replaced with sheetrock, and decorated with lots of natural wood trim. The whole feeling of the place is one of lovingly crafted touches wherever the eye lands. The new owner says, “I would much rather live in something recycled than buying something brand new which has no character. I let this house come together…it just evolved!”

Creating new life for old or abandoned houses has got be one of the most sustainable ways of making habitation. This is the ultimate form of recycling, where most of the basic components of a house are utilized intact instead of being tossed into a landfill or burned. There is a tremendous savings in the embodied energy of the house (in both materials and labor), so that all that needs to be done is to repair and polish the original dwelling to create a whole new life for it. Hoorah for these people who have the vision and willingness to take on these projects!

I recently got a query from one of the editors of Mother Earth News regarding a news story she had read in the New York Times. The writer, David Pogue, had been a judge in a contest sponsored by by the History Channel and the National Inventors Hall of Fame titled "Modern Marvels/Invent Now." A $25,000 prize was awarded to one amoung 25,000 contestants, and the winner was the Enertia House, which was invented by engineer and former log-home architect, Michael Sykes.

The Mother Earth News editor said that these homes had been featured in their magazine before. They essentially provide two wooden shells for the home, one inside the other. She said that there was no mention in the article about the cost per square foot. She was wondering what I thought about the concept from the standpoint of sustainable architecture.

Here is my response:

Double envelope house designs have been around for several decades and they definitely offer some benefits, as well as raise some questions. Any house that takes advantage of the geothermal properties of the ground will be doing its inhabitants and the earth a good turn. This can take the form of earth-sheltering in general, or some clever system of circulating air like the Enertia concept; coupled with sensible passive solar design, it is possible to approach a "zero energy" home.

The concerns about their system that I have are: The use of wood as the primary building material is not generally sustainable in this day of lost forests. With the double envelope design, you are practically building two houses to end up with one. Relying on wood as a thermal mass material compromises the potential thermal performance because wood does not serve this function nearly as well as traditional masonry thermal mass materials. So, I guess what I am saying is that a more sustainable and less costly design can be accomplished in more traditional ways.

Answering the same question, Paul Scheckel wrote, "At first glance, this looks a lot like sunspace design from the 70s (without the stone-filled basement to store heat) which overheated in the daytime and lost lots of heat at night. Consider also that this giant convection oven requires a temperature difference, which in this case is driven by the sun and the cool basement. A New England winter has precious little sun, so my heating system will drive the convective loop, increasing heat loss (in addition to the insulation-free envelope). I haven't heard too many people (ie: none) say that wood is bad for houses and better for biodiesel, but there are good arguments for not using so much material in a home. Does it work? I'd like to see one built in the northeast and see the resulting energy data, wherein the proof will lie."

Clark Snell of www.thinkgreenbuilding.com wrote, "I spent five minutes looking over the web site, so these comments are only based at looking at marketing materials, i.e. they may be inaccurate. Ditto what has been said so far. A couple more “red flags:”

1. Solid wood envelope. They seem to be using the old “mass enhanced R-value” argument for why solid wood walls perform well thermally. I think it’s well established that this is true only in very specific climatic situations. Touting solid southern yellow pine walls in comparison to solid white pine walls is like saying a Chevy Suburban gets better gas mileage than a Hummer…that’s not really a useful statistic.
2. Energy without oil. The presentation intimates that this is a completely passive design. For example, no heating system is mentioned. That simply isn’t credible for most climates using the technology they are describing.
3. Passive means local. You simply can’t create a design that relies heavily on passive techniques and generalize it across climates. In my area where we have high humidity, I’d wonder about this convective loop through the attic and basement, for example.

I could go on. I’m a passive design freak, so I’m all for the basic concepts they are dealing with. However, I don’t see anything really new here, but see marketing claims touting what they are doing as a major breakthrough and “the answer”. That always makes me nervous."

David Eisenberg, of www.dcat.net wrote, "After a skimming around their website, I see that they sell kits and their base prices don't include a lot of things - some of which are enumerated:

The steel framing for the 3030 EcoSteel House has been set up and we have a few photos back from the owner/builder showing the progress.



Here we see the frame set up to the second floor, and first and second floor joists in place. The roof framing has just begun.



Here it appears the entire main framing system is in place, including the roof purlins. Next will be the light gage wall framing to infill the exterior walls and frame out the window and door openings.



Here we see the recycled barn siding that we saw in an earlier post being installed as the first floor ceiling. The bar joists will be exposed, painted, but more or less as we see them here. The barn planks are going directly over the joists, and plywood floor deck will go down over the planks, and then finish flooring. I love the way this looks. The contrast between the industrial truss joists and the rustic planks is just great.

Tune into the 3030 House flickr group to see all of the photos forwarded by the owner.

