The NYTimes wrote about a couple who suffered through some hardships building a small, second home in Hood River Oregon but not because of the reasons you'd think. I'm sure it didn't hurt to have backgrounds in architecture, sustainable design and to be building in Oregon (more progressive in this sort of thing?). They did run into similar problems that we found here in FL which surprised me. The county, the bank and the appraiser all had problems because their design wasn't big enough and Tudor style like the others near by and didn't have a 2 car garage. Our bank had a problem with no pool, no concrete driveway, only one bathroom and wanting to wait to add a cooling system. I have to admit I gave in a little more and sacrificed some of what I wanted (without the AC they wouldn't give us the loan and unfortunately for me they were the easiest bank I found to work with us on anything and have a decent interest rate). Without the architecture/green design experience it proved impossible to find all the knowledge and experience to build green in the way that I had hoped and so I am stuck with trying to keep as much of the project for later as I could. It's not saying what the building envelop is but some of their green ideas are in the article, "A KEY concept for the house was “to literally have no footprint,” Ms. Donohue said. The roof is engineered to sustain plants and soil to absorb rainwater. Planters with native grasses, which are embedded in the cedar deck and walkway, also help absorb rainwater while screen-covered inserts in the concrete storage units allow floodwater to flow in and out. “There’s the idea that nature is running through the building,” Mr. McKean said. Other features include tigerwood flooring certified by the Forest Stewardship Council, a vegetable wax finish, a water-conserving toilet, an on-demand water heater and in the bathroom a solar tube — a type of skylight that intensifies natural light — to use in place of a regular electrical fixture."
November 12, 2007
Example: a second home in Oregon
The NYTimes wrote about a couple who suffered through some hardships building a small, second home in Hood River Oregon but not because of the reasons you'd think. I'm sure it didn't hurt to have backgrounds in architecture, sustainable design and to be building in Oregon (more progressive in this sort of thing?). They did run into similar problems that we found here in FL which surprised me. The county, the bank and the appraiser all had problems because their design wasn't big enough and Tudor style like the others near by and didn't have a 2 car garage. Our bank had a problem with no pool, no concrete driveway, only one bathroom and wanting to wait to add a cooling system. I have to admit I gave in a little more and sacrificed some of what I wanted (without the AC they wouldn't give us the loan and unfortunately for me they were the easiest bank I found to work with us on anything and have a decent interest rate). Without the architecture/green design experience it proved impossible to find all the knowledge and experience to build green in the way that I had hoped and so I am stuck with trying to keep as much of the project for later as I could. It's not saying what the building envelop is but some of their green ideas are in the article, "A KEY concept for the house was “to literally have no footprint,” Ms. Donohue said. The roof is engineered to sustain plants and soil to absorb rainwater. Planters with native grasses, which are embedded in the cedar deck and walkway, also help absorb rainwater while screen-covered inserts in the concrete storage units allow floodwater to flow in and out. “There’s the idea that nature is running through the building,” Mr. McKean said. Other features include tigerwood flooring certified by the Forest Stewardship Council, a vegetable wax finish, a water-conserving toilet, an on-demand water heater and in the bathroom a solar tube — a type of skylight that intensifies natural light — to use in place of a regular electrical fixture."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
it's interesting that there is no "green" money out there. In the things I've read about urban and suburban planning in general, a lot of the critics have noted that tax and building policies facilitate waste and sprawl, but I'd never considered how much influence lenders have on the continuation of bad and harmful trends in single home development. Has anyone looked into this problem? Wouldn't it be nice if lenders forced home owners to abide by sustainable practices?
that would be the goal but many lenders don't forsee the ($$) value of sustainable practices yet and certainly wouldn't care much about the overall value to the community- I could have fought harder for more freedoms to handle certain aspects of the project but frankly I gave up and needed enough of a house they (bank and county) would let me move into and then leave me alone so i could make up for lost time and take my time figuring all this out. People ask me if it would have cost anymore to just pay up front the extra cost of solid green building now vs. trying to do what i can to get a c of o just to get everyone off my back and take it from there. the answer is yes, it would have cost enough over my budget that i was stuck.
is that a family name?
Post a Comment