[Greenbuilding] Aggressively Passive: Building Homes to to the Passive House Standard

JOHN SALMEN terrain at shaw.ca
Mon Jan 10 20:28:06 CST 2011


Welcome to the list - great letter and thanks for the link to the PANW
discussion - it was fun to read. 

As for being ambassadors for a better built environment I think one of the
challenges with the 'toolbox' and accompanying vocabulary is that they can
become prescriptive of what that built environment will be and houses people
accordingly without really corresponding to actual use, social needs, or
simply adapting. Like you say "...everything looks like a nail..." 

In medical terms this is called 'compliance' and is both a form of authority
and management towards a desired medical outcome. Problems really only arise
when the outcome does not match the need or diagnosis - or the prescribed
need was part of the toolbox that did not match the patients actual needs.

Compliance to a building code is similar in that it is recognition of
certain community standards and a willingness to be part of our community.
Codes change both in reaction to compliance and needs on the part of the
community. Alternate 'codes' or methodologies (PA, NZE and predecessors) are
part of that process of change but environmental and social planning are
also a big part. As builders, designers, planners and community members we
participate in all those aspects - so the tool box gets bigger if you are
meeting the needs of the overall community.

As an example the question of PV has been an interesting one for me as net
metering and solar roofs have been discussed for a long long time and I
participated in discussions on this with BC hydro 15 years ago. If a typical
residential roof can generate 1/3rd more energy than the house consumes it
seemed a 'no brainer' to utilize the footprint and grid connection of a
residential roof. 

It was an appealing scenario but the main question then and now is 'who owns
the roof'. Answering that question amounts to a paradigm shift of how we
view housing and ownership - but realistically we have already experienced
major shifts in how we use and 'own' homes that have yet to be designed for
and provided for.

On average we occupy a home for less than ½ a day and most of that is spent
sleeping (8.6 hrs on average). As a designer that tells me that a 'home' has
to be ideally quickly responsive in terms of providing hvac and other
necessities (hot water, aesthetics, views(?), daylighting(?). So however we
fit individually into those averages our community as a whole does fit into
that. Our community may occupy our home before and after us (we tend to move
a lot as well) - so we are designing buildings that basically have to look
after themselves for 1/2 the day without the benefit of our presence. Does
PA, NZE provide for social occupancy or does it provide for the building in
itself?

A final comment is about scale. As a designer I've worked to minimize
footprints and that is where a designer can excel in making a small space
work. Ironically small homes as a single footprint are very wasteful of the
materials, structure and systems needed to support them. Rowhouses,
multistory strata and cohousing are much friendlier solutions.  







JOHN SALMEN ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN
4465 UPHILL RD,. DUNCAN, B.C.  CANADA, V9L 6M7
PH 250 748 7672 FAX 250 748 7612 CELL 250 246 8541
terrain at shaw.ca


-----Original Message-----
From: greenbuilding-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
[mailto:greenbuilding-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of David
Posada
Sent: January 10, 2011 12:43 PM
To: 'greenbuilding at lists.bioenergylists.org'
Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] Aggressively Passive: Building Homes to to the
Passive House Standard

There was a long and lively discussion recently on the PHNW group list about
how the PHPP spreadsheet treats on-site PV vs on-site Solar Hot Water, the
rationale behind the PE factor of  0.7, and an analogy of grid-tied PV
generation can sometimes be more of a "carbon offset:" 

http://groups.google.com/group/PassiveHouseNW/browse_thread/thread/4e76b643b
2310a6b#

On a less technical note, when you hear glowing praise for PH from some
corners, frustration and discontent from others, I'm reminded of the maxim
"if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail," and the
inherent compromises of any tool. 

Some standards and rating systems are rather blunt tools, others far more
precise. It seems the more precise and accommodating a tools is, the more
difficult it can be for lay-people to learn and apply. 

For an engineer with many tools in their kit, and the wisdom to know the
limitations and best practices for each one, they can make good calls on
when one approach makes the most sense, and when it is requiring less
meaningful effort. 

For others, the nuances may be less clear or important, and they see a
particular tool such as Passive House as being for them the most appropriate
means to an end. 

Part of the challenge is with so many tools vying for our attention,
support, and dollars, their developers, promoters, reviewers and critics
have to make countless assumptions and compromises both to make the tools
useable and to explain them to the world. With the shifting fortunes of
praise and popularity is easy to see how a lot of money, respect, and pride
is at stake. I think it can be especially frustrating for people who have
dedicated years to advancing better understanding of building systems to see
the public's eyes glaze over and reach for the latest shrink-wrapped
package. 

These comments from a new member may seem obvious or off-topic, but I felt
compelled to offer them out of my own disappointment in watching how the
conversation sometimes goes downhill when the value/ relevance/ worthiness
of PH or LEED are being debated in different forums. We all love a good
discussion and learn a lot from the debating the details, but I think
something can get lost in the fray. 

I don't think this is a problem in this group, or limited to just the PH
topic - people are exceptionally good here at clarifying their assumptions,
finding common ground, and not taking blustery conclusions personally.  

When we venture outside of this circle as advocates and ambassadors for
green building, I just wanted to make one proposal: I think we can be more
effective at promoting a more responsible built environment if we
acknowledge the common purpose of different tools, the inherent compromises
of any approach, and how the balance of these strengths and weakness work
for different contexts. Apologies if this sounds too idealistic or preachy. 

David Posada
Portland, Oregon



_______________________________________________
Greenbuilding mailing list
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
Greenbuilding at bioenergylists.org

to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioener
gylists.org






More information about the Greenbuilding mailing list