Download - Exposing a Naive Dream
A
EVALUATING THE INEFFICIENCIES OF THE AMERICAN SINGLE-FAMILY HOME
EXPOSING ANAIVE DREAM
B
I
EXPOSING A NAIVE DREAM
A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the
Architecture Department in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Architecture at
Savannah College of Art and Design
Jodie R. Quinter
SCAD | Savannah, Georgia
© May 2014
Thesis Chair: Professor Huy Ngo
Faculty Advisor: Professor Daniel Brown
Topic Consultant: Ben Baumer
II Exposing a Naive Dream
IIIDedication
To my family:
You have surrounded me with a culture of excellence as well as abundant
encouragement, and instilled in me the characteristics that have allowed
me to succeed from early on. Because of you, I embrace a future beyond
my wildest imaginings. Your unending love and support are the
foundation of my being.
Thank you.
IV Exposing a Naive Dream
VAcknowledgements
To Professor Huy Ngo and Professor Daniel Brown:
This book is dedicated to you. The imprint of your committment to
excellence and your devotion to architectural education is contained
within. Your unselfishness and endless support made this project possible.
Your guidance and example have left a lasting impression on my life.
Thank you is not enough.
As always, Cheers.
VI Exposing a Naive Dream
VIITable of Contents
Establishing the Problem 9Contextual Research
Providing Factual Support 33Conceptual Research
Assessing Inefficiences 53Concept Development
Understanding Design Flaws 77Research Development
Evaluating Room by Room 95Microscopic Analysis
Visiting Parkview Acres 173Site Analysis
Exposing the Dream 197Design Development
Bibliography 227
List of Figures 1
Thesis Abstract 7
1
4
2
5
3
6
7
1
List of Figures
Figure 1: Geo F. Barber & Co. Catalog Page. Image. <http://lisahistory.net/hist111/pw/docs/Incorp.htm>.
Figure 2: Sears Roebuck Catalog Page. Image. <http://southernmemoriesandupdates.com/2011/mississippi/was-most-magnificent-home-n-como- a-sears-roebuck-mail-order-mansion/>.
Figure 3: Levittown, New York. Photograph. <http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2007/10/12/nyregion/20071013_LEVITTOWN_SLIDESHOW_index.html>.
Figure 4: GE Advertisement. Image. <http://public.gettysburg.edu/~mbirkner/fys120/promise.GIF>.
Figure 5: Saturday Evening Post. Image. <http://www.allposters.com/-sp/Moonlit-Future-Saturday-Evening-Post-Cover-August-15-1959-Posters_i8594174_.html>.
Figure 6: The New Yorker. Image. <http://imgc.allpostersimages.com/images/P-473-488-90/60/6008/UQ1B100Z/posters/constantin-alajalov-the-new-yorker-cover-july-20-1946.jpg>.
Figure 7: Brick Front with Vinyl Siding. Photograph. <http://www.city-data.com/forum/attachments/house/14056d1201971951-brick-fronts-cambridge01.jpg>.
Figure 8: Aerial View of Suburb. Photograph. <http://www.appalachianaerialimages.com/index.php#mi=2&pt=1&pi=10000&s=2&p=2&a=0&at=0>.
Figure 9: Formal Dining. Photograph. <http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/tag/racism/>.
Figure 10: Informal Dining. Photograph. <http://www.thestar.com/content/dam/thestar/life/food_wine/2012/03/06/dinner_four_friends_gather_for_family_meal/eating.jpeg.size.xxlarge.letterbox.jpeg>.
Figure 11: The American Dream is Over. Photograph. <http://cosmoscon.com/2012/05/31/is-the-american-dream-over/>.
List of Figures
Figure 12: Zaha Hadid’s Beko Building in Belgrade. Rendering. < http://www.businessinsider.com/zaha-adids-beko-building-in-belgrade-2012-11>.
Figure 13: Single-Family Home Construction. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 14: Living Preference Survey. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 15: Factor of 10. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 16: Energy Consumption by Sector. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 17: “Green” House 1. Diagram. Provided by Author. <http://cdn.homedit.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/grass-facade-building7.jpg>
Figure 18: “Green” House 2. Photograph. < http://windturbineshome.net/wp-content/uploads/house-with-solar-and-wind-energy.jpg>
Figure 19: Life Cycle Cost Study. Photograph.
Figure 20: House, Human, and Brick Average Lifespan. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 21: Accounting for Change in Family Size and Structure. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 22: United States Home Demolition. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 23: Waste Output by Building Sector. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 24: Division of Existing United States Building Stock. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 25: Building Life Cycle. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 26: Quantifiable Marketing. Screenshot. <http://www.kbhome.com/new-homes-houston/westheimer-lakes-lago-vista>.
2
List of Figures (continued)
Figure 27: Grand Entry Foyer. Photograph. <http://www.heartlandluxuryhomes.com/home_type/westminster>.
Figure 28: Living Room “A”. Photograph. <http://www.yelp.com/biz_photos/fine-lines-painting-nashville-2?select=8crKYGttZQ3ynNGedVEfyg#8crKYGttZQ3ynNGedVEfyg>.
Figure 29: Living Room “B”. Photograph. <http://www.yelp.com/biz_photos/fine-lines-painting-nashville-2?select=8crKYGttZQ3ynNGedVEfyg#wlRWi1iLcx91t0YmWS9Uiw>.
Figure 30: Capturing the Light of a Near Death Experience. Image. <http://blog.positscience.com/2013/08/22/near-death-experiences-attributed-to-a-super-sized-burst-of-brain-activity/>.
Figure 31: Interior Natural Light. Photograph. <http://cdn.freshome.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/hallway_window-e1301618656428.jpg>.
Figure 32: Historical United States Housing Trends. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 33: Area of Case Study Homes. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 34: Case Study 1 Space Allocation by %. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 35: Case Study 2 Space Allocation by %. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 36: Case Study 3 Space Allocation by %. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 37: Case Study 4 Space Allocation by %. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 38: Case Study 5 Space Allocation by %. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 39: Minimum Space Allocation by %. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 40: Kitchen Analysis. Diagram. Provided by Author. Insight gained from Residential Interior Design: A Guide to Planning Spaces by Maureen Mitton.
Figure 41: Kitchen Area by Case Study. Diagram. Provided by Author.
List of Figures (continued)
Figure 42: Kitchen Area Case Study 3. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 43: Kitchen Area Case Study 4. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 44: Kitchen Area Case Study 5. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 45: Minimum Kitchen Area. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 46: Living Room Analysis. Diagram. Provided by Author. Insight gained from Residential Interior Design: A Guide to Planning Spaces by Maureen Mitton.
Figure 47: Living Room Area by Case Study. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 48: Living Room Area Case Study 3. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 49: Living Room Area Case Study 4. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 50: Living Room Area Case Study 5. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 51: Minimum Living Room Area. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 52: Dining Room Analysis. Diagram. Provided by Author. Insight gained from Residential Interior Design: A Guide to Planning Spaces by Maureen Mitton.
Figure 53: Dining Room Area by Case Study. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 54: Dining Room Area Case Study 3. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 55: Dining Room Area Case Study 4. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 56: Dining Room Area Case Study 5. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 57: Minimum Dining Room Area. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 58: Entry Foyer Analysis. Diagram. Provided by Author. Insight gained from Residential Interior Design: A Guide to Planning Spaces by Maureen Mitton.
Figure 59: Entry Foyer Area by Case Study. Diagram. Provided by Author.
3
List of Figures (continued)
Figure 60: Entry Foyer Area Case Study 3. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 61: Entry Foyer Area Case Study 4. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 62: Entry Foyer Area Case Study 5. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 63: Minimum Entry Foyer Area. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 64: Breakfast Analysis. Diagram. Provided by Author. Insight gained from Residential Interior Design: A Guide to Planning Spaces by Maureen Mitton.
Figure 65: Breakfast Area by Case Study. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 66: Breakfast Area Case Study 3. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 67: Breakfast Area Case Study 4. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 68: Breakfast Area Case Study 5. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 69: Minimum Breakfast Area. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 70: Laundry Room Analysis. Diagram. Provided by Author. Insight gained
from Residential Interior Design: A Guide to Planning Spaces by Maureen Mitton.
Figure 71: Laundry Room Area by Case Study. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 72: Laundry Room Area Case Study 3. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 73: Laundry Room Area Case Study 4. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 74: Laundry Room Area Case Study 5. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 75: Minimum Laundry Room Area. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 76: Master Bathroom Analysis. Diagram. Provided by Author. Insight gained from Residential Interior Design: A Guide to Planning Spaces by Maureen Mitton.
List of Figures (continued)
Figure 77: Master Bathroom Area by Case Study. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 78: Master Bathroom Area Case Study 3. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 79: Master Bathroom Area Case Study 4. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 80: Master Bathroom Area Case Study 5. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 81: Minimum Master Bathroom Area. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 82: Master Bathroom Analysis. Diagram. Provided by Author. Insight gained from Residential Interior Design: A Guide to Planning Spaces by Maureen Mitton.
Figure 83: Master Bathroom Area by Case Study. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 84: Master Bathroom Area Case Study 3. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 85: Master Bathroom Area Case Study 4. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 86: Master Bathroom Area Case Study 5. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 87: Minimum Master Bathroom Area. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 88: Master Closet Analysis. Diagram. Provided by Author. Insight gained from Residential Interior Design: A Guide to Planning Spaces by Maureen Mitton.
Figure 89: Master Closet Area by Case Study. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 90: Master Closet Area Case Study 3. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 91: Master Closet Area Case Study 4. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 92: Master Closet Area Case Study 5. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 93: Minimum Master Closet Area. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 94: Bedroom Analysis. Diagram. Provided by Author. Insight gained from Residential Interior Design: A Guide to Planning Spaces by Maureen Mitton.
4
List of Figures (continued)
Figure 95: Bedroom Area by Case Study. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 96: Bedroom Area Case Study 3. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 97: Bedroom Area Case Study 4. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 98: Bedroom Area Case Study 5. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 99: Minimum Bedroom Area. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 100: Reach-In Analysis. Diagram. Provided by Author. Insight gained from Residential Interior Design: A Guide to Planning Spaces by Maureen Mitton.
Figure 101: Reach-In Area by Case Study. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 102: Reach-In Area Case Study 3. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 103: Reach-In Area Case Study 4. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 104: Reach-In Area Case Study 5. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 105: Minimum Reach-In Area. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 106: Walk-In Analysis. Diagram. Provided by Author. Insight gained from Residential Interior Design: A Guide to Planning Spaces by Maureen Mitton.
Figure 107: Walk-In Area by Case Study. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 108: Walk-In Area Case Study 3. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 109: Walk-In Area Case Study 4. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 110: Walk-In Area Case Study 5. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 111: Minimum Walk-In Area. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 112: Powder Room Analysis. Diagram. Provided by Author. Insight gained from Residential Interior Design: A Guide to Planning Spaces by Maureen Mitton.
List of Figures (continued)
Figure 113: Powder Room Area by Case Study. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 114: Powder Room Area Case Study 3. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 115: Powder Room Area Case Study 4. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 116: Powder Room Area Case Study 5. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 117: Minimum Powder Room Area. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 118: Full Bathroom Analysis. Diagram. Provided by Author. Insight gained from Residential Interior Design: A Guide to Planning Spaces by Maureen Mitton.
Figure 119: Full Bathroom Area by Case Study. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 120: Full Bathroom Area Case Study 3. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 121: Full Bathroom Area Case Study 4. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 122: Full Bathroom Area Case Study 5. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 123: Minimum Full Bathroom Area. Diagram. Provided by Author. Insight gained from Residential Interior Design: A Guide to Planning Spaces by Maureen Mitton.
Figure 124: Establishing Case Study Excess Square Footage. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 125: Energy Expenditures by Housing Characteristic. Graphic Text. Provided by Author. <http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2009/>.
Figure 126: Energy Expenditures by Case Study. Graphic Text. Provided by Author.
Figure 127: Energy Savings Based on Excess SF. Chart. Provided by Author.
Figure 128: Aerial View of Site Neighborhood. Photograph. <http://gis.auglaizecounty.org/auglaizegis/>.
5
List of Figures (continued)
Figure 129: Priorities in Deciding Where to Live. Graphic Text. Provided by Author. Information from 2013 National Association of Realtors Community Preference Survey.
Figure 130: Site Demographics. Diagram. Provided by Author. <http://www.minsteroh.com/econ-development/minster-data>.
Figure 131: School Ratings. Diagram. Provided by Author. <http://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/ohio/districts/minster-local/minster-jrsr-high-school-15427>.
Figure 132: Local Architects do not Advertise Residential Services. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 133: Local Weather and Climate. Diagram. Provided by Author. <http://www.minsteroh.com/econ-development/local-weather-and-climate>.
Figure 134: Average Temperatures by Month. Diagram. Provided by Author. <http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/graph/45865>.
Figure 135: Average Precipitation by Month. Diagram. Provided by Author. <http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/graph/45865>.
Figure 136: Sun Path Diagram. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 137: Neighborhood Growth Analysis Period 1. Diagram. Provided by Author. <http://gis.auglaizecounty.org/auglaizegis/>.
Figure 138: Neighborhood Growth Analysis Period 2. Diagram. Provided by Author. <http://gis.auglaizecounty.org/auglaizegis/>.
Figure 139: Neighborhood Growth Analysis Period 3. Diagram. Provided by Author. <http://gis.auglaizecounty.org/auglaizegis/>.
Figure 140: Neighborhood Growth Analysis Period 4. Diagram. Provided by Author. <http://gis.auglaizecounty.org/auglaizegis/>.
Figure 141: Neighborhood Growth Analysis Period 5. Diagram. Provided by Author. <http://gis.auglaizecounty.org/auglaizegis/>.
List of Figures (continued)
Figure 142: Select Total Worth. Chart. Provided by Author. <http://gis.auglaizecounty.org/auglaizegis/>.
Figure 143: Select Square Footage. Chart. Provided by Author. <http://gis.auglaizecounty.org/auglaizegis/>.
Figure 144: Evaluated First Floor Plan. Document. Provided by Cara Meyer. Grey overlay provided by author.
Figure 145: Proposed First Floor Plan. Drawing. Provided by Author.
Figure 146: Evaluated Second Floor Plan. Document. Provided by Cara Meyer. Grey overlay provided by author.
Figure 147: Proposed Second Floor Plan. Drawing. Provided by Author.
Figure 148: Evaluated South Elevation. Document. Provided by Cara Meyer.
Figure 149: Proposed South Elevation. Drawing. Provided by Author.
Figure 150: Evaluated East Elevation. Document. Provided by Cara Meyer.
Figure 151: Proposed East Elevation. Drawing. Provided by Author.
Figure 152: Evaluated North Elevation. Document. Provided by Cara Meyer.
Figure 153: Proposed North Elevation. Drawing. Provided by Author.
Figure 154: Evaluated West Elevation. Document. Provided by Cara Meyer.
Figure 155: Proposed West Elevation. Drawing. Provided by Author.
Figure 156: Site Plan. Drawing. Provided by Author.
Figure 157: Lot Plan. Drawing. Provided by Author.
Figure 158: Square Footage Evaluated. Graphic Text. Provided by Author.
Figure 159: Square Footage Proposed. Graphic Text. Provided by Author.
6
List of Figures (continued)
Figure 160: Resulting Differences. Graphic Text. Provided by Author.
Figure 161: Resulting Relationships. Graphic Text. Provided by Author.
Figure 162: Equivalent Houses by way of Area Reduction. Diagram. Provided by Author.
Figure 163: Vignette A. Photograph. <http://www.houzz.com/photos/242367/Residences-in-DeBordieu-Colony--Georgetown--SC-beach-style-entry-charleston>.
Figure 164: Vignette B. Photograph. <http://www.houzz.com/photos/622268/Farinelli-Construction-Inc-traditional-hall-other-metro>.
Figure 165: Vignette C. Photograph. <http://www.houzz.com/photos/122439/Kids-Workspace-Office-transitional-kids-grand-rapids>.
Figure 166: Vignette D. Photograph. <http://www.houzz.com/photos/798227/Lottery-Home-2011---the-Mackenzie-transitional-laundry-room-edmonton>.
Figure 167: Vignette E. Photograph. <http://www.houzz.com/photos/445033/Gabriel-Builders-eclectic-family-room-other-metro>.
Figure 168: Vignette F. Photograph. <http://www.houzz.com/photos/445027/Gabriel-Builders-eclectic-family-room-other-metro>.
Figure 169: Front View of Proposed House. Rendering. Provided by Author.
Figure 170: Back View of Proposed House. Rendering. Provided by Author.
Figure 171: Building Section 1. Drawing. Provided by Author.
Figure 172: Building Section 2. Drawing. Provided by Author.
Figure 173: Wall Section Detail. Drawing. Provided by Author.
Figure 174: Final Presentation Boards. Image. Provided by Author.
7 Exposing a Naive Dream
ThesisAbstract
8Thesis Abstract
Exposing ANaive Dream
Jodie R. Quinter
May 2014
This thesis addresses the diminishing capacity of the architect in today’s
homebuilding industry by exposing their historical, environmental, and
psychological significance, resulting in a reevaluation of the traditional
paradigms of residential design, and the revelation of the architect’s role
in this process.
9 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 1
Establishing the Problem
CONTEX TUAL RESEARCH
10Establishing the Problem | Contextual Research
The following contextual research works towards an understanding of
how the contemporary single-family home environment has escalated
into what can be seen lining the streets of America today, and seeks to
establish the flaws associated with this development.
1
11 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 1
12Establishing the Problem | Contextual Research
Although noble in intention, the response to the housing
crisis following World War II, which resulted in the mass
production of uninspired single-family homes, has
escalated into modern day “suburbia.” The result is a lack of
customization in the homebuilding industry, which misleads
most to assume that the architect no longer has a vital role in
the design and construction process. While modern homes
are filled with innovative objects, the cookie cutter makeup
of the home itself has yet to be reinvented to reflect the way
we really live in a more progressive and less formal society.
As the homebuilding industry experiences a brief pause
between a recession and a comeback, we find ourselves with
the unique opportunity to rethink the results of the suburban
era and transform the archetype of the single-family home
with adaptable, efficient and innovative concepts. It is time
to evaluate the absence of thought and self-discovery in
the current homebuilding industry and create innovative,
functional, and responsible residences, rather than icons of
stature.
With headlines such as “The Architecture Meltdown”1 and
“Want a Job? Go to College, and Don’t Major in Architecture”2,
the apparent decline in the relevance of the architecture
profession is no secret. Historically esteemed as professionals
alongside doctors and lawyers, architects seem to be losing
grip on their purpose in the building industry and, thus,
their significance to society. The collapse of employment
within the field affirms this notion. In 2009, Norman Foster
laid off over a quarter of his staff. Gensler, one of the largest
architecture firms in the United States, followed suit, laying
off 750 of approximately 3000 employees, or roughly 25%.3
If firms of the stature of Foster and Gensler cannot maintain
their historical levels of work, surely this problem has
escalated from theoretical to practical. As the construction
industry begins to gain pace and the recent economic
recession dissolves into history the question arises: how can
1 Timberg
2 Rampbell
3 Ibid.
13 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 1
14Establishing the Problem | Contextual Research
architects reestablish their relevance to society, and progress
forward with the rest of the building industry?
The present-day foreclosure crisis has exposed the flaws of
current housing trends, particularly in relationship to the
single-family home, revealing “a preponderance of houses
that are oversized and poorly designed.”4 Throughout history,
architects have found designing the single-family home
appealing due to it’s potential to serve as a testing ground
for innovation and design ideas, as it is small enough in scale
to experiment without the potential ramifications associated
with the clientele of larger civic and commercial projects.
Perhaps the silver lining of the prevailing foreclosure crisis
is that with an increased public awareness of the negative
outcomes of current residential design trends there is a clear
path for architects to prove their relevance in the building
industry, using the single-family home as the testing ground.
4 McGuigan
One may argue that the single-family home is too facile to
make apparent to the general public the significance of the
architecture profession. It is not the genre of architecture
that is continually appearing on magazine covers, or the
type that is drawing tourists from across the globe. However,
if one evaluates the type of architecture that truly comes
to the forefront with respect to its impact on our personal
lives, it will undoubtedly be that with which we are most
familiar with in the every day. The buildings in which we
live stimulate us on a daily basis; they tell us the most about
who we are, and who we aspire to be. Our homes offer
the most personal aspect of architecture we will likely ever
come into contact with. While “there is much more to say
about a great cathedral than about a generic shed… [The
likes of the shed] have a much greater impact on how we
live than a distant cathedral.”5 The single-family home, with
the detriment brought onto its make up through current
design practices, needs crucial attention. Revolutionizing the
5 Goldberger
15 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 1
Figure 1: Geo F. Barber & Co. Catalog Page Figure 2: Sears Roebuck Catalog Page
16Establishing the Problem | Contextual Research
seemingly irrelevant role of the architect in home design and
construction processes provides a large-scale opportunity
to reestablish the importance of the profession in the
building industry. Public esteem for physicians evolved out
of the relationship individuals have with their own doctor,
not a doctor they see on the television or read about in the
newspaper. So too can public esteem for architects evolve
out of the intimate process of home design.
Architecture is rooted in the necessity of protecting humans
from the natural elements of this world. The home, specifically,
cultivated out of the basic notion of providing shelter. While
contemporary homes serve this fundamental purpose, it is
difficult to comprehend how the often inefficient, grandiose,
and expansive modern home evolved out of these primitive
notions. In order to discern how the home of the future can
be redefined, one must first understand how the current
middle to upper class housing market has escalated into what
can be seen lining the streets of America today, and establish
the flaws associated with this development.
The majority of present-day homes undoubtedly find roots
in the concept of catalog homes. Companies such as Sears
Roebuck and Geo. F. Barber and Co. could not have foreseen
the effects of their business strategy on current day housing
trends at their inception. Rather, these companies were
simply using media, through the form of catalogs and the
mail, to reach a broader public in remote areas as a part of
their business plan. In fact, an evaluation of early catalog
homes by these two companies presents a vast amount of
architectural integrity. Their contribution to today’s problems
lies in the fact that “eventually, [their] catalog cousins, were
not motivated by grand architectural visions, but were
rational consumer choices based upon the perceived value of
the design for the cost incurred.”6 A brief discussion of Geo. F.
Barber and Co. of Knoxville, Tennessee serves as testimony to
this idea.
6 Alcorn
17 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 1
Figure 3: Levittown, New York
18Establishing the Problem | Contextual Research
Catalogs of Geo. F. Barber and Co. provided over 20,000
sets of house plans ranging in cost from $600 to $14,000
to clients across the entire United States, with the majority
falling into a price range slightly above the average cost of
the American home at that time.7 Due to the nature of the
catalog as the primary source of advertising these homes to
the masses, the Barber company was limited in its ability to
convey architectural ideas, and instead had to target their
potential clients in a manner in which they would personally
understand; through photos, renderings, and text.
This marketing method, rather unintentionally, fostered a
focus among clients on the external appearance of the
house. Thus, the single-family home evolved into an object
that existed primarily to be admired by others from the
exterior, losing focus on the practical applications of the
interior. Ironically, the Barber firm and its counterparts
at the time promoted the attributes of professionally
7 Alcorn
designed architecture without realizing they were laying
the groundwork for exactly the opposite approach in the
future. While these model homes were successful in fulfilling
their purpose initially, the post-World War II housing boom
exploded their use during the 1940s and 1950s, perpetually
changing American expectations for the single-family home.8
Not surprisingly, the number of homes in the United States
did not increase significantly during World War II with
American resources focused elsewhere. As thousands of men
began to return home, the demand for housing increased
quickly and profoundly. The GI Bill made the dream of private
homeownership a conceivable reality for veterans in the
postwar era, ultimately triggering the rapid construction of
thousands of homes throughout the United States.9 Entire
neighborhoods, such as Levittown in New York, were created
as a result. As “custom-built” homes became obtainable to the
8 Wallack
9 Ibid.
19 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 1
Figure 4: GE Advertisement Figure 5: Saturday Evening Post Figure 6: The New Yorker
20Establishing the Problem | Contextual Research
general public on a large scale for the first time, the fruition of
the American Dream into a “Dream House” became a reality.
Almost all attribute the same principles to the concept of the
American Dream. The dream is a desire for personal fulfillment
and social advancement. It is individualized, proprietary, and
promises reward for pursuits in life. With the cessation of
the war approaching in the mid-1940s, the “Dream House”
ideal began to be “defined in terms of a detached, suburban,
single-nuclear-family house as an expectation to which GIs
and their families could justifiably look forward to after years
of separation, privation and loss.”10 This materialization of the
American Dream is foundational in the evolution of the way in
which homes are designed and built today.
The success of model homes during the postwar era caught
the attention of various manufacturers across the country,
acknowledging the desires of the new consumer economy.
10 Archer
Capitalizing on this, the single-family home quickly became
an advertising tool for contemporary technologies and
controllable environments. “Not only would manufacturers
of building materials prosper, but houses designed
and equipped to hold an array of new appliances from
dishwashers and disposals to air conditioning and television,
would mean rapid expansion of sales for those manufacturers
as well.”11 At this time, the increasing infatuation of Americans
to innovate objects within their home while neglecting
aspirations to evolve the composition of the home itself
became apparent. According to William J. Levitt, the American
real-estate developer responsible for the aforementioned
Levittown, “The best way to build a house is first to make sure
it’s designed for better living, electrically!”12 With the ability
to control the coffee maker from the bedroom and operate
drapes via a switch, the “All-Electric House” in suburban Kansas
City, which drew over 62,000 visitors to its facility in the 1950s,
11 Ibid.
12 Ibid.
21 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 1
22Establishing the Problem | Contextual Research
demonstrates this shift in societal ambitions in America.13
The proliferation of model homes and technology in the
postwar era is directly related to the increasingly privatized,
self-contained, and controllable domestic environments we
see in single-family homes throughout America today. The
heightened reliance on the automobile at this time only
furthered the expanse of suburban neighborhoods, allowing
people to live in areas ever more distant from city centers.
