There is some legislation being hatched out in Washington as we speak called HOME STAR, and it's meant to primarily:
1. Create jobs
2. Make millions of homes more energy efficient
3. Do both of the above very quickly
I blogged about it here, so if you want to catch up, have a look at that and visit the Web sites to find more information.
I wanted to start a thread here because I found something very interesting when learning about HOME STAR. It has been put together by a broad coalition of people involved with energy efficiency and home-building, including Build It Green, ACEEE, the NRDC, the USGBC, AHRI, the Laborers International Union of North America (LiUNA), the Sierra Club, and numerous other manufacturers, retailers, and organizations.
Who's NOT on the list of people that helped put this together?
The AIA.
I'm just really confused because the Gold Star portion of the proposed legislation states that "households that choose to conduct a comprehensive energy audit and then implement a variety of measures that are designed together to provide greater total returns in energy savings."
Wouldn't architects want a stake in this? Or is the profession so far gone that we can't even participate in a conversation about making buildings more efficient?
6 billion dollars for the first year alone? is this in addition to tax credits and rebate programs alreay in place? sounds like the only job an architect is going to get under that is as a field inspector.
"to conduct a comprehensive energy audit and then implement a variety of measures that are designed together to provide greater total returns in energy savings"
There is "design" in there somewhere. I still don't know enough about this to say the AIA should've definitely been involved in this.
I think a lot of architects feel residential design, when it's not "A House for the Architect's Mother", is a bastard step-child of the discipline. So many houses are built in this country and so few of them - rumor is 2-3% - are built with the input of an architect. So the AIA may feel it's not a priority area.
That said, the AIA, including me, should be active in anything that has to do with building anything, as far as I'm concerned, and especially when it's about building efficiency (not to mention, jobs in our emaciated field).
I don't think architects (and by extension their chums-- landscape architects, planners, urban designers, economists et al) can really get involved in this.
It seems to mostly be about appliances, electronics and durable goods rather than any specific building, infrastructural or urban actions.
Many people have continually pointed out that subtle changes (and some drastic changes) to road grid design, building placement and density would ultimately save more energy than changing out TVs and washing machines.
But when it comes to real property... architects and the like only have dominion over things that are nailed down!
"...implement a variety of measures that are designed together to provide greater total returns in energy savings."
DESIGN. Are we saying that architects aren't capable of DESIGN? This is what my entire graduate thesis was about ... DESIGN renovation strategies to make houses more energy efficient. I don't understand why architects wouldn't want to have input in a process that involves renovating large amounts of buildings.
And liberty bell is right, there's only a small amount of houses in the country that are built with the input of an architect, but isn't this a good opportunity to show that architects can contribute to the process of renovation design as well, even if the original house is a yucky tract-built?
I fear that by continually saying "we don't do this, we don't do that" architects are setting themselves up for extinction.
Let me reiterate, this is going to create A LOT OF JOBS.
doesn't most of this stuff involve systems and appliances? I'm not sure how we could get involved unless they are offering money for the design of passive heating/cooling systems through building form - or if we offer "audits" as part of our services...
From the blog, I got the impression that the "Silver Star" path was product/appliance based, and the "Gold Star" path was more comprehensive - perhaps involving building envelope, shading devices, cooling/heating strategies, etc.
I know an architect in Seattle that is offering "Green Home Audits" for $350 a pop. She'll visit your home, check it out, then go back and create a list of suggestions for renovating it to make it more energy efficient. And she's not certified with any of the major home energy rating groups, as far as I know. She's just like a one-woman outfit. Of course, to get any auditing work with HOME STAR you would need to be certified by one of the major national organizations, namely BPI (the Building Performance Institute). But, that's a pretty quick process if you know where to begin.
The Gold Star path does allow for creativity... it's a performance path so whatever makes the home better works. From the Web site:
"This performance path represents the future of home efficiency: state-of-the-art building science is used to identify problems, present solutions and deliver verifiable energy savings, generating confidence among homeowners and investors alike. This technology-neutral approach is based on performance, not specific products, so market forces will direct funds to solutions that achieve the best results."
emily - i'll read through your blog tonight. on the surface, it sounds very similar to something ed mazria was pushing a while back.
one thing to note about the perpetual 2-3% number that gets tossed around. way back in the day, when i was working for a non-profit housing group, this number got quoted constantly as though it were some kind of gospel truth. the reality is: the 2-3% number refers to the number of homes done in the u.s. which were specifically designed for a particular site and commissioned by a licensed architect for a specific client (be it builder, homeowner, whoever). all of the major homebuilders - beazer, toll, kw, etc. - have a staff that has at least one architect on it who oversees the production of their entire home line. i had a friend who was a p.m. for toll and he actually took me to one of their regional offices in the east to see how they did their operations. and, yes, there were multiple architects working on their product.
point being this: if you really mean to quote how many homes get built in the u.s. each year by an architect (whether spec, home builder, custom, plans, etc.), then that number's much closer to 70%.
now, i don't think any of us here would agree that those particular designs are very good, but that's another matter...
outed, that's why I said it's a "rumor" - the 2-3% number is quoted all the time, but I've never known what it was based on. Your explanation sounds about right.
In my own town, I'd say of the residential remodeling work that happens about 20% involves an architect - mostly it's design by builders.
Back to topic: for example, window replacement has design implications. A lot of homeowners want to improve their homes, and an architect can help you make a better choice than inserting vinyl windows with ad hoc moulding as trim to make up the difference in size between the existing and new window.
