This was orginally published in Crikey’s daily email today, March 5.
Let’s imagine for a moment that the policies put forward in recent days work and, in a few years, more people are able to pay the purchase price for new homes again. Let’s imagine – and this is easy to do – that these policies are implemented in a vacuum, without consideration of other, interlinked issues. What might be the flow-on effects?
Well, for starters, the dark roofed, eve-less, concrete boxes that people have bought are heating up as another record-breaking summer arrives and there is no immediate alternative but to crank up the air-conditioning. At a time when Kevin Rudd’s emissions trading scheme is coming into play, raising energy prices, this is very unwelcome. To make matters worse, the price of oil will still be steadily rising and petrol prices going through the roof. The housing developments on the urban fringe have all been planned around freeways which are reaching gridlock, and, without any serious public transport infrastructure, there is simply nothing for commuters to do but climb into their cars each day.
Mortgages and rents might be more affordable, but people will really struggle to pay higher bills for transport and energy.
It’s not far from here to the scenario described recently by world-renowned Australian transport planner, Professor Peter Newman, of eco-enclaves for the rich, surrounded by Mad Max suburbs. His warning is clear: unless we start a proper, holistic planning process now, factoring in climate change and peak oil, those who can afford it will move to efficient homes in the inner suburbs, well-catered for by public transport, and the vast bulk of people will simply be shut out.
Business as usual, inefficient housing is not a sustainable solution. We need to link any tax breaks, streamlined development processes, or whatever tools we use, to the construction of highly efficient housing stock - at least seven star. This is not hard to do. The UK is legislating to require all new housing stock and public buildings to be zero net carbon by 2016. For a marginal increase in building costs, you can dramatically reduce energy demand and therefore running costs for the life of the building.
Building on the urban fringe without fast, efficient mass transit is not a sustainable solution. We shouldn’t forget the option of effective urban consolidation, but where we spread, it is vital that housing developments are planned around mass transit. With oil already at US$100 a barrel, and set to keep rising as supply constraints get worse and peak oil starts to bite, we cannot build suburbs where the only transport option is the private car. According to the ABS, transport is right up there with housing in household expenditure. There’s no point providing cheap housing to people but locking them into expensive transport.
It’s about time our governments started to work constructively together to find solutions to housing affordability. Not being an expert in that area, I cannot pass judgement on whether the proposals of recent days might actually work. But one thing I do know is that we cannot address the issue – any issue – in a vacuum. If we ignore climate change and peak oil, if we fail to see that affordability is not just about purchase price, we will fail to meet the underlying goal – to help Australians who are struggling to make ends meet.
There is no reason why we can’t address the housing crisis and help progress the shift to a carbon-free economy at the same time. But unless we deliberately decide to do it, the real danger is that we will entrench energy- and fuel-poverty and entrench a high-emissions lifestyle.
Good thoughts. I am confused about one thing though. I went to an architect specifically to get an energy efficient home (and a relatively modest one at that) and the cost is projected at $1,000,000. This does not include the land.
I was gobsmacked. I can get the same building specs from a regular builder for quite a bit less than half this. This means it make no economic sense at all for me to build an efficient building. I’d be more than happy to pay an extra $200k for an energy efficient home, but half a million extra is way too much.
So where are these builders and/or building designs that are only slightly more than the cost of a regular building as mentioned above. I’d be very excited to know how to do this cost effectively.
Please help! Anyone!
This is a very good piece. Very thought provoking.
It reminds me a lot of basic demand management as a way of controlling prices. Sure you can change the money supply to affect prices, but the sustainable way is to change behaviour.
Normally this kind of thinking is linked to communist conspiracy theories, but really it is just plain common sense.
If you don’t need to trade because you have a comfortable life using few resources to meet your demands and have stable accommodation with family you can be with all the time, then what more can you ask for? Surely this is the “Green” ideal lifestyle that many members I know aspire to.
James,
Did you mention “bells and whistles” in your preamble to your architect? The current territory of the architect/energy efficient home is the very rich/very large home owner.
Drop me a line at bill@infolocal.com.au and I will offer a few suggestions.
I think you’ve missed a key point here. People will complain and moan about higher energy prices that’s for sure but we won’t run out of electricity and the prices aren’t going to go stratospheric (if you’ll pardon the pun) since Australia relies on coal for power and we ain’t running low on that any time soon.
No, the trouble won’t start when prices rise. It’ll be when we hit petrol rationing. Suddenly all those folks in the outer suburbs (that’s me) won’t be able to drive their V8 Commodores or Toyota Prados because they’re simply not allowed to fill them up. That’s when the shit hits the fan.
I wonder whether we’ll see an automotive Dash For Gas in about 18 months time? LPG is like coal - we got plenty of it.
A great piece.
The convergance of Peak Oil with Climate Change is generating problems for houses that were built with the assumptions of benign weather and limitless cheap energy.
I know that it is becoming increasingly difficult - and expensive - to keep my own house within a comfortable temperature range.
New housing design standards and practices need to be created. These standards need to consider not just the new realities of hot summers and expensive energy, but the realities that are likely to emerge within the lifespan of the house - which is likely to include more incidence of extreme weather, and energy costs that make air-conditioning a very unattractive prospect.
It seems to me that a big part of the problem is Australians’ love of the fully detached house with a front and back yard. Having spent many years living in European cities with busy underground train and bus systems, it seems to me just a matter of time before our big cities move towards a denser inner city model, with 3- to 100-storey buildings dominating the landscape within 20 kms of the CBD.
The alternative is to have more cities with employment opportunities, encouraging movement out of Sydney and Melbourne towards rapid growth areas like the Gold Coast (where I live now). But there’s no long-term public transport infrastructure in place for these new growth areas either. So the same urban sprawl ensues, with the same dependency on private cars, as these new growth areas grow ever outwards!
Sure, there’s always lots of “planning” being done, but when it comes to buying up land and laying down money, local and State governments always get cold feet. Now why is that?
It’s because governments today are constrained by a rightwing market orthodoxy which dictates that only private developers can “make things happen”. We need State and Federal government in particular to make some “courageous” decisions and announce some massive expenditure on public transport NOW.
And it cannot all be funded by tolls: it needs to be cheap, affordable, preferably even FREE! Ah, but that has the stench of Joseph Stalin all over it, doesn’t it? Sigh… So what else are they doing with all those taxes of mine - fighting wars for oil, etc.
We need a Snowy Mountains-style project where new immigrants are encouraged to come and work on big public transport projects in all the major cities and growth areas. It can be funded through the Future Fund and that big fat Surplus we’re always hearing about. After all, this IS our future - right?
NB: It’s “eave-less” not “eve-less”. Unless you are talking about Arctic summers, which is a whole different story!
James, you might check into building a straw-bale house. Some state building codes permit them, and some rural areas have virtually no building codes.
Straw-bale has an R-50 insulation value and is supposed to be cheaper than conventional building.
Good luck getting a loan to do this in most areas! If it were me, I’d do most of the building myself.
There are a lot of books on straw-bale construction. You can find excellent ones at Barnes & Noble.
James, hopefully Mike Stasse will comment as he’s an expert on energy efficient house design.
When we built our house 15 years ago we followed some ideas that just seemed like commonsense at the time. We have a light coloured metal roof that reflects the sun’s energy rather than absorbing it, and there’s insulation directly under the iron with those whirly hat things to let heat out. We put a verandah right around the house. We have sprinklers on the roof fed from the stormwater tank - on really hot days we turn it on to stop the roof heating up at all, and keep the windows closed to hold the cooler night air inside. We have “snakes” to put across doors and stop drafts in winter.
All pretty low tech and cheap, and we live quite comfortably in an area that goes to -5 in winter and 45 in summer.
Short-term, people can do a lot to cut heating costs. We’ve forgotten how our grandparents managed: They heated only one room in winter.
I well remember visiting my grandparents’ home when it was cold as hell outside and passing through the frigid front parlor to the French doors that led to a combination sitting-room/dining-room that was heated with a coal stove. There was no central heat or other heat source of any kind.