Technorati Tags: 3030 House, ecosteel, modern design, modern house, prefab house

An idea whose time seems to have arrived is the use of stockpiled shipping containers as modular units for building homes. Because of the balance of trade in the United States, these hefty steel boxes are piling up in ports around the country and posing a storage problem. Several architects and builders are taking advantage of this surplus to recycle the containers.

According to David Cross of www.sgblocks.com, "a container has 8000 lbs of steel which takes 8000 kwh of energy to melt down and make new beams etc... Our process of modifying that entire 8000 lbs of steel into a "higher and better use" only takes 400 kwh of electrical energy (or 5%). Granted it takes a bit more "muscle" but we call this Value-Cycling which we feel is that next step up from Re-cycling."

Each container measures 8 feet wide by 40 feet long by 9 feet tall. SG Blocks sells the finished structural systems (also called SG Blocks) for $9,000 to $11,000 per unit. The finished units have one or two walls removed and include the necessary support columns and beam enhancements.

According to KPFF Consulting, a structural engineering firm in St. Louis with extensive experience working with shipping containers, the units are stronger than conventional house framing because of their resistance to "lateral loads" -- those seen in hurricanes and earthquakes -- and because steel is basically welded to steel. The roof is strong enough to support the extra weight of a green roof — which has vegetation growing on it — if the owner should want it.

As for their energy efficiency, they claim that when the appropriate coatings are installed, the envelope reflects about 95 percent of outside radiation, resists the loss of interior heat, provides an excellent air infiltration barrier and does not allow water to migrate in.

One idea that has occurred to me is that this system might benefit from the use of SIP's (Structural Insulated Panels) for the roofs, rather that standard truss framing. SIP's are very well insulated, install quickly, and use much less wood than convention roofs.

Shipping containers are self-supporting with beams and stout, marine-grade plywood flooring already in place, thereby eliminating time and labor during the home-building process. Cross said construction costs are comparable to those in conventional building. Four to seven units are used in a typical home, he said.

Instead of nailing the siding they use "Super Therm", a ceramic paint made by Superior Products of Minnesota; it can be used as a paint, an adhesive, an insulator, a fireproofing material and an acoustic barrier. With this ceramic paint, they claim the insulation capacity is equal to a conventional house.

Adam Kalkin, of www.architectureandhygiene.com , has also become enamored with shipping containers as an architectural solution. The idea to do something with shipping containers came to Kalkin, a New Jersey resident, when driving to New York City, where he saw sky-high stacks of the unused cargo containers in the shipyards he passed.

"The cargo containers, with a life span of about 20 years when used for their original purpose, have an “infinite life span” when stationary and properly maintained," Kalkin says. “To me they are like a treasured antique: they may not be inherently valuable, but the history and the storytelling add value.”

Environmentalists have embraced the design, applauding the recycling inherent to Kalkin's designs. And advocates for affordable-housing like the design, since according to Kalkin, "the total cost of a house—between $150,000 and $175,000 after the buyer settles upon the various options—works out to be between $73 and $90 per square foot, about half the cost of the conventional $200 per square foot for reasonable quality, new construction in the Northeast.”

Kalkin has recently opened a factory—“a hangar at a little airport in New Jersey”—to manufacture Quik Houses. “There are a lot of elbows flying in this process, and this is the best way to protect the quality of the house, to keep the accounting transparent, and to make sure I am not unwittingly responsible for heinous crimes to the built environment.” Once the factory is fully functional, Kalkin plans to export many of his products, commenting that “the possibilities of working on a world scale are exciting.”

Twenty-one thousand containers hit American shores every day of the year. Containers can be shipped to the interior of the country via trains and trucks. Shipping containers are like Lego toys and the modules can be assembled in thousands of ways.

In general it is a good thing to recycle materials that otherwise have no further use for their intended purpose, and this is true here. As for whether one can make a comfortable house out of these metal boxes, the biggest question is: insulation...it is essential, but there are many ways to insulate these containers, so this is not a big concern. Another concern that many people would have is whether a metal box would have adverse health effects because of EMF (electro-magnetic frequencies) generation or propagation. Some people are sensitive to these while others are not.

There is no doubt that these containers can be used to fabricate very strong shells that would withstand substantial abuse from the ravages of nature.

California has adopted the nation's first statewide green-building standards, which will become mandatory in 2010. The new California Green Buildings Standards Code requires builders to reduce energy use by 15 to 30 percent beyond current standards and use more recycled materials. Some of the code will be mandatory, while other parts are just suggested. This is a significant recognition that energy and resource conservation is essential for the welfare of state residents, and hopefully this officially sanctioned consciousness will spread to other states.

These new codes include basic passive solar mandates: "When site and location permit, orient the building with the long sides facing north and south. Provide exterior shade for south-facing windows during the peak cooling season. Provide vertical shading against direct solar gain and glare due to low altitude sun angles for east- and west-facing windows."