The American home became progressively centered around
the automobile, with no adaptations to its overall make up
to account for these changes. While it is understandable that
veterans sought refuge and solitude in their homes following
World War II, it is the resulting attitude shift that accounts
for the inwardly focused home designs we see today, which
inherently disengage dwellers from their community, turning
their backs on the world as they hide in their suburban
mansion.
13 Wallack
The expeditious production of homes in the post-World
War II era set the stage for the departure of personal
involvement with an architect in the home design process,
and it has remained relatively the same since. Regardless,
“the dream remains one of the principal reigning paradigms
which American society projects personal success and self-
fulfillment,” and Americans today continue to turn to the
private dwelling in hopes of pursuing their own American
Dream.14
The composition of suburban residences has been rising in
square footage for decades, despite the fact that the average
size of the single family is decreasing. According to the United
States Census Bureau, the average size of a single-family
house built in 2012 was 2,505 square feet, compared to 1,525
square feet in 1973 or 1,905 square feet in 1990.15 In addition,
the average population per household in the United States
14 Archer
15 US Census Bureau
23 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 1
Figure 7: Brick Front with Vinyl Siding
24Establishing the Problem | Contextual Research
has decreased over an entire person in the last sixty-five years,
currently sized at 2.55 persons per household compared to
3.67 of 1948.16
The term “McMansion” has come to apply to these homes
of excessive volume, as “they are often generic in style,
packed close together on postage stamp-sized lots and
built quickly—much like the fast-food delivery style name
suggests.”17 One can likely envision exactly the type of house
referenced due to the fact that technology, transportation,
and mass production have fostered a homogenous nature
in the construction of similar developments throughout the
entire country. These homes are frequently alike in color and
material, with the largest “room” in the house often being the
garage, reaffirming the value of the automobile in today’s
society. In order to maximize square footage, architectural
details suffer. A recently built home which features brick on
16 “American Households...”
17 Smith
the front, and vinyl siding wrapped around the remaining,
non-street front facades in order to conserve cost is
commonplace in American communities today. This design
affirms the concept that the only concern of the home of
today is how it appears to others from the street.
Developers and builders make these sacrifices in order to
maximize square footage and internal area, as prospective
homeowners are shopping for size, not design. The common
priority of the modern home is that it reflects the owners
overall economic status. In essence, what we see lining the
streets of America today can be classified in style as “generic
homes of wealthy people.”18
In basic principal, homogeneity should not be seen entirely
as a negative aspect of architecture. If every building on
every street were radically different, the effect would
be overbearing. Complacency in architecture allows for
“foreground buildings” and “background buildings,” and when
18 Susanka, Not So Big House
25 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 1
Figure 8: Aerial View of a Suburb
26Establishing the Problem | Contextual Research
both are present on a street, it provides visual stimulus to
the backdrop of our lives without being overwhelming.19
However, if a street is entirely composed of background
buildings, or buildings that are all very similar, their presence
can no longer be noticed. This is the case in many residential
neighborhoods today. People tend to be conservative,
seeking comfort in the familiar and desiring what has already
been done. Because of this, it is no surprise that they yearn
for their homes to be consistent with the designs presented
by their neighbors, having “no hope of owning a home any
different than the others around them.”20 When this notion is
multiplied several times within the confines of a small area, as
it is in many residential neighborhoods throughout America
today, no foreground buildings exist, ultimately resulting in
the dull nature of the majority of modern day suburbs. When
this concept is applied to the present day single-family home,
the problem is compounded, as what was there initially is
19 Goldberger
20 Wentling
a cookie cutter home, a result of mass production and a
postwar mindset, which is not efficient or reflective of the
way we really live.
Instead of truly evaluating what is needed in the house of
today, homebuilders add on rooms to a preexisting, outdated
formula. For example, some common features of today’s
McMansion include a home theater, a private office, a hobby
room, and a personal gym. All are rooms that would not have
been commonly placed in a home fifty years ago, increasingly
privatizing daily life through the inclusion of all entertainment
activities within the home. In addition, these homes still host
an array of historically typical features such as a grand entry
foyer and a formal dining room. The result is homes full of
spaces that are infrequently used and not reflective of the
way we live today. While society has become progressively
informal compared to that of the past, more formal spaces
continue to remain in the program of our homes simply
because no one really seems to question their use.
27 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 1
Figure 10: Informal DiningFigure 9: Formal Dining
28Establishing the Problem | Contextual Research
How often do the majority of families today sit down and eat
in the formal dining room? How many times on a daily basis
does one experience the grand entry foyer, or even use the
front door in this automobile driven society? Which of the
images to the left is a more familiar experience? “While we’ve
been busy evolving over the past century, most of our houses
have not. Their evolution has been constricted by outdated
notions of what we think we need and what the real estate
industry says we need for resale.”211It is time to evaluate the
amount of space in today’s McMansions that is no longer
used.
As homes are dehumanized by becoming larger and larger
and yet less reflective of daily behavior, the purpose of
building a house is quickly lost. A home should be built with
the intent to provide a sanctuary and a functional place
to exist on a daily basis. A home is likely to be the most
expensive item one will ever purchase. Why then is there
21 Susanka, Not So Big House
contentment with simply copying what is next door without
evaluating what it is needed to find personal comfort and
efficiency in home design? “It may come as no surprise that
only 2% of new-home buyers work directly with an architect
to design the space in which they live.”22 Assuredly, this is
due to a lack of understanding by the general public of the
benefits the tasks of an architect can provide in relationship
to the design and construction of a home. Increasingly
common suburban homes and the current foreclosure crisis
offer distinct evidence of the flaws of current home design
and construction practices, commonly undertaken without
the presence of an architect. Despite this, there is a failure
to question this process by the public, simply because of a
fundamental lack of knowledge. Therefore, “it is the architect’s
task, not the public’s, to present the reasons that design can
help.”24 3
22 Bell
23 Susanka, Not So Big House
24 McGuigan
29 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 1
Figure 11: The American Dream is Over
30Establishing the Problem | Contextual Research
People will always need houses. According to a 2011 survey
by the National Association of Realtors, 8 out of 10 Americans
desire to live in a single-family detached house.25 1The single-
family home of the future has the potential to set an example
for other forms of architecture to emulate in an attempt
to salvage the American Dream in light of recent political,
economic, and environmental crises. “Good architecture—
whether for private clients or developers—can bring to
the contemporary home sustainability, economy, and
flexibility, as well as sensitivity to place. And isn’t that what
the American Dream should be all about?”26 Emphasized
by American architect Robert Venturi, “The architect’s ever
diminishing power and growing ineffectualness in shaping
the whole environment can perhaps be reversed, ironically,
by narrowing his concerns and concentrating on his own
job.”272How can the relevance of the architect be regained?
It’s simple. Build better buildings. Nowhere is there a greater
25 McGuigan
26 Goldberger
or more widespread opportunity to capitalize on this than
in building better homes. “Home is an invention on which
no one has yet improved,” and it’s time for architects to
get involved.283 “When we have what the ‘Jonses’ have, we
experience firsthand the inadequacy of the dream.”29 4
27 Susanka, Not So Big House
28 Ibid.
31 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 1
Notes
1 Timberg, Scott. “The Architecture Meltdown.” Salon, February 4, 2012. http://www.salon.com/2012/02/04/the_architecture_meltdown/.
2 Rampell, Catherine. “Want a Job? Go to College, and Don’t Major in Architecture.” The New York Times, January 5, 2012. http://economix. blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/want-a-job-go-to-college-and-dont- major-in-architecture/.
3 Ibid.
4 McGuigan, Cathleen. “House Proud.” Architectural Record, April 2012. http://archrecord.construction.com/community/editorial/2012/1204. asp.
5 Goldberger, Paul. Why Architecture Matters. (Yale University Press, 2011), 3.
6 Alcorn, Michael. “Catalog Castles.” Journal of American Culture 20, no. 3 (Autumn 1997): 1.
7 Ibid., 1-2.
8 Wallack, Catherine. “Dream Home: Remodeling American Expectations with Model Houses.” Journal of American Culture 32, no. 4 (December 2009), 332.
9 Ibid., 332.
10 Archer, John. Architecture and Suburbia: From English Villa to Amercan Dream House, 1690-2000. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2005), 272.
11 Ibid., 270.
12 Ibid., 278.
13 Wallack, “Dream Home: Remodeling American Expectations with Model Houses,” 337.
14 Archer, John. Architecture and Suburbia: From English Villa to Ameican Dream House, 1690-2000, 289.
15 US Census Bureau, M. C. D. “Characteristics of New Housing.” Accessed October 18, 2013. http://www.census.gov/construction/chars/highl lights.html.
16 “American Households Are Getting Smaller – And Headed by Older Adults.” Marketing Charts. Accessed October 18, 2013. http://www. marketingcharts.com/wp/topics/demographics/american-house holds-are-getting-smaller-and-headed-by-older-adults-24981/.
17 Smith, Lisa. “McMansion: A Closer Look at the Big House Trend.” In vestopedia, February 26, 2009. http://www.investopedia.com/articles/ pf/07/mcmansion.asp.
18 Susanka, Sarah. The Not So Big House: A Blueprint for the Way We Really Live. (Newtown, CT; [Emeryville, CA]: Taunton Press ; Distributed by Publishers Group West, 1998), 20.
19 Goldberger, Why Architecture Matters, 221.
20 Wentling, James. Designing a Place Called Home: Reordering the Suburbs. 1 edition. (Springer, 1994), 34.
21 Susanka, The Not So Big House: A Blueprint for the Way We Really Live, 31.
22 Bell, Bryan. Good Deeds, Good Design: Community Service through Architecture. 1 edition. (Princeton Architectural Press, 2003), fourth cover.
23 Ibid., 13.
24 McGuigan, Cathleen. “House Proud.” Architectural Record, April 2012. http://archrecord.construction.com/community/editorial/2012/1204. asp.
25 Ibid.
32Establishing the Problem | Contextual Research
Notes (continued)
26 Goldberger, Why Architecture Matters, 36.
27 Susanka, The Not So Big House: A Blueprint for the Way We Really Live, 101.
28 Ibid., 184.
33 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 2
Providing Factual Suppor t
CONCEPTUAL RESEARCH
2
The following addresses the flaws established as a result of contextual
research regarding the American single-family home environment, and
evaluates these issues statistically in an effort to determine the validity of
such conclusions by way of factual support.
34Providing Factual Support | Conceptual Research
35 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 2
The idolatry of starchitects has made it seem like architecture is only for exceptional buildings. Architecture is perceived as a luxury good. It can be, but it’s not only that. —Scott Timberg
Figure 12: Zaha Hadid’s Beko Building in Belgrade
36Providing Factual Support | Conceptual Research
Present day architects are generally viewed by the greater
public as a luxury involving additional cost which most
perceive to be uneconomical in the design and construction
of their homes. Because of this, the mind of a potential
homebuyer often finds itself caught somewhere between
affordable mediocrity and unattainable fantasy when
considering purchasing or building a home.1 The common
misperception that architects are out of economic reach
for the majority of society directly results in the expanse
of mass production housing that can be seen throughout
America today. Our homes, likely our most expensive and
intimate possession, have “our lowest expectations for
personal fulfillment” and “the simple reason for this misfit is
cost.”2 Today’s homebuyers frequently allow up-front costs to
outweigh all other considerations.
Why then would potential clients involve the additional
1 Dickinson
2 Ibid.
charge of an architect when they can purchase and
complacently live with a plan-book home design that
maximizes the largest square footage their budget can afford?
Benefits such as low interest rates and mortgage interest
tax deductions have made it possible for homeowners to
invest more money towards building the home of their
dreams. Rather than investing these additional funds toward
architectural quality, homebuyers instead often trade up
for a larger home, ultimately obtaining an object that they
cannot really afford.3 Certainly the general public does
not understand the benefits the services of an architect
can provide in relation to single-family home design and
construction, and are unable to distinguish the architect’s
value in this process enough to justify the “added” cost.
The general public cannot be held entirely responsible
for misunderstanding the value an architect can add to
the homebuilding process. While most architects are
3 Gauer and Tighe
37 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 2
Figure 13: Single-Family Home Construction
33%
2%OF NEW HOME-BUYERS
WORK DIRECTLY WITH AN ARCHITECT
TO DESIGN THEIR HOME
LOST OPPORTU
NITY
SINGLE-FAMILY HOMECONSTRUCTION:
OVERALL WORKVALUE IN THE
CONSTRUCTIONSECTOR
SUBURB
RURAL AREA
currently living in a city, but would prefer to live in...
currently living in a suburb, but would prefer to live in...
currently living in a rural area, but would prefer to live in...
58% 25% 17%
12%
10% 15% 75%
70% 18%
LIVING PREFERENCE:
CITY
38Providing Factual Support | Conceptual Research
certainly willing to establish the flaws associated with
suburban developments from the outside, there is a lack of
involvement in addressing the future of such developments
in architectural education, and a general failure by the
profession to assess the ways in which an architect’s services
can benefit the design and construction of the single-family
home. It seems as though the architectural profession feels
that suburban developments are out of their domain of
practice and essentially “are places not worth caring about.”4
Through current practices associated with non-monumental
buildings, with suburban residences falling into this
architectural category, architects are portraying a disregard for
the well-being of society, and sending the general message of
“we don’t give a fuck” according to James Kunstler.5
The following statistics validate this premise. Single-family
home construction accounts for nearly one-third of the
4 James Howard Kunstler
5 James Howard Kunstler
overall work value in the United States construction sector
each year.6 Despite its substantiality as a significant economic
activity, architects are generally uninvolved in single-family
home design, working directly with homebuyers on only
2% of new homes constructed, with suburban residences
continuing to comprise the majority of American homes
being built each year.7 The adjusted statistic that results
is a total of 32.3%, or nearly one-third, of the overall
construction value in the United States being constructed
each year with no immediate participation by an architect
as a direct outcome of current homebuilding trends. This
reality reflects a staggering amount of wasted opportunity
by the architectural profession in general in regards to their
prominence in involvement in the design and construction of
the built environment as a whole.
In addition, despite rumors of projected urbanization in the
6 “Analysis of the Life Cycle Impacts…”
7 Bell
39 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 2
33%
2%OF NEW HOME-BUYERS
WORK DIRECTLY WITH AN ARCHITECT
TO DESIGN THEIR HOME
LOST OPPORTU
NITY
SINGLE-FAMILY HOMECONSTRUCTION:
OVERALL WORKVALUE IN THE
CONSTRUCTIONSECTOR
SUBURB
RURAL AREA
currently living in a city, but would prefer to live in...
currently living in a suburb, but would prefer to live in...
currently living in a rural area, but would prefer to live in...
58% 25% 17%
12%
10% 15% 75%
70% 18%
LIVING PREFERENCE:
CITY
Figure 14: Living Preference Survey
40Providing Factual Support | Conceptual Research
United States, a 2013 survey conducted by the National
Association of Realtors revealed that the desire by the
general public to live in single-family detached homes in
suburban and rural neighborhoods is not fading. In fact, more
Americans prefer this type of dwelling condition than live
there currently, indicating a prevailing system composed of a
flawed housing model commonly designed and constructed
with no contribution by an architect.8 As a result, the reality
is affirmed that suburbia is not going away. Therefore, a
necessity of involvement by the architecture profession
in shaping the future of such developments is critical not
only to the ability of the profession to capitalize on wasted
work opportunity in order to regain prominence in the
building industry, but also to ensure a responsibly configured
suburban paradigm of the future.
The challenges facing society today in regards to current
home design and construction practices are uniquely
8 “National Community Preference Survey”
American; a direct result of reliance on the automobile in
addition to wagering too heavily on the suburban dream.9
It is time for architects and the general public to look more
closely at the ways in which homes and neighborhoods
are constructed, and address how they can be improved
in order for the planet to return to balance.10 Nowhere is
there a greater opportunity to capitalize on this than by
combating the problems presented by suburbia, “the greatest
misallocation of resources in the history of the world.”11 It is
time the American Dream is taken a little more seriously by
creating places worth caring about and fighting for.
While being “less bad” never provides an ultimate solution,
marginal changes to the main component of a failing system
when working together provide an opportunity to achieve
greater results. Because of this, it is essential that the single-
9 “Who Cares About the ‘Burbs’?”
10 Susanka, Not So Big House
11 James Howard Kunstler
41 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 2
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100 2110
22%
RES
IDEN
TIA
L
19% COMMERCIAL
ENERGY CONSUMPTION
BY SECTOR.
29% TRANSPORTATION
30% INDUSTRIAL
40% BUILDINGS
26.6%
15.8%
13.2%
10.0%
6.3%4.8%4.6%2.6%2.5%
13.5%
space heating
space cooling
water heating
lighting
refrigerationelectronicswet cleaningcookingcomputers
others
Figure 16: Energy Consumption by Sector
Figure 15: Factor of 10
42Providing Factual Support | Conceptual Research
family detached home as an individual entity be addressed
as an outcome of its role as the primary component of this
inefficient, yet most desired by the general public, system. If
there is any hope of redefining these “automobile slums,”12
architects and society must work together to dissolve the
misunderstanding of the architect’s value in the design of
these homes and neighborhoods in order to foster better
development in the future; an endangered future that
hinges on the efficiency of the built environment with
unprecedented magnitude.
In order for human society to sustain itself into the next
century, the efficiency of the use of resources on this planet
will have to increase by a factor of ten.13 Few will argue that
one of the ways architects continue to remain relevant is
related to the resource consumption of the built
environment, particularly in relation to climate change
12 James Howard Kunstler
13 Guy, Rinker, and Gibeau
and the current issue of global warming. The building
sector in the United States is responsible for a majority of
the energy consumption by sector, exhausting over 75%
of all electricity produced by American power plants, in
addition to accounting for nearly one half of all greenhouse
gas emissions in America.14 Furthermore, construction
activities in the United States are directly responsible for the
consumption of 60% of the materials used in the US economy
each year, excluding food and fuel.15 These figures provide
clear evidence that it must be one of the highest priorities of
our time to improve the quality of the built environment in
order to combat these climate change related issues by way
of achieving increased levels of resource efficiency.
It is estimated that by the year 2035, over three-quarters
of the building stock in the United States will be new or
14 “AIA Sustainability 2030 Toolkit.”
15 Guy, Rinker, and Gibeau
43 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 2
BY THE YEAR 2035, 75% OF THE BUILDING STOCK IN THE UNITED STATES WILL EITHER BE RENEWED OR NEW CONSTRUCTION. THIS PRESENTS A HUGE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE AND FOR ARCHITECTS TO BE A PART OF THE SOLUTION
44Providing Factual Support | Conceptual Research
renewed construction.16 This projection makes apparent a
vast amount of potential for the architectural profession to
get involved in making a difference in working towards a
stable climatic future for the planet. Consequently, architects
inarguably continue to matter as a direct result of their
responsibilities to society that go beyond the design and
construction of even the most beautiful buildings.17
This notion of responsibly constructing the built environment
has come to be coined by society as “green” building. With
that title comes several implications placed onto the resulting
architecture by a somewhat resistive general public in regard
to this type of design and construction, particularly in relation
to single-family homes. Potential homebuyers often associate
applied technologies, such as solar panels or wind turbines,
as the only form of increasing the efficiency of the built
environment. This mode of thinking is directly responsible
16 “AIA Sustainability 2030 Toolkit.”
17 Goldberger
for the cautious attitude with which these homebuyers often
approach sustainable single-family home design concepts,
as Americans overwhelmingly desire to live in dwellings that
resemble the archetypal image of home, and therefore do
not associate these applied technologies with that vision. The
architectural profession understands that the same levels
of efficiency that can result from the use of technologies
such as solar panels and wind turbines can also be achieved
by integrating sustainable solutions during the design and
construction process, and can, therefore, be attained without
the home having to resemble something out of a science
fiction film.18 For this reason, seeking an accurate portrayal
of “green” building will often result in multiple perspectives
dependent of who is being asked.
There are several problems with the concept of branding
architecture as green, and, therefore, succumbing the
associated design and construction practices, and ultimately
18 Susanka, Not So Big House
45 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 2
NO.
NOFigure 17: “Green” House 1 Figure 18: “Green” House 2
NO.
NO
46Providing Factual Support | Conceptual Research
buildings, to the potential implications related to the term
by the general public. By labeling architecture as green, it
somehow legitimizes any other alternative mode of design
and construction, as if building insensibly should ever be
consciously acceptable.19 “In what universe did it ever make
sense to build a house that wasn’t energy efficient? Or where
the air inside wasn’t clean and free of mold? Or where the
detailing wasn’t carefully crafted to ensure that the building
would last?”20 Through gradual change over time, society has
moved away from historically sensible modes of crafting the
built environment, and, as a result, has become so accepting
of inefficient and low-quality construction methods and
materials that they have been forced to label what previously
was known as building with common sense as an entirely
new idea: green.
In addition, it should be noted that green is a completely
19 Ireton
20 Ibid.
relative concept.21 If a house is built to net-zero energy
building standards but remains filled with countless
unsustainable and irresponsibly manufactured products,
is it really green? It must be accepted that constructing,
inhabiting, and operating any building is not possible without
doing some level of harm to the planet. As a result, the
practice of building green comes to be a measure of how
much harm a building does, and the question becomes: at
what point in this quality curve can it officially be considered
green?22 In an attempt to answer this question, it is affirmed
that the concept of green is entirely comparative, and
consequently can be considered a notion that simply entails
doing less harm than is being done currently.
When stripped down to its basic meaning, the architecture
profession recognizes green building as that which is efficient;
a term defined as “capable of producing desired results
21 Ibid.
22 Ibid.
47 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 2
TOP 3 BARRIERS TO SUSTAINABLE DESIGN1 ADDS SIGNIFICANT COST TO A PROJECT2 LACK OF MARKET INTEREST3 HARD TO JUSTIFY...all based on perception of economics
48Providing Factual Support | Conceptual Research
without wasting materials, time, or energy.”231 In moving
forward with this investigation, the above definition of green
applies in all instances where the term is used, and will only
refer to design concepts that incorporate construction and
maintenance practices that conserve resources, perform
efficiently, and work towards the overall goal of significantly
reducing or eliminating any negative impacts on occupants
or the environment by way of their existence.242
Few will argue that the fundamental lack of quality in the
modern built environment can be directly attributed to
economic decision-making. Economic factors govern nearly
every decision in the planning and construction of the built
environment, resulting in the prevalence of low-quality
designs realized through inefficient and commonly mediocre,
yet inexpensive, construction methods that can be seen
throughout America today. Because of this, it comes as no
23 Dictionary
24 “AIA Sustainability 2030 Toolkit.”
surprise that the top three barriers to green design by the
general public are all based on perceptions of its
economics: “that it adds significant costs to a project, that
there is a lack of market interest, and that it is hard to justify,”
and therefore building sustainably is falsely perceived by
potential homebuyers as a luxurious mode of construction
that only the affluent can afford.251
This modern perception of green building is somewhat ironic
given the fact that historically it was the poorest people that
lived the most sustainably, while the wealthy were those who
could pay for the inefficiencies associated with superfluous
designs.262 Regardless, it is because of this economic mode
of thinking that society has unknowingly approved a
perception of the built environment whose quality tailors off
into an acceptance of increasingly uninspiring surroundings.
Therefore, despite the relativity of the term green, any positive
25 Pivo
26 Ireton
49 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 2
50Providing Factual Support | Conceptual Research
change demonstrates an attempt to reverse this negative
quality curve and salvage the efficiency and architectural
quality of the built environment.271 In order for the
architectural profession to successfully aid in the process
of achieving such changes, the fallacies behind the current
economic barriers associated with sustainable single-family
home design must first be exposed.
27 Sallette
51 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 2
Notes
1 Dickinson, Duo. House on a Budget. (Newtown, Connecticut: Taunton Press, 2007), 5.
2 Ibid., 10.
3 Gauer, James, and Catherine Tighe. The New American Dream: Living Well in Small Homes. First Edition. (New York, New York: Monacelli Press, 2004), 12.
4 Ibid., 12.
5 Timberg, Scott. “The Architecture Meltdown.” Salon, February 4, 2012. http://www.salon.com/2012/02/04/the_architecture_meltdown/.
6 “Analysis of the Life Cycle Impacts and Potential for Avoided Impacts Associated with Single-Family Homes.” United States Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/imr/cdm/pdfs/ sfhomes.pdf.
7 Bell, Bryan. Good Deeds, Good Design: Community Service through Architecture. (1 edition. Princeton Architectural Press, 2003), fourth cover.
8 “National Community Preference Survey.” National Association of Realtors, October 2013. http://www.realtor.org/sites/default/files/ reports/2013/2013-community-preference-analysis-slides.pdf.
9 “Who Cares About the ‘Burbs’?” Blog. OpenCity Projects, October 28, 2013. http://opencityprojects.com/blog/diversity/who-cares-about- the-burbs/.
10 Susanka, Sarah. The Not So Big House: A Blueprint for the Way We Really Live. (Newtown, CT; [Emeryville, CA]: Taunton Press ; Distributed by Publishers Group West, 1998), 184.
11 James Howard Kunstler: The Ghastly Tragedy of the Suburbs. TED Talks, 2004. http://www.ted.com/talks/james_howard_kunstler_dissects_ suburbia.html.