Those old houses had no insulation, so even if you heated only one room, everyone still huddled around the coal stove on very cold days. Bedrooms were completely unheated.
You can duplicate this energy-saving technique in your home, just by hanging doors so that your living area can be completely closed off from the rest of the house. You can then heat only one room. Heat the bathroom only when it’s in use. LIkewise the kitchen.
Electric space heaters are an option for doing this, but other options include natural gas or propane wall heaters–which will put out 32,000 BTUs–or one of those fake fireplaces that comes with a mantle, which can be electric, natural gas, or propane.
I heat this way, and my heating bills are a fraction of what they would otherwise be.
The water heater is another energy hog, heating water 24/7, when you probably only use hot water for an hour or two a day. It can be turned off at the breaker when not in use. When you turn it back on, you should have hot water 20 minutes later. Since breakers these days are often rather shoddy affairs, it might be wiser to install a switch. I keep intending to do this. I know from experience that if you’re not using the water heater (because of plumbing repairs, etc.) it knock at least $20/month off your electric bill.
There’s no reason an energy efficient home needs to cost more than a regular one.
Here are plans for a 350 sf haybale home that you can build yourself for $10,000. It should be plenty for two people.
http://www.solarhaven.org/StarterStrawBale.htm
Here’s a larger house:
http://www.solarhaven.org/NewStrawbale.htm
Now, I don’t expect that you’d find 350 sf adequate, although it actually is adequate. Compared to these 120 sf houses, it’s huge!
http://www.tumbleweedhouses.com/houses.htm
Here are some houses with a little different theme:
http://www.pacificdomes.com/shelter_domes.html
These little houses cost almost nothing to heat, are superinsulated, consume almost no resources to build, cost almost nothing to build, cost almost nothing in property taxes, insurance, maintenance etc. They don’t take much electricity either because there aren’t many lights, and even if you had AC (I wouldn’t), you would only have to cool a very small superinsulated area. You can add on things like a composting toilet or greywater system for peanuts.
This is what the real eco-house people are doing, not the architects who want to sprinkle some green fairy dust on a McMansion.
For all your ideas about rising home prices, mortgages, and paying the bills, and for the 20 million people not invited to the Australia 2020 Summit, the online community created a wiki so people across Australia could post, discuss, and vote on the best ideas for the country. It’s totally a grassroots effort. It’s free, can be anonymous, and isn’t being sponsored by any political party, business, union, or special interests. It’s just people who want to encourage an online national brainstorming session.
The site is at http://ozideas.wetpaint.com. There are pages for over 20 different issues (including housing) and even an online petition to get the best ideas heard at the actual Summit.
The more people know about it, the more ideas are submitted, and the better the discussion. It’s a great way for everyone to participate in the summit.
Jim
Wiki Creator
Just remember how prices are set in our economy. It is by whatever can be traded. Clearly someone thinks that people will part with more money to get an efficient design. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that all the underlying components cost that same amount more.
Christine featured on last weeks SBS insight program, http://news.sbs.com.au/insight/city_limits_541199
After watching the SBS program I was left pondering as to how Christine would have answered the question: “Which is better, high density housing which is relatively easy to service with public transport (but which makes self sufficiency for water, food, and energy an impossibility), or low density housing which is much harder to service with public transport (but in which water, food, and energy self sufficiency is more achievable).” For that matter what is Greens policy on cities, are you in favour of high density or low density?
I am of the view that solving the commuting cost and time problem is best addressed through a change in legislation. Make the employer bare the costs of employees commuting, and also pay the employees for the time that they spend doing it. Under this paradigm there is an incentive for employers to employ as locally as possible, provided of course that the people are sufficiently qualified, and an incentive for businesses to move closer to their work force in order to increase competitiveness. This will not solve the problem, but its a step in the right direction, and its a step which could be taken tomorrow.
Zoltar, the question you raised is very important and I also would like to know what the official postion of the Greens is.
I attended Scott Ludlam’s presentation on the future of energy in Perth and WA which included transport. The image that he painted was a light rail network that is connected to the existing heavy rail network. He said that in order to achieve this, we need walkable cities and denser housing to make public transport more efficient and practical.
If Scott’s presentation is anything to go by, I would say that the Greens are favouring the high density housing path.
James, their is no reason that an energy effiecient house should cost much more than a “regular” house. I think some builders and architects over design and spec out things that are not cost effective but make people feel good. I am currently building my own house and have found one common thread with contractors I have gotten bids from, they know very little if anything about energy efficiency, and what little they do know cost gobs of money and are of little value. That is why I have decided to do it myself. At this point in construction I am right at $53.00 per sq foot of living area. About half of “normal” construction in this area Omaha Nebraska USA. If you could find somebody to do this it would run 100-$125 per sq foot so not much if any extra. The problem is finding somebody that will build it using the latest technologies and being reasonable on their bid and not gouging. The reason I am doing myself is contractors are not willing to be reasonable and they are not familiar with new technologies. My heating will be completely off grid, I am using solar air heaters and solar radiant heat in the floors. This is a 2880 sq foot house and I will not have a heat bill from the power company because of the design features and insulation I have used.
You can see pictures of my house at http://www.nebraskasolarsolutiosn.com
Martin
Am I to believe as a interloper,rather than as a troll,Both Milne and posters are stuck somewhere on this or that,and not being an expert!?High density living versus self sufficiency.!?This debate is so old that the fermentation process has been recycled so often it is almost God!So what needs to be shown proved or other wise tested,isnt the differences but the similarities.Take my word for it even thirsty heat sink cities are in fact micro-climates abundant.Some people in the Greens need to enthuse its questioners with this thought and give it true scientific reading measuring and recording.I waxed eloquently to someone younger out here west of Coffs Harbour,about seeing no-one has tried a Giunness book of Records stuff of growing a pumpkin as a height vertical to the ground that is possible!?So looking at some tall wind swept trees monsters larger than a series of hands in sequence,the challenge needs to take place in country and city,and as simple and or complex as one likes.Seeing the pumpkin plant has large leafy sets that as a total would cover as shade a good square measure..what then is the feasability..of going up trees to increase nutrient supply to both humanity and animals!?With ecology and tree and inhabitants health in mind,but producing pumpkins!?The way to find a real answer to housing and self sufficieny is to test your own skills rather than make someone else overwork..where the answer may not reduce the problem into being acceptable,and, in doing, more flexible than what one may have realised.Take the challenge now..how can I find a human solution for others..when I am burdened by my own!?Enter the community-minded.the darers and doers..not put off by intellectual summary ,power,prestige,status or the sometimes cosmic muffins we..I say we …all become.Waffle Crete promoter,and Hilsch Vortex Tube from ExAir Darwin I am. Not in a commercial sense..directly. Want to solve a few problems in your mind!? Start with your hands instead..and you can scratch your head wondering wether the mind thing is working!?Bring on the carbon dioxide climate change gas friendly fuel!?Which is Carbon Dioxide to fuel by biological micro-organisms.Maybe you all will follow and take note this time..rather than the crap… it cannot be done! Hey! Bob!
A fantastic brief on a serious issue, I have spent some time in the building industry and there’s nothing more frustrating than having to work through your day contributing blood & sweat to yet another monument to ignorant short term reactionary economics.
James you whip like a rawhide genius, the responses are all there. As you can see above its entirely probable that you just chose the wrong architect. How much did the consultation cost?
There’s a movement in the ACT which is attempting to retro design existing low income housing for more sustainable living, both environmentally and for health. (surprising how these are often not connected at all)
Simple additions like an air trap at the front door (for a cold climate especially) ie another door and small atrium to stop hot air leaving the home under pressure every time its opened. Deciduous vines on north facing walls, composting and veggie gardens, energy efficient appliances, rain water catchment and small grey water systems. All retro fitted to a home which ironically probably had tenants with a more sustainable living ethos than the more recently devolved consumer.
