The first thing I ever built was a house for my family and I. I had no experience so I had to make it simple. It was basically a small box on top of a big box. But I added visual interest by doing four foot overhangs and a balcony around three sides. Why not separate function and Aesthetics to a certain degree? Build a super efficient box and then do add-ons outside the thermal envelope that can be both functional and aesthetic. I can think of a zillion different ways to do this!
>> Buildings want to be wood, with mass timber coming in with the lowest upfront carbon,
NH's woods were almost stripped bare due to the demand for wood for sailing ships of all kinds just a couple of centuries ago. What will happen, Lloyd, when laws and regulations only allow wooden buildings, of the type you espouse, to be built?
Fortunately, NH has bounced back as we are between 70-80% reforested. But will history repeat itself when the demand is artificially goosed because of "good intentions"? I doubt that many of use would have to start using "second time as farce" for real.
Yes where I live, Southern Ontario, was covered in giant pines and was denuded for the British Navy. But houses are all built out of wood now, and responsibly harvested wood is replanted. As one expert told me, “if you don’t grow it, you mine it.”
"British power company Drax has drawn up plans for the world’s first wood-powered cargo ship, claiming that the controversial power source can help to cut greenhouse gas emissions from sea freight. Drax, which operates a tree-burning power station in the UK, has signed a deal with three Japanese shipping companies to develop a “bioship” fuelled by wood chips instead of marine diesel. It hopes to see the first wood-fuelled cargo ship set sail by 2029.
The vessel would itself be used to ferry woodchips harvested by Drax from North American forests to new markets in Japan. Drax and its Japanese partners said such ships would open the way to zero-emission shipping for many other cargoes.
However, the plan will infuriate many environmental groups who argue that cutting down forests for fuel is the wrong way to reach net zero."
Drax is mincing Georgia’s and British Columbia’s forests to make “carbon neutral” pellets to replace coal because of a mistake made years ago, they should be stopped. CO2 is CO2.
Lloyd, you wrote "I suspect that with LEDs being so efficient, there is probably more energy lost through the windows than there is running the lighting". That could be true, and I love the variability of some LED lighting; but in the home, I suspect LED's need more study before they replace daylight. Some have told me that the light is too harsh (I prefer LEDs that are close to the colour temperature of daylight) and others complain about flickering, particularly migraine sufferers. This is unscientific anecdote; perhaps you have colleagues who could examine these concerns and come up with a 'better' (i.e., closer to real daylight) LED design?
I would never suggest that they replace daylight or that we not have windows. But I do agree that there are some awful LED bulbs. You have to pick carefully get the right colour temperature and a high CRI. The problem is that people buy cheap instead of good. I wrote a post about this somewhere but can't find it!
To convince architects to spec fewer windows, we need to re-think our aesthetic standards. For a century, we have followed Alfred Loos, removing ornament from buildings. But maybe we need ornament if we are going to have fewer windows.
Bumps and jogs impose an efficiency penalty, but what’s the carbon cost of tile or paint on the facade? Plenty of 19th century buildings have ornate facades, but simple forms.
But we will need a better aesthetics than what you see now when developers want to add visual interest to a facade and add every type of material: artificial stone, artificial brick, stucco, vinyl siding.
I went by the King St building in your illustration a few months ago & from the illustrations I've seen it looks like someone dropped a tower of glass on Montreal's Habitat 67.
I may also note that it made "Eyesore of the Month" in 2023.
Somebody really needs to take away the plant-paint-bucket in CAD illustration software.
Of course there is a range of things to consider, including upfront carbon, operational energy & carbon, resilience (what if the power fails), comfort, longevity, etc. Balancing these, at times, competing needs will always be challenging.
I'm looking forward to your book, when it is available I will recommend it to my university library (and here's hoping that me requesting it won't mean it is filed under archaeology, as your last book was bought with archaeology library funds!)
"Bjarked" buildings might also end up being the opposite; a visual statement of being able to afford to heat and cool, a statement of wealth, like the luxury vehicle. Let's hope not. Having been reacquainted recently with the engineering standard for thermal comfort, if we were to properly address thermal comfort at the design stage then designs of glass would have another strike against them.
Less Bjarke! Now there's a rallying cry I can get behind.
Fascinating insight on windows. From common sense it makes sense — windows simply let energy pass through. Walls are the mass that store the energy.