Notes
12 Ibid.
13 Guy, Bradley, M. E. Rinker, and Eleanor M. Gibeau. “A Guide to Deconstruction.” Deconstruction Institute, January 2003. http://www. deconstructioninstitute.com/files/learn_center/45762865_guidebook. pdf.
14 “AIA Sustainability 2030 Toolkit.” The American Institute of Architects. http://info.aia.org/toolkit2030/index.html.
15 Guy, Rinker, and Gibeau, “A Guide to Deconstruction.”
16 “AIA Sustainability 2030 Toolkit.”
17 Goldberger, Paul. Why Architecture Matters. (Yale University Press, 2011), 37.
18 Susanka, The Not So Big House: A Blueprint for the Way We Really Live, 183.
19 Ireton, Kevin. “Is Green Building Too Expensive?” Fine Homebuilding, April 16, 2008. http://www.finehomebuilding.com/how-to/depart ments/taking-issue/is-the-cost-of-green-building-too-expensive.aspx.
20 Ibid.
21 Ibid.
22 Ibid.
23 Dictionary, Merriam-Webster. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Massachusetts: Merriam-Webster, Inc., 2006.
24 “AIA Sustainability 2030 Toolkit.”
25 Pivo, Gary. “Promising Economics.” GreenTech. http://www.u.arizona .edu/~gpivo/ULI%20article.pdf.
26 Ireton, Kevin. “Is Green Building Too Expensive?”
52Providing Factual Support | Conceptual Research
Notes
27 Sallette, Marc A. “Design Values.” Urban Land. http://www.wbdg.org/ pdfs/urbanland_1105.pdf.
Notes (continued)
53 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 3
Assessing Inef f iciencies
CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT
3
The following assessment exposes the economic and environmental
deficiencies that come as a direct result of the inadequate life cycle of the
single-family home of today and a narrow perception of the term “cost”
by the general public.
54Assessing Inefficiencies | Concept Development
55 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 3
56Assessing Inefficiencies | Concept Development
It is not difficult to understand that the best way for potential
homebuyers to control the costs associated with building
their home is to be directly involved in the design process.
Despite being marketed by builders as “custom homes,” the
reality is that today most homebuyers are not truly involved
in composing the home of their dreams, and instead this
customization and personal involvement is being forged by
a variety of predetermined options that the client can then
tweak to suit their individual family’s needs. By essentially
removing themselves from having direct involvement in the
design process, potential homebuyers are blatantly ignoring
their largest opportunity to control the costs of their project,
and, therefore, do not truly comprehend or question all
of the ramifications associated with the cost, quality, and
quantity decisions being made as a result. Consequently,
today’s homebuyers are frequently unable to understand the
potential economic benefits that can result from sustainable
design solutions.
The common misconception by the general public that green
building is too expensive can be attributed to a very narrow
perspective of cost based only on the amount of money
required up-front to implement sustainable strategies such as
extra insulation, higher quality materials, or energy efficient
appliances.1 This limited focus ignores all other potential
financial rewards made possible through the implementation
of efficient design solutions by way of lower operation and
maintenance costs such as less frequent need for repairs
and replacements and a reduction in use of both water and
energy, ultimately resulting in considerably lower monthly
utility bills. In addition, a house that makes use of sustainable
strategies has the capability to maintain its level of quality
longer by being constructed as a well-crafted product, and
can therefore offer the initial homebuyer added market
value in an attempt for future resale. The results of a survey
conducted in 2006 which concluded that 86% of Americans
looking to purchase a home would select one option over
1 “Analysis of the Life Cycle Impacts...”
57 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 3
58Assessing Inefficiencies | Concept Development
another based solely on it’s energy efficiency confirms this
claim.2 This assertion becomes even more significant when
considering that this percentage will likely continue along
an upward trajectory given the fact that costs of energy
have consistently increased by 1-2% over inflation each year,
making the financial argument for green building an even
more convincing case.3
It is worth noting that this is not the first time in American
history that society has been encouraged to project future
return on investment in order to justify higher up-front
costs in regard to single-family home construction. With
assistance in enforcement by building codes and regulations,
the general public has already been made aware of several
design decisions that are beneficial to include when building
a single-family home, despite the fact that they add to
2 “AIA Sustainability 2030 Toolkit.”
3 American Institute of Architects
the initial cost of construction.4 For instance, Americans
understand the worth of creating foundations that extend
below the frost line, and the purpose of placing vent fan
systems in bathrooms in order to expel moisture.5 Both of
these examples require higher up-front costs when looked
at historically, yet society no longer questions their validity
as they have a clear understanding of the advantages
of incorporating these solutions into the design and
construction of their home. So too can the architectural
profession find success in facilitating the fabrication of a
more efficient residential building sector if they are able to
adequately make apparent to the general public the benefits
of the associated sustainable design solutions; benefits rooted
in economics, as cost trumps almost all other considerations
for potential homebuyers.
Perhaps it is their ability to pay for themselves that has caused
4 Bayer, Gamble, Gentry and Joshi
5 Ibid.
59 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 3
BUILT IN1998
$90,000ENERGY COSTS
$180,000REPLACEMENTS
$181,900PRICE OF HOME
20%
MORE THAN UP FRONT COST
Figure 19: Life Cycle Cost Study
60Assessing Inefficiencies | Concept Development
green design solutions to become somewhat of a victim of
their own success. When a payback period enters the picture,
expenditures become an investment rather than simply an
item of consumption. Consumers today are not concerned
with the return on their capital when purchasing something
luxurious such as a Mercedes or a yacht, yet they seem to
resist this principle when it comes to sustainable design.
The realization is that it is the ability of technologies such as
solar panels to offset up-front costs over a period of time that
has potential homebuyers solely focused on their financial
equation.6 Consequently, the public considers “an investment
in energy efficiency like any other investment. If the payback
on solar panels is fifteen years... but the same money invested
in the stock market would net a bigger return in fifteen years,
they buy stock.”7 The problem with this mode of thinking is
similar to that of the public’s perception of the term “green” in
6 Ireton
7 Ibid.
that it revolves around the concept of applied technologies
that can be added to a home that is already designed, rather
than consider solutions that can be realized through the
design process that result in inherent sustainability such as
capitalizing on site features, using higher quality materials,
and reducing overall square footage. As a result, this common
perspective on the economics of green building by the
general public is void in that it does not address an all-
encompassing vision of sustainable decision-making.
Society frequently only considers up-front costs as the total
valuation associated with purchasing a home. However, the
reality is that truly defining the “cost” of a home is a much
more complex and convoluted issue when looking at the
larger economic picture that comes as a result of owning
such an item. For example, if a price tag of $350,000 is agreed
upon at the point of sale is that the cost of the home? Or
is it the more than $796,000 you will potentially pay for this
61 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 3
IN AN ATTEMPT TO REDUCE INITIAL COSTS, HOMEBUILDERS AND CLIENTS ARE ACTUALLY CREATING THE GENESIS OF ECONOMICALLY FLAWED DECISION MAKING IN THE PROCESS OF DESIGNING AND CONSTRUCTING HOMES
62Assessing Inefficiencies | Concept Development
same purchase over a 30-year mortgage?8 In reality, this
difference in cost would be even more extreme if monthly
operating expenditures such as water and fuel bills were
taken into account. In fact, a 2010 study conducted by the
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality concluded
that the lifetime energy costs associated with operating
a home built in 1998 total approximately $90,000.9 This
study also demonstrated that the average lifetime costs
associated with replacements for that same home were
on the order of approximately $180,000.10 This combined
$270,000 expenditure that results from simply operating and
maintaining a 1998 home dwarfs the average initial cost of
a home in that same year: $181,900.11 When looked at from
this perspective, what does defining the “cost” of a home truly
entail?
8 Ireton.
9 “Analysis of the Life Cycle Impacts...”
10 Ibid.
11 “Median and Average Sales Prices...”
By focusing solely on up-front costs, homebuilders and clients
today are often ignoring the potential of the single-family
home to accrue savings through deliberate design decisions
that take into account future expenditures. Therefore, in an
attempt to reduce initial costs, homebuilders and clients are
actually creating the genesis of economically flawed decision
making in the process of designing and constructing these
homes.
Every decision made during the design process for a
building project has an impact on cost to some degree.12 By
projecting eventual expenses, such as monthly utility bills
or repairs, which will come as a result of these decisions,
architects and homebuyers are able to make increasingly
effective economic choices that have the ability to control
the inevitable costs associated with owning and operating
a single-family home. The process of assessing future
expenditures in order to sensibly evaluate competing
12 American Institute of Architects
63 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 3
64Assessing Inefficiencies | Concept Development
alternatives in validating a design solution based on its
economics is known as life cycle cost analysis. Life cycle cost
analysis provides a methodology to compare all possible
design solutions in a more holistic manner than is done
traditionally by bringing to the forefront issues such as
average lifespan, maintenance required, and energy efficiency,
eventually drawing financial conclusions based on this
evaluation.13 The consideration of both initial and prospective
costs associated with design decisions is crucial in reaching
the most economically effective solutions for potential
homebuyers in the process of designing their homes.
The economic capability of such an evaluation has been
highlighted by the sustainable movement as the associated
techniques often possess the power to considerably limit
future building expenditures.14
Despite the fact that several sustainable solutions often
13 American Institute of Architects
14 Ibid.
require higher up-front costs, explaining the public’s
resistance towards this movement, they tend to have lower
life cycle costs when compared to competing alternatives
as a direct result of the increased levels of quality and
efficiency of such solutions. Consequently, common design
and construction practices executed today as a result of their
low initial cost when evaluated from a life cycle perspective
often can actually cost clients more money over time than
a comparable sustainable solution. By evaluating design
decisions based on life cycle cost, architects are given the
opportunity to offset the additional fees of their hire to the
single-family homeowner, while saving the client money
throughout the lifespan of owning their home. This puts
to rest the perception that fees associated with hiring an
architect are an additional cost that only the wealthy can
afford. This methodology is the most effective argument
in demonstrating to potential homebuyers the value of
efficiency in single-family home design by addressing
sustainable solutions from the viewpoint of an investment
65 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 3
50 79 100+
Figure 20: House, Human, and Brick Average Lifespan
66Assessing Inefficiencies | Concept Development
decision. By financially validating sustainable solutions
through life cycle cost analysis, architects are afforded the
opportunity to speak to the economically driven mindset
of the client while concurrently fulfilling their obligation to
society to reduce the negative environmental impacts of the
built environment.
When evaluating the life cycle of a single-family home from
an economic perspective, it is generally adequate to assess
future costs on a timeline of twenty-five to forty years due to
the effects of time on the value of the US dollar. As a direct
result of inflation making the value of a current dollar worth
much more than that of a future dollar, roughly 90% of the
total equivalent cost in life cycle cost analysis is typically
consumed in the first twenty-five years.15 Consequently,
an evaluation period longer than forty years tends to add
minimal benefit to the life cycle cost analysis, unless very low
15 American Institute of Architects
rates of interest are used.16
The same timeline does not hold true when considering the
life cycle of a single-family home from an environmental
perspective, as inflation of the US dollar is not directly
involved in the evaluation process, and environmental
impacts are ongoing throughout the entire building
lifespan from material manufacturing to deconstruction or
demolition; currently an average period of fifty years for a
home in the United States based on data put forth by the
National Association of Homebuilders.17
At first glance, fifty years may seem to be an acceptable
length of time for the existence of a single-family home in
the United States. However, when compared to the lifespan
of the people who occupy it and the materials that compose
it, it becomes brief. This insufficient lifespan of the American
16 Ibid.
17 “Analysis of the Life Cycle Impacts…”
67 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 3
ONE HOUSE.
30’ H x 30’ W WALLWALL AROUND THE
ENTIRE UNITED STATES
CONSTRUCT A
270,000 TORN DOWN ANNUALLY
IN THE UNITED STATES
1 BILLIONBOARD FEET GOING TOLANDFILLS EACH YEAR
resulting in...
enough timber to...
Figure 21: Accounting for Change in Family Size and Structure
Figure 22: United States Home Demolition
ONE HOUSE.
30’ H x 30’ W WALLWALL AROUND THE
ENTIRE UNITED STATES
CONSTRUCT A
270,000 TORN DOWN ANNUALLY
IN THE UNITED STATES
1 BILLIONBOARD FEET GOING TOLANDFILLS EACH YEAR
resulting in...
enough timber to...
68Assessing Inefficiencies | Concept Development
home of today can be directly attributed to its inability to
adapt. Adaptation for future use is a particularly problematic
issue when it comes to home design. A custom home
implies a tailored fit for a specific family, and it should be. But
in this tailored fit there must also be consideration of, and
accommodation for, future occupants and future use.
There is one thing for certain in this life and that is that the
passage of time will have effects on people. As a result, family
size, family structure, and the needs and desires of individuals
change as well. In order for any building to find long-lasting
success, it must be able to change with time as a direct result
of the fact that we, as people, change.18 The lack of ease
with which the home of today can adapt is demonstrated
by the finding that 92% of building related waste output
comes as a result of renovation and demolition.19 In fact,
the Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that
18 Goldberger
19 Guy, Rinker, and Gibeau
renovation projects generate the majority of construction and
demolition materials associated with residential buildings.20
The single-family home of the future must account for
inevitable programmatic evolution by incorporating room
for the unpredictability in life, ultimately fostering the ease
of its capability to change with time. By engineering homes
to “allow for ease of maintenance and future modification, we
will [truly] be serving ourselves as well as our planet.”21
Unfortunately homes today are built in a manner that does
not lend itself to permanence, and therefore successful
integration into future societies. The materials, methods of
construction, excessive size and poor proportions of mass
production housing do not result in superior objects that
have the ability to withstand the tests of time. The failure
to realize this in the design and construction of the built
environment today directly results in the tearing down of
20 “Analysis of the Life Cycle Impacts...”
21 Susanka, Not So Big House
69 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 3
82%
6.1%
3.3%
5.7%
2.9%
92%OF BUILDING-RELATED
WASTE IS FROMRENOVATION AND
DEMOLITION
BUILDINGS ACCOUNT FOR30% OF WASTE OUTPUTIN THE UNITED STATES.
136 MILLION TON
S AN
NU
ALLY
Comm
ercial = 71.6 billion square feet Resid
entia
l = 2
56.5
bill
ion
squa
re fe
et
Single-family detached homes
Single-family attached homes
Apartments in 2-4 unit buildings
Apartments in 5+ unit buildings
Mobile homes
Figure 24: Division of Existing United States Building StockFigure 23: Waste Output by Building Sector
70Assessing Inefficiencies | Concept Development
270,000 homes in the United States each year, totaling one
billion board-feet of timber going to landfills, or enough
demolition debris to construct a wall thirty feet high and
thirty feet wide around the entire border of the continental
United States annually.22 It is in building with the intention
of extending the insufficient lifespan of the common home
of today, and, therefore, reducing waste output while
allowing future generations to capitalize on the materials and
embodied energy of existing homes, that the true potential
for sustainable development in the years to come lies.
The home can no longer be viewed as a throwaway
commodity that needs to last for only one family’s use.
Regardless of whether it is designed with or without
immediate participation by an architect, it is crucial that the
American single-family home of the future is developed in a
way that allows it to serve initial occupants as well as several
generations to follow. This will allow the structure to survive
22 “Analysis of the Life Cycle Impacts...”
a timeline well beyond the current fifty year standard.23
Neighborhoods should feel as if they began long before and
will continue to exist for many generations to come.24 In
this regard, better building will legitimately serve people
contemporarily as well as those in the future in addition to
the planet.
Despite the fact that the home of the future should be built
to last multiple generations, the reality is that at some point
its useful life will come to an end. At this time, it is important
to consider the value of deconstructing, rather than
demolishing. It is somewhat ironic that Americans today value
the concept of recycling something as simple as a plastic
bottle, yet when it comes to the materials that compose
the construction of a single-family home, this notion is
rarely considered. In fact, the United States Environmental
Protection Agency has recently estimated that only 20-30% of
23 Wentling
24 Goldberger
71 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 3
BUILDINGLIFE CYCLE:
AVOID END OF LIFE.
OCCUPY
CONSTRUCT
TRANSPORT
MANUFACTURE
EXTRACT
END OF LIFE
RECYCLE
DEMOLISH
Figure 25: Building Life Cycle
We are entering an epical period of change in this world. We’re going to have to downscale, rescale, and resize virtually everything we do in this country, and we can’t start soon enough to do it.
—James Howard Kunster
72Assessing Inefficiencies | Concept Development
of waste associated with construction and demolition is
currently being recycled,251 despite the fact that 75%-90%
of a house can typically be reused.26 This reality becomes
increasingly important when considering the fact that 110
million residences already exist in the United States, of which
70% are single-family homes that will eventually reach the
end of their useful life.273By introducing deconstruction, and
therefore recycling, to the current single-family home life
cycle, a more cyclical use of housing materials that avoids end
of life becomes possible. In the process of doing so, jobs can
be created, the life of landfills can be extended, and a reduced
need for the extraction of new materials can be realized
by continuing the life of those that already exist, further
diminishing the environmental impacts of single-family home
construction on the planet.284
25 Guy, Rinker, and Gibeau
26 Solomon
27 “Analysis of the Life Cycle Impacts...”
28 Guy, Rinker, and Gibeau
Ultimately, homes are built because of a belief in the future—
the future of existence and the future of families. Few things
show commitment to the years to come like architecture,
and building well demonstrates a belief in a better future.291
“We’re going to have to change this behavior whether we like
it or not. We are entering an epical period of change in this
world... We’re going to have to downscale, rescale, and resize
virtually everything we do in this country, and we cannot start
soon enough to do it.”302
In order make this possible, and therefore combat the
problems posed by suburbia in working towards a more
climatically stable future for the planet, a third way of building
the single-family home needs to be made available to the
general public; a middle ground somewhere between mass
production housing and an excessive dream that promotes
the involvement of an architect. A new approach grounded
29 Goldberger
30 James Howard Kunstler
73 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 3
74Assessing Inefficiencies | Concept Development
in the realities of time, money, and efficiency that focuses
on the homeowners’ true physical needs and psychological
aspirations, as well as the single-family home’s contribution
to the larger community, is necessary.311 By facilitating the
creation of a more ethical American single-family home
environment, architects are given the ability to capitalize on
wasted work opportunity while demonstrating their belief in
the fact that our greatest places are yet to be built, and the
greatest times are still to come.322
As Henry David Thoreau once said, “What’s the use of a fine
house if you haven’t got a tolerable planet to put it on?”
31 Dickinson
32 Goldberger
75 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 3
Notes
1 “Analysis of the Life Cycle Impacts and Potential for Avoided Impacts Associated with Single-Family Homes.” United States Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/imr/cdm/pdfs/ sfhomes.pdf.
2 “AIA Sustainability 2030 Toolkit.” The American Institute of Architects. http://info.aia.org/toolkit2030/index.html.
3 American Institute of Architects. The Architecture Student’s Handbook of Professional Practice. (14th edition. Wiley, 2008), 358.
4 Bayer, Dr. Charlene, Michael Gamble, Dr. Russell Gentry, and Surabhi Joshi. “AIA Guide to Building Life Cycle Assessment in Practice.” The American Institute of Architects, 2010.
5 Ibid.
6 Ireton, Kevin. “Is Green Building Too Expensive?” Fine Homebuilding, April 16, 2008. http://www.finehomebuilding.com/how-to/depart ments/taking-issue/is-the-cost-of-green-building-too-expensive.aspx.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid.
9 “Analysis of the Life Cycle Impacts and Potential for Avoided Impacts Associated with Single-Family Homes.”
10 Ibid.
11 “Median and Average Sales Prices of New Homes Sold in United States.”
12 American Institute of Architects. The Architecture Student’s Handbook of Professional Practice, 356.
13 Ibid., 356.
14 Ibid., 356.
Notes
15 Ibid., 360.
16 Ibid., 360.
17 “Analysis of the Life Cycle Impacts and Potential for Avoided Impacts Associated with Single-Family Homes.”
18 Goldberger, Paul. Why Architecture Matters. (Yale University Press, 2011), 173.
19 Guy, Bradley, M. E. Rinker, and Eleanor M. Gibeau. “A Guide to Deconstruction.” Deconstruction Institute, January 2003. http://www. deconstructioninstitute.com/files/learn_center/45762865_guidebook. pdf.
20 “Analysis of the Life Cycle Impacts and Potential for Avoided Impacts Associated with Single-Family Homes.”
21 Susanka, Sarah. The Not So Big House: A Blueprint for the Way We Really Live. (Newtown, CT; [Emeryville, CA]: Taunton Press ; Distributed by Publishers Group West, 1998), 183.
22 “Analysis of the Life Cycle Impacts and Potential for Avoided Impacts Associated with Single-Family Homes.”
23 Wentling, James. Designing a Place Called Home: Reordering the Suburbs. (1 edition. Springer, 1994).
24 Goldberger, Paul. Why Architecture Matters, 195.
25 Guy, Rinker, and Gibeau, “A Guide to Deconstruction.”
26 Solomon, Christopher. “Don’t Demolish That Old House; Recycle It.” MSN Real Estate. http://realestate.msn.com/dont-demolish-that-old- house-recycle-it.
27 “Analysis of the Life Cycle Impacts and Potential for Avoided Impacts Associated with Single-Family Homes.”
76Assessing Inefficiencies | Concept Development
Notes (continued)
28 Guy, Rinker, and Gibeau, “A Guide to Deconstruction.”
29 Goldberger, Paul. Why Architecture Matters, 40.
30 James Howard Kunstler: The Ghastly Tragedy of the Suburbs. TED Talks, 2004. http://www.ted.com/talks/james_howard_kunstler_dissects_ suburbia.html.
31 Dickinson, Duo. House on a Budget. (Newtown, Connecticut: Taunton Press, 2007), 6.
32 Goldberger, Paul. Why Architecture Matters, 40.
77
RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT
Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 4
Understanding Design Flaws
4
The following research addresses psychological aspects of single-family
home design, and considers how conversations between architect and
client can focus on the intangible aspects of the built environment and
their relationship to phsyical comfort, rather than quantifiable principles
such as square footage.
78Understanding Design Flaws | Research Development
79 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 4
80Understanding Design Flaws | Research Development
The kind of economy that has everything to do with cost
cannot be the only economic discussion in regards to how
and why homes are designed. Present day society is shifting
in desire towards an economy that has much less to do
with physical objects, and much more to do with human
response—an experience economy. The experience economy
is distinct in relation to the goods and services offered by
previous economies, such as the agrarian and industrial
economies, in that it comes to fruition through direct
involvement of human interaction. Compared to that of the
past, it is hard to quantify this intangible type of economy, as
it exists solely in the minds of individuals. When experiences
are the primary economic offering, one must look at physical
objects and services, commoditized attributes of previous
economies, as a means of engrossing civilization and evoking
a human response. What results is the engagement of
individuals “on an emotional, physical, intellectual, or even
spiritual level.”1 With a societal shift towards becoming
1 Pine
purchasers of experiences that reveal themselves to the
buyer over a period of time, what better vehicle is there
for capitalizing upon the new experience economy than
architecture?
By designing innovative and adaptable homes, architects
have the ability to allow their projects to foster authentic
experiences that will inherently advertise the advantages of
using their services to others. It may come as a surprise that
Starbucks, a company that has found unprecedented success
and growth throughout the world in selling coffee, scarcely
advertises at all other than secondarily through the traveling
iconic image that is their coffee cup. In essence their lack of
advertising compared to their competitors is saying, “If you
want to know who we are you have to come experience
us.”2 So too can the experience of intelligent and responsible
homes and neighborhoods allow architects to achieve
unprecedented success in homebuilding by facilitating
2 Joseph Pine
81 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 4
Figure 26: Quantifiable Marketing
82Understanding Design Flaws | Research Development
rewarding occurrences for homebuyers and therefore
making their services relevant to the generation immersing
themselves in the new experience economy.
The composition of American homes and neighborhoods
today has a vast amount of positive experiential potential
that currently remains untapped. To contribute to the
experience economy, these homes must transcend the
physical limitations of the built environment and capitalize
on the opportunity of using architecture to evoke feelings,
sensuousness, and a perception of the physical world that
involves both emotion and reason. Surely the house of the
future, coupled with the new experience economy, can
provide an environment that allows the transcendent
qualities of greater historic architecture to come full circle.
Much like the principles of the experience economy, true
residences of the future will use physical attributes to enrich
the experience of being by manifesting the capacity of the
human soul and spirit.
It is no surprise that in the context of home design the
discussion between client and builder is generally related
to the quantifiable attributes of the built environment
such as size, cost, number of bedrooms, and number of
bathrooms. Often, the characteristics of architecture that
make it experiential cannot be quantified, and therefore
are not marketed as consumer goods to the client. This is
due to the fact that the design principles and decisions that
have the ability to truly tap into the experience of being are
often intangible, and therefore unquantifiable in the minds
of the general public. In the words of Albert Einstein, “Not
everything that can be counted counts, and not everything
that counts can be counted.”3 So the critical question arises:
how can the intangible be adequately quantified for the
consumer in order to generate understanding of the value
of these unquantifiable principles and their capability of
evoking human response in a way that engages conversation
regarding home design and construction practices?
3 Susanka, Not So Big House
83 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 4
84Understanding Design Flaws | Research Development
In answering this question successfully, future conversations
between client and architect can address issues such as
quality and space, rather than speaking strictly in terms of size
and volume, a concept that finds particular importance in
relation to the design of dwellings.4
In an increasingly chaotic and demanding society, a home
should be built as a refuge, a resting place that evokes peace
within the mayhem of everyday life. For this very reason,
it is crucial that one of the most important psychological
responses a home fosters is physical comfort. Physical comfort
can only be measured in the minds of individuals, and
therefore requires careful manipulation of several intangible
architectural principles in order to facilitate its being for a
given individual. It is through truly understanding the value of
the unquantifiable aspects of architecture by both architect
and client, and the employment of these principles in the
design and construction of a home, that this evocation can
4 Susanka, Home By Design
be realized.
