Web tour: NYT: Passive House

Have you seen the so-bad-it’s-good infomercial for the Snuggie? It’s a blanket with sleeves designed for winter, couch slackers. Well, if the Passive House Institute U.S. has its way, there’ll be no market for Snuggies. Last Friday’s New York Times shares the latest in mechanically ventilated, super-insulated, air-tight construction, known as the “passive house,” which will keep you toasty without a conventional furnace. Made popular in Germany by the Passivehaus Institut, it’s a concept slowly finding its way to the States.

The Times reports, “Decades ago, attempts at creating solar-heated homes failed, because of stagnant air and mold. But new passive houses use an ingenious central ventilation system. The warm air going out passes side by side with clean, cold air coming in, exchanging heat with 90 percent efficiency.”

If you visit the Passive House Institute U.S. website you can view a few sample “passive houses” built in the U.S. One, constructed in 2002/2003, features walls insulated with 12 inches of blown-in fiberglass plus 4 inches of exterior rigid polystyrene. The roof of that same building is insulated with 16 inches of blown-in fiberglass. The concrete slab is insulated with 14 inches of expanded polystyrene and the foundation perimeter is insulated with 6 inches of expanded polystyrene. Wow. It also features triple-glazed windows.

The Passive House Institute U.S. estimates that a “passive house” requires an approximately 10 percent additional upfront investment. It may be more depending on location and building design. As the Times article notes, “Compact shapes are simpler to seal, while sprawling homes are difficult to insulate and heat…Most passive houses allow about 500 square feet per person, a comfortable though not expansive living space.”

Until “passive houses” catch on here, the folks at Snuggie needn’t worry.

by Katie Hutchison for the House Enthusiast

Web tour: Boston Sunday Globe: Preserving Modernism

It sounds like an oxymoron doesn’t it? But let’s face it; Modernism is a style, and, as such, significant Modern structures warrant preservation as much as important structures built in more commonly recognized historic styles like Greek Revival, Federal, or Georgian. Jaci Conry writes in the Globe that five Modern cottages in Wellfleet are en route to preservation thanks in large part to the efforts of Peter McMahon, an architect and executive director of the recently formed Cape Cod Modern House Trust.

The cottages, among 115 other homes, were built on land later assigned to the Cape Cod National Seashore when it was created in 1961. The National Park Service obtained the properties by eminent domain, offering their previous owners lifetime use of them or 25-year leases. Once empty, the five Wellfleet cottages fell into disrepair. They were slated for demolition in the late 90’s. Then times and attitudes changed. McMahon is now arranging to lease the properties from the Park Service through the Cape Cod Modern House Trust in order to preserve them. McMahon's organization plans on restoring the Gips House, designed by Charles Zehnder, first with hopes of opening it this summer to the public for tours, among other activities.

According to the Globe article, David Fixler president of DOCOMOMO/US New England, another non-profit engaged in preserving Modernism, said, “The cottages were built very cheaply and close to nature. They spoke to a wonderful way of life…”

McMahon is quoted in the piece saying, “There’s a lot to learn from these houses.” I don’t doubt it. I look forward to visiting them one day.

by Katie Hutchison for the House Enthusiast

Web tour: ArchitectureBoston: Maeda on people tech

RISD President John Maeda talks with Jeff Stein in the November/December 2008 “Hybrid” issue of ArchitectureBoston, a BSA publication. I keep mentioning Maeda, because he keeps making pithy observations. For instance, he tells Stein, “In the field of architecture, the real challenge is how our world of data has changed how we live. Architecture in the future is going to engage much more psychology, much more anthropology, much more of the human condition, and much more of the liberal arts perspective, because the act of living has become a lot more personal.” I imagine that’s why I wanted to become an architect in the first place.

Later in the interview Stein asks Maeda what he means by “humanizing technology.” Maeda says, “Some people say the best solution is high tech; some people say no, go low tech. I believe that the best solution is always less tech. Just enough, which is not usually considered an option.” How true. As someone who enjoys the world-wide web for the connections between people and ideas that technology fosters, but who still draws and drafts by hand, for both the pleasure and freedom craft allows, I’m a long-time believer in less tech.

Towards the end of the interview, Maeda emphasizes the importance of relationships. He says, “I think what has to be designed is what’s been designed forever, which is relationships: between people, between people and their objects, between people and their past…I look at the whole design question as encompassing the design of you own life.” That sounds refreshingly human.

by Katie Hutchison for the House Enthusiast

Web tour: Boston Sunday Globe: Dreamy drystone walls

Click on this photo to see it in the note cards/prints gallery.No two drystone wallers would build the same wall. That’s the magic of the medium. This wall is part of the old stone-barn ruin that I wrote about in a previous post. Dan Snow of Vermont writes in the Globe, “A derelict old wall can be restored to its original profile, but even when the same stones are used, it can never be the same wall twice. Every builder will handle the stones differently, resulting in a unique creation every time.” Snow’s book In the Company of Stone first introduced me to his lyrical stone work and poetic prose. I imagine I’ll find his latest book Listening to Stone (from which the Globe essay is adapted) equally engrossing. His is yet another craft I would love to learn. If only it didn’t involve all that heavy lifting…

by Katie Hutchison for the House Enthusiast

Web tour: Boston Globe: Time to revisit housing policy

Edward Glaeser writes in the Sunday Globe, “Instead of continuing the debt-fueled policies that got us where we are, why not rethink our approach to the housing market?” He suggests that government subsidies be redirected from "wealthy Americans who borrow to buy bigger homes" toward first-time home buyers, so we can build “more housing where it’s needed.” He continues, “Instead of spending federal money to encourage borrowing and keep prices high, it would make more sense to make housing more affordable by eliminating the artificial restrictions that stymie supply.” Like Rybczynski whose Wilson Quarterly essay I referred to in a previous post, Glaeser sees lot size and density as key factors in affordability. Glaeser writes, “In dense states like Massachusetts prices have been kept high by localities that oppose new construction, with large minimum lot sizes, Draconian barriers to subdivisions, and a general hostility to any multifamily housing. If those uses were eased, then housing would become more abundant and affordable.”

by Katie Hutchison for the House Enthusiast