The first thing I ever built was a house for my family and I. I had no experience so I had to make it simple. It was basically a small box on top of a big box. But I added visual interest by doing four foot overhangs and a balcony around three sides. Why not separate function and Aesthetics to a certain degree? Build a super efficient box and then do add-ons outside the thermal envelope that can be both functional and aesthetic. I can think of a zillion different ways to do this!
>> Buildings want to be wood, with mass timber coming in with the lowest upfront carbon,
NH's woods were almost stripped bare due to the demand for wood for sailing ships of all kinds just a couple of centuries ago. What will happen, Lloyd, when laws and regulations only allow wooden buildings, of the type you espouse, to be built?
Fortunately, NH has bounced back as we are between 70-80% reforested. But will history repeat itself when the demand is artificially goosed because of "good intentions"? I doubt that many of use would have to start using "second time as farce" for real.
Yes where I live, Southern Ontario, was covered in giant pines and was denuded for the British Navy. But houses are all built out of wood now, and responsibly harvested wood is replanted. As one expert told me, “if you don’t grow it, you mine it.”
I'm betting that there's a few more houses than Royal Navy ships that used wood. And trees take years to "repopulate", even if responsibly.
And isn't it the case that one would only be trading one problem for another?
As economists are wont to say "there are no single answers, only tradeoffs".
And speaking for deforestations...
"British power company Drax has drawn up plans for the world’s first wood-powered cargo ship, claiming that the controversial power source can help to cut greenhouse gas emissions from sea freight. Drax, which operates a tree-burning power station in the UK, has signed a deal with three Japanese shipping companies to develop a “bioship” fuelled by wood chips instead of marine diesel. It hopes to see the first wood-fuelled cargo ship set sail by 2029.
The vessel would itself be used to ferry woodchips harvested by Drax from North American forests to new markets in Japan. Drax and its Japanese partners said such ships would open the way to zero-emission shipping for many other cargoes.
However, the plan will infuriate many environmental groups who argue that cutting down forests for fuel is the wrong way to reach net zero."
Ah yes, progress! (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/05/15/drax-to-build-wood-power-cargo-ship/)
Drax is mincing Georgia’s and British Columbia’s forests to make “carbon neutral” pellets to replace coal because of a mistake made years ago, they should be stopped. CO2 is CO2.
Lloyd, you wrote "I suspect that with LEDs being so efficient, there is probably more energy lost through the windows than there is running the lighting". That could be true, and I love the variability of some LED lighting; but in the home, I suspect LED's need more study before they replace daylight. Some have told me that the light is too harsh (I prefer LEDs that are close to the colour temperature of daylight) and others complain about flickering, particularly migraine sufferers. This is unscientific anecdote; perhaps you have colleagues who could examine these concerns and come up with a 'better' (i.e., closer to real daylight) LED design?
I would never suggest that they replace daylight or that we not have windows. But I do agree that there are some awful LED bulbs. You have to pick carefully get the right colour temperature and a high CRI. The problem is that people buy cheap instead of good. I wrote a post about this somewhere but can't find it!
To convince architects to spec fewer windows, we need to re-think our aesthetic standards. For a century, we have followed Alfred Loos, removing ornament from buildings. But maybe we need ornament if we are going to have fewer windows.
Bumps and jogs impose an efficiency penalty, but what’s the carbon cost of tile or paint on the facade? Plenty of 19th century buildings have ornate facades, but simple forms.
But we will need a better aesthetics than what you see now when developers want to add visual interest to a facade and add every type of material: artificial stone, artificial brick, stucco, vinyl siding.
I wrote about this recently https://lloydalter.substack.com/p/how-to-make-buildings-boxy-but-beautiful
I went by the King St building in your illustration a few months ago & from the illustrations I've seen it looks like someone dropped a tower of glass on Montreal's Habitat 67.
I may also note that it made "Eyesore of the Month" in 2023.
Somebody really needs to take away the plant-paint-bucket in CAD illustration software.
Love the article Lloyd!
Of course there is a range of things to consider, including upfront carbon, operational energy & carbon, resilience (what if the power fails), comfort, longevity, etc. Balancing these, at times, competing needs will always be challenging.
I'm looking forward to your book, when it is available I will recommend it to my university library (and here's hoping that me requesting it won't mean it is filed under archaeology, as your last book was bought with archaeology library funds!)
"Bjarked" buildings might also end up being the opposite; a visual statement of being able to afford to heat and cool, a statement of wealth, like the luxury vehicle. Let's hope not. Having been reacquainted recently with the engineering standard for thermal comfort, if we were to properly address thermal comfort at the design stage then designs of glass would have another strike against them.