The lack of attention given to these unquantifiable principles
in present day home design directly results in dwellings that
fail to include many of the qualities important to humanizing
life. As single-family homes grow larger, and are filled with
grander spaces in hopes of impressing their visitors, they
make the dweller feel smaller, ultimately dehumanizing the
home environment. This realization lends itself to an analysis
of one of many unquantifiable architectural principles
capable of being conducive to comfort: proportion. Rooted
in mathematics, proportion refers to a comparison between
the length, width, and height of architectural elements.5
Proportion plays a critical role in the perception of space, and
therefore has an impact on the way that space evokes feeling.
Good proportions are often unknowingly sensed, and have
the ability to impart a feeling of satisfaction and calm.6 The
5 Gauer and Tighe
6 Ibid.
85 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 4
Figure 27: Grand Entry Foyer
86Understanding Design Flaws | Research Development
proportion of the home itself, as well as smaller objects within
the home such as doors, windows, and rooms, should be
relatable to one another in addition to the human scale in
order to create an easily perceptible whole for the dweller.
The occupant’s perception of a space is automatically drawn
to the longest dimension between plan and ceiling height.7
Because of this, the height of a room is capable of making
one feel comfortable or uncomfortable. As an example, in
reference to the aforementioned grand entry foyer, does the
space created by the two-story entry really feel comfortable
and welcoming, as a front door should, or does it feel more
like an elevator shaft? A small footprint coupled with a high
ceiling height is not conducive to comfort, and therefore
occupants do not desire to spend time there. If the grand
entry foyer is a space that people show no eagerness to
occupy, why allocate so much volume to it within the design
of a home? The reason is simple. Priority is given to an over
7 Susanka, Not So Big House
the top first impression of grandeur, ultimately sacrificing
any consideration for how much space is consumed or the
emotional response the space truly evokes. Amazingly, the
priority in this type of design is almost mindlessly given to
a few brief moments spent occasionally by visitors rather
than to designing the space for the experience of the actual
occupants.
Because of the capability of proportion to evoke comfort, a
degree in architecture or mathematics is not required to
understand when a space is well proportioned. “We sense
these things intuitively. That is the beauty of proportion.”8 An
additional example of dehumanization through the neglect
of proportion in many modern day homes can be found
in the living room. Next to the kitchen, the living room is
perhaps the most utilized space in a home. Because of this,
builders often accommodate the second largest amount
of square footage to this space within the home, the first
8 Gauer and Tighe
87 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 4
Figure 28: Living Room “A” Figure 29: “Living Room “B”
88Understanding Design Flaws | Research Development
being the garage as a result of society’s present day focus
on the automobile. Though this allocation of space seems to
make sense in its basic concept, what has resulted is living
rooms of incredible volume that require several people and
an extensive amount of furniture to occupy them at any
given time in order to feel comfortable to the individual. In
essence, the living room has evolved to be out of proportion
in reference to the human being that occupies it.
“There’s a big difference between being alone and feeling
lonely—and nothing accentuates loneliness more than
broad, open expanses of space. Smaller, more cozy places
evoke a sense of security and introspection.”9 Which living
room image caters better to the proportions of an individual?
How small do the chairs in the first image look when
compared to the overall volume of the room? Similar to the
grand entry foyer, this type of design decision is executed
to present visitors with a stage set of splendor while the
9 Susanka, Not So Big House
proportions favorable to living comfortably as individuals are
hidden backstage. Motives such as this directly result in the
homes of excessive size and decreased efficiency which are
commonplace throughout America today. When the architect
and the client understand proportion, they have a powerful
tool at their disposal in providing comfortable spaces in
an efficient manner that are reflective of the way people
really live. In addition, they have the ability to deliberately
manipulate these principles for other desired psychological
reactions.
Beyond proportion, perhaps the most powerful intangible
tool at the architect’s disposal is light. The thoughtful use
of light in design has the ability to transcend the physical
limitations of the built environment in order to reach the
soul of the occupant. The importance of light to society can
be indicated through several common metaphors. “We ‘shed
light on’ something that is obscure. We are ‘in the dark’ when
we don’t understand. We are ‘illuminated’ by someone’s
89 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 4
Figure 30: Capturing the Light of a Near Death Experience
90Understanding Design Flaws | Research Development
insights… and we often hear that in near-death experiences
people find themselves moving toward a brilliant light.”10
These examples demonstrate the prominence of the innate
relationship that humans feel with light. Capitalizing on this
relationship allows the architect to carefully employ the
features of light in the design and construction of a home,
creating a significant impact on the occupant’s perception of
the space around them.
In many ways current suburban home design practices
take for granted natural light.11 According to American
architect Louis Kahn by “depending on the touch of a finger
to a switch, [we] are satisfied with static light and forget the
endlessly changing qualities of natural light, in which a room
is a different room every second of the day.”12 Often with
economics determining location, developers place windows
10 Susanka, Home By Design
11 Ibid.
12 New Perspective on Light
and skylights into the surfaces of a home and scatter artificial
light fixtures through the spaces that do not receive natural
light, frequently in a manner which neglects how and where
daylight will penetrate the structure and therefore affect
interior space and living conditions.13 In addition, because
many homes are chosen from plan-books or predesigned
home models with little to no regard for site conditions,
they fail to capitalize on sun patterns, ultimately affecting
both interior comfort and energy efficiency. Certainly the
grand, two-story window display in a living room may look
appealing in a photograph, but does the client or developer
consider how that space will feel on a summer day in regards
to comfort if the windows are facing south on the chosen
site? Does the developer even mention to the client how this
decision will affect their energy bill? If misused, natural light
and sun exposure can be detrimental to the physical comfort
of a home. Conversely, when used with intention, sunlight
can be transformed into the best attribute of a home’s interior.
13 Susanka, Home By Design
91 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 4
Figure 31: Interior Natural Light
92Understanding Design Flaws | Research Development
Unfortunately developers and builders today often fail to
capitalize on this opportunity, frequently ignoring how light
permeates a physical structure with enough capacity to
animate a room, wash over a surface, and draw occupants
from one space to another. Through careful placement of
windows and light fixtures by an architect, space can feel
untroubled and more balanced, and therefore physically
more comfortable for its occupants.14 The architect and client
who understand the use of light have at their disposal yet
another intangible tool in creating spaces of both comfort
and efficiency in the design and construction of a home.
Architecture is imperceptible without light, and in home
design, light should be used intentionally as a primary tool in
generating sensuous and mood filled spaces.152
Light and proportion are just two of many intangible assets in
the architect’s toolbox capable of contributing to successful
14 Susanka, Home By Design
15 Gauer and Tighe
and efficient home design. If potential homebuyers are
able to engage in conversations about, and find value
in, principles such as these, the architectural integrity of
suburban neighborhoods in America has the capacity to
increase exponentially. However, if the predominant client
focus remains centered around the thought of public display,
the conversation regarding the essential and unquantifiable
aspects of architecture is quickly degraded. In order to truly
find success in building homes of the future, clients must
be engaged to evaluate real needs and to suppress the
idea that a home exists solely to impress others. When the
home is designed primarily as an icon of stature, “it loses its
essential quality and becomes one more item of conspicuous
consumption, like a yacht or a Cadillac.”163
16 Nelson
93 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 4
Notes
1 Pine, B. Joseph, and James H. Gilmore. “Welcome to the Experience Economy.” Harvard Business Review, July 1998. http://hbr.org/1998/07/ welcome-to-the-experience-economy/.
2 Joseph Pine: What Consumers Want. TED Talks, 2004. http://www.ted. com/talks/joseph_pine_on_what_consumers_want.html.
3 Susanka, Sarah. The Not So Big House: A Blueprint For the Way We Really Live. (Newtown, CT; [Emeryville, CA]: Taunton Press ; Distributed by Publishers Group West, 1998.), 5.
4 Susanka, Sarah. Home by Design: Transforming Your House Into Home. (Newtown, Connecticut: Taunton Press, 2004), 6.
5 Gauer and Tighe, The New American Dream: Living Well in Small Homes, 28.
6 Ibid., 28.
7 Susanka, The Not So Big House: A Blueprint For the Way We Really Live, 76.
8 Gauer and Tighe, The New American Dream: Living Well in Small Homes, 28.
9 Susanka, The Not So Big House: A Blueprint For the Way We Really Live, 108.
10 Susanka, Home by Design: Transforming Your House Into Home, 125.
11 Ibid., 8.
12 “New Perspective on Light.” WordPress. Architecture in Transformation, November 20, 2012. http://arch3150.wordpress.com/2012/11/20/new- perspective-on-light/.
13 Susanka, Home by Design: Transforming Your House Into Home, 8.
14 Ibid., 143.
Notes
15 Gauer and Tighe, The New American Dream: Living Well in Small Homes, 36.
16 Nelson, George. Problems of Design. 2nd edition. (Whitney Library of Design, 1965), 13.
94Understanding Design Flaws | Research Development
95 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 5
Evaluating Room by Room
MICROSCOPIC ANALYSIS
5
96Evaluating Room by Room | Microscopic Analysis
The following investigation evaluates the ever-increasing size of the
single-family home in America, and assesses five case study homes on a
room by room basis in order to discern any advantages or disadvantages
that come as a result of this increase in area.
97 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 5
2.94 2.76 2.69 2.63 2.65 2.62 2.57 2.58
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
1645’2 1740’2 1785’2 2080’2 2095’2 2266’2 2434’2 2392’2
Figure 32: Historical United States Housing Trends
98Evaluating Room by Room | Microscopic Analysis
Several of the inefficiencies of the common home of today
can be directly attributed to the fact that its composition has
been rising in square footage for decades despite the fact that
the average size of the American family has been decreasing.
According to the United States Census Bureau, the average
size of the single-family house built in 2012 was 2,505
square feet, compared to 1,525 square feet in 1973 or 1,905
square feet in 1990.1 In addition, the average population
per household in the United States has decreased over an
entire person in the last sixty-five years, currently sized at
2.55 persons per household compared to 3.67 of 1948.2 This
consistent swelling in the size of the American home has
happened gradually, with a general failure by both society
and homebuilders to look back and analyze this progress. In
essence, we are sleep walking our way into the future while
failing to question how the composition of the single-family
home has escalated into what we see lining the streets of
1 US Census Bureau
2 “American Households...”
America today, ultimately failing to recognize and establish
the inefficiencies associated with this development.
Perhaps it is the realization of personal discontent with
experiencing what the “Jonses” have that has led to this
constant search for “home” by way of continuously adding
more and more space. Upon further investigation, the
realization occurs that none of this excess is essential to
living well, and this search for something more can actually
be fulfilled by something less.3 The failure to realize this in
the design and construction of homes today has allowed
this continuous swelling of the American home to continue
along an upward trajectory, while its functional and
environmental efficiency, and, therefore, overall comfort,
decreases simultaneously. It is time to evaluate the sources
of these inefficiencies and acknowledge that quantity is
not the equivalent of quality in the design and construction
of the American single-family home. In a field currently
3 Susanka, Not So Big House
99 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 5
We crave, as people, a more supportable pace and scale.—Sarah Susanka
100Evaluating Room by Room | Microscopic Analysis
suffering from naive economic decision-making, it is crucial
to recognize this fundamental rule of economy: “There is
no direct ratio between quantity and quality. More does
not mean better.” Increasingly modest housing provides
homeowners both qualitative and quantitative benefits.
“The initial cost of construction will be lower, as will the
cost of maintenance, especially fuel bills. Our lives will be
calmer and more serene because the stress of shelling out
timely payments will be reduced. And society will reap
environmental benefits thanks to reduced consumption of
limited resources.”4
In what instance does a child feel like they’re getting more:
When they are presented with a slice of bread, or when that
slice of bread is cut up in to four pieces? Though the actual
quantity of bread is the same, he or she will assume they are
getting more with four pieces because their eye is able to
4 Gauer and Tighe
recognize multiple segments.5 This principal also applies to
the perception of space. Doing more with less offers new
possibilities for elegance and inventiveness in the design
of a single-family home that induce increased comfort and
efficiency levels and can truly be more impressive than
the expansive amounts of space commonly presented by
suburban homes in America today. “We crave, as people, a
more supportable pace and scale.”6 A modest reduction
in unnecessary space will allow more funds to go towards
architectural quality, and help to combat the problem of
homeowners obtaining objects they cannot really afford to
operate and maintain.
Does it come as a surprise that a considerable portion of
people owning a second home begin to consider it as
their primary residence after a period of time?7 Why is this?
5 Susanka, Home By Design
6 Susanka, Not So Big House
7 Ibid.
101 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 5
102Evaluating Room by Room | Microscopic Analysis
Homebuyers often only consider the typical suburban model
home when purchasing their first “dream home,” a decision
grounded in the realities of the American workaday culture.
This results in a lack of self-discovery in the design of the
home, permitting the client to unknowingly settle for what
society has deemed the norm. When considering a second
home, potential homebuyers begin to think more about what
they truly need, how they really would like to live, and, to a
certain degree, neglect what the real estate market says is
required for resale.
The second home is centered on values that are personal,
rather than economic or social, and is often designed for
a more informal manner of living.8 It is for these reasons
that over time the owners of second homes unconsciously
transition from the first house to the second as it relates
to them on a more personal and comfortable level. “The
second house is a place where from the beginning, free from
8 Nelson
the limitations of the workaday house, you can build all the
qualities that have to do with good living.”99 The single-family
home of the future will find success when its design focus
mirrors the useful and informal nature of many second homes.
Ultimately, the question becomes: how does one evaluate
and adequately quantify the level of success in new
residential development? What is it measured against and
who measures it? The degree of success in architecture
cannot be generalized or arrived at via a formula as it is
in mathematics. There is no absolute right or wrong, or
predetermined criterion that determines the achievements
of the built environment. Rather, success or failure is open-
ended and undoubtedly varies based on the perception
of the evaluator. A social science investigation as to what
establishes a personal definition of success in residential
design is necessary, eventually producing a set of criteria
9 Ibid.
103 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 5
4050’2
case study 5
3675’2
case study 4
3150’2
case study 3
2550’2
case study 2
22250’
case study 1
Figure 33: Area of Case Study Homes
104Evaluating Room by Room | Microscopic Analysis
that forms the basis of the design process and ultimately
sets the stage for eminent development. In order to do so,
the inefficiencies associated with the increasing size of the
modern home in America must be discerned by way of a
case study investigation that seeks to establish the flaws
associated with this development, ultimately obtaining an
understanding as to what level of “excess” the contemporary
American home encompasses, in addition to evaluating
how this additional square footage directly affects energy
consumption and costs.
The following information analyzes five case study homes
currently built in various suburban locations throughout
America whose programs feature the same number of
bedrooms and bathrooms as the project program requires
despite the drastic variation in their square footages, ranging
in size 2250 SF to 4050 SF. For privacy reasons, the owner,
location, and design of these homes is not presented.
105 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 5
2250’2
4.7%BREAKFAST
1.9%ENTRY FOYER
6.4%DINING ROOM
10.7%LIVING ROOM
4.6%KITCHEN
16.5%CIRCULATION
3.6%BATHROOMS
2.6%LAUNDRY ROOM
10.8%MASTER BEDROOM
21.7%BEDROOMS
1.9%BEDROOM CLOSETS
5.9%MASTER BATHROOM
2.9%MASTER CLOSET
CASE STUDY 1: 47.5% PRIMARY SPACES43.7% SECONDARY SPACES
Figure 34: Case Study 1 Space Allocation by %
106Evaluating Room by Room | Microscopic Analysis
2550’2
4.3%BREAKFAST
2.8%ENTRY FOYER
6.1%DINING ROOM
8.8%LIVING ROOM
6.6%KITCHEN
11.5%CIRCULATION
5.4%BATHROOMS
1.9%LAUNDRY ROOM
8.8%MASTER BEDROOM
16.4%BEDROOMS
2.1%BEDROOM CLOSETS
5.6%MASTER BATHROOM
3.0%MASTER CLOSET
CASE STUDY 2: 47.9% PRIMARY SPACES35.4% SECONDARY SPACES
Figure 35: Case Study 2 Space Allocation by %
107 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 5
3150’2
3.8%BREAKFAST
3.3%ENTRY FOYER
6.7%DINING ROOM
9.5%LIVING ROOM
5.9%KITCHEN
14.8%CIRCULATION
4.5%BATHROOMS
2.1%LAUNDRY ROOM
9.1%MASTER BEDROOM
16.4%BEDROOMS
2.1%BEDROOM CLOSETS
5.7%MASTER BATHROOM
2.8%MASTER CLOSET
5.2%OFFICE / STUDY
CASE STUDY 3: 48.5% PRIMARY SPACES43.0% SECONDARY SPACES
Figure 36: Case Study 3 Space Allocation by %
108Evaluating Room by Room | Microscopic Analysis
3675’2
3.9%BREAKFAST
3.0%ENTRY FOYER
5.6%DINING ROOM
9.4%LIVING ROOM
6.5%KITCHEN
10.5%CIRCULATION
5.8%BATHROOMS
2.2%LAUNDRY ROOM
12.1%MASTER BEDROOM
14.5%BEDROOMS
2.2%BEDROOM CLOSETS
4.6%MASTER BATHROOM
4.1%MASTER CLOSET
4.6%OFFICE / STUDY
CASE STUDY 4: 51.4% PRIMARY SPACES37.6% SECONDARY SPACES
Figure 37: Case Study 4 Space Allocation by %
109 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 5
4050’2
3.5%BREAKFAST
3.6%ENTRY FOYER
5.1%DINING ROOM
7.6%LIVING ROOM
10.7%KITCHEN
10.6%CIRCULATION
5.0%BATHROOMS
1.6%LAUNDRY ROOM
9.8%MASTER BEDROOM
14.5%BEDROOMS
1.8%BEDROOM CLOSETS
5.9%MASTER BATHROOM
3.0%MASTER CLOSET
5.5%OFFICE / STUDY
CASE STUDY 5: 50.8% PRIMARY SPACES37.4% SECONDARY SPACES
Figure 38: Case Study 5 Space Allocation by %
110Evaluating Room by Room | Microscopic Analysis
1370’2
1.8%LAUNDRY ROOM
5.1%MASTER BEDROOM
3.6%BREAKFAST
10.5%LIVING ROOM
7.5%KITCHEN
6.9%BATHROOMS
3.1%ENTRY FOYER
8.8%DINING ROOM
2.9%BEDROOM CLOSETS
15.4%BEDROOMS
4.8%MASTER BATHROOM
2.4%MASTER CLOSET
12.8%CIRCULATION
MINIMUM: 47.3% PRIMARY SPACES38.0% SECONDARY SPACES
Figure 39: Minimum Space Allocation by %
111 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 5
The layout of a kitchen should be determined
by the triangle between the three primary work
areas in the kitchen: the sink, range, and
refrigerator. Each leg of the triangle should be
greater than 4’ and less than 9’. For maximum
productivity and efficiency, the sum of the three
legs of the work triangle should be greater than
12’ and less than 26’. By introducing a second
sink, a two-cook kitchen can be created with
work triangles that do not intersect without
adding a considerable amount of extra
square footage.
128 square feet
103 square feet
1
1
2
KITCHEN.
Figure 40: Kitchen Analysis
The layout of a kitchen should be determined by the triangle
between its three primary work areas: the sink, range, and
refrigerator. Each leg of the triangle should be greater than
4’ and less than 9’. For maximum productivity and efficiency,
the sum of the three legs of the work triangle should be
greater than 12’ and less than 26’. By introducing a second
sink, a two-cook kitchen can be created with work triangles
that do not intersect without adding a considerable amount
of square footage.
KITCHEN
112Evaluating Room by Room | Microscopic Analysis
KITCHEN.123456
103 square feet170 square feet187 square feet240 square feet432 square feet103 square feet
(4.6%)(6.7%)(5.9%)(6.5%)
(10.7%)(XX.X%)
226 square feet average
1 2 3 4 5 6
KITCHEN.123456
103 square feet170 square feet187 square feet240 square feet432 square feet103 square feet
(4.6%)(6.7%)(5.9%)(6.5%)
(10.7%)(XX.X%)
226 square feet average
1 2 3 4 5 6
Figure 41: Kitchen Area by Case Study
113 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 5
12’ - 0”
15’ - 7”
15’ - 5”
15’ - 7”
48% 59%CASE STUDY 3Total square feet:Excess square feet:
18789
CASE STUDY 4Total square feet:Excess square feet:
240142
Figure 42: Kitchen Area Case Study 3 Figure 43: Kitchen Area Case Study 4
114Evaluating Room by Room | Microscopic Analysis
20’ - 9”
20’ - 10”
13’ - 0”
7’ - 11”
77%CASE STUDY 5Total square feet:Excess square feet:
432334
MINIMUMTotal square feet:Excess square feet:
1030 0%
Figure 44: Kitchen Area Case Study 5
Figure 45: Kitchen Area Minimum
115 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 5
ESTCODE
Figure 46: Living Room Analysis
The size of a living room is determined by the arrangement of
furnishings and the space required by code to move amongst
them. In the creation of a six seat living room, such as those
depicted, it is important to remember that the maximum
conversation diameter that is desirable in social settings is
approximately 12’-13’. In addition, it is important to consider
that conversation clusters tend to break off when reaching
large numbers, therefore furnishings should be arranged to
provide for this type of social environment.
LIVING ROOM
116Evaluating Room by Room | Microscopic Analysis
LIVING ROOM.123456
241 square feet224 square feet300 square feet345 square feet306 square feet144 square feet
(10.7%)(8.8%)(9.5%)(9.4%)(7.6%)
(XX.X%)
283 square feet average
1 2 3 4 5 6
LIVING ROOM.123456
241 square feet224 square feet300 square feet345 square feet306 square feet144 square feet
(10.7%)(8.8%)(9.5%)(9.4%)(7.6%)
(XX.X%)
283 square feet average
1 2 3 4 5 6
Figure 47: Living Room Area by Case Study
117 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 5
Figure 48: Living Room Area Case Study 3
Figure 49: Living Room Area Case Study 4
17’ - 2”
17’ - 6”
18’ - 5”
18’ - 9”
52% 58%CASE STUDY 3Total square feet:Excess square feet:
300156
CASE STUDY 4Total square feet:Excess square feet:
345201
118Evaluating Room by Room | Microscopic Analysis
17’ - 4”
17’ - 8”
11’ - 10”
12’ - 2”
53%CASE STUDY 5Total square feet:Excess square feet:
306162
MINIMUMTotal square feet:Excess square feet:
1440 0%
Figure 50: Living Room Area Case Study 5
Figure 51: Minimum Living Room Area
119 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 5
78 square feet
Figure 52: Dining Room Analysis
The minimum size of a formal dining area is entirely
dependent on the space surrounding the table that is
necessary for chairs to pull out and the circulation space
required for people to move around this chair boundary.
Therefore, the shape and size of the dining table is the
primary factor in determining the minimum area of such
spaces. As a result, a circle table is the most efficient layout
for six people in relation to square footage, in addition to
being the most prone to increased levels of conversation by
way of its seating arrangement.
DINING ROOM
120Evaluating Room by Room | Microscopic Analysis
1 2 3 4 5 6
DINING ROOM.123456
144 square feet156 square feet210 square feet205 square feet208 square feet120 square feet
(6.4%)(6.1%)(6.7%)(5.6%)(5.1%)
(XX.X%)
185 square feet average
1 2 3 4 5 6
DINING ROOM.123456
144 square feet156 square feet210 square feet205 square feet208 square feet120 square feet
(6.4%)(6.1%)(6.7%)(5.6%)(5.1%)
(XX.X%)
185 square feet average
Figure 53: Dining Room Area by Case Study
121 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 5
16’ - 2”
13’ - 0”
16’ - 0”
12’ - 10”
43% 41%Total square feet:Excess square feet:
21090
CASE STUDY 4Total square feet:Excess square feet:
20585
CASE STUDY 3
Figure 54: Dining Room Area Case Study 3 Figure 55: Dining Room Area Case Study 4
122Evaluating Room by Room | Microscopic Analysis
16’ - 1” 12’ - 8”
9‘ - 6”12’ - 11”
42%CASE STUDY 5Total square feet:Excess square feet:
20887
MINIMUMTotal square feet:Excess square feet:
1200 0%
Figure 56: Dining Room Area Case Study 5
Figure 57: Minimum Dining Room Area
123 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 5
minimum bedroom size.
Figure 58: Entry Foyer Analysis
The back door of homes generally serves the purpose of the
primary entrance for the permanent residents of the house.
While a door can be viewed as a crucial transition and buffer
from exterior to interior, the front door of the modern day
home is rarely viewed as such. As it has swollen in size for
decades, concurrently with the home in its entirety, the entry
foyer has become an oversized space which simply stands as
an over the top, grandiose welcoming to visitors, all the while
serving no fundamental functional purpose to the permanent
residents of the home.
