29 Sep 12
http://www.timescolonist.com/homes/kind+house+built+last+centuries/5045373/story.html
If humanity is to survive our current crisis of over-consumption, then houses similar to this will have to become the norm, rather than the exception.
Ann and Gordon Baird have constructed a 2,150 sq. ft. cob house outside of Vancouver, Canada. It is being billed as the largest cob structure in North America, and "the greenest modern house in the world." It was designed to comply with the Living Building Challenge (LBC) by having a net-zero environmental impact.
Cob, which is a mixture of sand, straw and clay, was mixed on site by the Bairds for the walls which they built themselves. Pumice was added to the cob mixture to improve its thermal qualities, making traditional insulation unnecessary. Where a typical house might use 33kw hrs./day, their energy consumption has been reduced to 3kw hrs./day, most of which is supplied by roof mounted solar panels. As they are attached to the grid, they are net supplier of energy to BC Hydro. Their water consumption, which is 90% less than that what is typical for British Columbia, is provided by their well, rainwater harvesting and a gray water system for garden irrigation. Composting toilets also conserve on water usage.
But most importantly, the costs per square foot were no more than they would have been if they had used traditional building materials. So green houses need not be any more expensive than current, inefficient houses that are now being built. If green construction methods become more widespread, their cost will drop even further.
Here is the link to another article on the house (downloadable pdf):
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&ved=0CD8QFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fecosenseliving.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F07%2Fharrowsmith.pdf&ei=6hpnUP72I8X40gGogIHoAg&usg=AFQjCNHPbNssryDo8bdyNz6KPJsU3ftpcg
And many pictures of the house, including finished and unfinished stages:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/eco-sense/4611434993/in/set-72157600040396645/lightbox/
29 Sep 12
http://realestate.aol.com/blog/2012/09/28/missouris-dancing-rabbit-ecovillage-off-the-grid/
Then if houses like the one mentioned earlier were to become the norm, and if they were to be situated inside ecovillages like Dancing Rabbit (link above) then maybe the human race could avoid exterminating itself in an orgy of over-consumption.
29 Sep 12
Originally posted by whodeyCob has nothing to do with corn, you chowderhead. As my post indicated, it's made from sand, straw and clay. It's an extremely durable building material. You see many cottages in England that have been made from it that have been standing for well over a hundred years. Since it lends itself well to geomorphic layouts, without any right angles, you can come up with some very interesting designs. Coated with a lime plaster, it is weather resistant. Add a little pumice and its thermal value goes up considerably.
Not to worry, another 4 years of Obama and we will all be living in cob houses.
Incidently, can you put butter and salt on them and eat them?
30 Sep 12
Originally posted by rwingettMore power to 'em.
http://www.timescolonist.com/homes/kind+house+built+last+centuries/5045373/story.html
If humanity is to survive our current crisis of over-consumption, then houses similar to this will have to become the norm, rather than the exception.
Ann and Gordon Baird have constructed a 2,150 sq. ft. cob house outside of Vancouver, Canada. It is being billed as ...[text shortened]... tages:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/eco-sense/4611434993/in/set-72157600040396645/lightbox/
If someone wants to sell me a house like that for $400,000, I'll buy it.
30 Sep 12
Originally posted by rwingettInteresting. Thanks for the links.
http://www.timescolonist.com/homes/kind+house+built+last+centuries/5045373/story.html
If humanity is to survive our current crisis of over-consumption, then houses similar to this will have to become the norm, rather than the exception.
Ann and Gordon Baird have constructed a 2,150 sq. ft. cob house outside of Vancouver, Canada. It is being billed as ...[text shortened]... tages:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/eco-sense/4611434993/in/set-72157600040396645/lightbox/
I wonder if we will eventually in a few centuries become so efficient with regard to both consumption and production, that "over-consumption" will not be an issue. Is that just as likely as the bleak scenario which is self-evident and destined to some.
Yet, what if in a few hundred years or a thousand years, with the resiliency of human kind, a single world entity evolves, a new world order without religious superstitious, and where poverty and hunger are erased, and freedom is enhanced throughout the world, and clean energy is incredibly efficiently generated and consumed. (e.g., Earth of Star Trek). Is that more of a fairy tale than the assumption that overpopulation and old or inefficient technology will destroy us.
30 Sep 12
Originally posted by moon1969It is a finite world, with a finite amount of certain non-renewable resources. You can't generate an infinite amount of everything that is needed to sustain a consumerist lifestyle.
Interesting. Thanks for the links.
I wonder if we will eventually in a few centuries become so efficient with regard to both consumption and production, that "over-consumption" will not be an issue. Is that just as likely as the bleak scenario which is self-evident and destined to some.
Yet, what if in a few hundred years or a thousand years, with t ...[text shortened]... ale than the assumption that overpopulation and old or inefficient technology will destroy us.
As for a single world entity, be careful what you wish for. Such an entity would not enhance freedom for very long. What is needed is not ever-larger systems, but smaller ones. Returning effective control to local levels, not some distant bureaucracy.
