          |
   |
|
Forums | Environmental Impact | design focus |
| Author | Message |
tkennedy | Posted - 20 December 2002 10:48    I have only recently become acquainted with PATH. Conceptually this program seems to be for the good. What I am curious about, is that if we can accept and believe (as a constant, so to speak) that emerging technologies will allow us to build better housing (more energy efficient, recyclable, economical, more durable and more affordable, etc.), then shouldn't there be much more focus on design? I'm not talking necessarily about nuts and bolts (although ease of construction should be implicit to any design idea). I am talking about the affective result of the house on an individual's life. What will make a house actually enhance a life on an experiencial level, through quality space, good light, good orientation, good interaction with the site, etc.? The products we are seeing built, for the large part, really show little if any innovation in new and better forms. Instead, we are still seeing the same designs we have seen for the last twenty years, at least. What will be the legacy of these structures (inherently dated) to those of future generations? Have we really invested in the visual environment? Technology in the housing industry, is way ahead of the forms that are created with these technologies. Why is it that no one seems to pay attention to the way something looks and feels or how it may be experienced? Or, at least, why does there seem to be a blind contentedness and satisfaction with very ho- hum designs? Shouldn't we exploit the built form as we exploit new technologies? Shouldn't the concept of green building go beyond the physical recycliblity and economy of materials and actually invest in our visual environment? When are we going to quit staring at these concepts so microscopically and start broadening our perspective to see what the far reaching affect of a design can be on those who may experience these structures , be it the inhabitants or those who may observe from afar? All of those interested in discussing this further, please post. An open dialogue on this topic will do everyone some good. Troy Kennedy QMET Architects Austin, TX. |
dyoungkeit1 | Posted - 21 March 1999 23:49 There is innovative thinking out there that does need to be brought to a technical clearing house. Instead, people are writing this forum about an innovative idea that worked for everyone else but them. You see the common house builder totally ignore the great strides forward by research organizations at HUD, N.A.H.B., and the U.S. Forest Service. These organizations' leaders don't want someone blaming them if their structural insulated panels are falling apart because of humidity and failure to follow normal good roofing practices. The great strides forward are the T.F.S. technology of 20 years ago and the "OVE" or Optimum Value Engineered framing that no one uses after about 15 years. The TFS framing system encouraged windows on 2' centers and other openings at the gable ends where heavy headers are not required. The lack of horizontal studs invite tall narrow windows that span the floor levels, even combining an upper window with a skylight with bent glass. These options open the door to other customizations. Where do you find these "leadership" organizations publicizing that the most house per dollar in extreme weather resistance and in utilities and upkeep is a two story circular shape? Where do you find an optimized value manual for any shape? Why is there cut throat competition between stick builders and factory house builders? I believe the two working together can get a synergistic benefit for both if politicians stay out of their way. Fan costs for an average new home require $20 - $35/ month for hot and cool air blowing on top of the heating or cooling devise cost. Proper engineering can enhance the orphaned idea about gravity fed air movement strong enough for air filtration without a fan. The previous writer is correct in claiming that "Technology in the housing industry, is way ahead of the forms that are created with these technologies." Dean Youngkeit 21 North 100 East Willard, Utah 84340-0041 (435) 734-0681 or |