ENTRY FOYER
124Evaluating Room by Room | Microscopic Analysis
1 2 3 4 5 6
ENTRY FOYER.123456
42 square feet72 square feet103 square feet110 square feet145 square feet42 square feet
(1.9%)(2.8%)(3.3%)(3.0%)(3.6%)
(XX.X%)
94 square feet average
1 2 3 4 5 6
ENTRY FOYER.123456
42 square feet72 square feet103 square feet110 square feet145 square feet42 square feet
(1.9%)(2.8%)(3.3%)(3.0%)(3.6%)
(XX.X%)
94 square feet average
Figure 59: Entry Foyer Area by Case Study
125 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 5
10’ - 0”
10’ - 4”
10’ - 4”
10’ - 8”
59% 62%CASE STUDY 3Total square feet:Excess square feet:
10361
CASE STUDY 4Total square feet:Excess square feet:
11068
Figure 60: Entry Foyer Area Case Study 3Figure 61: Entry Foyer Area Case Study 4
126Evaluating Room by Room | Microscopic Analysis
6’ - 8”
11’ - 10”
12’ - 3”
6’ - 4”
CASE STUDY 5Total square feet:Excess square feet:
145103
MINIMUMTotal square feet:Excess square feet:
420 0%71%
Figure 62: Entry Foyer Area Case Study 5
Figure 63: Minimum Entry Foyer Area
127 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 5
Figure 64: Breakfast Analysis
Informal dining areas are increasingly becoming the primary
space in which food is consumed the American household. As
a result, these spaces should be located in or near the kitchen,
a concept that coincides with the open plan environment
that the majority of modern day homebuyers desire.
Connecting this dining area to a portion of the kitchen island,
as depicted to the right, affords the opportunity to maintain an
open and functional atmosphere while capitalizing on kitchen
proximity and shared circulation.
BREAKFAST
128Evaluating Room by Room | Microscopic Analysis
1 2 3 4 5 6
BREAKFAST.123456
107 square feet109 square feet123 square feet145 square feet140 square feet50 square feet
(4.7%)(4.3%)(3.9%)(3.9%)(3.5%)
(XX.X%)
125 square feet average
1 2 3 4 5 6
BREAKFAST.123456
107 square feet109 square feet123 square feet145 square feet140 square feet50 square feet
(4.7%)(4.3%)(3.9%)(3.9%)(3.5%)
(XX.X%)
125 square feet average
Figure 65: Breakfast Area by Case Study
129 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 5
18’ - 6”
8’ - 1”
20’ - 0”
8’ - 10”
59% 65%CASE STUDY 3Total square feet:Excess square feet:
12373
CASE STUDY 4Total square feet:Excess square feet:
14595
Figure 67: Breakfast Area Case Study 4Figure 66: Breakfast Area Case Study 3
130Evaluating Room by Room | Microscopic Analysis
19’ - 10”
8’ - 8”
12’ - 0”5’ - 0”
64%CASE STUDY 5Total square feet:Excess square feet:
14090
MINIMUMTotal square feet:Excess square feet:
500 0%
Figure 68: Breakfast Area Case Study 5
Figure 69: Minimum Breakfast Area
131 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 5
66 square feet
14 square feet
Figure 70: Laundry Room Analysis
In designing a laundry room it is important to reflect on the activities that
will actually take place within its confines. By engaging in thoughtful
conversations with a client, one can make discoveries such as where
laundry is folded, where ironing takes place, and how clean clothes are
transported back to individual’s closets, allowing realizations to occur
such as the laundry room not needing to be a room at all as a result of the
functions it hosts. In contrast, it could require fixtures such as a utility sink
and/or an ironing board, and therefore additional space to accommodate
such programmatic needs in order to best suit the client’s desires.
LAUNDRY ROOM
132Evaluating Room by Room | Microscopic Analysis
1 2 3 4 5 6
LAUNDRY ROOM.123456
59 square feet48 square feet66 square feet80 square feet66 square feet25 square feet
(2.6%)(1.9%)(2.1%)(2.2%)(1.6%)
(XX.X%)
64 square feet average
1 2 3 4 5 6
LAUNDRY ROOM.123456
59 square feet48 square feet66 square feet80 square feet66 square feet25 square feet
(2.6%)(1.9%)(2.1%)(2.2%)(1.6%)
(XX.X%)
64 square feet average
Figure 71: Laundry Room Area by Case Study
133 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 5
7’ - 8”
8’ - 8”
8’ - 5”
9’ - 6”
CASE STUDY 3Total square feet:Excess square feet:
6641
CASE STUDY 4Total square feet:Excess square feet:
805562% 69%
Figure 72: Laundry Room Area Case Study 3Figure 73: Laundry Room Area Case Study 4
134Evaluating Room by Room | Microscopic Analysis
7’ - 8”
8’ - 8”
5’ - 7”
4’ - 6”
CASE STUDY 5Total square feet:Excess square feet:
6641
MINIMUMTotal square feet:Excess square feet:
250 0%62%
Figure 74: Laundry Room Area Case Study 5
Figure 75: Minimum Laundry Room Area
135 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 5
minimum bedroom size. minimum bedroom size.
minimum bedroom size.
Figure 76: Master Bedroom Analysis
Of all of the spaces considered in this case study analysis,
it is very apparent that the master bedroom is often the
most significant waste of space in the common American
household. The area of the master bedroom rises
dramatically as the size of the home increases and is not a
reflection of the space required for the essential activities
that take place there. As a result, the master bedroom of the
home of today often comprises enough additional circulation
and wasted space within it to house the equivalent of several
additional bedrooms.
Note: The beds depicted in the following diagrams are king size.
MASTER BED
136Evaluating Room by Room | Microscopic Analysis
1 2 3 4 5 6
MASTER BEDROOM.123456
244 square feet225 square feet285 square feet444 square feet395 square feet70 square feet
(10.8%)(8.8%)(9.1%)
(12.1%)(9.8%)
(XX.X%)
319 square feet average
1 2 3 4 5 6
MASTER BEDROOM.123456
244 square feet225 square feet285 square feet444 square feet395 square feet70 square feet
(10.8%)(8.8%)(9.1%)
(12.1%)(9.8%)
(XX.X%)
319 square feet average
Figure 77: Master Bedroom Area by Case Study
137 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 5
16’ - 9”
17’ - 0”
21’ - 0”
21’ - 2”
75% 84%CASE STUDY 3Total square feet:Excess square feet:
285215
CASE STUDY 4Total square feet:Excess square feet:
444374
Figure 78: Master Bedroom Area Case Study 3
Figure 79: Master Bedroom Area Case Study 4
138Evaluating Room by Room | Microscopic Analysis
19’ - 9”
20’ - 0”
8’ - 6”
8’ - 3”
82%CASE STUDY 5Total square feet:Excess square feet:
395325
MINIMUMTotal square feet:Excess square feet:
700 0%
Figure 80: Master Bedroom Area Case Study 5
Figure 81: Minimum Master Bedroom Area
139 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 5
minimum bedroom size.
Figure 82: Master Bathroom Analysis
Similarly to the master bedroom, the master bathroom
undergoes significant, and unnecessary, growth as the size
of the modern home increases. It is worth noting that as the
size of the case study bathrooms increased, no additional
fixtures were housed within their confines, therefore
acknowledging that this added square footage functions
simply as circulation space. As a result, the common size of
the master bathroom in American households has become
large enough for a small bedroom to be housed within it’s
boundaries.
MASTER BATH
140Evaluating Room by Room | Microscopic Analysis
1 2 3 4 5 6
MASTER BATHROOM.123456
132 square feet144 square feet180 square feet170 square feet238 square feet66 square feet
(5.9%)(5.6%)(5.7%)(4.6%)(5.9%)
(XX.X%)
173 square feet average
1 2 3 4 5 6
MASTER BATHROOM.123456
132 square feet144 square feet180 square feet170 square feet238 square feet66 square feet
(5.9%)(5.6%)(5.7%)(4.6%)(5.9%)
(XX.X%)
173 square feet average
Figure 83: Mastser Bathroom Area by Case Study
141 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 5
13’ - 1”
13’ - 9”
12’ - 8”
13’ - 5”
63% 61%CASE STUDY 3Total square feet:Excess square feet:
180114
CASE STUDY 4Total square feet:Excess square feet:
170104
Figure 85: Master Bathroom Area Case Study 4Figure 84: Master Bathroom Area Case Study 3
142Evaluating Room by Room | Microscopic Analysis
15’ - 1”
15’ - 9”
7’ - 10”
8’ - 6”
72%CASE STUDY 5Total square feet:Excess square feet:
238172
MINIMUMTotal square feet:Excess square feet:
660 0%
Figure 86: Master Bathroom Area Case Study 5
Figure 87: Minimum Master Bathroom Area
143 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 5
+ 1’ in horizontaldimension results
in 1’ of addedrod space.
+ 2’ in verticaldimension results
in 1’ of added rod space.
Figure 88: Master Closet Analysis
When dealing with the design of a large walk-in closet
emphasis should, wherever possible, be given to the dimension
perpendicular to the door in order to maximize the amount of rod
space the closet permits, ultimately resulting in the need for less
square footage to achieve the desired amount of hanging space
within the closet. This is due to the fact that each time the closet
increases in dimension in the perpindicular direction, double
the amount of rod space is created than would have been if it
increased in the direction parallel to the door.
MASTER CLOSET
144Evaluating Room by Room | Microscopic Analysis
1 2 3 4 5 6
MASTER CLOSET.123456
66 square feet78 square feet86 square feet152 square feet120 square feet33 square feet
(2.9%)(3.0%)(2.7%)(4.1%)(3.0%)
(XX.X%)
100 square feet average
1 2 3 4 5 6
MASTER CLOSET.123456
66 square feet78 square feet86 square feet152 square feet120 square feet33 square feet
(2.9%)(3.0%)(2.7%)(4.1%)(3.0%)
(XX.X%)
100 square feet average
Figure 89: Master Closet Area by Case Study
145 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 5
19’ - 0”
8’ - 0”
7’ - 0”
12’ - 3”
62% 78%CASE STUDY 3Total square feet:Excess square feet:
8653
CASE STUDY 4Total square feet:Excess square feet:
152119
Figure 90: Master Closet Area Case Study 3
Figure 91: Master Closet Area Case Study 4
146Evaluating Room by Room | Microscopic Analysis
5’ - 0”
6’ - 8”15’ - 0”
8’ - 0”
73%CASE STUDY 5Total square feet:Excess square feet:
12087
MINIMUMTotal square feet:Excess square feet:
330 0%
Figure 92: Master Closet Area Case Study 5
Figure 93: Minimum Master Closet Area
147 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 5
example 2
example 1
Figure 94: Bedroom Analysis
When considering the additional bedrooms in the design
of a home, it is important to take into account the number
of desired exterior walls, as this not only affects the amount
of natural daylight that permeates the structure, but also is
often the primary factor in determining where a bed, closet,
and bathroom can be placed. The placement and size of
the bed, more than any factor in the bedroom, frequently
determines the layout, and can be limited in placement
options should the room have a considerable number of
exterior walls.
Note: The beds depicted in the following diagrams are queen size.
BEDROOMS
148Evaluating Room by Room | Microscopic Analysis
BEDROOM. TYP. 1 of 3
123456
163 square feet165 square feet178 square feet178 square feet195 square feet70 square feet
(21.7%)(16.4%)(17.0%)(14.5%)(14.4%)(XX.X%)
176 square feet average
1 2 3 4 5 6
BEDROOM. TYP. 1 of 3
123456
163 square feet165 square feet178 square feet178 square feet195 square feet70 square feet
(21.7%)(16.4%)(17.0%)(14.5%)(14.4%)(XX.X%)
176 square feet average
1 2 3 4 5 6
Figure 95: Bedroom Area by Case Study
149 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 5
13 - 3”
13’ - 6”
13 - 3”
13’ - 6”
61% 61%CASE STUDY 3Total square feet:Excess square feet:
178108
CASE STUDY 4Total square feet:Excess square feet:
178108
Figure 96: Bedroom Area Case Study 3 Figure 97: Bedroom Area Case Study 4
150Evaluating Room by Room | Microscopic Analysis
13 - 10”
14’ - 1”
8’ - 6”
8’ - 3”
64%CASE STUDY 5Total square feet:Excess square feet:
195125
MINIMUMTotal square feet:Excess square feet:
700 0%
Figure 98: Bedroom Area Case Study 5
Figure 99: Minimum Bedroom Area
151 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 5
18 square feet
9’4” of rod space.
4’ - 8”
31 square feet
9’4” of rod space
9’ - 4”
Figure 100: Reach-In Analysis
While a walk-in closet is often seen as luxurious, and
therefore desirable in the mind of a common client, it is
important to consider the ramifications of this design
decision. Walk-in closets inherently require more square
footage than reach-in closets as they demand adequate
circulation space to be contained entirely within their
boundaries. As a result, reach-in closets can, in fact, offer
residents the opportunity for more rod space with less
square footage while inherently providing more seamless
access to the bedroom and changing area.
REACH–IN
152Evaluating Room by Room | Microscopic Analysis
REACH-IN. TYP. 1 of 3
123456
15 square feet18 square feet14 square feet18 square feet18 square feet10 square feet
(1.9%)(2.1%)(1.3%)(1.5%)(1.3%)
(XX.X%)
16.5 square feet average
1 2 3 4 5 6
REACH-IN. TYP. 1 of 3
123456
15 square feet18 square feet14 square feet18 square feet18 square feet10 square feet
(1.9%)(2.1%)(1.3%)(1.5%)(1.3%)
(XX.X%)
16.5 square feet average
1 2 3 4 5 6
Figure 101: Reach-In Area by Case Study
153 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 5
2’ - 0”
7’ - 1”
2’ - 0”
9’ - 0”
CASE STUDY 3Total square feet:Excess square feet:
144 29% CASE STUDY 4
Total square feet:Excess square feet:
188 44%
Figure 102: Reach-In Area Case Study 3
Figure 103: Reach-In Area Case Study 4
154Evaluating Room by Room | Microscopic Analysis
2’ - 0”
9’ - 0”
2’ - 0”
5’ - 0”
MINIMUMTotal square feet:Excess square feet:
100 0%CASE STUDY 5
Total square feet:Excess square feet:
188 44%
Figure 104: Reach-In Area Case Study 5 Figure 105: Minimum Reach-In Area
155 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 5
example 2
example 1
Figure 106: Walk-In Analysis
When a walk-in closet is desired, the type of door, as well
as direction of the door swing, becomes crucial in creating
closet space that can operate as effectively as possible in
the often small and confined amount of square footage a
modest walk-in closet encompasses. While a pocket door is
the most ideal when speaking in terms of conserving space,
there are also benefits worth noting from using a swinging
door such as the possibility of hanging shoes or a mirror on
the back of it.
WALK–IN
156Evaluating Room by Room | Microscopic Analysis
WALK-IN. TYP. 1 of 3
123456
21 square feet31 square feet19 square feet27 square feet27 square feet17 square feet
(2.8%)(3.6%)(1.8%)(2.2%)(1.9%)
(XX.X%)
24.3 square feet average
1 2 3 4 5 6
WALK-IN. TYP. 1 of 3
123456
21 square feet31 square feet19 square feet27 square feet27 square feet17 square feet
(2.8%)(3.6%)(1.8%)(2.2%)(1.9%)
(XX.X%)
24.3 square feet average
1 2 3 4 5 6
Figure 107: Walk-In Area by Case Study
157 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 5
5’ - 2”
5’ - 2”
4’ - 4”
4’ - 4”
CASE STUDY 3Total square feet:Excess square feet:
192 11% CASE STUDY 4
Total square feet:Excess square feet:
2710 37%
Figure 108: Walk-In Area Case Study 3
Figure 109: Walk-In Area Case Study 4
158Evaluating Room by Room | Microscopic Analysis5’ - 2”
5’ - 2”
2’ - 6”
6’ - 8”
MINIMUMTotal square feet:Excess square feet:
170 0%CASE STUDY 5
Total square feet:Excess square feet:
2710 37%
Figure 110: Walk-In Area Case Study 5
Figure 111: Minimum Walk-In Area
159 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 5
37 square feet
5’ handicap diameter
Figure 112: Powder Room Analysis
The increase in area of the powder rooms in the case studies
evaluated resulted in no additional fixtures in every instance,
therefore affirming that this added square footage exists solely
for the creation of additional circulation space. It is worth noting
that, throughout all of these case studies, this additional area did
not allow the powder room to reach a size in which handicap
accessibility is accommodated for. The powder room is likely
to be the restroom which guests use, and therefore has the
greatest potential to require handicap accessibility should this
be a desirable accommodation by homeowners.
POWDER ROOM
160Evaluating Room by Room | Microscopic Analysis
POWDER ROOM.123456
20 square feet25 square feet25 square feet50 square feet37 square feet15 square feet
(0.9%)(1.0%)(0.8%)(1.4%)(0.9%)
(XX.X%)
94 square feet average
1 2 3 4 5 6
POWDER ROOM.123456
20 square feet25 square feet25 square feet50 square feet37 square feet15 square feet
(0.9%)(1.0%)(0.8%)(1.4%)(0.9%)
(XX.X%)
94 square feet average
1 2 3 4 5 6
Figure 113: Powder Room Area by Case Study
161 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 5
7’ - 1”
3’ - 7”
9’ - 1”
5’ - 7”
CASE STUDY 3Total square feet:Excess square feet:
2510 40% CASE STUDY 4
Total square feet:Excess square feet:
5035 70%
Figure 114: Powder Room Area Case Study 3
Figure 115: Powder Room Area Case Study 4
162Evaluating Room by Room | Microscopic Analysis8’ - 1”
4’ - 7”
6’ - 0”
2’ - 6”
MINIMUMTotal square feet:Excess square feet:
150 0%CASE STUDY 5
Total square feet:Excess square feet:
3722 59%
Figure 116: Powder Room Area Case Study 5
Figure 115: Minimum Powder Room Area
163 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 5
55 square feet
Figure 118: Full Bathroom Analysis
Not only does the size of individual bathrooms increase as
the case study homes get larger, the quantity of bathrooms
within the home increases as well. This can likely be
attributed to a growing desire for privacy by the general
public; a crucial consideration in the design of bathrooms.
Through the compartmentalization of a bathroom, very little
additional square footage is required and the opportunity
for privacy within the bathroom itself is made available,
allowing two users to occupy it concurrently. As a result, the
“necessity” for several individual bathrooms within the home
is decreased.
FULL BATH
164Evaluating Room by Room | Microscopic Analysis
FULL BATHROOM.123456
60 square feet64 square feet58 square feet x 281 square feet x 255 square feet x 340 square feet x 2
(2.7%)(2.5%)(3.7%)(4.4%)(4.1%)(X.X%)
64 square feet average
1 2 3 4 5 6
FULL BATHROOM.123456
60 square feet64 square feet58 square feet x 281 square feet x 255 square feet x 340 square feet x 2
(2.7%)(2.5%)(3.7%)(4.4%)(4.1%)(X.X%)
64 square feet average
1 2 3 4 5 6
Figure 119: Full Bathroom Area by Case Study
165 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 5
11’ - 0”
5’ - 3”
11’ - 0”
7’ - 5”
CASE STUDY 3Total square feet:Excess square feet:
5818 38% CASE STUDY 4
Total square feet:Excess square feet:
8141 51%
Figure 120: Full Bathroom Area Case Study 3 Figure 121: Full Bathroom Area Case Study 4
166Evaluating Room by Room | Microscopic Analysis
ESTCODE
11’ - 0”
5’ - 0” 5’ - 0”
8’ - 0”
MINIMUMTotal square feet:Excess square feet:
400 0%CASE STUDY 5
Total square feet:Excess square feet:
5515 27%
Figure 122: Full Bathroom Area Case Study 5
Figure 123: Minimum Full Bathroom Area
167 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 5
1370’ 2
1370’ 2
1370’2
1370’ 2
4050’2 1370’ 2
case study 5
3675’2
case study 4
3150’2
case study 3
2550’2
case study 2
22250’
case study 1
minimum
880’“EXCESS”
1180’“EXCESS”
1780’“EXCESS”
2305’“EXCESS”
2680’“EXCESS”
2
minimum
minimum
minimum
minimum
2
2
2
2
Figure 124: Establishing Case Study Excess Square Footage
168Evaluating Room by Room | Microscopic Analysis
The assessment of these five case studies provides for a
determination as to the level of excess common American
households encompass when compared to the minimum
area required for each room of a home to host essential
furnishings and fixtures. By subtracting the minimum space
from the overall square footage the figure for area of excess
is obtained. These values are used on the next two pages to
determine the economic and environmental ramifications
associated with operating and maintaining this additional
square footage, and evaluates how much money would be
saved as a result should inefficient and grandiose designs be
avoided in desining the home of the future.
169 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 5
123456
ENERGY EXPENDITURES
United StatesMidwestRuralMixed-HumidSingle-Family Detached6 Persons
1.030.870.991.040.951.09
1.00per square foot
(US dollars)
123456
ENERGY EXPENDITURES
Case Study 1Case Study 2Case Study 3Case Study 4Case Study 5Minimum
225025503150367540501370
by housingcharacteristic( ) ( )by case
study
= ( )
per year(US dollars)
Case Study Expenditures- Minimum Expenditures ( # of years ) # of Years ( 1.03 )PROJECTED ENERGY SAVINGS
CONCLUSION: Accounts for inflation of US dollar.
Values refelected in chart below.
TOTAL AVERAGE:
Figure 125: Energy Expenditures by Housing Characteristic Figure 126: Energy Expenditures by Case Study
170Evaluating Room by Room | Microscopic Analysis
ENERGY SAVINGS: Projected values include a 3% inflation rate of the United States dollar based on historical inflation rates, but do not account for increasing energy costs, therefore would be higher in actuality.
CASE STUDY 5
CASE STUDY 4
CASE STUDY 3
CASE STUDY 2
CASE STUDY 1
$350,000
$325,000
$300,000
$275,000
$250,000
$225,000
$200,000
$175,000
$150,000
$125,000
$100,000
$75,000
$50,000
$25,000
$05 years 10 years 20 years 30 years 40 years
Figure 127: Energy Savings Based on Excess SF
171 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 5
Notes
1 US Census Bureau, M. C. D. “Characteristics of New Housing.” Accessed October 18, 2013. http://www.census.gov/construction/chars/high lights.html.
2 “American Households Are Getting Smaller – And Headed by Older Adults.” Marketing Charts. Accessed October 18, 2013. http://www. marketingcharts.com/wp/topics/demographics/american-house holds-are-getting-smaller-and-headed-by-older-adults-24981/.
3 Susanka, Sarah. The Not So Big House: A Blueprint for the Way We Really Live. (Newtown, CT; [Emeryville, CA]: Taunton Press ; Distributed by Publishers Group West, 1998), 184.
4 Gauer, James, and Catherine Tighe. The New American Dream: Living Well in Small Homes. First Edition. (New York, New York: Monacelli Press, 2004), 231.
5 Susanka, Sarah. Home by Design: Transforming Your House Into Home. (Newtown, Connecticut: Taunton Press, 2004), 8.
6 Susanka, The Not So Big House: A Blueprint For the Way We Really Live, 184.
7 Ibid., 113.
8 Nelson, George. Problems of Design. 2nd edition. (Whitney Library of Design, 1965), 154.
9 Ibid., 154.
172Evaluating Room by Room | Microscopic Analysis
173 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 6
Visiting Parkview Acres
SITE ANALYSIS
6
174Visiting Parkview Acres | Site Analysis
The site selected for this project is a lot located in Parkview Acres; a
development in the town of Minster, Ohio. Rooted in personal interest,
this development is where the foundations of this thesis began at a young
age as a result of growing up in an area where inefficient home design
concepts are commonplace, and rarely questioned.
175 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 6
176Visiting Parkview Acres | Site Analysis
It is important to remember that the suburban home is
not a self-contained world but rather a single element in
a much greater whole, thus it should always be designed
with its next larger context in mind. As a result, it is crucial
that the house of the future relates to the lot, the street,
and the neighborhood that surrounds it. If the role of
the increasingly privatized suburban home is somewhat
reversed through the incorporation of better public space
on site, several houses are afforded the opportunity to
come together to foster a much more lively and community
oriented whole. When viewed in this context, how large
does the individual home really need to be to contribute?1
“One of the greatest gifts architecture can give you is to go
beyond the experience of the single building... and see
what can happen when buildings come together to make
a place.”2 The failure to capitalize on this in residential
neighborhoods throughout America today can be attributed
1 Gauer and Tighe2 Goldberger
to several factors including the loss of front porches,
increased setbacks, larger lot sizes, and the automobile
taking precedence in design decisions allowing the “front
yard” to be consumed by a driveway. The confines of a
home must be expanded, extended back out into public
space in order for suburbia to facilitate a truly public realm. If
the single-family home of the future successfully connects
to its site, function, and the homes of the surrounding
neighborhood, it will develop its own individual strength
and its success will perpetuate allowing increasingly public
suburban life to flourish. It may be the case that this 21st
century evolution of the suburbs can prevent the city from
becoming a victim of its own success in regards to public
amenities in the future.3
Perhaps nowhere is it more apparent that the whole
of a neighborhood is essential to the experience of a
single-family home than through the eyes of a child. The
3 “Who cares about the ‘Burbs’?”
177 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 6
SITEPARKVIEW ACRESMINSTER, OHIO
N
Figure 128: Aerial View of Site Neighborhood
178Visiting Parkview Acres | Site Analysis
experience of architecture is rooted in childhood, often
“before we have even heard of the word.”4 Because of
this, the home finds dominance in understanding the
built environment. With time, the natural inclination
is to compare new architectural experiences to those
in memory, relating the new experiences back to a
worldview of architecture that developed subconsciously
in childhood. “The roots of architectural understanding lie
in our architectural experience: our room, our house, our
street, our village, our town, our landscape—we experience
them all early on, unconsciously, and we subsequently
compare them with the countryside, towns, and houses
that we experience later on.”5 It is daunting to believe that
today a generation of children is being raised with the
increasingly privatized suburban model of home design
and neighborhood development as the foundation of their
architectural understanding.
