exposing a naive dream

AEVALUATING THE INEFFICIENCIES OF THE AMERICAN SINGLE-FAMILY HOME

EXPOSING ANAIVE DREAM

IEXPOSING 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

1List of Figures

Figure 1: Geo F. Barber & Co. Catalog Page. Image. .

Figure 2: Sears Roebuck Catalog Page. Image. .

Figure 3: Levittown, New York. Photograph. .

Figure 4: GE Advertisement. Image. .

Figure 5: Saturday Evening Post. Image. .

Figure 6: The New Yorker. Image. .

Figure 7: Brick Front with Vinyl Siding. Photograph. .

Figure 8: Aerial View of Suburb. Photograph. .

Figure 9: Formal Dining. Photograph. .

Figure 10: Informal Dining. Photograph. .

Figure 11: The American Dream is Over. Photograph. .

List of Figures

Figure 12: Zaha Hadids 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.

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. .

2List of Figures (continued)

Figure 27: Grand Entry Foyer. Photograph. .

Figure 28: Living Room A. Photograph. .

Figure 29: Living Room B. Photograph. .

Figure 30: Capturing the Light of a Near Death Experience. Image. .

Figure 31: Interior Natural Light. Photograph. .

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 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 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 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 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.


Figure 60: Entry Foyer Area Case Study 3. 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 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 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.


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 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 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 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.


Figure 95: Bedroom Area by Case Study. Diagram. Provided by Author.

Figure 96: Bedroom Area Case Study 3. 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 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 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.


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 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 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. .

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. .


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. .

Figure 131: School Ratings. Diagram. Provided by Author. .

Figure 132: Local Architects do not Advertise Residential Services. Diagram. Provided by Author.

Figure 133: Local Weather and Climate. Diagram. Provided by Author. .

Figure 134: Average Temperatures by Month. Diagram. Provided by Author. .

Figure 135: Average Precipitation by Month. Diagram. Provided by Author. .

Figure 136: Sun Path Diagram. Diagram. Provided by Author.

Figure 137: Neighborhood Growth Analysis Period 1. Diagram. Provided by Author. .






Figure 142: Select Total Worth. Chart. Provided by Author. .

Figure 143: Select Square Footage. Chart. Provided by Author. .

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.


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. .

Figure 164: Vignette B. Photograph. .

Figure 165: Vignette C. Photograph. .

Figure 166: Vignette D. Photograph. .

Figure 167: Vignette E. Photograph. .

Figure 168: Vignette F. Photograph. .

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 todays

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 architects 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


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 Meltdown1 and

Want a Job? Go to College, and Dont Major in Architecture2,

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.


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 its 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


Figure 1: Geo F. Barber & Co. Catalog Page Figure 2: Sears Roebuck Catalog Page


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 todays 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


Figure 3: Levittown, New York


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.


Figure 4: GE Advertisement Figure 5: Saturday Evening Post Figure 6: The New Yorker


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

its 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.


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


Figure 7: Brick Front with Vinyl Siding


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 quicklymuch 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 todays

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


Figure 8: Aerial View of a Suburb


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 todays

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.


Figure 10: Informal DiningFigure 9: Formal Dining


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 weve

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 todays 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


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 architects

task, not the publics, to present the reasons that design can

help.24 3

22 Bell


24 McGuigan


Figure 11: The American Dream is Over


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 developerscan bring to

the contemporary home sustainability, economy, and

flexibility, as well as sensitivity to place. And isnt that what

the American Dream should be all about?26 Emphasized

by American architect Robert Venturi, The architects 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?

Its 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 its time for architects to

get involved.283 When we have what the Jonses have, we

experience firsthand the inadequacy of the dream.29 4


28 Ibid.


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 Dont 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.


Notes (continued)

26 Goldberger, Why Architecture Matters, 36.


28 Ibid., 184.


Providing Factual Suppor t

CONCEPTUAL RESEARCH

2The 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


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 its not only that. Scott Timberg

Figure 12: Zaha Hadids Beko Building in Belgrade


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 Todays 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 architects

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


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


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 architects 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 dont 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


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


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


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?




2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100 2110

22%

RES

IDEN

TIA

L

19% COMMER

CIAL

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


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 architects 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


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.



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


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


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



NO.

NOFigure 17: Green House 1 Figure 18: Green House 2

NO.

NO


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 wasnt energy efficient? Or where

the air inside wasnt clean and free of mold? Or where the

detailing wasnt 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.


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


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


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


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


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.


17 Goldberger, Paul. Why Architecture Matters. (Yale University Press, 2011), 37.


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.


25 Pivo, Gary. Promising Economics. GreenTech. http://www.u.arizona .edu/~gpivo/ULI%20article.pdf.

26 Ireton, Kevin. Is Green Building Too Expensive?


Notes

27 Sallette, Marc A. Design Values. Urban Land. http://www.wbdg.org/ pdfs/urbanland_1105.pdf.

Notes (continued)


Assessing Inef f iciencies

CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT

3The 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


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 familys 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,

todays 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...


another based solely on its 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


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.


BUILT IN1998

$90,000ENERGY COSTS

$180,000REPLACEMENTS

$181,900PRICE OF HOME

20%

MOR

E THA

N UP F

RONT

COST

Figure 19: Life Cycle Cost Study


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 publics 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


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


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.


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



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


14 Ibid.

require higher up-front costs, explaining the publics

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


50 79 100+

Figure 20: House, Human, and Brick Average Lifespan


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


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


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...


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


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




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


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 familys 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


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


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. Were going to have to downscale, rescale, and resize virtually everything we do in this country, and we cant start soon enough to do it.

James Howard Kunster


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


26 Solomon



Ultimately, homes are built bec