Its actually cheaper to design and construct a single home along environmentally conscious lines rather than the other way if approached sensibly and costs considered over a 10 year period. Unfortunately the real devil here is the momentum of scale economics. It took the American EPA over 30 years to have the auto manufacturers and fuel industry’s remove lead from petrol (Devra Davis “when smoke ran like water” a good read), it may take just as long to have the hugeness of the construction industry to actually implement intelligent design criteria.
I have just returned from a job of work assisting installing an off grid solar system on a property where attempts to mitigate capital costs resulted in the new kit home owner including cheaper fully electric storage hot water, electric oven, etc with their oddly orientated kit home.
The additional costs to supply and build the PV & Diesel hybrid system to provide energy for this power hungry home are only mitigated by greenhouse grants system, the end result is still a false economy.
These people exist within a culture that prides itself in rejecting ‘greeny’ ethos as impractical and extremist, because of this they are often blinkered to many well thought out concepts. In the same manner as some environmentalists refuse to see the forestry industry as actually necessary. (even if tragically mismanaged).
Its the same culture that exists within the building industry. Architects and engineers aside, the folk who actually implement the ideas are on an entirely different level, less involved with the oxygen rich strata that has no problem moving a 10 tonne steel beam with a pen or mouse.
Developers often become confused in the same way as the new home owners above, immediate economic limitations demand short cuts with negative effects which will be felt for years.
Just like the building and big finance industries, just like the whole of the energy & resource sector, there are still many Local councils with legislators and employees who believe that Global warming and environmental issues are just Greeny propaganda.
These are getting older and are less likely to change their attitudes with every passing day.
Until encouraged into seminars and work training programs or by hip pocket imperatives it will continue to be extremely difficult to shepherd the herd through the gate.
A few tv shows and magazine articles and some dodgy green points system just will not cut it.
It has to come from both ends, we have to apply a pincer tactic, federal legislation, State encouragement and council level education incentive and imperatives.
No new development should be able to go ahead with out its principles having had at least a high school level certificate education in environmental design for healthy and sustainable living. Not being able to abrogate responsibility and future personal moral liability to a few haplessly disconnected architects and engineers would be a good start.
Bless their little overpaid wings.
James (comment 1), just stick to a standard run of the mill design (probably even as designed by one of the myriad of building companies) then have a consultant recommend changes and additions to make more environmentally sustainable (eg. gray / solar water systems etc.) and suited to your needs. You may need to be careful to check with your local councils, as I know in Victoria, a number of the councils will only approve designs that fit their strict criteria to fit in with other residences / period designs / color schemes etc.. As for Hay Bale, good grief, no council in any city area I know of would ever approve.
I agree with a comment above that it will take a some time before Governments / Councils change building codes to fully assist environmental building, but they are changing slowly. Remember you could not have water tanks or gray water systems in the suburbs as both were considered health hazards, but within the last few years most councils approve if a certified system is installed.
My prediction is, that within the next 10-20 years, environmental designs will be the only ones available, but it will take the handing of legislation / planning controls to the generation that are currently at High School, and being educated with an environmental leaning. These students are being brought up with well publicised environmental issues, and should accelerate the process of environmental living standards, when they reach managerial levels.
In Christines article she talks about the importance of mass transit systems for the new growth suburbs, and I agree that these are a necessity component which should be mandated before any new sub division is given the go-ahead. However I am not sure what can be done for existing recently developed outer suburbs, where no transport corridors have been left, and roads, in may areas, are not even generally wide enough for buses, let alone a light rail system. One suggestion I do have (like many before me) is to move business out of the central CBD in each city to central satellite centers in the suburbs, where transport of a medium volume (eg. bus / light rail) can service.
Another suggestion above, is to build regional growth centers. This was tried during the 70s (Albury and Wodonga) and found generally to be a disaster. The 3 major problem areas were,
1. Cost of land. Initially quite cost effective, but skyrocketed as more business moved to the area, and required increased services / infrastructure, until land was cheaper in Melbourne (also impacted by land speculators).
2. Cost of transport. Goods had to be shipped to either Melbourne or Sydney for distribution. Fuel costs for trucks was too high, and cost of upgrading rail infrastructure was going to be billions, even in the 70s (probably now 10s of billions) which no Government could afford without seriously impacting other Government services.
3. Cost of labour. As most required goods / services in the area had to be transported from a capital city, cost of living for the average worker, degenerated to be greater than in Melbourne, so workers wanted to be compensated.
One area I believe that Christine did not mention is that, I believe all planning will be partially wasted unless we restrict the growth of migration into Australia. What will be the use of reducing carbon emissions by 60% by 2020, if we only increase the levels again by, say 30%, from increased population (eg. Melbourne is increasing in population by 1,500 approx per week, all merrily producing carbon emissions). It may be hard to swallow, but if we keep allowing population increases into this country at the rate we currently are, I doubt that we will ever even meet the 2020 60% target.
I think the piece overstates the difficulties Aussies face. It’s not true that we have no control over our power consumption, and thus bills. In the one-tonne CO2 lifestyle piece I wrote about nine guidelines for living a lower-carbon intensive lifestyle. Six of them, #2-#6, are things which will reduce your bills overalll,
2. use cool drinks and fans not airconditioning, jumpers and hot drinks not heating, hang washing out to dry, change to CFLs and pull plugs out on appliances not in use
3. Don’t fly in aircraft at all.
4. bye-bye cars: for a journey under 5km, walk. Under 15km, bike. Over that, public transport.
5. consume mainly fresh fruit and vegies, grains and legumes, avoid processed containerised food
6. reduce meat consumption to under 12kg/year (0.25kg/week)
7. for consumer goods, borrow rather than buy, secondhand rather than new
The ABS said that in 2003-4 the average Australian household spending was $893 weekly.
- about $185 on food, alcohol and tobacco
- $139.25 on transport, $125.08 of which on cars
- about $25 on domestic fuel and power
My suggestions if followed - let’s forget about buying secondhand and stuff for the moment - would save about $85 on food and drink, $15 on domestic fuel and power, and $100 on transport, or $200 weekly in all.
Of course not in all suburbs is there public transport available, but many journeys are short and could be walked or biked. I don’t know of any Aussie surveys of different trip lengths, but to give us an idea this Swedish survey in 2001 found “most trips are short, 40 per cent are shorter than 3km, 56 per cent are under 5 km.” So it’s quite plausible for the average Aussie household, even absent public transport, to halve their vehicle use; this would double their vehicle’s life, halve their fuel use and maintenance needs, so that the $125.08 on the car would become $75.93, a saving of $50.16. Added to the food, drink, and domestic fuel and power savings, this gives us $150 in all.
Thus, the average Aussie household can by simple everyday measures save $150-$200 a week. That’ll make a big difference to families feeling financial pressure, and will pay off a mortgage quite a bit more quickly.
Absolutely we should have more mass transit, better-designed suburbs, energy-efficient housing, and so on - but we don’t have to wait until that happens to get acting.
It’s quite reasonable that a federal Senator will focus on what government can do; but we should not forget what we as individuals can do. We often look for difficult and expensive solutions when simple and money-saving solutions are already here. We could put in heaps of insulation, spending something like $8,000, and save 10kWh electricity a day on the AC - or we could turn off the 2,500W AC, turn on a 50W fan and have a cool drink - and also save 10kWh a day. Spend money and save energy, or save money and save energy. Of course, this requires us to change our lifestyle a bit, and a politician who wishes to be re-elected will probably not want to tell us we’re responsible for our own problems.
Again, government action absolutely has a place. But individual action does, too.
I hate to sound cynical but I do not believe people will react until they are forced to. Folks will keep driving V8s until the petrol is too expensive. They will buy bigger and bigger houses until the utilities are too expensive.
Basically, I believe we are on course to run aground and maybe it’s the best thing that can happen. Until our systems are shown to be as fragile and artificial as they are, only the few will act in a sustainable way.
Gary
You could say the same about water, that no-one would change unless forced to by law or circumstance. And yet progressive pricing (in Qld) or trivial water restrictions (in Vic), combined with an “every drop counts” advertising campaign… has reduced water consumption, roughly halving it in domestic Brisbane, dropping it by 25% or so in Melbourne.