4 Zumthor5 Ibid.
The site selected for this project is rooted in this childhood
understanding of the home and neighborhood as a result of
personal discontentment with the architecture comprising
the single-family home environment of Parkview Acres.
179 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 6
TOP 3 PRIORITIES IN DECIDING WHERE TO LIVE1 PRIVACY FROM NEIGHBORS (86%)2 SIDEWALKS AND PLACES TO TAKE WALKS (80%)3 HIGH QUALITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS (74%
...all characteristics of Parkview Acres
United States
Minster, Ohio
Population per household
present
2.61
2.60
present
Median household income
$51,017
$69,417present
present
Cost of living
100
93.9present
present
UNITED STATES v. MINSTER, OHIO
Figure 130 Site Demographics
Figure 129 Priorities in Deciding Where to Live
180Visiting Parkview Acres | Site Analysis
60
79
95
Ohio
Auglaize County
Minster
MINSTER LOCAL SCHOOLS RATING COMPARED TOAVERAGE STATE AND COUNTY SCHOOL RATINGS USING WEIGHTED TEST AVERAGES FROM 2010
2
3
MINSTER
1
FANNING HOWEY ASSOCIATES INC.k-12higher educationlibrariesengineeringplanning
GARMAN MILLER & ASSOCIATEShigher educationk-12 educationcommunitycommercialindustrialhealthcare
FREYTAG & ASSOCIATES INC.educationcommunitygovernmenthealthcarecommercialindustrial
1
2
3
Figure 131 School Ratings
Figure 132 Local Architects do not Advertise Residential Services
181 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 6
LOCAL WEATHER AND CLIMATE52
102 -25
ANNUAL AVERAGE TEMPERATUREMAXIMUM TEMPERATUREMINIMUM TEMPERATURE
27.5”39.58”
AVERAGE ANNUAL SNOWFALLAVERAGE ANNUAL PRECIPITATION
Average high and low temperatures by month in Minster, Ohio
JAN. FEB. MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. NOV. DEC.
1720
27
37
48
5861
59
51
40
32
22
34
39
49
62
72
8184 83
77
65
52
38
Figure 133 Local Weather and Climate
Figure 134 Average Temperatures by Month
182Visiting Parkview Acres | Site Analysis
JAN. FEB. MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. NOV. DEC.
3.57” 4.19” 4.55” 4.21” 3.76” 2.81” 2.81” 3.37” 2.86”2.84”2.31”2.49”
Average monthly precipitation in Minster, Ohio
NORTH
SOUTH
EASTWEST
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
19h
18h
17h
16h
15h14h
13h 12h 11h10h
9h
8h
7h
6h
5h
Dec. 21
Jan. 21
Feb. 21
Mar. 21
Apr. 21
May 21
Jun. 21
Dec. 21
Jan. 21
Feb. 21
Mar. 21
Apr. 21
May. 21
Jun. 21
SITE
Site-specific sun path diagram
Figure 135 Average Precipitation by Month
Figure 136 Sun Path Diagram
183 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 6
1989 –1992 25 homes constructed2804 average square feet$254,790 average total value
$300,000 - $349,999
$350,000 - $399,999
$400,000 - $449,999
$450,000 - $499,999
$150,000 - $199,999
$200,000 - $249,999
$250,000 - $299,999
Figure 137 Neighborhood Growth Analysis Period 1
184Visiting Parkview Acres | Site Analysis
Parkview Acres in Minster, Ohio is the development
represented in the accompanying diagram. The first home
constructed in this development dates back to 1989.
Since then, it has undergone continuous growth in both
neighborhood size and the size and value of the housing
components which compose it. The size of the homes in the
following diagrams are proportional to their actual square
footage, while the key to the left represents the total value of
each home, which includes property value.
185 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 6
$300,000 - $349,999
$350,000 - $399,999
$400,000 - $449,999
$450,000 - $499,999
$150,000 - $199,999
$200,000 - $249,999
$250,000 - $299,999
1993 –1996 17 homes constructed2820 average square feet$272,600 average total value
Figure 138 Neighborhood Growth Analysis Period 2
186Visiting Parkview Acres | Site Analysis
In this diagram, the growth in the number of residences in
Parkview Acres is apparent, adding 17 new homes to the
existing neighborhood. In addition, the average size of a
home within the development has experienced a slight
increase: 16 square feet. The average total value of the
individual homes has increased by $17,810. These increasing
trends align with those of national averages, therefore
affirming Parkview Acres as an appropriate site selection.
187 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 6
1997–2000 5 homes constructed3200 average square feet$295,890 average total value
$300,000 - $349,999
$350,000 - $399,999
$400,000 - $449,999
$450,000 - $499,999
$150,000 - $199,999
$200,000 - $249,999
$250,000 - $299,999
Figure 139 Neighborhood Growth Analysis Period 3
188Visiting Parkview Acres | Site Analysis
In this diagram, the growth in the number of residences
in Parkview Acres is apparent, adding 5 new homes to the
existing neighborhood. In addition, the average size of a
home within the development increased in area by 380
square feet, and the average total value of a new home
in Parkview Acres increased by $23,380. These increasing
trends align with those of national averages, again affirming
Parkview Acres as an appropriate site selection.
189 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 6
$300,000 - $349,999
$350,000 - $399,999
$400,000 - $449,999
$450,000 - $499,999
$150,000 - $199,999
$200,000 - $249,999
$250,000 - $299,999
2001-2004 6 homes constructed3600 average square feet$302,220 average total value
Figure 140 Neighborhood Growth Analysis Period 4
190Visiting Parkview Acres | Site Analysis
In this diagram, the growth in the number of residences
in Parkview Acres is consistent with that of the last period,
adding 6 new homes to the existing neighborhood. During
this period, the average area of a new home in Parkview
Acres undergoes significant growth with an addition of
400 square feet per home. The average value of these
new homes increased by $6,330. These increasing trends
align with those of national averages, once more affirming
Parkview Acres as an appropriate site selection.
191 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 6
$300,000 - $349,999
$350,000 - $399,999
$400,000 - $449,999
$450,000 - $499,999
$150,000 - $199,999
$200,000 - $249,999
$250,000 - $299,999
2005-2009 8 homes constructed3520 average square feet$351,510 average total value
Figure 141 Neighborhood Growth Analysis Period 5
192Visiting Parkview Acres | Site Analysis
During this period, Parkview Acres again saw an increase in
the number of homes constructed, adding 8 new homes
to the existing neighborhood. While these new homes
decreased slightly in area compared to that of the previous
period, their average value increased significantly at nearly
$50,000 despite the economic recession in the United States
at this time. The numbers located on 8 of the lots to the right
correspond with the bar graphs on the next page, providing
further information on select homes constructed in this
development.
193 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 6
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
current national average
1995
1998
1998
2003
2008
2006
2009
2008
SQUARE FOOTAGE:
year completed
current national average
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
TOTAL WORTH:
1995
1998
1998
2003
2008
2006
2009
2008
year completed
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Figure 142 Select Total Worth Figure 143 Select Square Footage
194Visiting Parkview Acres | Site Analysis
By comparing the deomgraphic data provided on the
previous pages to the size and worth of the homes in
Parkview Acres it can be concluded that the average income
of citizens in this geographic region is well above that of
national average while land and construction costs in the
surrounding site area are well below that of national average.
Despite this, home construction in this neighborhood
remains consistent with historical, national area and value
trends. Therefore, it is apparent that those dwelling in this
neighborhood are people who can, in fact, afford to do
better. They are not to blame, however. A fundamental
lack of knowledge and failure to question has allowed
this development to become what it is today; an absence
which can be directly attributed to lack of architectural
intervention. As stated previously, it is the architect’s task to
make apparent to the general public the reasons that design
can help. This neighborhood is just one of many examples
of single-family home environments where architects must
begin to involve themselves in order to maintain their
professional integrity while fulfilling their obligations to
society that come as a result of their chosen field.
195 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 6
Notes
1. Nelson, George. Problems of Design. 2nd edition. (Whitney Library of Design, 1965), 154.
2. Gauer, James, and Catherine Tighe. The New American Dream: Living Well in Small Homes. First Edition. (New York, New York: Monacelli Press, 2004), 14.
3. Zumthor, Peter. Thinking Architecture. 3rd edition. (Basel: Birkhäuser Architecture, 2010), 65.
4. Ibid., 65.
5. Goldberger, Paul. Why Architecture Matters. (Yale University Press, 2011), 233.
196Visiting Parkview Acres | Site Analysis
197 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 7
Exposing the Dream
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
7
198Exposing the Dream | Design Development
The following design puts to practice the ideas and insights discovered
under the previous research and analysis. By facilitating the creation of
a more ethical home environment for a family of six who did not build
the “evaluated” house design as a result of its excessive size, this thesis
demonstrates that the American home of the future can undergo a
significant reduction in scale without compromising aesthetics or function,
all the while creating a win-win-win scenario for client, architect, and
developer both environmentally and economically.
199 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 7
Figure 144 Evaluated First Floor Plan
EVALUATED - first floor
–1115 SF3675 SF 2560 SF
3 4
8
11
9
147
15
1 2 5 6
13
12
16
E
S
W
N
DOWN
DO
WN
DO
WN
UP DOWN
UP
DETAILEDWALL
SECTIONDOWN
10
N
0’ 4’ 8’ 16’N
0’ 4’ 8’ 16’
30%
REDUCTION
123456789
10111213141516
Her closetHis closetHobby roomLiving roomKitchenKeeping roomMaster bedroomMaster bathroomStudyDining roomEntry foyerStairPowder roomMud roomLaundry roomGarage
Denotes trimmed area
1 & 2 8
4 56
31011
9 15
7
13
16
Labels correspond with “proposed” floor plan key for comparison purposes
PROPOSED - first floor
200Exposing the Dream | Design Development
EVALUATED - first floor
–1115 SF3675 SF 2560 SF
3 4
8
11
9
147
15
1 2 5 6
13
12
16
E
S
W
N
DOWN
DO
WN
DO
WN
UP DOWN
UP
DETAILEDWALL
SECTIONDOWN
10
N
0’ 4’ 8’ 16’N
0’ 4’ 8’ 16’
30%
REDUCTION
123456789
10111213141516
Her closetHis closetHobby roomLiving roomKitchenKeeping roomMaster bedroomMaster bathroomStudyDining roomEntry foyerStairPowder roomMud roomLaundry roomGarage
Denotes trimmed area
1 & 2 8
4 56
31011
9 15
7
13
16
Labels correspond with “after” floor plan key for comparison purposes
PROPOSED - first floor
Figure 145 Proposed First Floor Plan
201 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 7
Open to below
Storage(unconditioned)
1
2
5
6
3 4
9
7
10
8EW
N
S
DOWN
DETAILEDWALL
SECTION
EVALUATED - second floor
–680 SF1815 SF 1135 SF
N
0’ 4’ 8’ 16’N
0’ 4’ 8’ 16’
37%
REDUCTION
Denotes trimmed areaLabels correspond with “proposed” floor plan key for comparison purposes
PROPOSED - second floor123456789
10
Closet 1BathroomBedroom 1Study loftCedar storageBedroom 2Closet 2Shared bathCloset 3Bedroom 3
5
3
6
7
108
9
4
2 1
Figure 146 Evaluated Second Floor Plan
202Exposing the Dream | Design Development
Figure 147 Proposed Second Floor Plan
Open to below
Storage(unconditioned)
1
2
5
6
3 4
9
7
10
8EW
N
S
DOWN
DETAILEDWALL
SECTION
EVALUATED - second floor
–680 SF1815 SF 1135 SF
N
0’ 4’ 8’ 16’N
0’ 4’ 8’ 16’
37%
REDUCTION
Denotes trimmed areaLabels correspond with “after” floor plan key for comparison purposes
PROPOSED - second floor123456789
10
Closet 1BathroomBedroom 1Study loftCedar storageBedroom 2Closet 2Shared bathCloset 3Bedroom 3
5
3
6
7
108
9
4
2 1
203 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 7
ceiling
finished floorceiling
finished floorgrade
0’ 4’ 8’ 16’
EVALUATED - south PROPOSED - south0’ 4’ 8’ 16’
Figure 148 Evaluated South Elevation
204Exposing the Dream | Design Development
Figure 149 Proposed South Elevation
ceiling
finished floorceiling
finished floorgrade
0’ 4’ 8’ 16’
EVALUATED - south PROPOSED - south0’ 4’ 8’ 16’
205 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 7
Figure 150 Evaluated East Elevation
ceiling
finished floorceiling
finished floorgrade
0’ 4’ 8’ 16’
EVALUATED - east PROPOSED - east0’ 4’ 8’ 16’
206Exposing the Dream | Design Development
ceiling
finished floorceiling
finished floorgrade
0’ 4’ 8’ 16’
EVALUATED - east PROPOSED - east0’ 4’ 8’ 16’
Figure 151 Proposed East Elevation
207 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 7
Figure 152 Evaluated North Elevation
ceiling
finished floorceiling
finished floorgrade
0’ 4’ 8’ 16’
EVALUATED - north PROPOSED - north0’ 4’ 8’ 16’
208Exposing the Dream | Design Development
ceiling
finished floorceiling
finished floorgrade
0’ 4’ 8’ 16’
EVALUATED - north PROPOSED - north0’ 4’ 8’ 16’
Figure 153 Proposed North Elevation
209 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 7
Figure 154 Evaluated West Elevation
ceiling
finished floorceiling
finished floorgrade
0’ 4’ 8’ 16’
EVALUATED - west PROPOSED - west0’ 4’ 8’ 16’
210Exposing the Dream | Design Development
ceiling
finished floorceiling
finished floorgrade
0’ 4’ 8’ 16’
EVALUATED - west PROPOSED - west0’ 4’ 8’ 16’
Figure 155 Proposed West Elevation
211 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 7
CHIMNEY
CHIMNEY
MECHANICAL EQUIP.
SITE PLAN NTSN
53% REDUCTION
LOT PLAN NTSN
Figure 156 Site Plan
212Exposing the Dream | Design Development
CHIMNEY
CHIMNEY
MECHANICAL EQUIP.
SITE PLAN NTSN
53% REDUCTION
LOT PLAN NTSN
As a direct result of the reduction in scale of the proposed solution,
coupled with a more compact building footprint, the required lot size
for such a project drastically decreases. By facilitating the creation of
reduced lot sizes within suburban environments by way of smaller homes,
a winning scenario for the developer becomes apparent in that more lots
will fit into the same acreage of development. In this comparatively small
neighborhood alone, the creation of 21 new lots, and therefore homes, is
made possible through this reduction.
Figure 157 Lot Plan
213 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 7
Figure 158 Square Footage Evaluated Figure 159 Square Footage Proposed Figure 160 Resulting Differences
EVALUATEDKITCHENDININGLIVINGLAUNDRYBEDROOM MBEDROOM 1BEDROOM 2BEDROOM 3
ENTRY/FOYERKEEPING
532 SF
HOBBYSTUDYPOWDER ROOM 1POWDER ROOM 2SUN ROOMBUTLER’S PANTRY
MASTER BATHMASTER CLOSETWALK-IN 1WALK-IN 2WALK-IN 3FULL BATHSHARED BATHCEDAR STORAGE
CIRCULATION
KITCHENDININGLIVINGLAUNDRYBEDROOM MBEDROOM 1BEDROOM 2BEDROOM 3
ENTRY/FOYERKEEPINGHOBBYSTUDYPOWDER ROOM 1POWDER ROOM 2SUN ROOMBUTLER’S PANTRY
MASTER BATHMASTER CLOSETWALK-IN 1WALK-IN 2WALK-IN 3FULL BATHSHARED BATHCEDAR STORAGE
CIRCULATION
KITCHENDININGLIVINGLAUNDRYBEDROOM MBEDROOM 1BEDROOM 2BEDROOM 3
ENTRY/FOYERKEEPINGHOBBYSTUDYPOWDER ROOM 1POWDER ROOM 2SUN ROOMBUTLER’S PANTRY
MASTER BATHMASTER CLOSETWALK-IN 1WALK-IN 2WALK-IN 3FULL BATHSHARED BATHCEDAR STORAGE
CIRCULATION
220 SF
420 SF
92 SF
270 SF
245 SF
216 SF
256 SF
224 SF
232 SF
212 SF
206 SF
32 SF
44 SF
206 SF
45 SF
216 SF
130 SF
38 SF
50 SF
52 SF
55 SF
114 SF
114 SF
1268 SF
386 SF
162 SF
412 SF
58 SF
298 SF
204 SF
208 SF
230 SF
188 SF
168 SF
208 SF
92 SF
30 SF
0 SF
0 SF
0 SF
126 SF
115 SF
46 SF
36 SF
38 SF
38 SF
98 SF
28 SF
526 SF
146 SF
58 SF
8 SF
34 SF
+ 28 SF
41 SF
8 SF
26 SF
36 SF
64 SF
4 SF
114 SF
2 SF
44 SF
206 SF
45 SF
90 SF
15 SF
+ 8 SF
14 SF
14 SF
14 SF
16 SF
86 SF
742 SF
SQUARE FOOTAGE
PROPOSEDSQUARE FOOTAGE
DIFFERENCESQUARE FOOTAGE
8%
3%
0%
2%
0%
2%
0%
1%
1%
4%
0%
6%
0%
3%
11%
2%
5%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
5%
41%
% SITE NEIGHBORHOOD?HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO THE EXISTING
21 BUILT HOUSES ON SITEA REDUCTION EQUIVALENT TO THE FIRST
# OF HOUSES IN SITE NEIGHBORHOOD 61
YEARS BUILTTOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF BUILDING STOCK
1989 - PRESENT
183,800 SF
DESIGN REDUCTION PERCENTAGE 33%
ADJUSTED SQUARE FOOTAGE OF BUILDING STOCK 122,520 SF
DIFFERENCE OF ADJUSTED vs. ACTUAL 61,280 SF
ENERGY EFFICIENCY?HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO
TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF BUILDING STOCK 183,800 SF
AVERAGE ANNUAL NEIGHBORHOOD ENERGY COSTS $145,670
DESIGN REDUCTION PERCENTAGE 33%
ADJUSTED SQUARE FOOTAGE OF BUILDING STOCK 122,520 SF
ADJUSTED ANNUAL NEIGHBORHOOD ENERGY COSTS $121,900
DIFFERENCE OF ADJUSTED vs. ACTUAL $23,770
BUILT IN1989
BUILT IN1989
BUILT IN1989
BUILT IN1989
BUILT IN1989
BUILT IN1989
BUILT IN1989
BUILT IN1989
BUILT IN1989
BUILT IN1990
BUILT IN1990
BUILT IN1990
BUILT IN1990
BUILT IN1990
BUILT IN1991
BUILT IN1991
BUILT IN1991
BUILT IN1991
BUILT IN1991
BUILT IN1992
BUILT IN1992
5 YEAR NEIGHBORHOOD SAVINGS $137,725
10 YEAR NEIGHBORHOOD SAVINGS $319,323
20 YEAR NEIGHBORHOOD SAVINGS $858,286
30 YEAR NEIGHBORHOOD SAVINGS40 YEAR NEIGHBORHOODSAVINGS
$1,730,196
= ( )Case Study Expenditures- Minimum Expenditures ( # of years ) # of Years ( 1.03 )PROJECTED ENERGY SAVINGS
$3,100,319
214Exposing the Dream | Design Development
EVALUATEDKITCHENDININGLIVINGLAUNDRYBEDROOM MBEDROOM 1BEDROOM 2BEDROOM 3
ENTRY/FOYERKEEPING
532 SF
HOBBYSTUDYPOWDER ROOM 1POWDER ROOM 2SUN ROOMBUTLER’S PANTRY
MASTER BATHMASTER CLOSETWALK-IN 1WALK-IN 2WALK-IN 3FULL BATHSHARED BATHCEDAR STORAGE
CIRCULATION
KITCHENDININGLIVINGLAUNDRYBEDROOM MBEDROOM 1BEDROOM 2BEDROOM 3
ENTRY/FOYERKEEPINGHOBBYSTUDYPOWDER ROOM 1POWDER ROOM 2SUN ROOMBUTLER’S PANTRY
MASTER BATHMASTER CLOSETWALK-IN 1WALK-IN 2WALK-IN 3FULL BATHSHARED BATHCEDAR STORAGE
CIRCULATION
KITCHENDININGLIVINGLAUNDRYBEDROOM MBEDROOM 1BEDROOM 2BEDROOM 3
ENTRY/FOYERKEEPINGHOBBYSTUDYPOWDER ROOM 1POWDER ROOM 2SUN ROOMBUTLER’S PANTRY
MASTER BATHMASTER CLOSETWALK-IN 1WALK-IN 2WALK-IN 3FULL BATHSHARED BATHCEDAR STORAGE
CIRCULATION
220 SF
420 SF
92 SF
270 SF
245 SF
216 SF
256 SF
224 SF
232 SF
212 SF
206 SF
32 SF
44 SF
206 SF
45 SF
216 SF
130 SF
38 SF
50 SF
52 SF
55 SF
114 SF
114 SF
1268 SF
386 SF
162 SF
412 SF
58 SF
298 SF
204 SF
208 SF
230 SF
188 SF
168 SF
208 SF
92 SF
30 SF
0 SF
0 SF
0 SF
126 SF
115 SF
46 SF
36 SF
38 SF
38 SF
98 SF
28 SF
526 SF
146 SF
58 SF
8 SF
34 SF
+ 28 SF
41 SF
8 SF
26 SF
36 SF
64 SF
4 SF
114 SF
2 SF
44 SF
206 SF
45 SF
90 SF
15 SF
+ 8 SF
14 SF
14 SF
14 SF
16 SF
86 SF
742 SF
SQUARE FOOTAGE
PROPOSEDSQUARE FOOTAGE
DIFFERENCESQUARE FOOTAGE
8%
3%
0%
2%
0%
2%
0%
1%
1%
4%
0%
6%
0%
3%
11%
2%
5%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
5%
41%
% SITE NEIGHBORHOOD?HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO THE EXISTING
21 BUILT HOUSES ON SITEA REDUCTION EQUIVALENT TO THE FIRST
# OF HOUSES IN SITE NEIGHBORHOOD 61
YEARS BUILTTOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF BUILDING STOCK
1989 - PRESENT
183,800 SF
DESIGN REDUCTION PERCENTAGE 33%
ADJUSTED SQUARE FOOTAGE OF BUILDING STOCK 122,520 SF
DIFFERENCE OF ADJUSTED vs. ACTUAL 61,280 SF
ENERGY EFFICIENCY?HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO
TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF BUILDING STOCK 183,800 SF
AVERAGE ANNUAL NEIGHBORHOOD ENERGY COSTS $145,670
DESIGN REDUCTION PERCENTAGE 33%
ADJUSTED SQUARE FOOTAGE OF BUILDING STOCK 122,520 SF
ADJUSTED ANNUAL NEIGHBORHOOD ENERGY COSTS $121,900
DIFFERENCE OF ADJUSTED vs. ACTUAL $23,770
BUILT IN1989
BUILT IN1989
BUILT IN1989
BUILT IN1989
BUILT IN1989
BUILT IN1989
BUILT IN1989
BUILT IN1989
BUILT IN1989
BUILT IN1990
BUILT IN1990
BUILT IN1990
BUILT IN1990
BUILT IN1990
BUILT IN1991
BUILT IN1991
BUILT IN1991
BUILT IN1991
BUILT IN1991
BUILT IN1992
BUILT IN1992
5 YEAR NEIGHBORHOOD SAVINGS $137,725
10 YEAR NEIGHBORHOOD SAVINGS $319,323
20 YEAR NEIGHBORHOOD SAVINGS $858,286
30 YEAR NEIGHBORHOOD SAVINGS40 YEAR NEIGHBORHOODSAVINGS
$1,730,196
= ( )Case Study Expenditures- Minimum Expenditures ( # of years ) # of Years ( 1.03 )PROJECTED ENERGY SAVINGS
$3,100,319
Figure 161 Resulting Relationships Figure 162 Equivalent Houses by way of Area Reduction
215 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 7
VIGNETTE “A”:
ENTRY FOYERVIGNETTE “B”:
HALLWAYVIGNETTE “C”:
STUDY LOFTVIGNETTE “D”:
LAUNDRY ROOMVIGNETTE “E”:
BALCONYVIGNETTE “F”:
LIVING ROOM
INTERIOR VIGNETTES
Figure 163 Vignette A Figure 164 Vignette B Figure 165 Vignette C
216Exposing the Dream | Design Development
VIGNETTE “A”:
ENTRY FOYERVIGNETTE “B”:
HALLWAYVIGNETTE “C”:
STUDY LOFTVIGNETTE “D”:
LAUNDRY ROOMVIGNETTE “E”:
BALCONYVIGNETTE “F”:
LIVING ROOM
INTERIOR VIGNETTES
Figure 166 Vignette D Figure 167 Vignette E Figure 168 Vignette F
217 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 7
The front view of the proposed solution demonstrates that a home such
as the one which was evaluated for this project can be reduced in scale
while maintaining the desired architectural language and features of the
client through the consideration of balance and proportion. This home is
now able to achieve prominence while “being a good neighbor” by way of
avoiding the overbearing effect that can result from grandiose designs.
Figure 169 Front View of Proposed House
218Exposing the Dream | Design Development
The rear elevation of the proposed solution provides all of the primary
features that the evaluated house design provided. Despite the reduction
in scale of the interior of the proposed solution, exterior spaces remain
generous in size for several reasons, such as the fact that they do not
require extensive amounts of energy, and balance between hardscape
and landscape aids in both maintenance and environmental efficiency.
