<html><head><base href="x-msg://513/"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">I think it should be obvious that the IDEA of not penalized, in fact, encouraging, stay at home work arrangements, even if it is easy to forget this in a detailed discussion.<div>The issue of transportation is really what this is about.</div><div>However, in housing standards like PH, Energy Star, LEED R2000, etc. it is really tough to come up with workable rules. We should try though.</div><div>For example, there should be exemptions to make it easier for homes built or converted near high density urban centers (although rural folks will scream).</div><div>It is also not clear that adding a den to home will result in fewer commutes, although it does make it possible to conveniently working at home.</div><div><br><div><div><div>On 2011-01-12, at 6:04 PM, Gordon Scale wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div class="hmmessage" style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Tahoma; "><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000" face="Helvetica"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br></span></font></div><div> From an overall energy perspective, can we not take this opportunity to help </div><div>turn this around. Somehow I believe new standards of measurement should </div><div>try to foster benefits to those considering housing with home based businesses </div><div>of substance. The resulting energy benefits in transportation energy are </div><div>considerable, especially if married with compact urban form. </div><div><br></div><div>I see no reason to penalize a somewhat larger than average home - if it includes </div><div>a reasonably sized retail, professional or service use. Food for thought when </div><div>striving for practical energy standards for new housing and infill/renovations. <br></div></div></span></blockquote></div><br><div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div><div style="font-size: 14px; ">Dr John Straube, P.Eng.</div><div style="font-size: 14px; ">Associate Professor</div><div style="font-size: 14px; ">University of Waterloo</div><div style="font-size: 14px; ">Dept of Civil Eng. & School of Architecture</div><div style="font-size: 14px; "><a href="http://www.buildingscience.com">www.buildingscience.com</a></div></div></span>
</div>
<br></div></div></body></html>