[Greenbuilding] completely nuts?

[Sacie Lambertson]

*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").*

Same idea of wise applies in other areas as well; for instance, it could be
said for the number of operable windows one thinks one wants in a house.
The idea of lots of windows that could be opened at that good time of the
year seems desireable in the ideal, but in fact, at least here in NE
Kansas, the reality is one opens only a few.  We could have saved big bucks
had I been more realistic.  Designers should know this but those of us who
build only a few houses in our lifetime often don't.

Every time I wire I make the same mistake; I always think I may need either
more lights somewhere or more outlets.

The guy that built that sliding house had more money than sense, just like
those who build those mega-houses.  How much room does one really live in?
That said, we could be strongly criticized for building a much larger house
than is 'needed' for two people.  It's all relative, but some balance is
called for.

Sacie



On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 12:47 PM, RT <archilogic at yahoo.ca> wrote:

> On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 15:42:42 -0400, Reuben Deumling <9watts at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>  http://inhabitat.com/**residence-sliding-house-drmm/<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")
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Greenbuilding mailing list
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> Greenbuilding at bioenergylists.**org <Greenbuilding at bioenergylists.org>
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> http://lists.bioenergylists.**org/mailman/listinfo/**greenbuilding_lists.*
> *bioenergylists.org<http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20120405/c7be71b0/attachment.html>