Values

Today there’s much discussion on green design and sustainability. The greater understanding and awareness of the general public is absolutely wonderful. I see a lot of good in the awareness it brings and the fact that many people have jumped on the bandwagon, but I also see a lot of hoopla hurting the effort and throwing the point of sustainability off base. Once supposedly green products (or for that matter, green homes) are scrutinized, weighing the pros and cons of each aspect within their life-cycle, there’s enough information to make your head spin and want to give up the initial effort. There are arguments for and against most sustainable products out there – they may be made from recycled products, but the manufacturing plant is not local, or requires excessive energy to make the product; or maybe the product is not recycleable and will eventually

end up in a landfill. Between using recycled materials, non-toxic components, local manufacturing, efficient, non off-gasing, and recyclable, as well as being aesthetically pleasing – and being a product that lasts, it’s nearly impossible to meet all aspects.

…Now sustainability is such a political category that it’s getting more

and more difficult to think about it in a serious way. Sustainability has

become an ornament.

-Rem Koolhaas

Seattle energy codes are nationally among the most strict, continually becoming more stringent with the goal of achieving net zero emissions for energy building standards. I admire this and feel immense pride to be living in a city with such high standards and respect for our environment, especially given our nation’s lack thereof. That said, there are a few issues I see with mandating these standards for all situations across the board. In response to issues with homelessness, meeting these standards are cost prohibitive, making it much more difficult to attain permits for simple affordable housing units. Also I see it hurting our historic characteristics of buildings.

Windows are required to be replaced if a substantial alteration (large remodel) takes place. The goal is to have air tight, highly insulated homes; so much so that ventilation systems or air brought in from outside is a requirement. I understand the concept and goal of comfortable, efficient homes with a consistently temperature, but to what degree should this be mandated? Are we now trading our inefficient drafty homes for the expectation of year round comfort, requiring actually more energy and costs to address our comfort needs? As a contrast in comparisons, when I lived at my small studio at the Ives, the large single glazed steel casement windows lined the 2 exterior walls. I entered with the attitude of accepting the fact that my home wasn’t going to be a constant temperature. I equated it to camping, being a bit more with nature, accepting cold/hot adding blankets or ice packs as needed. It was less about total comfort, and all about feeling and living fully. This is an extreme and ridiculous comparison I'm not advocating for, but asking whether we can both design more efficient buildings, all the while, also seeing our part of adjusting to warmer or cooler living conditions as a means for living more sustainably. The air conditioning isn't a requirements at 75 degrees. When it comes to sustainability and energy efficiency, the attitude of respectfully living one with nature, especially in our fairly mild climate, versus seeking consistent comfort can actually be a thoughtful approach when it comes to living in those older drafty homes.

For me it’s necessary to narrow down the most important and vital sustainable components or you’ll drive yourself nuts, or drive up clients’ fees in design time trying to find appropriate products.

From the highly respected Build LLC Blog, the cliffnotes list of their

sustainability values are as follows:

• Durability. Make sure stuff works and is built for future generations.

• Sensibility. Know when to subtract and streamline. Beauty and comfort

result from intelligent solutions, not the reflexive addition of features.

• Density. There is a healthy balance between lawn covered

neighborhoods and asphalt encased towers.

• Regionalism. Use local resources: architects, contractors and materials.

• Timelessness. Understand what forms and innovations will last. Reject

fashion, pretension, and conscious efforts to attract attention.

Notes from “The Down & Dirty of Sustainable Design” Nov. 26, 2013

For both products and full-scale buildings, I see long-term longevity, timeless design, functionality, and efficiency as being the most important aspects for our built environment. By using products that stand the test of time, there will be more of an absence of waste, which I see as the key component to sustainability. Yes, it’s important to have appliances that are energy efficient, but if those products are only designed to last 5-10 years, that outweighs the added amount of water or energy that an older dishwasher uses in it’s lifetime. I think of our GE 1950’s pink appliances in our Craftsman house in White Center – not your typical sustainable appliances; although the refrigerator was inefficient, and the cooktop took it’s time heating up, there was less convenience, and may have not been for everyone, but given that these appliances were used and loved for 65+ years, that’s got to weigh in highly for being sustainable. Along the same lines, if I were to pick out a new dishwasher, I would select it based upon quality and efficiency. I would push myself to afford the higher quality, more expensive brand name, knowing I can more likely count on it lasting through the years.