If it works for water consumption, I don’t see why it shouldn’t work for electricity, natural gas, petrol, etc consumption.
Make the call, combine it with pricing and laws, subsidies and tariffs, and so on - and people will respond.
Sadly, Gary F, you are more right than wrong. The nature of the problem requires a whole community response which can only be initiated thorough our whole community organising body, government. But what we have here is government claiming to protect the communities interests by doing nothing. Or next to nothing. If there was ever a case, and a need, for a single issue refferendum, this is it.
One of my pet environmental housing passions is a version of a housing style, with medieaval roots, that I first saw in (articles) Italy. In the Itallian form a house presented to the surrounding streets a high solid brick wall (vine covered). Inside the wall an earthen cover sloped down towards a large central courtyard. The earth roofed dwelling presented a glass wall to the court yard from all of the surrounding rooms. The beauty of this design, which is reflected in the work of Californian architect Malcolm B Wells, is that the dwelling occupies less land (400 square metres), retains much of that land as grassed or garden area, has substantially more lighting and ventillation than conventional fence-to-fence-blob on-block type housing constructions, and is very energy efficient. The only disadvantage is that you lose that dubiously important architectural statement. In this construction the architecture is on the inside. The view is entirely under the occupiers control and there is no need for curtains. In my version of this design a whole street of the dwellings are created in a row terrace style, then the earth is replaced, and the landscaping begins. There is plenty of scope for individualising in the ammenities features of the design. Applause to M.B. Wells for imagineering this style in the sixties and seventies. We may have all seen hundreds of these dwellings but have never realised.
Gary @20. As a counter to the cynical, I was at an abattoir yesterday. Now forgetting the inefficiencies and ethics of meat eating for a moment, you would expect an abattoir to be in red neck reactionary territory. Well they are reactionary - to price.
They have covered both of there wash down ponds and are now generating enough power from the methane to run the entire plant and sell power back to the grid. Not only that but the tallow, that doesn’t end up in soap, makes biodiesel and powers their delivery fleet.
I was heartened by this story anyway as it means their is hope. This abattoir has decided that peak oil is a very real threat to business, and that electricity is only going to get more expensive.
Excellent post, mcfarm. Thankyou!
BilB @22 Earth berm walled houses are not that unusual in Australia, and I happen to live in one. The beauty of this system is that 1 metre below the surface, the earth temp is a constant 17 degrees C in my region. No need for cooling in Summer, and in winter it is much easier to raise the temp a few degrees from 17 degrees than from the minus 3 or 4 outside - this can be done with trombe walls and be solar passive. The earth berms also make the roof accessible for gutter cleaning, solar panel maintenance etcetera.
Whilst a clear sod roof is a beautiful thing, the problem for Australia is that it makes rainwater recovery near impossible. In fact you would have to water the roof in Oz to keep it alive so that the plants could shade and cool the roof. Otherwise you would end up with a very hot large thermal mass directly overhead. Not to mention the super strength roof members required and the leak potential. The extra cost over a well insulated, water harvesting, light coloured tin roof is enormous (by a factor of 4 from memory). There are a few earth shelter houses in Oz, but not many can justify the extra expense and lack of water harvesting ability.
Aesthetic consideration? A sod roof covered with solar panels, solar HWS, TV antenna and satellite dish, is probably not such a beautiful thing.
I think Christine on Insight was brilliant. All I can say is I cant believe how much Peter Garrett has turned around. If you do a search on http://www.youtube.com and listen to some of his old songs he sounds like an old left activist. Now he has just become part of the political deadwood of a ALP machine.
The rates of reposessions are increasing because “working families” simply can only take so many financial blows. I think Bob Brown needs to talk Kevin Rudd into taking a trip to Germany and France to visit some low cost affordable sustainable housing developments in those countries and bring back some ideas that can be adapted here. While Kevin is over there he should have a look at the European public transport system too.
mcfarm (comment 25) your home sounds efficient, but I bet you do not live in a suburb of a major city. No council would approve the design for suburbia.
What we need are practical, very energy efficient home designs (not architect designed due to costs involved), that can be designed and built by the local home builder, yet still receive approval from the local council. The homes also need to be priced at a level where the average young family can afford to buy (probably smaller and cheaper than the current home designs). These are the energy consumers of the future, not the mac-mansion owners of the present, who probably have the money not to worry about the amount of energy they consume.
Kiashu (comment 19) sounds more like a socialist manifesto than a number of solutions. As I have said in a number of comments, emission reductions will need to start with business reductions that are positive savings on their profit and loss statements. If any Government tries to legislate to force savings, that severely impact the living standards of the average Australian, you can bet they will be thrown out at one of the following elections.
From every thing I have heard over the past few months, I believe we will still be talking about emission reduction targets, or how to meet them, for the next 10+ years.
Originally posted here - thought it was relevant to the discussion here.
James’s house is made of straw and has a turf roof covered in flowers. He is passionate about eco homes and deeply proud of the cottage near Dumfries. His kitchen is made from a cedar that blew over in a Glasgow park. His sink came from a skip. To one side is a Moroccan marbled shower room, to the other are sofas and a log-burning stove. He sleeps in a galleried bedroom. A compost loo and rainwater filtration system complete the picture.
The total cost: £4,000.
And it’s not hard to do it yourself, he says. “Straw is perfect for a beginner. It’s easy to work with and you can make your house any shape you want. You can use straw to make any kind of buildings – from a four-storey office block to a house I know, which is a spiral. Go mad, have fun, start living!”
James’ tips:
1. Build the foundations
I made a solid, 2ft-high base from rocks. It’s sort of like building a solid dry-stone wall – you don’t need mortar. Take time to get the rocks to fit together well, but it’s good to leave gaps; this will ventilate the straw and keep it dry.
2. Add the wooden floor
You need a wooden frame on which to lay your flooring and build the walls. I used flat reclaimed timbers as joists, laying them in a grid and nailing them together. To create a curve at the front, I used thick plywood. The whole thing just sits on the stones – the straw-bale walls will hold it down.
3. Assemble the roof frame
Make the roof frame, so that it’s ready to go on as soon as the walls are up. Start with a sturdy frame the same shape as the base. Attach the rafters and fix them together in a tepee shape. It’s easiest to hold it all together with screws.
4. Walls and windows
I used 200 oat-straw bales to make my house. They cost £1 each. First, lay a complete layer of bales around the edge of the base. Using twine, stitch these to the wooden base. Build upwards, stacking the bales like bricks. Drive thin, pointed wooden stakes through them at intervals to hold them together. I got the walls up in five days – with help from friends. You can cut the straw to fit any shape you like, and stuff extra bits in any gaps. All my windows came from skips. I laid a polythene membrane between the frames and the straw, to protect the frames from damp.
5. Get the roof on
Using plenty of manual labour, lift the roof frame into position. Use some stakes to attach it to the straw walls. I built a galleried bedroom into the roof space, laying a tree-trunk through the span of the roof to support the bedroom floor. I nailed on wooden slats in overlapping rows on top of the roof and covered it in natural rubber pond liner. Then a layer of turf went on top, along with a handful of flower seeds.
6. Render the outside
I used a mix of gravel, sand and water from the loch, and added quicklime. This makes hot lime render, which you can slap on while it’s warm and make interesting shapes with.
via Independent
Mcfarm,
Apart from better temperature control the key features of the Wells formula are dual use of limited space and aspect control. Consider Sydney’s middleage suburbs (starting from Rockdale and arcing half way around the city) where houses were built on long narrow blocks near to fences on either side. Most of the windows in these houses were on the long sides shaded by neighbours houses and curtained for privacy. A substantially useless formula as both a living space and a recreation space. And todays houses designed for acreage but built on 600 sq metre blocks are no better. Furthermore todays houses are roofed and guttered in materials approaching half a millimetre thick. We are charging headlong into an insurance catastrophy. As extreme weather strengthens the trend now is for whole suburbs at a time to be affected by fire, hail, wind, and tornedoes. The Wells formula is vulnerable only to flood, and that is a risk for the contents, not the house.