Figure 170 Back View of Proposed House
219 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 7
WEST-EAST NORTH-SOUTH
5 6 7 8 9 10
11
3 421
1
7
2
54 6
3
0’ 4’ 8’ 16’ 0’ 4’ 8’ 16’
1 Storage (unconditioned)2 Bedroom 23 Closet 24 Shared bathroom
5 Her closet6 His closet7 Hobby room8 Living room
9 Kitchen10 Keeping room11 Basement (unfinished)
1 Living room2 Hall3 Study loft4 Keeping room (beyond)
5 Kitchen (beyond)6 Entry foyer7 Basement (unfinished)
Figure 170 Building Section 1
WEST-EAST NORTH-SOUTH
5 6 7 8 9 10
11
3 421
1
7
2
54 6
3
0’ 4’ 8’ 16’ 0’ 4’ 8’ 16’
1 Storage (unconditioned)2 Bedroom 23 Closet 24 Shared bathroom
5 Her closet6 His closet7 Hobby room8 Living room
9 Kitchen10 Keeping room11 Basement (unfinished)
1 Living room2 Hall3 Study loft4 Keeping room (beyond)
5 Kitchen (beyond)6 Entry foyer7 Basement (unfinished)
220Exposing the Dream | Design DevelopmentOPEN TO VIEW WALL SECTION DETAIL
Figure 172 Building Section 2
WEST-EAST NORTH-SOUTH
5 6 7 8 9 10
11
3 421
1
7
2
54 6
3
0’ 4’ 8’ 16’ 0’ 4’ 8’ 16’
1 Storage (unconditioned)2 Bedroom 23 Closet 24 Shared bathroom
5 Her closet6 His closet7 Hobby room8 Living room
9 Kitchen10 Keeping room11 Basement (unfinished)
1 Living room2 Hall3 Study loft4 Keeping room (beyond)
5 Kitchen (beyond)6 Entry foyer7 Basement (unfinished)
WEST-EAST NORTH-SOUTH
5 6 7 8 9 10
11
3 421
1
7
2
54 6
3
0’ 4’ 8’ 16’ 0’ 4’ 8’ 16’
1 Storage (unconditioned)2 Bedroom 23 Closet 24 Shared bathroom
5 Her closet6 His closet7 Hobby room8 Living room
9 Kitchen10 Keeping room11 Basement (unfinished)
1 Living room2 Hall3 Study loft4 Keeping room (beyond)
5 Kitchen (beyond)6 Entry foyer7 Basement (unfinished)
221 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 7
5 6 7 8 9 10
11
3 421
1
7
2
54 6
3
ceiling
finished floorceiling
finished floorgrade
KITCHENDININGLIVINGLAUNDRYBEDROOM MBEDROOM 1BEDROOM 2BEDROOM 3
ENTRY/FOYERKEEPINGHOBBYSTUDYPOWDER ROOM 1POWDER ROOM 2SUN ROOMBUTLER’S PANTRY
MASTER BATHMASTER CLOSETWALK-IN 1WALK-IN 2WALK-IN 3FULL BATHSHARED BATHCEDAR STORAGE
CIRCULATION
- 146 SF
- 58 SF
- 8 SF
- 34 SF
+ 28 SF
- 41 SF
- 8 SF
- 26 SF
- 36 SF
- 64 SF
- 4 SF
- 114 SF
- 2 SF
- 44 SF
- 206 SF
- 45 SF
- 90 SF
- 15 SF
+ 8 SF
- 14 SF
- 14 SF
- 14 SF
- 16 SF
- 86 SF
- 742 SF
DIFFERENCERESULTING
8%
3%
0%
2%
0%
2%
0%
1%
1%
4%
0%
6%
0%
3%
11%
2%
5%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
5%
41%
%VIGNETTE “A”:
ENTRY FOYERVIGNETTE “D”:
LAUNDRY ROOM
VIGNETTE “B”:
HALLWAYVIGNETTE “E”:
BALCONY
VIGNETTE “C”:
STUDY LOFTVIGNETTE “F”:
LIVING ROOM
ceiling
finished floorceiling
finished floor
grade
WEST
EAST
SOUTH
ceiling
finished floorceiling
finished floor
grade
NORTH
WEST-EAST NORTH-SOUTH
EVALUATED PROPOSEDJodie Quinter
Graduate Architecture ThesisThesis chair: Professor Huy Ngo
Faculty advisor: Professor Daniel BrownTopic consultant: Ben Baumer
BY THE YEAR 2035, 75% OF THE BUILDING AREA IN THE UNITED STATES WILL EITHER BE RENEWED OR NEW CONSTRUCTION. THIS PRESENTS A HUGE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE AND FOR ARCHITECTS TO BE A PART OF THE SOLUTION.
CITY
SUBURB
RURAL AREA
currently living in a city, but would prefer to live in...
currently living in a suburb, but would prefer to live in...
currently living in a rural area, but would prefer to live in...
58% 25% 17%
12%
10% 15% 75%
70% 18%
LIVING PREFERENCE:
1989 –1992 25 homes constructed2804 average square feet$254,790 average total value
$300,000 - $349,999
$350,000 - $399,999
$400,000 - $449,999
$450,000 - $499,999
$150,000 - $199,999
$200,000 - $249,999
$250,000 - $299,999
1993 –1996
1997–2000
2001–2004 6 homes constructed3600 average square feet$302,220 average total value
2005–2009 8 homes constructed3520 average square feet$351,510 average total value
$300,000 - $349,999
$350,000 - $399,999
$400,000 - $449,999
$450,000 - $499,999
$150,000 - $199,999
$200,000 - $249,999
$250,000 - $299,999
Six new homes were constructed during this period,all of which increased in both area and value whencompared to those of the previous period. These trends align with those of national averages, affirming Parkview Acres as an appropriate site selection.
Eight new homes were constructed during this period. While these homes actually decreased slightly in area compared to that of the previous period, their average value increased significantly despite the economic recession in the United States at this time.
CASE STUDY 5
CASE STUDY 4
CASE STUDY 3
CASE STUDY 2
CASE STUDY 1
$350,000
$325,000
$300,000
$275,000
$250,000
$225,000
$200,000
$175,000
$150,000
$125,000
$100,000
$75,000
$50,000
$25,000
$05 years 10 years 20 years 30 years 40 years
123456
ENERGY EXPENDITURES
United StatesMidwestRuralMixed-HumidSingle-Family Detached6 Persons
1.030.870.991.040.951.09
1.00per square foot
(US dollars)
by housingcharacteristic( )
123456
ENERGY EXPENDITURES
Case Study 1Case Study 2Case Study 3Case Study 4Case Study 5Minimum
225025503150367540501370
( )by casestudy
= ( )
per year(US dollars)
Case Study Expenditures- Minimum Expenditures ( # of years ) # of Years ( 1.03 )PROJECTED ENERGY SAVINGS
CONCLUSION: Accounts for inflation of US dollar.
Values refelected in accompanying chart.
TOTAL AVERAGE:
0’ 4’ 8’ 16’
10’ - 4”
10’ - 8”
62%CASE STUDY 4Total square feet:Excess square feet:
11068
11’ - 10”
12’ - 3”
CASE STUDY 5Total square feet:Excess square feet:
145103
71%
6’ - 8”
6’ - 4”
MINIMUMTotal square feet:Excess square feet:
420
0%
17’ - 4”
17’ - 8”
53%CASE STUDY 5Total square feet:Excess square feet:
306162
18’ - 5”
18’ - 9”
58%CASE STUDY 4Total square feet:Excess square feet:
345201
11’ - 10”
12’ - 2”
MINIMUMTotal square feet:Excess square feet:
1440
0%
7’ - 10”
8’ - 6”
MINIMUMTotal square feet:Excess square feet:
660
0%12’ - 8”
13’ - 5”
61%CASE STUDY 4Total square feet:Excess square feet:
170104
15’ - 1”
15’ - 9”
72%CASE STUDY 5Total square feet:Excess square feet:
238172
15’ - 5”
15’ - 7”
59%CASE STUDY 4Total square feet:Excess square feet:
240142
20’ - 9”
20’ - 10”
77%CASE STUDY 5Total square feet:Excess square feet:
432334
13’ - 0”
7’ - 11”
MINIMUMTotal square feet:Excess square feet:
1030
0%
21’ - 0”
21’ - 2”
84%CASE STUDY 4Total square feet:Excess square feet:
444374
KITCHEN
The layout of a kitchen should be determined by the triangle between the three primary work areas in the kitchen: the sink, range, and refrigerator. By introducing a second sink, a two-cook kitchen can be created with work triangles that do not intersect without adding a considerable amount of extra square footage.
128 square feet
103 square feet
1
1
2
ESTCODE
LIVING ROOM
Living room size is determined by the arrangement of furnishings, and the space required to move amongst them. In the creation of a six seat living room, it is important to remember that the maximum desirable conversation diameter in social settings is 12’-13’, and that conversation clusters tend to break off when reaching numbers greater than six people, thereforefurnishings should be arranged to cultivate such behavior.
MASTER BATHROOM
Similar to the master bedroom, the master bathroom, too, experiences significant, unnecessary, growth as the size of the modern home increases. In the case studies analyzed, no additional fixtures were placed in the bathrooms of larger size, therefore acknowledging this added square footage as simply circulation space. As a result, the size of the modern bathroom has become large enough for a small bedroom to be housed within it.
minimum bedroom size
ENTRY FOYER
The backdoor of homes generally serves as the primary entrance for homes today. While the door can be considered a crucial transition from exterior to interior, the front door of the home of today is rarely viewed as such. Despite this, thefoyer has become an oversized space which functions as an over the top and grandiose welcoming to visitors, while serving no fundamental functional purpose.
minimum bedroom size
19’ - 9”
20’ - 0”
82%CASE STUDY 5Total square feet:Excess square feet:
395325
8’ - 6”
8’ - 3”
MINIMUMTotal square feet:Excess square feet:
700
0%
1370’ 2
1370’ 2
1370’2
1370’ 2
4050’2 1370’ 2
3675’2
3150’2
2550’2
22250’
case study 5
case study 4
case study 3
case study 2
case study 1
minimum
minimum
minimum
minimum
minimum
880’“EXCESS”
1180’“EXCESS”
1780’“EXCESS”
2305’“EXCESS”
2680’“EXCESS”
2
2
2
2
2
CASE STUDY ANALYSISIn order to discern the inefficiencies associated with the increasing size of the modern home, a case study investigation is necessary to establish the flaws associated with this development, ultimately resulting in an understanding as to what level of “excess” these homes encompass, in addition to how this excess directly affects energy consumption and costs.The following information analyzes five case study homes whose programs feature the same number of bedrooms and bathrooms as the project program requires, despite the drastic variation in their square footages.
SITEPARKVIEW ACRESMINSTER, OHIO
N PROJECTED ENERGY SAVINGSProjected values include a 3% inflation rate of the United States dollar based on historical inflation rates. These values are based on present day construction standards, and do not account for inevitably increasing energy costs, and, therefore, would be even greater in actuality.
NO
NO.
2.94 2.76 2.69 2.63 2.65 2.62 2.57 2.58
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
1645’2 1740’2 1785’2 2080’2 2095’2 2266’2 2434’2 2392’2
IN ORDER TO SUSTAIN HUMANSOCIETY INTO THE NEXT CENTURY,RESOURCE EFFICIENCY WILL HAVETO INCREASE BY A FACTOR OF 10.
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100 2110
NAIVE DREAMEXPOSING A
This thesis addresses the diminishing capacity of the architect in today’s homebuilding industry by exposing their economic, environmental, and psychological significance, resulting in a reevaluation of the traditional paradigms of residential design, and the revelation of the architect’s role in this process.
The initial cost of a building project, traditionally viewed as the primary economic concern, can become rather insignificant when the building’s entire life cycle is assessed. Long-term expenditures must be considered in order to effectively evaluate the best design solutions for a client, a notion affirmed by a study conducted by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
While contemporary homes serve the fundamental purpose of providing shelter, it is difficult to comprehend how the often inefficient, grandiose, and expansive modern home evolved out of this primitive notion. The composition of single-family homes in the United States has been rising in square footage for decades, despite the fact that the size of the single family is decreasing.
Architects are generally uninvolved in home construction despite its substantiality as an economic activity. Assuredly, this is due to a lack of understanding by the public of the benefits the tasks of an architect can provide. Therefore, itis the architect’s job to make apparent the reasons that design can help in order to capitalize on wasted opportunity.
Despite projected urbanization in the United States, a 2013 survey conducted by the National Association of Realtors proved that the public’s desire to live in suburban neighborhoods is not fading. In fact, more people prefer this type of dwelling condition than live there now, indicating a prevailing system composed of a flawed housing model.
The apparent decline in the relevance of the architecture profession is no secret. Architects seem to be losing grip on their purpose in the building industry and, thus, their significance to society. How can the relevance of the architect be regained? It’s simple. Build better buildings. Nowhere is there a greater or more spread opportunity to capitalize on this than in building better homes. The potential for new and renewed construction in the United States makes clear a vast amount ofopportunity for architects to regain public esteem while working to address the issues posed by suburbia.
Homes are built because of a belief in the future; the future of existence and the future of families, and building well demonstrates a belief in a better future. In order to sustain human society, the problems posed regarding the efficiency and consumption of single-family homes must be addressed.
Few will argue that one of the ways architects remain relevant is related to the consumption of the built environment, particularly in relation to dwindling natural resources and the issue of global warming. The efficiency of the residential sector must be evaluated as it accounts for nearly one-half of the energy consumption by the built environment.
BUILT IN1998
$90,000ENERGY COSTS
$180,000REPLACEMENTS
$181,900PRICE OF HOME
20%
MORE THAN UP FRONT COST
Average lifetme costs.
space heating
space cooling
water heating
lighting
refrigeration
electronics
wet cleaningcookingcomputers
others
22%
RES
IDEN
TIA
L
19% COMMERCIAL
ENERGY CONSUMPTION
BY SECTOR
29% TRANSPORTATION
30% INDUSTRIAL
40% BUILDINGS
26.6%
15.8%
13.2%
10.0%
6.3%
4.8%
4.6%2.6%2.5%
13.5%
33%
2%OF NEW HOME-BUYERSWORK DIRECTLY WITH
AN ARCHITECTTO DESIGN THEIR HOME
LOST OPPORTU
NITY
SINGLE-FAMILY HOMECONSTRUCTION:
OVERALL WORKVALUE IN THE
CONSTRUCTIONSECTOR
LIVING ROOM123456
241 SF224 SF300 SF345 SF306 SF144 SF
(10.7%)(8.80%)(9.50%)(9.40%)(7.60%)(0.00%)
2 3 4 5 6
2 3 4 5 6
ENTRY FOYER123456
42 SF72 SF103 SF110 SF145 SF42 SF
(1.90%)(2.80%)(3.30%)(3.00%)(3.60%)(0.00%)
1 2 3 4 5 6
MASTER BED123456
244 SF225 SF285 SF444 SF395 SF70 SF
(10.8%)(8.80%)(9.10%)(12.1%)(9.80%)(0.00%)
1 2 3 4 5 6
MASTER BATH123456
132 SF144 SF180 SF170 SF238 SF66 SF
(5.90%)(5.60%)(5.70%)(4.60%)(5.90%)(0.00%)
KITCHEN123456
103 SF170 SF187 SF240 SF432 SF103 SF
(4.60%)(6.70%)(5.90%)(6.50%)(10.7%)(0.00%)
1 2 3 4 5 6
17 homes constructed2820 average square feet$272,600 average total value
$300,000 - $349,999
$350,000 - $399,999
$400,000 - $449,999
$450,000 - $499,999
$150,000 - $199,999
$200,000 - $249,999
$250,000 - $299,999
$300,000 - $349,999
$350,000 - $399,999
$400,000 - $449,999
$450,000 - $499,999
$150,000 - $199,999
$200,000 - $249,999
$250,000 - $299,999
$300,000 - $349,999
$350,000 - $399,999
$400,000 - $449,999
$450,000 - $499,999
$150,000 - $199,999
$200,000 - $249,999
$250,000 - $299,999
5 homes constructed3200 average square feet$295,890 average total value
Five new homes were constructed during this period,all of which increased in both area and value whencompared to those of the previous period. These trends align with those of national averages, affirming Parkview Acres as an appropriate site selection.
Seventeen new homes were constructed during this period, all of which increased in both area and value when compared to those of the previous period. These trends align with those of national averages, affirming Parkview Acres as an appropriate site selection.
Parkview Acres in Minster, Ohio has experiencedconsistent growth since it’s inception as a development in 1989. The size of the homes in the accompanying diagrams are scaled proportionally to their actual square footage, and the key to the left represents the total value of each home, which includes property.
1
1
MASTER BEDROOM
The master bedroom is perhapsthe most significant waste of space in these households. The size of the master bedroom rises dramatically as the size of the home increases, and is not a reflection of the space required for the essential activities which take place there. As a result, the master bedroom of the home of today often comprises enough wasted space to place several additional bedrooms within it.
minimum bedroom size x 4
0’ 4’ 8’ 16’
0’ 4’ 8’ 16’
0’ 4’ 8’ 16’
0’ 4’ 8’ 16’
EVALUATED PROPOSED
–1115 SF
–680 SF
Open to below
Storage(unconditioned)
1815 SF 1135 SFN
3675 SF 2560 SF
3 4
8
11
9
147
15
1 2 5 6
13
12
16
E
S
W
N
DOWN
DO
WN
DO
WN
UP DOWN
UP
DETAILEDWALL
SECTIONDOWN
10
1
2
5
6
3 4
9
7
10
8EW
N
S
DOWN
DETAILEDWALL
SECTION
N
0’ 4’ 8’ 16’
N
0’ 4’ 8’ 16’
N0’ 4’ 8’ 16’
0’ 4’ 8’ 16’
The following design puts to practice the ideas and insights discovered under the previous research and analysis. By facilitating the creation of a more ethical home environment for a family of six who were unable to build the “original” house design because of its excessive size, this thesis demonstrates that the American home can undergo a reducation in scale without compromising aesthetics or function, all the while creating a win-win-win scenario for client, architect, and developer.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY?HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO
Total square footage of building stock 183,800 SF
Average annual neighborhood energy costs $145,670
Design reduction percentage 33%
Adjusted square footage of building stock 122,520 SF
Adjusted annual neighborhood energy costs $121,900
Difference of adjusted vs. Actual $23,770
5 year neighborhood savings $137,725
10 year neighborhood savings $319,323
20 year neighborhood savings $858,286
30 year neighborhood savings
40 year neighborhood savings
$1,730,196
=( )Case Study Expenditures
- Minimum Expenditures ( # of years ) # of Years ( 1.03 )PROJECTED ENERGY SAVINGS
$3,100,319
CHIMNEY
CHIMNEY
MECHANICAL EQUIP.
SITE PLAN NTSN
LOT PLAN NTSN
53% REDUCTION
20 BUILT HOUSES ON SITEA REDUCTION GREATER THAN THE FIRST
BUILT IN1989
BUILT IN1989
BUILT IN1989
BUILT IN1989
BUILT IN1989
BUILT IN1989
BUILT IN1989
BUILT IN1990
BUILT IN1990
BUILT IN1990
BUILT IN1990
BUILT IN1991
BUILT IN1991
BUILT IN1991
BUILT IN1991
BUILT IN1989
BUILT IN1989
BUILT IN1990
BUILT IN1991
BUILT IN1992
SITE NEIGHBORHOOD?HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO THE EXISTING
# of houses in site neighborhood 61
Years built
Total square footage of building stock
1989 - PRESENT
183,800 SF
Design reduction percentage 33%
Adjusted square footage of building stock 122,520 SF
Difference of adjusted vs. Actual 61,280 SF
30%
REDUCTION
37%
REDUCTION
123456789
10
Closet 1BathroomBedroom 1Study loftCedar storageBedroom 2Closet 2Shared bathCloset 3Bedroom 3
123456789
10111213141516
Her closetHis closetHobby roomLiving roomKitchenKeeping roomMasterbedroomMaster bathroomStudyDining roomEntry foyerStairPowder roomMud roomLaundry roomGarage
Denotes trimmed area
Denotes trimmed area
Evaluating the inefficiences of the American single-family home.
We are entering an epical period of change in this world. We’re
going to have to downscale, rescale, and resize virtually everything
we do in this country, and we can’t start soon enough to do it.
3/8” = 1’ 0”
ceiling
finished floorceiling
finished floorgrade
1/2” gypsum board wall liningMoisture barrier
Checkrail
Perforated drain pipe
Crushed gravel
Poured in place concrete footing
Steel reinforcing
Poured in place concrete foundation wall
Earth
Rigid insulation
Backer rod and sealant
1/2” anchor bolt
Crushed gravel10# welded wire fabricConcrete slabMoisture barrierVapor barrier2” x 3” wood strapping @ 24” o.c.Insulation1/2” gypsum board wall lining
Grade sloped away from foundation
FlashingStone veneer2” x 6” treated sill with 1/2” anchor bolt2” x 10” rim joist @ 24” o.c.Weep hole
4” face brick veneer wall
Galvanized metal brick tiesWood baseboard
Vapor barrier5/8” plywood sheathingTongue and groove wood strip flooring2” x 6” double sill plate5/8” plywood subfloor2” x 10” floor joist1/2” gypsum board ceiling lining
Wood window casingShelf angle
2” x 6” wall studs @ 24” o.c.
Pillow insluation
Supply air duct2” x 4” blockingFloor register
Carpet floor finishSillGlazing
Roof line beyond
HeadWood dormer detailing1 1/2” foam baordVapor retarder1/2” gypsum board
2” x 10” raftersAir cavity1/2” plywood roof sheathingReturn air duct15# feltAsphalt shingles
20' - 0"ceiling height
finished floor
ceiling height
finished floor
ceiling height- 1’ - 0”
0' - 0"
11' - 0"
10' - 0"
finished floor- 9’ - 10”
WALL SECTION DETAILINTERIOR VIGNETTES
0’ 4’ 8’ 16’
— James Howard Kunstler
1 & 2 8
4 56
31011
9 15
7
13
16
5
3
6
7
108
9
4
2 1
Labels correspond with “after” floor plan key for comparison purposes
Labels correspond with “after” floor plan key for comparison purposes
SF
Technology cannot simply be applied, it must be integrated into the design. This level of efficiency can be achieved without the home having to resemble something out of a science fiction film or a technology experiment.
1 Storage (unconditioned)2 Bedroom 23 Closet 24 Shared bathroom
5 Her closet6 His closet7 Hobby room8 Living room
9 Kitchen10 Keeping room11 Basement (unfinished)
1 Living room2 Hall3 Study loft4 Keeping room (beyond)
5 Kitchen (beyond)6 Entry foyer7 Basement (unfinished)
Figure 174 Final Presentation Boards
222Exposing the Dream | Design Development
5 6 7 8 9 10
11
3 421
1
7
2
54 6
3
ceiling
finished floorceiling
finished floorgrade
KITCHENDININGLIVINGLAUNDRYBEDROOM MBEDROOM 1BEDROOM 2BEDROOM 3
ENTRY/FOYERKEEPINGHOBBYSTUDYPOWDER ROOM 1POWDER ROOM 2SUN ROOMBUTLER’S PANTRY
MASTER BATHMASTER CLOSETWALK-IN 1WALK-IN 2WALK-IN 3FULL BATHSHARED BATHCEDAR STORAGE
CIRCULATION
- 146 SF
- 58 SF
- 8 SF
- 34 SF
+ 28 SF
- 41 SF
- 8 SF
- 26 SF
- 36 SF
- 64 SF
- 4 SF
- 114 SF
- 2 SF
- 44 SF
- 206 SF
- 45 SF
- 90 SF
- 15 SF
+ 8 SF
- 14 SF
- 14 SF
- 14 SF
- 16 SF
- 86 SF
- 742 SF
DIFFERENCERESULTING
8%
3%
0%
2%
0%
2%
0%
1%
1%
4%
0%
6%
0%
3%
11%
2%
5%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
5%
41%
%VIGNETTE “A”:
ENTRY FOYERVIGNETTE “D”:
LAUNDRY ROOM
VIGNETTE “B”:
HALLWAYVIGNETTE “E”:
BALCONY
VIGNETTE “C”:
STUDY LOFTVIGNETTE “F”:
LIVING ROOM
ceiling
finished floorceiling
finished floor
grade
WEST
EAST
SOUTH
ceiling
finished floorceiling
finished floor
grade
NORTH
WEST-EAST NORTH-SOUTH
EVALUATED PROPOSEDJodie Quinter
Graduate Architecture ThesisThesis chair: Professor Huy Ngo
Faculty advisor: Professor Daniel BrownTopic consultant: Ben Baumer
BY THE YEAR 2035, 75% OF THE BUILDING AREA IN THE UNITED STATES WILL EITHER BE RENEWED OR NEW CONSTRUCTION. THIS PRESENTS A HUGE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE AND FOR ARCHITECTS TO BE A PART OF THE SOLUTION.
CITY
SUBURB
RURAL AREA
currently living in a city, but would prefer to live in...
currently living in a suburb, but would prefer to live in...
currently living in a rural area, but would prefer to live in...
58% 25% 17%
12%
10% 15% 75%
70% 18%
LIVING PREFERENCE:
1989 –1992 25 homes constructed2804 average square feet$254,790 average total value
$300,000 - $349,999
$350,000 - $399,999
$400,000 - $449,999
$450,000 - $499,999
$150,000 - $199,999
$200,000 - $249,999
$250,000 - $299,999
1993 –1996
1997–2000
2001–2004 6 homes constructed3600 average square feet$302,220 average total value
2005–2009 8 homes constructed3520 average square feet$351,510 average total value
$300,000 - $349,999
$350,000 - $399,999
$400,000 - $449,999
$450,000 - $499,999
$150,000 - $199,999
$200,000 - $249,999
$250,000 - $299,999
Six new homes were constructed during this period,all of which increased in both area and value whencompared to those of the previous period. These trends align with those of national averages, affirming Parkview Acres as an appropriate site selection.
