Box of Rocks

My introduction to sustainable building was a lightly battered copy of Herb Wade’s Building Underground. It came to my hands courtesy of my grandfather, a habitual thrifter, from the now-relocated Edwin McKay bookstore in Winston-Salem. Among all pages yellow and musty, he remembered my passing interest in architecture and selected a tome that came to hold an almost magical power over my life.

Being my only pinhole into a new world, it was easy to believe that the contents of those pages were the standard for any green builder worth their salt. That passive-solar heating, precisely calculated thermal mass, and shade analyses were universally agreed upon as the holy grails of low-energy construction.

Fast-forward almost a decade later, past interviews and collaborations with boundary-breaking architects, natural builders, sustainability “gurus”, and inventors, and the only thing I’ve found in common between them is goodwill and hope for the future. Methodological or philosophical consistency is pretty far down the list.

This is because sustainability, as a word, holds a very personal and unique meaning for everyone that uses it. Tacking it onto something is a bit like saying “there’s a mammal outside”. Might be good to know if you’re walking out to face a grizzly or your neighbor’s elderly pug that enjoys licking the dryer exhaust pipe. The United Nations alone defines 17 sustainable development goals, with only 6 of these directly pertaining to construction. These 6 hold very simply a vast multitude of strategies, both widespread and unknown, technologically advanced and primitive, the familiar and the wondrously innovative, all often at odds with each other. A solution idyllic to one builder is often haram to another, and an explanation is rarely put forward.

One builder might propose large, south facing windows paired with masonry floors to capture solar heat and release it back throughout the night. Another might criticize these specialized design requirements and instead herald extra insulation and a newly released HVAC system controlled by AI. Each strategy has its own pros and cons, and the right choice is dependent upon the constraints of the project and the owner’s goals. The best choice, however, is often beyond the scope of individual projects and requires systemic and cultural changes. The rigidity of municipalities, beliefs of owners, and attitudes of contractors are obstacles just as large as technological short-comings. The issue of sustainability is primarily a human one, but that, also, is beyond the scope of this blog.

Long story short, everyone is biased towards certain ideologies, including (especially) me. In the interest of transparency I want to give an overview of the values I prioritize in my perspective, in no particular order. The two foundational tenants that most of these fall under, and that I apply to overall vision, are Community and Connection to Nature.

• Embodied Carbon – low, or preferably zero, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions involved in production
• Operational Energy – low, or preferably zero, GHG emissions produced by the continued use of a product
• Circular Economy – can the product be broken down into its base materials at end-of-life and be reintroduced to the beginning of the manufacturing process
• Material Locality – the “⊘km House”; sourcing materials as close to the final destination as possible, preferably from the same site the house is built on
• Design for Disassembly – constructs that can be easily taken apart at end-of-life; that means minimizing adhesives and permanent fasteners
• Design for Repair – parts that can be fixed or replaced when they break, increasing the overall longevity of the product
• Longevity – design to maximize product lifespan
• Recyclability / Non-Composite Materials – at end-of-life a material should either be recyclable or compostable; if a material is a composite of organic and inorganic elements then it ends up in a landfill
• Health – removing toxic chemicals from the products we interact with; horrifyingly unpopular
• Low-Tech – Occum’s Razor: the simplest solution is often the best. This is where two significantly different schools of thought diverge: those who prefer to achieve their ends by using electricity to run machines and manufacture advanced materials; and those who prefer to harness energy directly from the surrounding environment (sun, wind, and water) without conversion to electricity. I belong to the later category
• Beauty / Human Happiness – life is more enjoyable when we’re surrounded by beautiful things; and that’s the whole point, innit?
• Access to Land – land is the source of all wealth, and without personal ownership over it we are at the mercy of whoever holds it; in this light I will be aggressively against multi-family housing in most of its forms.

Building green is easy, if you have bottomless pockets. The challenge is creating a way of living that the everyday person can connect with. Here are a few more considerations I make when assessing the viability of a product:

• Ease of Adoption – what’s the learning curve for this process? Is specialized training required? Does it involve significant design changes? User maintenance? Unique equipment? Supply chain issues?
• Cost – Is this competitively priced?
• Accessibility – Can users acquire this product in their area? Can users make or apply this product themselves?
• Equity – will this product or building benefit the average person?

The purpose of this blog is to shed some honest light on claims about “Green Design”. I will do my best to be as thorough and as fair as possible in my assessments, and transparent in my biases, so that you, the reader, can form your own educated conclusions.

Thanks for coming, and please enjoy

BOX OF ROCKS