Grass roofs are more of a gimmick. The thickness of the overburden is the key element in supporting a healthy landscape of trees, shrubs, garden plants, and turf, above without requiring watering. I should hasten to add that I have never built one of these houses, though the time may not be too far away. If my current house was destroyed in a bush fire I would seriously consider this as the replacement.
Grant@27. You are right I don’t live in suburbia, but you are wrong about earth bermed walls and councils. The bermed walls will pass council codes and the BCA if they meet engineering specs for structural strength and damp proofing/drainage. They do not need to be architect designed, only engineer certified.
Re straw bails, they are increasingly being approved in the burbs, and I have been involved with a few. The thing to remember is that the walls are only one of many costs in building, and although excellent insulators, straw bail walls are not structural. This means they require load bearing and tie down supports materials for the roof. I once had a scale of relative building component costs at one time, I think the walls were 5 to 12% of total costs. btw that was for all walls - internal and external depending on materials used.
Another point about straw bail construction is that at 2 foot (600mm) thick, they require a significantly larger footprint for the same internal volume. I’d like to see a total energy audit on the larger slab/floor required and the larger roof too - there’s no such thing as a free lunch.
Why are people building McMansions in the first place, is it because they truly want a huge home (and the additional cleaning that goes with it), or is it the high cost of land that makes building a more modest home seem like financial lunacy?
Perhaps we need to restructure our taxes and levies on property to encourage more modest dwellings. Council rates could be largely based on the combined floor area covered by a roof, rather than on the unimproved land value. Stamp duty on property sales could be modified by the combined floor area of a property too, a small residence would attract a very low stamp duty rate, and a mansion would attract a much higher rate of stamp duty on the value of the property.
Urban consolidation and 2′ thick walls don’t really go together.
mcfarm @ 23, that is an amazing and inspiring story! Thanks for posting it!
Re the question high up on consolidation vs spread and Greens position, in summary there is no official position. As stated in the original piece, we certainly have a preference for urban consolidation where it makes sense, due to the host of impacts of urban sprawl. Of course, consolidation can have negative impacts too.
Our position is that we need sensible, coherent and cohesive planning to make the best decisions across the broad spectrum of issues.
Thanks for this excellent discussion folks!
Grant, what a bizarre idea, that encouraging conservation for power and fuel and so on, as we do for water, is a “socialist manifesto” and that the government implementing it will be kicked out. I guess that explains why all those Labor state governments got kicked out around 2003 when all the water restrictions came in… no wait, they were re-elected, often with increased majorities.
The Garnaut Review has just released an issues paper on “Transport, Planning and the Built Environment”, and is seeking public submissions (due April 11). Much of the discussion here would be quite relevant.
Details are at:
http://www.garnautreview.org.au/CA25734E0016A131/pages/submissions-transport-and-urban-planning
An issue that leads to more energy use from buildings is “split incentives”. The landlord chooses the hot water, heating systems, insulation or lack of it, and the the tenant pays the electricity/gas bill. There is no incentive for the landlord or tenant to invest measures that reduce energy use and emissions.
Perhaps landlords and tenants should both pay a share of utility bills, so that there will be an incentive to invest in better buildings and so on. Having stronger regulation on things such as insulation in buildings and hot water systems will lower emissions is also important.
I am certainly impressed by some of the positive reactions/changes people have described in various posts on this thread.
But such changes are, as I indicated in my original post, marginal. Drive out to Bundoora on the outer fringes of Melbourne and have a look at what constitutes the latest in suburb design. It’s obscene. So for all the individual changes we see happening the general push, the path down which we as a society continue to go, remains unchanged.
GF
Kiashu (comment 33). In my response I stated that if a Government LEGISLATES to force savings, and if that legislation directly impact peoples living standards, then the Government will be in trouble. Governments ENCOURAGE savings, but do NOT force. For example, in Victoria for existing properties, water tanks are currently encouraged, but not forced, water usage reduction devices, such as low flow shower heads are encouraged, not forced, gas hot water or mains pressure hot water services are encouraged, but not forced. This also extends to solar hot water systems, where the Governments try to ENCOURAGE usage, but do not mandate usage.
Having said the above, it is acknowledged that Governments have a role with new housing to mandate items such as water tanks, and the average home buyer accepts this, but the number of new homes compared to the number of exiting homes where the Government ENCOURAGES savings is very small.
Over time people will / are moving to reduce energy consumption through use of low wattage bulbs etc, and when it eventually fails replace the old roof based hot water service tank, but these changes will take many years. Governments are ENCOURAGING energy companies to increase prices to reduce energy consumption, however this appears to be a little confusing, as the Governments then need to subsidise the low income earners energy bills (low income earners have the least capability of implementing any energy efficiency measures), while the wealthy are not impacted (just a bill increase while they could afford to implement solar heaters etc.) in the MacMansions.
Gary, the thing is that positive change always seems painfully slow, while negative change seems frighteningly fast. That’s just the way we are and can’t help but see things.
It’s all in how you choose to look at things. Sometimes pessimistics and optimists are described as people who see a glass as half-empty or half-full. As my woman says, whether the glass is half-empty or half-full depends on when you are filling it up or emptying it.
The positive changes we want towards greater social justice, lower consumption and emissions, these are a glass being filled drop by drop in the dark. The cup of change is being filled drop by drop in the dark. We hear each drop, and we are impatient because we hear the drops but don’t see how full the cup is. At some point it will overflow.
Just as the climate has a “tipping point”, with lots of little changes apparently doing nothing, then one last little change making everything change, so too with societies.
Drop by drop. It’s hard to believe it, but one day even Bundoora will be eco-friendly :)
Kiashu,
You rightly remind me of a sound aphorism: “positive change always seems painfully slow, while negative change seems frighteningly fast.”
Being here in the US is just so bloody depressing. I forget the rest of the world is not The East Coast.
Gary
The Sydney Energy Co-operative formed in mid 2007. Students from the Photovoltaic and Renewable Energy Engineering program at the University of New South Wales got together to offer their technical knowledge to the resources of the general community to carry out effective energy activities.
These include helping with more efficient lighting installations; supply of low cost, high quality solar modules available to members and the public; and energy-focused education, in concert with GreenGeeks.
The co-op does not own any motor vehicles. Instead has a fleet of bicycles (and bike trailers) built from recycled parts. Where more transport grunt is required they swap renewable energy consulting for use of a biodiesel van from a non-profit community arts collective. The co-operative has a no-flying policy. It uses no coal-based electricity, old or new. And sources its office supplies from a student-run Stationery Reuse Centre at UNSW.
Sydney Energy Cooperative
If McMansions are such a bad thing environmentally,and sometimes I think,people should just look at the roads and paths outside of the house first,there is imbedded incompetence elsewhere as assuming something about owners wether indebted or not.To assume these places where they are abundant in the landscape as socially inactive,is simply that assumption.I normally cannot feel sorry for people earning more money,if I am earning,and having more material possessions than me,but,in the case of criticism about lifestyle options,sometimes the criticism seems to be unfounded.Just remember the dangerous thing about humanity is its inventative nature..it is also creative.I looked at a Bunnings Hardware catalogue this week to see them selling camellia plants as pick your own tea.I dont know wether camellias will end up being a runaway plant,but it looks a fine choice to me.In a plantpot,a flexible movable option,the green tea revolution is now optionalised well.All these hardware places are selling a DIY approach to life, the products ,certainly may outgas,breakdown and not exactly be the wisest of resource use,and combined with products elsewhere provide differing values of sustainability.I think it is more wise than unexceptional to encourage people to know and do their housing,as I have stated eleswhere the modern guttering standardised as it is,is interconnectable with houses on every street of anywhere within a given location..the roofs could be considered dam walls,the roads and roadside dispersal of water could be pushed back up hill to dam sites,so that know ecological normal riparian zone got over inundated.Cities near oceans and ocean winds, really do mean,the city road path and water drainage systems can flush themselves regularly in hot conditions..to avoid being a heat trap..the possible damage by salt sea water is essentially easy to overcome..emergency services type pumping systems are not going to use excessive fuel.Solar and wind are part of this plot,so that its also easy to trap pollutants,allow people to get around without much inconvenience ,lack of safety or health problems,so are electronics,and anyone that thinks life is for living through uncomfortable conditions,by applying our knowledge anew.I claim we dont have to huddle together frightened of temperature increases,if cities and large coastal towns do the right thing,in refusing to be heat sinks,causing distortion in weather patterns by doing so.The individual property ownersor dwellers are not the main problem,they are the solution,so are the present built up areas..the dunces are over-criticising the whole bloody lot. Do not let consumer choice be a dissipative process that allows anyone to think as citizens their behaviour meets the requirements of planet Earth…your farts and their effects ,might be less destructive by making sure built up areas cool down when they reach a discomfort temperature.Be brave,maybe some solutions mean less heroic despair than what at present seems to be the attitude.Wrong way Willy has too many adherents willingness.
