[Greenbuilding] completely nuts?

[RT]

On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 15:42:42 -0400, Reuben Deumling <9watts at gmail.com>  
wrote:

> http://inhabitat.com/residence-sliding-house-drmm/

I wouldn't say that the idea of a retractable shell is "nuts".

Rod Robbie's design for the early 1980's era "Toronto Skydome" baseball  
stadium in Toronto pioneered the idea on a gargantuan scale and it made a  
lot of sense for that application.

For house, not so much. If anything, I'd say it's kinda stoopit.

Why ?

One of my brothers gave me his 2009 Miata hardtop convertible about a year  
and a half ago.
I chastised him for buying it in the first place. He spends all of his  
time on the golf course and he discovered that the trunk won't accommodate  
his bag of clubs, despite the salesman's assurance that it would, when he  
ordered it.

In the time I've owned it, I've driven it about three times and have never  
put the top down.
In summer, it's too friggin hot without the shade that the roof would  
provide.
In winter ... well, the thing is useless in winter (tiny/weak battery,  
rear wheel drive, minimal clearance on underside) so I wouldn't drive it  
in winter and if I did, I wouldn't put the top down. *That* would be nuts.  
So it ends up being a novelty item that seldom gets used.

Similarly, with the glass house/sliding shell, you'd not want to retract  
the shell in summer because the house would be hotter than hell and the  
glare would be extremely annoying, not to mention the deleterious effects  
of everything inside being fully exposed to UV.

In wintertime when the solar exposure might be beneficial, it would likely  
be a net heat loser during the gain periods since there are massive  
amounts of non-equator-facing glass planes.  Further, it would have to be  
opened and closed every morning and afternoon on days when there might be  
sun and in order for that to be possible, all snow and ice would have to  
be cleared from the tracks first.

Most homeowners find even just using insulating shutters to be enough of a  
PITA that they fall into disuse in short order.

I can imagine that having to clear away ice and snow every time you want  
to retract the shell in winter would get old really fast too. Ask any  
farmer in snow country with sliding barn doors.

And thinking about it now, any snow falling on the glass roof during the  
day would likely melt and run off to accumulate and re-freeze at the base  
... right where the tracks for the retractable shell are. Having to smash  
and chip that away in order to facilitate closing the shell would get old  
even more quickly. That is until something gets smashed during the ice  
breaking process and then the shell would likely never get moved again in  
winter. (Heated track to melt the ice ? That would make it even more  
stupid.)

Once again the phrase "Needless gizmological complexification of an  
otherwise simple task" would seem to apply. Not "nuts", just not very wise  
(as distinct from "smart").


-- 
=== * ===
Rob Tom
Kanata, Ontario, Canada

< A r c h i L o g i c  at  Y a h o o  dot  c a  >
(manually winnow the chaff from my edress if you hit "reply")