A perfect example of Green design is the aptly named Tracy House. The Tracy House is a Frank Lloyd Wright home located in Normandy Park, it’s located about a mile away from our house. In a 2010 video, the original owners, the late William (died in 2008) and Elizabeth (died in 2010) Tracy discuss their house. This house is an example of Wright’s Usonian Automats, which was a series of homes he developed in the mid 30’s to help control costs. Wright's Usonian houses had no attics, no basements, and little ornamentation. He continued to develop the concept, and in the early 1950s he first used the term Usonian Automatic to describe a Usonian style house made of inexpensive concrete blocks. The modular blocks could be assembled in a variety of ways. Wright hoped that home buyers could save money by building their own Usonian Automatic houses.

William and Elizabeth had a very unusual hands-on experience due to their involvement in the execution of their home. From Arcade magazine, “Beginning in the late spring of 1955 they started casting concrete blocks. Working with their contractor they had commissioned a set of metal forms that accommodated various wood inserts to create the different block patterns they required. Over the course of a year, casting blocks twice a day, five days each week (in addition to

working full time jobs), they personally cast roughly 1,700 modular concrete blocks of a wide variety of types—wall (some to accommodate glass), corner, jamb, roof-ceiling, roof edge and so on. Wall blocks were generally 12’ x 24’ x 4’; ceiling blocks, the heaviest – weighing about 160 pounds each – were 24’ x 24’ x 4.’ Today, we marvel at the Tracys’ patience and dedication.”

After more than 50 years of living in the home, Elizabeth still seemed intrigued and adoring of the unique, specifically designed details of their home. They felt a responsibility toward the house; William explained ”some people just regarded their (FLW) houses as ordinary - ha! If you can imagine that.” He found it a “wonderful, absolutely wonderful” place to live in it both winter and summer.

From Build LLC blog:

Architecturally, the house demonstrates so many ideals of good

design; all the characteristics that we’re always chattering on about

with regard to smarter, smaller dwellings. Psychologically, everything

had been thought about –even how the interior shadows from natural

daylight would change over the course of a day. As far as sustainability,

don’t even get us started; given that this house will easily last 100

years, its carbon footprint is negligible compared to the average

modern day home (even with its single pane windows). The house

embodies a philosophy of design that is now more critical than ever.

Image credit: Keith Daly

Ultimately, not saving our buildings or not creating buildings that last is one of the least green things we could do. Tearing down homes/buildings instead of revitalizing is typically chosen because it’s cheaper and easier to rebuild. Besides the great importance of being sustainable, the past, HISTORY itself, is worth saving. The endurance and creativity of our ancestors is worth

appreciating, investing in and preserving. Whereas in Europe and other parts of the world, it’s not uncommon for homes to be 400-500 years old, houses in this century in the US seem to be designed to withstand only a half century or so. This is the biggest negative environmental impact.

Chris Moore, executive director of the Washington Trust for Historic Preservation – “Historic buildings educate, promote business tourism and represent sustainability. The median age of American houses is about 35 years. We have to recognize the environmental cost of throwaway buildings.

Popular neighborhoods in Seattle and other major cities, have gained the understanding that appreciating the quirky, history filled past of its buildings possibly paired with modern elements, helps make a thriving hub people are drawn to. For areas that have seemed to reach a realized potential, the thoughtfulness, creativity and ‘cool’ design is enmeshed in the streetscape. You have to wonder what came first; the people who are visionaries, with avant-garde taste, ability to see past the muck, truly creatives who point a city/ neighborhood toward a different way of thinking; or the shop owners/ developers, who initially decide to take a risk and do things differently than the usual approach. Ballard Ave. always had a cool historic, somewhat industrial feel that many noticed and realized decades before it became the place to be. But what

made it take off? Why is it so successful? And is this the goal for neighborhoods? Historic Preservation is central to these types of neighborhood hubs. The initial charm is the draw; the preservation of history brings with it a “soul” and energy that’s hard to recreate with new materials only.

Tony Hiss on people who fight for Historic Preservation, “The people involved in this work speak, often, not just of architectural beauty but of the character of a place, or its essential spirit, or the quality of life there, or of its livability, genius, flavor, feeling, ambience, essence, resonance,

presence, aura, harmony, grace, charm or seemliness. These are probably allusions to an actual direct experience of some place. And mention of “people places,” or of the individuality of a specific place, or the urban or rural or wilderness quality there, or its scale, or human scale, or visual charm, or beauty, or scenic quality, will most likely be an attempt to convey some specific component of an experience. The language of the laws that set up landmarks preservation agencies sometimes makes it clear that such experiential considerations are at work. It’s part of the job of the eleven commissioners of the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission, for instance, to make experiential judgments whenever they have to weigh the merits of a proposal to set up a possible historic district in the city.”

This is the art of keeping our past alive by passing down stories and artifacts.