A friend of mine knows a big shot developer, this guy has 2 mid sized residential projects with investor assurances.
Each project will involve 30+ land and house packages in the early stages of a developing urban precinct.
The developer and his money want to do the right thing as well as realise a return.
I have been asked to help create a simple users guide to enviro friendly residential development. A brief on council mandatory requirements, efficient passive design utilizing existing building technology and standard house plan patterns and a compendium of ‘accessories’ which accompany this kind of development ethos. That is a list of recommended suppliers & prices for energy efficient and enviro sustainable goods, services and materials biased for these particular developments.
These projects are based in the Perth greater metro region.
This is an opportunity to have an input at the planning stages of an ‘eco suburb’. I am no expert but I am going to step up and take this on.
I have seen architecturally inspired “green” building projects and witnessed the results of professional consultation with examples of a cloistered and liability limited expert fraternity and have not been particularly impressed.
You know the type of construction I am discussing here, a ‘green’ rated building with absolutely no passive design credibility fitted out with carbon neutralising point scoring gimmick’s and bright shiny fadery. Design where function follows the trend without recourse to underlying principles.
There are however many excellent examples of what used to be a ‘genre’ and now is fast becoming the benchmark for a mandatory codex.
I hope to collate a list of such examples for the developers initial appraisal. Regardless of location and environment.
This will help establish the framework for location specificity, ie ‘this example is good but totally unsuitable for this climate etc’.
If any person reading this has a good example of the genre to put forward it would be welcomed.
Further, If any person or group out there would like to be involved in establishing an at a glance codex guide, with the possibility a future commission or case study attribution please feel free to contact me via the address supplied right here: shytskutz@yahoo.com.au.
Bear in mind that these constructions may be surrounded by thier antithesis and will have to take on the accepted base aesthetic of a larger, new suburban development.
Its a match & batch cost derivitive conservative handycap.
I have a couple of weeks to collate some material for an initial meeting. (At which I will not be present personally).
This is also an opportunity however to create a longer term forum and data base of groups, suppliers, individuals who will be much needed and in great demand by the network already established by this developer.
Regardless of outcomes I will be involved in at least one aspect of the hands on construction and would welcome an opportunity to discuss the nature of such a project with those that are unable to take up site specific or hands on opportunities in the industry.
We are walking and talking, why not join us.
I’ve been watching this site for a while now and while some of the comments have been practical a lot are totally impractical and off the subject.
The original challenge was to bring about improvements in affordability and energy efficiency of housing. Affordability is a combination of the prices of the house and the land. The land price is influenced by supply and demand factors which need a degree in economics to fathom, but as long as a sector of the market demands suburban style blocks of land then they will be paying a huge premium for the cost of establishing them, including the hidden costs of loss of potential agricultural production or ecological damage. Those and related issues would have to be addressed in national and regional planning policy.
As far as the house part of the equation is concerned I feel well qualified to comment as a builder/designer for several decades. The current sustainability regulations for housing are a total mish-mash, with no national standards but a series of politically inspired though well intentioned state-based criteria.
Victoria for instance has struggled to get a 5-Star standard up and running, after overcoming intense lobbying from organisations such HIA and MBA. While one would sort of expect those bodies to be interested in improving the quality of the built environment, they are actually led by the power of the mega-builders who frankly don’t give a rat’s, but just build for the benefit of their directors/shareholders, and any claims of eco-friendliness are almost entirely greenwash. It has taken several years to get rid of a dispensation for building with a timber floor, but now that we have better tools such as Firstrate5 for rating houses we can move on and design and build houses up to a 10 star standard, similar to the regulations to be introduced for the UK.
For the average suburban home, it is possible to achieve a 6 star rating a no extra cost to the client. This does mean site-specific design, but it’s not rocket science and we’ve done it. Also, it ’s interesting to note that smaller homes achieve better enregy ratings, so getting over the McMansion dream is paramount. Since a house is regarded as the ultimate status symbol, let’s encourage people to value the status of living a low-carbon lifestyle and it could start with their new home, which incidentally need not look like a techno-box, but not much different from a standard home. Thee are very few architects out there who are really interested in created such designs, as there fees are based on a percentage of the build cost, so the higher the cost and size, the better for them.
If subdivisions were designed with the building designer in mind it would make the process a whole lot easier and affordable, a key part of the process.
As for what form future subdivisions will take, one would hope that the combined potential impact of peak oil and global warming will be considered more seriously. There is certainly scope to decentralise both population and industry/commerce but there are limitations on the available resources such as water in many areas, but where resources are available, very often the land will also be affordable for as long as supply is able to meet demand. As long as people want a quarter acre block there is going to be economic pain attached, whereas if they can get over that and see the benefits of a smaller, more centralised community we will all be better off.
There are many more aspects to this debate such as population growth (fed by immigration and the baby-bonus), transport issues, improvements to existing housing stock etc. Interestingly, Victoria is about to introduce energy rating regulations for home extensions but the details are not released to us yet.
What other initiatives are coming from other states and countries, and how can we get some uniformity of approach here?
Tim Norton @ 40
That’s exciting news! Have there been any reports of successful liasons in community projects? I would assume that it is too early to see anything physical. For one, I hope that they have involvement in developing the public transport and building construction that’s happening around Maquarie Park. It has been advertised as being more environmentally friendly and sustainable, without going into any form of detail.
As a follow on from Russell Pearse @43.
Acthers, 1st Rate, Nathers are all energy ratings systems that will yield different results for the same building, same location and same orientation- there are other energy rating systems but I haven’t used them.
As an aside, one common and stupid rule is the banning of white roofs by councils.
Anyway I feel that housing is another case where the National Government should set the policy on science based energy outcomes/targets, and then let the market do it’s thing for price/affordability and ascetics.
Who cares what the house is made of provided it exceeds the energy code requirements and houses people in comfort. Home buyers will still have a choice and they will help shape things accordingly (pun intended). I doubt that a high solar gain high thermal mass house (McMansion) could pass such a rating system and be built in Darwin, but it may be just the ticket in Hobart - who knows?
In short the system should be performance based and not prescriptive. R ratings, embodied energy, orientation, energy consumption/saving and climate (macro and micro) are some of the more important variables. Much work has been done on the weightings given to the variables and their interplay - a bit pointless having R57strawbail walls and an R3 roof (seen this done more than once!).
It is easy to design a building to a set of performance based energy criteria; just as easy as it is to design to the current criteria - biggest possible dwelling for the lowest price or budget. The current design criteria are the rule, which the exceptions do not disprove.
Size does matter, and any national energy rating system should be based on the materials embodied energy as well as energy usage over life of the building. The active energy bits (lighting, heating/cooling, appliances etc.) should be treated seperately. The housing energy code would need to be reviewed every two years to make sure it is keeping pace with technological developments.
Home building/housing is one area which isn’t rocket science, but needs a national policy based on mandatory energy outcomes that the market must meet which ever way it chooses. Soviet style high rise blocks may be very efficient to build and centrally heat, but given a choice would you live in one?