For renewable energy, the codes says, "Use on-site renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, geothermal, low-impact hydro, biomass and bio-gas for at least 1% of the electric power."

For water conservation, the code says, "A schedule of plumbing fixtures and fixture fittings will reduce the overall use of potable water within the building by 20%, and provide water efficient landscape irrigation design that reduces by 50% the use of potable water beyond the initial requirements for plant installation and establishment."

"Each building shall further reduce the generation of wastewater by one of the following methods: The installation of water-conserving fixtures (water closets, urinals) or utilizing non-potable water systems (captured rainwater, graywater, and municipally treated wastewater
(recycled water)."

For materials to be specified for construction, the following is mandated:

• Select building materials or products for permanent installation on the project that have been harvested or manufactured in California or within 500 miles of the project site.
  
• Select bio-based building materials and products made from solid wood, engineered wood, bamboo, wool, cotton, cork, straw, natural fibers, products made from crops (soy-based, corn-based) and other bio-based materials with at least 50% bio-based content.
  
• Employ wood-based materials and products comprising at least 50% of a major building component, such as framing, flooring, or millwork, which are certified by one of five listed sustainably harvested certification programs.
  
• Use materials made from plants harvested within a ten-year cycle for at least 2.5% of total materials value, based on estimated cost.
  
• Use salvaged, refurbished, refinished, or reused materials for a minimum of 5% of the total value, based on estimated cost of materials on the project.
  
• Use materials, equivalent in performance to virgin materials, with post-consumer or preconsumer recycled content value (RCV) for a minimum of 10% of the total value, based on estimated cost of materials on the project.
  
• Use cement and concrete made with recycled products, fly ash, raw or calcined natural pozzolan, blast furnace slag (as a lightweight aggregate) .
  
• Select materials for longevity and minimal deterioration under conditions of use.
  
• Select materials that require little, if any, finishing.
  
• Select materials that can be re-used or recycled at the end of their service life in the project.
  
• Select materials assemblies based on life cycle assessment of their embodied energy and/or green house gas emission potentials.

"Provide readily accessible areas that serve the entire building and are identified for the depositing, storage, and collection of non-hazardous materials for recycling, including (at a minimum) paper, corrugated cardboard, glass, plastics and metals."

Environmental and health-related items establish specific limits on VOC emission of materials used within the structure, as well as regulate ventilation, CO2 emissions, tobacco smoke, lighting, outside views, and noise transmission.

Additional recommended measures include:

• If feasible, disassemble existing buildings instead of demolishing to allow reuse or recycling of building materials.
  
• Utilize a Frost-Protected Shallow Foundation.
  
• Use pre-manufactured floor and roof systems to eliminate solid sawn lumber whenever possible.

The code also identifies site improvements including bicycle storage and designated parking spots for low-emissions vehicles.

I have been advocating most of these measures at www.greenhomebuilding.com for many years now, and it is heartening to see them being officially sanctioned. This is a far-reaching and well-considered attempt by California legislators to establish requisites for living sustainably. If there are going to be building codes, they might as well be green! Yeah California!

Strawboard building panels are a kind of structural insulated panel (SIP) designed to replace 2x4 stud and drywall construction for both interior and exterior walls, as well as provide load and non-bearing ceilings, roofing, doors, flooring, and prefabricated buildings. These environmental friendly, solid panels are made of all natural fibrous raw materials, mainly wheat and rice straw. The durable panels feature thermal and acoustic insulation as well as fire and termite resistance and are available for a variety of applications to speed up the construction processes. While these have been used in over 20 countries for more than 50 years, strawboard panels have only been introduced to the U.S. in the past few years.

Strawboard panels have a solid core of compressed wheat or rice straw. High pressure and temperatures forces the straw to release a natural resin that binds the fibers together. The compressed panels are then covered with either paper liners or OSB that is adhered to both sides with water based non-toxic glue. The standard panel measures 4 feet by 8 feet by 2-1/4 inches to 8 inches, weighing from 140 lbs. to 440 lbs. each. Custom panel sizes are available ranging from 3 feet to 12 feet long.

The panel's high density and low oxygen content does not support combustion. Since the panels do not contain added resins, alcohol, or other chemicals, no flammable vapors are produced. The panels have an R-value of between 3 and 25, depending on the composition and thickness. For permanent protection against insects and fungal decay and additional fire resistance, the boron compound polybor can be factory added to the core.

The product's workability is similar to wood as it can be sawn, drilled, routed, nailed, screwed, and glued. Lightweight wall attachments such as shelf brackets, picture frames, mirrors, and towel bars can be attached directly to the panel.

Since straw is a renewable by-product of wheat and rice production that becomes available annually, it takes less acreage (by about half) to build an equivalent house than with standard lumber, and which would then potentially preserve that forest for ecological habitat and CO2 sequestration.

See www.stramit-int.com/ for panels available in Europe and www.agriboard.com for panels available in the U.S.