Better than Green Design

In our projects, we do not choose the “coolest” materials that all the “green” architects are using. We choose materials based on several criteria that we feel give our clients the very best, most truly sustainable buildings.

These criteria are:

Performance within the Specified Climate
Just as one example, there are some trees which when used in their native, humid environments will naturally deter against pests and decomposition. These woods are far more sustainable than a single creosote treated pine log which has the potential to make toxic everything around it, including the soil and water.

Tendency to Decompose / Means of Decomposition
Non-stabilized adobe, brick, stone, and timberframe are the least susceptible to damage and easiest to repair if something goes wrong. They are also the longest lasting building materials and are often accepted without interference from building officials.

Embodied Energy

Embodied energy is the amount of energy it takes to take the raw aspects of a material, get those to the manufacturing site, manufacture the finished product, and then get it to you. Embodied energy can be high – aluminum, a common and predominant component of solar panel installations, contains an enormous amount of embodied energy – it has to be mined, shipped great distances, designed, then takes an great deal of heat to produce a usable product, then must be shipped to you. Straw, on the other hand, is a waste product of wheat and grain production, and over 200 billion tons of it are burned or otherwise disposed of in the United States alone. Thus, strawbale has a very low embodied energy and is one of the most highly recommended materials.

Toxicity
A great deal of today’s newest technologies, even some apparently benign ones, have not been tested in real living environments when they are enthusiastically adopted into design and manufacturing practice. We saw the hugely detrimental effects of mass installations of asbestos in the 1970’s, and are in no hurry to repeat such rushed mistakes. One of the industries we look to for research on new materials is cosmetics. Cosmetics manufacturers do research studies on the materials used in their products, (admittedly often after the chemicals are already in use) and produce a publicly available list of which of those chemicals cause harm. You can always check out www.cosmeticdatabase.com to discover which ingredients you should be concerned about. What about bio-based plastics? Many bio-based plastics are also toxic. They are just apparently less toxic because they support sustainable renewable industry. This should be of concern. See Maintenance, below, for a discussion on why one very cool “green” building material doesn’t make the cut because of this criteria.

Maintenance / Repair-ability
All buildings require maintenance. Green buildings require more than the average amount of upkeep. This is the beauty of green buildings - if they are “alive”, you must feed them and care for them so they can stay healthy – which brings you into relationship with your space. You become a participant in, as opposed to a user of, the space. Repair, on the other hand, is never a fun prospect. Repair of many new technologies is sometimes just infeasible. We love the idea of earthbag construction. Earth + bag = ease and affordability, right? Right, but when you add in the criteria of ability to repair and toxicity, well, then not so much. If an earthbag home gets damaged it is nearly impossible to fully repair, large sections of the wall must be removed and replaced to complete a repair that could be considered more than a band-aid. Add that polypropylene, which the bags are most often constructed of, is a toxic agent known to cause cancer, allergies/immunotoxicity, organ system toxicity, and neurotoxicity, and you start to see that earthbag construction may not be the best answer for everyone. Burlap, the “greener” bagging equivalent, is natural. That means when exposed to air and water and time, it will deteriorate. Which leaves stucco-covered walls whose binding agents have disintegrated, leaving you with only hope for the holding together of your beautiful home. That’s too great a risk for many.

Lack of Dependence on Technology
Technology is not always the right answer for every family. Or for every society. While commerce and manufacturing profit greatly from it, many times, especially for people who might want to live off the grid, it is not. The bells and whistles (i.e. automated & geared solar panels adjusters, programmable thermostats, water filtration systems) often require the input of power. Imagine - a massive storm shuts down the grid, your solar battery is broken, or your place gets struck by lightning. You want to be able to warm water, stay warm or cool, feed yourself and your kids, and be safe. When technology fails, you want to be able to keep going. That’s why we don’t always recommend the most technologically-astute systems. For us, that just doesn’t make sense.

Location
Where you get your materials impacts the area’s industry, the health of the land itself in many cases, and minimizes the impact of energy consumption. As in the tree example in Performance within the Specified Climate, above, location can also offer you a great opportunity to minimize the use of chemical treatments.