A similar energy rating system for town planning, subdivision considerations and individual/mass transit systems is also doable. Probably simpler too as there are less variables, but I’ll leave that to others.
As far as super cheap living goes- why not build a house from old shipping containers? The things last forever, there’s a glut of them, and are super cheap and the money you save can be used to build an exterior shell and raised roof to insulate the structure from building up too much heat from the summer sun- why not use the savings to pay for a recycled water system and solar water and electricity generation on your dwelling as well. They’re all the rage in Europe at the moment- just Google “Shipping container house” and you’ll find loads of practical examples. As long as you put a barrier and insulation between the walls and roof it’s totally practical in an Australian climate and you can stack them up to 12 stories high! Quite frankly, on my low income a shipping container conversion house is the only dwelling I can see myself being able to afford to live in!
AndyP,
Back in the early 1980’s I designed a disaster relief / emergency housing system based on lined shipping containers. Basically there was a wet unit/container (shower, toilet and kitchen) that could have several dormitory (bedroom) and living units alongside linked by a tin roof which provided rainwater gathering, insulation and verandahs/breeze ways.
Australia still is a terminal destination for shipping containers so they are readily available, cheap and strong. $1,000 dollars will get something serviceable, and $3,300 incl. gst will buy a new air and watertight 20 x 8 x 8 foot container (6.16 x 2.44 x 2.44 metres for the post imperialists).
The idea was to send them to cyclone / tsunami / etc. devastated areas immediately post event. There would have been ideal for rapid response housing post the tent/temporary shelter phase. The world revolves around moving these things so it’s easy to do. Not only that but they are almost indestructible once shut and could be moved to the next location, or easily stored (12 high), as or until required.
The idea was/is free to anyone who wanted to ‘run with it’, but there were/are no takers, but we digress.
Referring to post 43 & string
Yes, I agree, there seems to be a whole lot of good intention and political solutions (solutions you must have if you don’t actually solve the problems), however there is as yet no National standard for the holistic encouragement of ‘eco-smart’ developments or building practices.
Councils in WA generally rely on building codes, the AGO & SEDO have some inputs and advice but leave the bulk of actual regulation of practices up to BCA. The AGO have been able to use the PV grants scheme to enforce code of practice & QA for PV systems but their influence is based wholly and solely on the distribution of rebates, a phenomena which will not be a permanent effect.
Builders and Developers own the lion’s share of market responses. A few individuals may take the concept of sustainable practices seriously, however the situation in reality for the average own home or investment property purchaser, as we have been discussing here is driven by affordability.
The developers / builders are part of a larger machine with an enormous momentum. They have a standardised set of patterns to utilize, in the same manner as any natural system takes on similar shapes and behaviours determined by evolutionary responses to complex environmental interactions.
Just like tooling up for a new automobile, it takes time for the economics of large systematic process to catch up with the reality of a needed response.
The builder is still using the same techniques, the planner is still comfortable with that approach, the engineer also knows that box can be ticked and there is an ongoing boom in the resource and primary materials supply which fuels and encourages the next revolution of the merry go round.
To actually implement and have generally accepted a mandatory across the board minimum greenhouse impact codex both for capital infrastructure and ongoing interactive enviro costs is definitely the solution. The standard response from industry, any industry be it building, making cfc’s, cars, cigarettes, chocolate, paper or tourists, is always, “we need to do more research’ “we need to carry out a broader consultative process” ‘we will not derail our economy for some green science theory’ etc etc etc.
Prima fascia examples of the impotency of politically driven imperatives to actually enforce implementation of changes to industry practices include CFC laws, the controls placed on tobacco, and the influence of the EPA in the USA.
All results are directly attributable to industry finding alternatives to exploit before allowing government to proceed. Tobacco in Asia and developing countries, CFC manufacturers finding more profitable alternatives, the EPA only enforcing mandatory minimums after over 30 years where the auto corps and big industry worked on ways to make compliance work to a competitive advantage.
Make no mistake, Australia has followed the lead of the USA in every health and environmental legislative case, we do not own our own air any more than we control the global economy.
In NSW the point’s scheme for minimum compliance is sensible, but still leads to fantastically contrived false economic responses. I.e. all the dwellings may have no passive credentials as long as they have a PV system and a water tank.
Mandatory passive design minimums MUST be regulated for nationally using the BCA framework; until they are we may as well just park our armchairs slightly higher up the hill and turn up our loud hailers.
Australia is one of the best & the worst environments for changing behaviours with regulatory imperatives.
Because it has developed a powerfully conflicted and complex beaurocratic infrastructure. Private Industry bodies interfacing with Government authority each with a self interest in sustaining their particular status quo, this prime motive often conflicting with actual objectivity.
That this system often tends toward a moribund officious self sustenance at variance to the application of its intended functions is probably inevitable and cyclic in nature. Now we have a point in the standard cycle where some gear changing can be done, if we don’t we are not going to make it over the rise.
And one comment on shipping containers, there’s some great sites, it’s been well past conceptual for 20 years or so
One concept consisted of ultra low impact heli drop facilities for jungle & remote area research, the other for temp. Military & humanitarian infrastructure.
Unfortunately as a general response to the economic and environmental costs of housing it is not a credible one.
The design of a shipping container is a good example of form following function, a solid, heavy gauge re usable goods transport facility. The expense involved in turning this creature into a cheap eco smart dwelling on a medium or large scale compromises the end result. Steel is not very efficient as insulation, the containers are an awkward size & shape for living modules and very few councils would approve of their use as permanent habitats.
May as well put feathers on a shark and chuck it out of an aeroplane.
In any event, the increasing price of steel makes the initial capital purchase more expensive per square than just about any other more energy efficient alternative.
For individual designs based on opportunity and specificity it does have some merit however.
A friend of mine wanted to further excavate an old quarry site overlooking the ocean and half bury a series of 40′ containers, kind of Frank Lloyd Wright inspired. That was 15 years ago! He ended up buying an old pub in Tasmania in stead though.
Here in WA the use of pre fab cement and styrene sandwich for both small & large constructs is gaining its own popular moment. Quick, simple, relatively low embedded energy costs due to the simplicity of manufacture & assembly and very high insulation efficiency make it a viable alternative.
There is something to be said for community projects involving holistic responses in living behaviours and initial construction designs & methodology, however much I enjoy a good hay bale and mud house, fresh eggs, fresh veggies, fruit, the sound of frogs and the efficiencies of sun power. Whilst idling away my peace sculpting useless articles from used packaging I am able to reflect however and I recognize that I am actually an anachronism, a glitch in the larger program.
This is not utube or prime time TV, what we have here is a loose collection of glitches, glitches which may or may not have an effect on the whole.
And that possible effect is only measurable on its application. So I had better get back to my developers brief….
The Osceola County Habitat for Humanity took advantage of the shaky economic times to debut a new, low-income house, called a “blitz build,” built by volunteers and even the future homeowner in just two weeks.
The house was the first of its kind in Osceola County.
Not only did cutting back on construction time also cut down costs, but the house was also eco-friendly.
The metal roof and frames, concrete siding and steel doors need little to no maintenance, a plus for families just getting started.
“It’s built from recycled materials. When we did our energy counts, we tried to use tinted windows. We use large overhangs to prevent the sun from going into the windows. Anything to save money, we’ve really tried to,” said Pat Filippone, project manager with Habitat for Humanity.
New eco-friendly home built in two weeks
Thats a get rich & succesful seminar’s, investment driven Developers dream!
Thanks for the link~!.
Heres an abstract I borrowed from a blog a while back and only just found again, its kind of relevant………
In my post @13 I called for the time and cost of commuting to work to be born by the employer. This change would lead (over time) to the economy reducing the average commute distance for workers, and workers who are the least skilled/specialised, and/or the lowest paid would face the biggest commute distance reductions.