Eight new homes were constructed during this period. While these homes actually decreased slightly in area compared to that of the previous period, their average value increased significantly despite the economic recession in the United States at this time.
CASE STUDY 5
CASE STUDY 4
CASE STUDY 3
CASE STUDY 2
CASE STUDY 1
$350,000
$325,000
$300,000
$275,000
$250,000
$225,000
$200,000
$175,000
$150,000
$125,000
$100,000
$75,000
$50,000
$25,000
$05 years 10 years 20 years 30 years 40 years
123456
ENERGY EXPENDITURES
United StatesMidwestRuralMixed-HumidSingle-Family Detached6 Persons
1.030.870.991.040.951.09
1.00per square foot
(US dollars)
by housingcharacteristic( )
123456
ENERGY EXPENDITURES
Case Study 1Case Study 2Case Study 3Case Study 4Case Study 5Minimum
225025503150367540501370
( )by casestudy
= ( )
per year(US dollars)
Case Study Expenditures- Minimum Expenditures ( # of years ) # of Years ( 1.03 )PROJECTED ENERGY SAVINGS
CONCLUSION: Accounts for inflation of US dollar.
Values refelected in accompanying chart.
TOTAL AVERAGE:
0’ 4’ 8’ 16’
10’ - 4”
10’ - 8”
62%CASE STUDY 4Total square feet:Excess square feet:
11068
11’ - 10”
12’ - 3”
CASE STUDY 5Total square feet:Excess square feet:
145103
71%
6’ - 8”
6’ - 4”
MINIMUMTotal square feet:Excess square feet:
420
0%
17’ - 4”
17’ - 8”
53%CASE STUDY 5Total square feet:Excess square feet:
306162
18’ - 5”
18’ - 9”
58%CASE STUDY 4Total square feet:Excess square feet:
345201
11’ - 10”
12’ - 2”
MINIMUMTotal square feet:Excess square feet:
1440
0%
7’ - 10”
8’ - 6”
MINIMUMTotal square feet:Excess square feet:
660
0%12’ - 8”
13’ - 5”
61%CASE STUDY 4Total square feet:Excess square feet:
170104
15’ - 1”
15’ - 9”
72%CASE STUDY 5Total square feet:Excess square feet:
238172
15’ - 5”
15’ - 7”
59%CASE STUDY 4Total square feet:Excess square feet:
240142
20’ - 9”
20’ - 10”
77%CASE STUDY 5Total square feet:Excess square feet:
432334
13’ - 0”
7’ - 11”
MINIMUMTotal square feet:Excess square feet:
1030
0%
21’ - 0”
21’ - 2”
84%CASE STUDY 4Total square feet:Excess square feet:
444374
KITCHEN
The layout of a kitchen should be determined by the triangle between the three primary work areas in the kitchen: the sink, range, and refrigerator. By introducing a second sink, a two-cook kitchen can be created with work triangles that do not intersect without adding a considerable amount of extra square footage.
128 square feet
103 square feet
1
1
2
ESTCODE
LIVING ROOM
Living room size is determined by the arrangement of furnishings, and the space required to move amongst them. In the creation of a six seat living room, it is important to remember that the maximum desirable conversation diameter in social settings is 12’-13’, and that conversation clusters tend to break off when reaching numbers greater than six people, thereforefurnishings should be arranged to cultivate such behavior.
MASTER BATHROOM
Similar to the master bedroom, the master bathroom, too, experiences significant, unnecessary, growth as the size of the modern home increases. In the case studies analyzed, no additional fixtures were placed in the bathrooms of larger size, therefore acknowledging this added square footage as simply circulation space. As a result, the size of the modern bathroom has become large enough for a small bedroom to be housed within it.
minimum bedroom size
ENTRY FOYER
The backdoor of homes generally serves as the primary entrance for homes today. While the door can be considered a crucial transition from exterior to interior, the front door of the home of today is rarely viewed as such. Despite this, thefoyer has become an oversized space which functions as an over the top and grandiose welcoming to visitors, while serving no fundamental functional purpose.
minimum bedroom size
19’ - 9”
20’ - 0”
82%CASE STUDY 5Total square feet:Excess square feet:
395325
8’ - 6”
8’ - 3”
MINIMUMTotal square feet:Excess square feet:
700
0%
1370’ 2
1370’ 2
1370’2
1370’ 2
4050’2 1370’ 2
3675’2
3150’2
2550’2
22250’
case study 5
case study 4
case study 3
case study 2
case study 1
minimum
minimum
minimum
minimum
minimum
880’“EXCESS”
1180’“EXCESS”
1780’“EXCESS”
2305’“EXCESS”
2680’“EXCESS”
2
2
2
2
2
CASE STUDY ANALYSISIn order to discern the inefficiencies associated with the increasing size of the modern home, a case study investigation is necessary to establish the flaws associated with this development, ultimately resulting in an understanding as to what level of “excess” these homes encompass, in addition to how this excess directly affects energy consumption and costs.The following information analyzes five case study homes whose programs feature the same number of bedrooms and bathrooms as the project program requires, despite the drastic variation in their square footages.
SITEPARKVIEW ACRESMINSTER, OHIO
N PROJECTED ENERGY SAVINGSProjected values include a 3% inflation rate of the United States dollar based on historical inflation rates. These values are based on present day construction standards, and do not account for inevitably increasing energy costs, and, therefore, would be even greater in actuality.
NO
NO.
2.94 2.76 2.69 2.63 2.65 2.62 2.57 2.58
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
1645’2 1740’2 1785’2 2080’2 2095’2 2266’2 2434’2 2392’2
IN ORDER TO SUSTAIN HUMANSOCIETY INTO THE NEXT CENTURY,RESOURCE EFFICIENCY WILL HAVETO INCREASE BY A FACTOR OF 10.
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100 2110
NAIVE DREAMEXPOSING A
This thesis addresses the diminishing capacity of the architect in today’s homebuilding industry by exposing their economic, environmental, and psychological significance, resulting in a reevaluation of the traditional paradigms of residential design, and the revelation of the architect’s role in this process.
The initial cost of a building project, traditionally viewed as the primary economic concern, can become rather insignificant when the building’s entire life cycle is assessed. Long-term expenditures must be considered in order to effectively evaluate the best design solutions for a client, a notion affirmed by a study conducted by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
While contemporary homes serve the fundamental purpose of providing shelter, it is difficult to comprehend how the often inefficient, grandiose, and expansive modern home evolved out of this primitive notion. The composition of single-family homes in the United States has been rising in square footage for decades, despite the fact that the size of the single family is decreasing.
Architects are generally uninvolved in home construction despite its substantiality as an economic activity. Assuredly, this is due to a lack of understanding by the public of the benefits the tasks of an architect can provide. Therefore, itis the architect’s job to make apparent the reasons that design can help in order to capitalize on wasted opportunity.
Despite projected urbanization in the United States, a 2013 survey conducted by the National Association of Realtors proved that the public’s desire to live in suburban neighborhoods is not fading. In fact, more people prefer this type of dwelling condition than live there now, indicating a prevailing system composed of a flawed housing model.
The apparent decline in the relevance of the architecture profession is no secret. Architects seem to be losing grip on their purpose in the building industry and, thus, their significance to society. How can the relevance of the architect be regained? It’s simple. Build better buildings. Nowhere is there a greater or more spread opportunity to capitalize on this than in building better homes. The potential for new and renewed construction in the United States makes clear a vast amount ofopportunity for architects to regain public esteem while working to address the issues posed by suburbia.
Homes are built because of a belief in the future; the future of existence and the future of families, and building well demonstrates a belief in a better future. In order to sustain human society, the problems posed regarding the efficiency and consumption of single-family homes must be addressed.
Few will argue that one of the ways architects remain relevant is related to the consumption of the built environment, particularly in relation to dwindling natural resources and the issue of global warming. The efficiency of the residential sector must be evaluated as it accounts for nearly one-half of the energy consumption by the built environment.
BUILT IN1998
$90,000ENERGY COSTS
$180,000REPLACEMENTS
$181,900PRICE OF HOME
20%
MORE THAN UP FRONT COST
Average lifetme costs.
space heating
space cooling
water heating
lighting
refrigeration
electronics
wet cleaningcookingcomputers
others
22%
RES
IDEN
TIA
L
19% COMMERCIAL
ENERGY CONSUMPTION
BY SECTOR
29% TRANSPORTATION
30% INDUSTRIAL
40% BUILDINGS
26.6%
15.8%
13.2%
10.0%
6.3%
4.8%
4.6%2.6%2.5%
13.5%
33%
2%OF NEW HOME-BUYERSWORK DIRECTLY WITH
AN ARCHITECTTO DESIGN THEIR HOME
LOST OPPORTU
NITY
SINGLE-FAMILY HOMECONSTRUCTION:
OVERALL WORKVALUE IN THE
CONSTRUCTIONSECTOR
LIVING ROOM123456
241 SF224 SF300 SF345 SF306 SF144 SF
(10.7%)(8.80%)(9.50%)(9.40%)(7.60%)(0.00%)
2 3 4 5 6
2 3 4 5 6
ENTRY FOYER123456
42 SF72 SF103 SF110 SF145 SF42 SF
(1.90%)(2.80%)(3.30%)(3.00%)(3.60%)(0.00%)
1 2 3 4 5 6
MASTER BED123456
244 SF225 SF285 SF444 SF395 SF70 SF
(10.8%)(8.80%)(9.10%)(12.1%)(9.80%)(0.00%)
1 2 3 4 5 6
MASTER BATH123456
132 SF144 SF180 SF170 SF238 SF66 SF
(5.90%)(5.60%)(5.70%)(4.60%)(5.90%)(0.00%)
KITCHEN123456
103 SF170 SF187 SF240 SF432 SF103 SF
(4.60%)(6.70%)(5.90%)(6.50%)(10.7%)(0.00%)
1 2 3 4 5 6
17 homes constructed2820 average square feet$272,600 average total value
$300,000 - $349,999
$350,000 - $399,999
$400,000 - $449,999
$450,000 - $499,999
$150,000 - $199,999
$200,000 - $249,999
$250,000 - $299,999
$300,000 - $349,999
$350,000 - $399,999
$400,000 - $449,999
$450,000 - $499,999
$150,000 - $199,999
$200,000 - $249,999
$250,000 - $299,999
$300,000 - $349,999
$350,000 - $399,999
$400,000 - $449,999
$450,000 - $499,999
$150,000 - $199,999
$200,000 - $249,999
$250,000 - $299,999
5 homes constructed3200 average square feet$295,890 average total value
Five new homes were constructed during this period,all of which increased in both area and value whencompared to those of the previous period. These trends align with those of national averages, affirming Parkview Acres as an appropriate site selection.
Seventeen new homes were constructed during this period, all of which increased in both area and value when compared to those of the previous period. These trends align with those of national averages, affirming Parkview Acres as an appropriate site selection.
Parkview Acres in Minster, Ohio has experiencedconsistent growth since it’s inception as a development in 1989. The size of the homes in the accompanying diagrams are scaled proportionally to their actual square footage, and the key to the left represents the total value of each home, which includes property.
1
1
MASTER BEDROOM
The master bedroom is perhapsthe most significant waste of space in these households. The size of the master bedroom rises dramatically as the size of the home increases, and is not a reflection of the space required for the essential activities which take place there. As a result, the master bedroom of the home of today often comprises enough wasted space to place several additional bedrooms within it.
minimum bedroom size x 4
0’ 4’ 8’ 16’
0’ 4’ 8’ 16’
0’ 4’ 8’ 16’
0’ 4’ 8’ 16’
EVALUATED PROPOSED
–1115 SF
–680 SF
Open to below
Storage(unconditioned)
1815 SF 1135 SFN
3675 SF 2560 SF
3 4
8
11
9
147
15
1 2 5 6
13
12
16
E
S
W
N
DOWN
DO
WN
DO
WN
UP DOWN
UP
DETAILEDWALL
SECTIONDOWN
10
1
2
5
6
3 4
9
7
10
8EW
N
S
DOWN
DETAILEDWALL
SECTION
N
0’ 4’ 8’ 16’
N
0’ 4’ 8’ 16’
N0’ 4’ 8’ 16’
0’ 4’ 8’ 16’
The following design puts to practice the ideas and insights discovered under the previous research and analysis. By facilitating the creation of a more ethical home environment for a family of six who were unable to build the “original” house design because of its excessive size, this thesis demonstrates that the American home can undergo a reducation in scale without compromising aesthetics or function, all the while creating a win-win-win scenario for client, architect, and developer.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY?HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO
Total square footage of building stock 183,800 SF
Average annual neighborhood energy costs $145,670
Design reduction percentage 33%
Adjusted square footage of building stock 122,520 SF
Adjusted annual neighborhood energy costs $121,900
Difference of adjusted vs. Actual $23,770
5 year neighborhood savings $137,725
10 year neighborhood savings $319,323
20 year neighborhood savings $858,286
30 year neighborhood savings
40 year neighborhood savings
$1,730,196
=( )Case Study Expenditures
- Minimum Expenditures ( # of years ) # of Years ( 1.03 )PROJECTED ENERGY SAVINGS
$3,100,319
CHIMNEY
CHIMNEY
MECHANICAL EQUIP.
SITE PLAN NTSN
LOT PLAN NTSN
53% REDUCTION
20 BUILT HOUSES ON SITEA REDUCTION GREATER THAN THE FIRST
BUILT IN1989
BUILT IN1989
BUILT IN1989
BUILT IN1989
BUILT IN1989
BUILT IN1989
BUILT IN1989
BUILT IN1990
BUILT IN1990
BUILT IN1990
BUILT IN1990
BUILT IN1991
BUILT IN1991
BUILT IN1991
BUILT IN1991
BUILT IN1989
BUILT IN1989
BUILT IN1990
BUILT IN1991
BUILT IN1992
SITE NEIGHBORHOOD?HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO THE EXISTING
# of houses in site neighborhood 61
Years built
Total square footage of building stock
1989 - PRESENT
183,800 SF
Design reduction percentage 33%
Adjusted square footage of building stock 122,520 SF
Difference of adjusted vs. Actual 61,280 SF
30%
REDUCTION
37%
REDUCTION
123456789
10
Closet 1BathroomBedroom 1Study loftCedar storageBedroom 2Closet 2Shared bathCloset 3Bedroom 3
123456789
10111213141516
Her closetHis closetHobby roomLiving roomKitchenKeeping roomMasterbedroomMaster bathroomStudyDining roomEntry foyerStairPowder roomMud roomLaundry roomGarage
Denotes trimmed area
Denotes trimmed area
Evaluating the inefficiences of the American single-family home.
We are entering an epical period of change in this world. We’re
going to have to downscale, rescale, and resize virtually everything
we do in this country, and we can’t start soon enough to do it.
3/8” = 1’ 0”
ceiling
finished floorceiling
finished floorgrade
1/2” gypsum board wall liningMoisture barrier
Checkrail
Perforated drain pipe
Crushed gravel
Poured in place concrete footing
Steel reinforcing
Poured in place concrete foundation wall
Earth
Rigid insulation
Backer rod and sealant
1/2” anchor bolt
Crushed gravel10# welded wire fabricConcrete slabMoisture barrierVapor barrier2” x 3” wood strapping @ 24” o.c.Insulation1/2” gypsum board wall lining
Grade sloped away from foundation
FlashingStone veneer2” x 6” treated sill with 1/2” anchor bolt2” x 10” rim joist @ 24” o.c.Weep hole
4” face brick veneer wall
Galvanized metal brick tiesWood baseboard
Vapor barrier5/8” plywood sheathingTongue and groove wood strip flooring2” x 6” double sill plate5/8” plywood subfloor2” x 10” floor joist1/2” gypsum board ceiling lining
Wood window casingShelf angle
2” x 6” wall studs @ 24” o.c.
Pillow insluation
Supply air duct2” x 4” blockingFloor register
Carpet floor finishSillGlazing
Roof line beyond
HeadWood dormer detailing1 1/2” foam baordVapor retarder1/2” gypsum board
2” x 10” raftersAir cavity1/2” plywood roof sheathingReturn air duct15# feltAsphalt shingles
20' - 0"ceiling height
finished floor
ceiling height
finished floor
ceiling height- 1’ - 0”
0' - 0"
11' - 0"
10' - 0"
finished floor- 9’ - 10”
WALL SECTION DETAILINTERIOR VIGNETTES
0’ 4’ 8’ 16’
— James Howard Kunstler
1 & 2 8
4 56
31011
9 15
7
13
16
5
3
6
7
108
9
4
2 1
Labels correspond with “after” floor plan key for comparison purposes
Labels correspond with “after” floor plan key for comparison purposes
SF
Technology cannot simply be applied, it must be integrated into the design. This level of efficiency can be achieved without the home having to resemble something out of a science fiction film or a technology experiment.
1 Storage (unconditioned)2 Bedroom 23 Closet 24 Shared bathroom
5 Her closet6 His closet7 Hobby room8 Living room
9 Kitchen10 Keeping room11 Basement (unfinished)
1 Living room2 Hall3 Study loft4 Keeping room (beyond)
5 Kitchen (beyond)6 Entry foyer7 Basement (unfinished)
223 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 7
224Exposing the Dream | Design Development
In conclusion, this thesis was selfish. It was entirely self-
indulgent and rooted in personal interest that was formed
by my own practical experience. This selfishness should
not be perceived in a negative way. It incited an incredible
amount of personal passion towards this thesis topic,
ultimately fostering an exceptional dedication to evaluating
its possibilities over the past three quarters.
I grew up in a family of ten in the site area: Minster, Ohio. My
parents had the opportunity to build our home and naturally
with eight children, the home evolved on the larger end
of the spectrum for a residential dwelling. This nearly six
thousand square feet, seven bedroom, four bathroom home,
or dormitory if you will, was built in 1989, the year I was born.
As the youngest of eight, my oldest sibling is only ten years
older than I. Because of this, the functionality of such a house
was quite limited in its ability to serve our family’s needs for
an extended period of time. In 1995, my siblings and I all
existed under one roof, ranging in age from kindergartener to
a sophomore in high school. By 2005, just ten years later, only
two of us remained under that same roof. Today, none of my
parent’s children use this home as their permanent residence,
and as a result, there is a rare need for the six bedrooms
and two bathrooms upstairs, or the finished basement,
accounting for nearly one-third of the overall square footage
of the home. My parents simply shut the doors, turn off the
utilities and wait for the holidays, when that need is once
again fulfilled. Not only does the house lack functionality
now, as my parents live near retirement in a small portion of
a huge home, but also, I have always questioned the purpose
of this home after their demise and how such a large, tailored
program would fare on the real-estate market in an attempt
for resale. It would be a rare buyer that would find this home
perfectly suitable to their needs and likewise, it is not easily
adaptable to the needs of a different type of family. On
the other hand, it would be a tragedy to demolish such a
construction. Therein lies the conundrum that motivated me
to investigate this topic further.
225 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 7
226Exposing the Dream | Design Development
The experience of growing up in my childhood home in
Ohio has opened my eyes to several fundamental failures
in the composition of the typical single-family home in the
United States. Because of this, I chose to pursue this thesis as
a personal endeavor to evaluate the possibilities of the home
of the future’s ability to account for a variety of present day
design flaws.
As a result of my evaluation, this thesis has affirmed all of
my original thoughts, putting to rest the notion that “bigger
is always better” and demonstrating how a more ethical
single-family home environment in the future can create
an ideal scenario for client, developer, and architect, both
economically and environmentally. Suburbia is not going
away, and it’s time for architects to get involved. It is not “just
a house,” there is a much greater issue at hand.
Thank you.
227
Bibliography
“AIA Sustainability 2030 Toolkit.” The American Institute of Architects. http://info.aia org/toolkit2030/index.html. Alcorn, Michael. “Catalog Castles.” Journal of American Culture 20, no. 3 (Autumn 1997): 1–11.
“American Households Are Getting Smaller – And Headed by Older Adults.” Marketing Charts. Accessed October 18, 2013. http://www. marketingcharts.com/wp/topics/demographics/american- households-are-getting-smaller-and-headed-by-older-adults-24981/.
American Institute of Architects. The Architecture Student’s Handbook of Professional Practice. 14th edition. Wiley, 2008.
“Analysis of the Life Cycle Impacts and Potential for Avoided Impacts Associated with Single-Family Homes.” United States Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/imr/cdm/pdfs/sfhomes.pdf.
Archer, John. Architecture and Suburbia: From English Villa to American Dream House, 1690-2000. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2005.
Bayer, Dr. Charlene, Michael Gamble, Dr. Russell Gentry, and Surabhi Joshi. “AIA Guide to Building Life Cycle Assessment in Practice.” The American Institute of Architects, 2010.
Bell, Bryan. Good Deeds, Good Design: Community Service through Architecture. 1 edition. Princeton Architectural Press, 2003.
Dickinson, Duo. House on a Budget. Newtown, Connecticut: Taunton Press, 2007.
Dictionary, Merriam-Webster. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Massachusetts: Merriam-Webster, Inc., 2006.
Gauer, James, and Catherine Tighe. The New American Dream: Living Well in Small Homes. First Edition. New York, New York: Monacelli Press, 2004.
Goldberger, Paul. Why Architecture Matters. Yale University Press, 2011.
Exposing a Naive Dream
Bibliography
Guy, Bradley, M. E. Rinker, and Eleanor M. Gibeau. “A Guide to Deconstruction.” Deconstruction Institute, January 2003. http://www.deconstructioninstitute.com/files/learn_center/45762865_guidebook.pdf.
Ireton, Kevin. “Is Green Building Too Expensive?” Fine Homebuilding, April 16, 2008. http://www.finehomebuilding.com/how-to/departments/taking-issue/is-the-cost-of-green-building-too-expensive.aspx.
James Howard Kunstler: The Ghastly Tragedy of the Suburbs. TED Talks, 2004. http:// www.ted.com/talks/james_howard_kunstler_dissects_suburbia.html.
Joseph Pine: What Consumers Want. TED Talks, 2004. http://www.ted.com/talks/ joseph_pine_on_what_consumers_want.html.
Mann, Thorbjoern. Building Economics for Architects. John Wiley & Sons, 1992.
McGuigan, Cathleen. “House Proud.” Architectural Record, April 2012. http:// archrecord.construction.com/community/editorial/2012/1204.asp.
“Median and Average Sales Prices of New Homes Sold in United States.” United States Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/construction/nrs/ historical_data/.
Mitton, Maureen, and Courtney Nystuen. Residential Interior Design: A Guide to Planning Spaces. Second Edition. Wiley, 2011.
“National Community Preference Survey.” National Association of Realtors, October 2013. http://www.realtor.org/sites/default/files/reports/2013/2013-community-preference-analysis-slides.pdf.
Nelson, George. Problems of Design. 2nd edition. Whitney Library of Design, 1965.
“New Perspective on Light.” WordPress. Architecture in Transformation, November 20, 2012. http://arch3150.wordpress.com/2012/11/20/new- perspective-on-light/.
228
Bibliography (continued)
Pine, B. Joseph, and James H. Gilmore. “Welcome to the Experience Economy.” Harvard Business Review, July 1998. http://hbr.org/1998/07/welcome- to-the-experience-economy/.
Pivo, Gary. “Promising Economics.” GreenTech. http://www.u.arizona.edu/~gpivo/ULI%20article.pdf.
Rampell, Catherine. “Want a Job? Go to College, and Don’t Major in Architecture.” The New York Times, January 5, 2012. http://economix.blogs. nytimes.com/2012/01/05/want-a-job-go-to-college-and-dont-major- in-architecture/.
Sallette, Marc A. “Design Values.” Urban Land. http://www.wbdg.org/pdfs/urbanland_1105.pdf.
Smith, Lisa. “McMansion: A Closer Look at the Big House Trend.” Investopedia, February 26, 2009. http://www.investopedia.com/articles/pf/07/ mcmansion.asp.
Solomon, Christopher. “Don’t Demolish That Old House; Recycle It.” MSN Real Estate. http://realestate.msn.com/dont-demolish-that-old-house-recycle-it.
Susanka, Sarah. Home by Design: Transforming Your House Into Home. Newtown, Connecticut: Taunton Press, 2004.
Susanka, Sarah. The Not So Big House: A Blueprint for the Way We Really Live. Newtown, CT; [Emeryville, CA]: Taunton Press ; Distributed by Publishers Group West, 1998.
Timberg, Scott. “The Architecture Meltdown.” Salon, February 4, 2012. http://www. salon.com/2012/02/04/the_architecture_meltdown/.
US Census Bureau, M. C. D. “Characteristics of New Housing.” Accessed October 18, 2013. http://www.census.gov/construction/chars/highlights.html.
Wallack, Catherine. “Dream Home: Remodeling American Expectations with Model Houses.” Journal of American Culture 32, no. 4 (December 2009): 332–342.
Bibliography (continued)
Wentling, James. Designing a Place Called Home: Reordering the Suburbs. 1 edition. Springer, 1994.
“Who Cares About the ‘Burbs’?” Blog. OpenCity Projects, October 28, 2013. http:// opencityprojects.com/blog/diversity/who-cares-about-the-burbs/.
Zumthor, Peter. Thinking Architecture. 3rd edition. Basel: Birkhäuser Architecture, 2010.
Bibliography
229
Jodie R. QuinterGraduate Architecture Thesis SCAD | Savannah, Georgia
Thesis chair: Professor Huy NgoFaculty advisor: Professor Daniel BrownTopic consultant: Ben Baumer
© May 2014