Think of religious, linguistic and cultural practices as being akin to elements in a working biosphere. A healthy biosphere will have a wide variety of species with a myriad web of connections between them to keep it functioning properly. If you begin to have species loss, then the biosphere begins to break down and becomes stressed. So, too, with cultures. It takes a wide variety of cultures to keep life healthy and leave room to adapt to changing circumstances. When one culture comes to so thoroughly dominate an environment then it loses its resiliency and becomes less able to adapt. The suppression of religious superstition by the tyranny of reason will have a host of unforeseen consequences. Having a certain amount of religious superstition, while it seems to serve no good purpose for our narrowly defined objectives, is necessary for the maintenance of a healthy and humane life.
As for technology...it seems that our technical capacity is developing at a far greater rate than our our level of understanding. I am convinced that our technology will destroy us long before we acquire the necessary degree of understanding to manage it properly.
30 Sep 12
Originally posted by rwingettPeople need their opiates, do they?
The suppression of religious superstition by the tyranny of reason will have a host of unforeseen consequences. Having a certain amount of religious superstition, while it seems to serve no good purpose for our narrowly defined objectives, is necessary for the maintenance of a healthy and humane life.
30 Sep 12
Originally posted by TeinosukeIt's not just that. I think a purely rationalistic outlook, even if such a thing were possible (which I sincerely doubt it is) would be impoverishing to the human condition. The (largely) unforeseen consequence of it is that it makes mankind more susceptible to control by technocratic processes. The maintenance of a certain amount of religious superstition, while unhealthy in certain regards, provides the (largely) unforeseen benefit of being an impediment toward technocratic dominance.
People need their opiates, do they?
30 Sep 12
Originally posted by rwingettBy my calculations there are massive benefits to city living. The savings from living in multistory flats are so enormous that I would say a poorly insulated flat is far far better than this dream house. I bet they go to work a long way from home in several massive american fuel guzzling cars.
If humanity is to survive our current crisis of over-consumption, then houses similar to this will have to become the norm, rather than the exception.
I on the other hand live in a place where I can actually go the whole year without heating or air conditioning, I work from home, so there is no commuting to work, and I live near enough to my sons school that he can ride to school on a bicycle.
I live in a flat, so many of the environmental and city costs are shared in much greater densities than the house in question.
30 Sep 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadYour objection is pure speculation. You have no idea where they work, or if they work at all. In any event, there is no impediment to interspersing living and working arrangements to reduce commute times. If you read the article on Dancing Rabbit eco-community, that's exactly what they've done. They live in green buildings similar to the one featured here and work within walking distance. Plus you could certainly build apartment complexes, if not out of cob, then certainly out of other green building materials, such as rammed earth.
By my calculations there are massive benefits to city living. The savings from living in multistory flats are so enormous that I would say a poorly insulated flat is far far better than this dream house. I bet they go to work a long way from home in several massive american fuel guzzling cars.
I on the other hand live in a place where I can actually go t ...[text shortened]... he environmental and city costs are shared in much greater densities than the house in question.
01 Oct 12
Originally posted by rwingettNo, I am pointing out that insulation is merely a small part of the 'eco' picture and that some other equally important things are often overlooked. That this house is put forward as the 'perfect house of the future' is false. They have only solved one or two of the many problems that must be faced - and when it comes to reducing the cost of heating, this only applies to those parts of the world that require heating (the rich and wasteful parts of the world admittedly). In Zambia, the problem is usually cooling, and that is also partially solved with insulation in the ceiling, but planting trees makes an even bigger impact.
Your objection is pure speculation.
01 Oct 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf not cob, which may not be applicable to all climates, then a green building material like rammed earth would be applicable. From Wikipedia:
No, I am pointing out that insulation is merely a small part of the 'eco' picture and that some other equally important things are often overlooked. That this house is put forward as the 'perfect house of the future' is false. They have only solved one or two of the many problems that must be faced - and when it comes to reducing the cost of heating, thi ...[text shortened]... ially solved with insulation in the ceiling, but planting trees makes an even bigger impact.
Soil is a widely available, low-cost and sustainable resource, and utilizing it in construction has minimal environmental impact. This makes rammed-earth construction highly affordable and viable for low-income builders. Unskilled labour can do most of the necessary work, and today more than 30 percent of the world's population uses earth as a building material. Rammed earth has been used around the world in a wide range of climatic conditions, from wet northern Europe to dry regions in Africa...
...One of the significant benefits of rammed earth is its high thermal mass; like brick or concrete construction, it can absorb heat during the day and release it at night. This moderates daily temperature variations and reduces the need for air conditioning and heating.
01 Oct 12
Originally posted by rwingett[/b]If it is truly so affordable then why not send us (Zambians) the plans as we are always ready to save a few bucks especially when it comes to building. But its got to be cheaper than cement blocks - the current norm for most houses in Zambia.
If not cob, which may not be applicable to all climates, then a green building material like rammed earth would be applicable. From Wikipedia:
Soil is a widely available, low-cost and sustainable resource, and utilizing it in construction has minimal environmental impact. This makes rammed-earth construction highly affordable and viable for low-in ...[text shortened]... ly temperature variations and [b]reduces the need for air conditioningand heating.
Although your quote suggests it is no better than bricks or concrete????
I must also note that most villagers already use sticks and mud for walls. I used to live in a house build before the days of cement and it had bricks with some sort of lime mixture as mortar.
The best ways to cool a house in Zambia are:
1. Higher ceilings.
2. Plant trees.