Unions NSW is calling for workers (primarily white collar) who work while commuting to be paid for it, http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2008/03/17/1205602293047.html
The Unions’ plan is better than the current situation on fairness grounds, but unfortunately if this were adopted it would make long commutes more attractive rather than less attractive, and for many workers there would be no increase in take home pay (so no joy on the home affordability front).
Considered holistically, and mindful of climate change, peak oil, and the four pillars, what would be the Greens position on the Unions plan?
Please ignore my post at 52, I hadn’t proof read it properly.
Re McFarm @45, Yes, energy efficient housing design isn’t rocket science, but now that we have some good energy rating tools it is possible to see how relatively minor and inexpensive design options can improve a home. Simply by considering the basics of orientation, mass and glazing at an early stage of the design process one can produce an efficient and acceptable design for the client. Interestingly, the Firstrate5 program recently introduced in Victoria is largely based on the NSW AccuRate program but for some reason Voictoria had to have it’s own version. It does contain climate zones for all Australia so maybe it could be adopted nationally. Then all we need is a national benchmark for performance and we’ll all be happy.
Then we could begin to take into account the embodied energy of a new home. Once again there is a lot of existing research out there, and I understand that embodied energy is already used to rate some buildings in Europe. Of course we will be adding to the cost of building permits by introducing more levels of compliance, and that will cause the usual predictable outcry from certain industry bodies, but it should be seen as an education process for the industry- call it product improvement if you like.
As for the built form, it could indeed be straw-bale, shipping containers or whatever, but as long as people are paying for their own homes, then they will expect and be entitled to choices. The challenge then is to make their homes 10 Star quality and not look like experimental projects from some technical workshop. The process must start at the town planning stage with more emphasis given to sensible allotment design within suburbs (assuming that we are to have more new suburbs of course) with maximum potential for homes to receive passive solar gain.
For low cost public housing the exact same principles apply, but if it is made much higher density then there is great potential for active systems such as district heating and cooling systems to be introduced. Then add in community gardens and sports facilities and the low cost option is looking very attractive to a wide range of people. This scenario could also take some pressure off the urban sprawl problem, and if done tastefully will appeal to more people over time.
Now that climate change/peak oil/ etc are front and centre in the media and political considerations, where will the impetus for the required rapid change in these matters come from? Consider the following-
1. Consumers are very gradually waking up to the possibilities of have a more eco-friendly home but that’s a slow process.
2. Builders and developers (generally) are reluctant to change their processes if they can still make a profit the old way.
3. Councils and shires struggle with constantly changing regulations but do have their resident’s interests at heart (because that’s their job) and they do like to compete for the hearts and minds of potential new ratepayers.
4. Then there’s State and Federal governments which actually have the power to enact legislation to encourage/enforce change to building standards. We’ve seen how fragmented and uncoordinated the response from State goverment can be so we’re pretty much left with a top down approach.
So who out there really has any power and influence to get some real change happening et a Federal level? Given that this a politically sponsored site, how about some feedback and bipartisan impetus for change from the sponsors in the senate and House of Reps. Indeed I’d be interested to know if any of them have referred back to this discussion since kicking it off.
[...] attempt to address the real reason for the existing and ever expanding problem. The articles were a Greens blog and a blog in The Age which were mainly based on the provision of housing into the [...]
Russell (comm 52), well written, and I agree with you. However any solution is a long term solution, as I do not see anyway that rapid change could be implemented. Sure new home standards could be legislated, but what about the millions of existing homes, in most cases these cannot be cost effectively retrofitted with energy saving devices, unless paid for by Governments. For example fitting solar hot water costs in excess of $4,000 for the average small home, and even if the Governments subsidies half of this, a family would still need to find $2,000. Yes, in the upper middle class suburbs, possible, in the working class suburbs, forget it.
I do not honestly know how to solve the up coming problems, but I do believe that by implementing carbon taxes and increasing costs of energy, which will in turn force up inflation, increasing interest rates, increasing costs of goods etc., will not be productive, in fact will be of major negative impact to the average household. I suspect that change needs to be implemented over a number of decades to avoid major social upheaval (civil disobedience through to riots and unemployment, as people stop spending to meet energy costs) as has been experienced in many countries around the world when the Governments have dramatically increased energy costs.
I am disturbed that some of the people here think that Bundoora is an ugly suburb. I have travelled all over Victoria and would like to know where a more beautiful suburb is.
Most of the people here use water wiseley and shower in buckets etc buy organic food and recycle their bottles.
It is depressing and dispairing when someone (from the USA!) comments on Bundoora, which I for one find beautiful and inspiring.
There are also many native gardens.
Amerooni @ 55
Sorry, but I’ve got to disagree with you there. I’ve lived in Reservoir (bordering on Bundoora), and went to Uni at La Trobe’s Bundoora campus. It’s a wasteland of 1950s and 60s squat, brick houses with no trees and a sea of concrete. *shudder*
At least Grant @ 54 is keeping on the subject.
Yes, we are confronted by major problems and it can seem overwhelming. On that particular issue there is some handy info at http://www.psychology.org.au/publications/tip_sheets/climate/
providing good practical advice for those feeling anxious and frustrated.
I see the purpose of sites such as this Greens site as being a way to contribute to the overall spread of knowledge and maybe a way of getting some action, but is anybody really listening? I’m beginning to think not, especially when you see the quality of posts such as 55 & 56.
Back on the subject at hand, yes, there is a lot of substandard housing stock out there and sadly a lot of it has been built in the last 10 years or so, despite the existence of an expanding knowledge base on improving energy efficiency. Rather like the question of when is the best time to plant a tree, the answer for when to implement better regulations is yesterday.
In the last week I’ve attended several sessions by Victoria’s Building Control Commission who are implementing new regulations for energy efficiency for all commercial buildings as well as domestic alterations and additions. There is plenty of homework for the designers to achieve the set goals, but then their challenge is to keep up to date with their own professional development in order to be able to produce the goods for their clients.
This is definitely regulated change, and with appropriate levels of auditing it will be effective over time.
Then there is the portion of housing stock which is either rented or unlikely to be renovated. In our own small Victorian city the council has taken a stand by encouraging redevelopment of older housing stock into units and townhouses, with some success, given that an ageing population is looking for smaller, low maintenace, centrally located housing.
As for rental stock, there are plenty of horror stories of uninsulated energy-sinks which people still queue up to rent in desperation. Sometimes these properties change hands and that would be an ideal opportunity to have mandatory disclosure of energy ratings of existing homes, which I understand already happens in ACT- correct me if I’m wrong on that. Or better still, landlords could be made to disclose the energy rating of a property prior to letting to a new tenant. Plenty of work there for energy-raters!
Let’s hope that civil disobedience and riots are not an outcome of climate change, though I fear that in some countries less fortunate than Australia that is inevitable.
Grant@54, Evacuated tube 300L solar hws are currently $1,600, super efficient, don’t require roof reinforcement and have a payback period of less than 4 years for the total price WITHOUT govt subsidies. Why anyone would replace a dead storage hws with a conventional electric or gas unit is beyond me, and if you were building a new home?
Yes it’s new technology and most are ignorant of it, but is ignorance an excuse? Not for govt agencies and building designers. So the question is really, would Joe or Jill Average spend an extra $600 for this technology? My guess is yes, if they are aware that it will pay for itself in a few years and then save them heaps of $$.
As an aside, I plan to use the evacuated tube solar water heater to run a hydronic heating system. Running costs should be minimal, and it’s a nice radiant heat. Total cost should be around $3,000, which is a less than a ducted gas system or heat pump/reverse cycle. The point being heating hot water, or a whole house for that matter, need not cost more than conventional fossil fuel consuming methods. In fact it can cost less (in more ways than one).
Russell Pearse@57, you are correct. It is not possible to sell any dwelling in the ACT without a current energy rating, and the report must be attached to the sale contract - can’t even advertise a property for sale without stating it’s rating (I think caravans are exempt!). Not sure if it’s happened yet but there is/was talk of mandatory 5 star energy ratings for additions to dwellings in the ACT, and for rental properties too.