Key Provisions: Administrative Process: The HOME STAR program must meet several overarching goals. To be successful, HOME STAR must rapidly put construction workers back to work as well as create good, living-wage jobs for American workers; generate a minimum of new government bureaucracy; provide clear lines of authority; and offer a transparent process for all participants.
i'd like to see the numbers on a $6 billion (in the first year) government program and how much is allocated to 'generate a minimum of new government bureaucracy'.
Of course people need to take steps to be more earth-friendly, however I'm curious to know how many home owners are going to be willing and financially capable to make renovations right now? Consumer spending is still hesitant at best and layoffs are still lingering in the air. I can't help but think that perhaps this is a good idea that unfortunately is being implemented at a bad time.
Supposedly this is a 2-year-only program. And I heard that the DOE has committed to having the rebate database up and running in 30 days. So I think the gist is that they are trying to keep the bureaucracy to a minimum.
wonder This is my guy.....I don't know if you know him but he puts things into a nice perspective in his articles: This on is a particularly good read if your into residential housing and saving materials and saving energy.
Interestingly, I don't see Architecture 2030 on the list of coalition supporters either. Too political, maybe? Although the Sierra Club isn't exactly apolitical...
Morse code guy, the financing is part of the deal... $200 billion is supposed to be allocated to the states to help them set up financing infrastructure so that homeowners can actually take out loans or lines of equity to get this stuff done. I think the point is to make certain that people will have access to credit, unlike what's been going on recently.
I just think this is going to benefit Sears and Best Buy than it would dramatically cause a shift in related industries.
My argument is not necessarily with the home itself but more of an argument on supply chains and logistics.
I'll draw something in illustrator or sketchup to explain.
I like the idea. I'm behind it.
But if there British are accurate with their estimates, energy consumption is only going to drastically increase over the next 20 years with the bulk of electrical consumption from consumer electronics rather than lighting, HVAC and critical appliances.
Perhaps, we need to rethink some of our cultural preferences before we open up the way for factories to churn out more products.
Like.. as far as water recycling, electricity consumption and being able to afford the technology to make either really worthwhile with a bigger ROI.... wouldn't it make more sense to look towards laundromats versus individual homes?
renovation is becoming a real business here in japan. like outed said about usa most builders here have architects on staff so it is all done by architects in some way or other...the model is pretty tight as a business though. it only works in volume, which means small players are squeezed out or give up if they can't expand fast enough.
actually, my step-father in law was an executive of a major national home-builder here then started his own renovation company when housing began to give way to renovations as a way to make money in housing market, about 10 years ago. he just retired, but his operation covered three prefectures (equivalent to state or province) and he made money, but was not so easy.
the resistance to this idea for architects is perhaps based on an intuitive understanding of that business model, Emily. I know from experience, making a career as an architect focusing on houses is hard. most/many offices will turn down houses even, because the work is too much for a small fee. at least that is how it was in all offices i worked at. so making even lower fees for all that extra work is a hard sell and probably indicates it will only work as a niche market.
that is not to say it isn't worth it, nor that it can't work...only that what you see as architects being blind could be simply that they are seeing a different part of the problem than you are...
i don't think it is just architects being too proud to do houses. that was never a problem. it's more properly about money.
yeah i feel that, DJ dub::k. it is a bit of a pity.
I know former architects here who work as advisers for corporations here in Tokyo to make buildings more energy efficient. Corporations are generally interested because their energy bills go down. Am not sure how to get things to be more substantial than that but would really like to try. How to do for houses seems much more of a challenge because the pay-back is not always so clear.
Actually we are doing a house now that we tried to introduce some green-ish ideas. it has a planted roof, thermal windows with low-e coatings where appropriate, and we made sure every room has two operable windows on opposite sides for cross ventilation. natural lighting of course (by law). but that is all standard.
we wanted to do more, but when we tried to use a heat pump to heat the house we checked out govt support for the system and kind of hit a wall. they were offering 500 dollars, which was not remotely enough to make financial sense so clients were not interested. there were other problems. the system the govt supported wasn't compatible with the radiant floor heating we are using, and other things got in the way....so we dropped it. the house will be pretty energy efficient and all that, but we kind of felt the govt and even the energy industry was not really aligned with the reality of construction. We were advocates but felt kind of let down by the way things were being sold.
not sure if this actually has a point, except that sometimes the problem isn't the architects but the way things are arranged economically and so on...maybe it means we have to be stronger advocates and make our own systems ....?
and even if this proposal won't offer design work opportunities, what's wrong with architects being more proactive as advocates for energy saving measures? don't we forever talk about diversifying the kinds of services that architects provide?
it could be in the form of a list of things to change, or even filling out evaluation sheets for homes?
The very least reason they should be part of this initiative, aside from job creation is because they should participate in the decision making process on how to evaluate energy efficiency. You know, just so we can avoid the flaws of LEED.
And even if that's already decided by the Building Performance Institute, just offering energy audits is a very valuable service to be able to provide.
Also, thanks jump for your perspective. *I* just don't want architects to be left out in the cold, and I want our profession to want to be part of the solution. It sounds like you in your practice were trying to accomplish just that, and you're totally right that sometimes the system gets in the way. I think some of the legislation out there right now will push for stricter building codes. In fact, I think adoption of the 2009 IECC (energy code) is mandatory for any states who wish to take ARRA funds for energy efficiency programs. I'm still not sure how that all works though, but making sure that our codes are a) current and b) flexible enough for us to make holistic design decisions is important.
"Perhaps, we need to rethink some of our cultural preferences before we open up the way for factories to churn out more products."
I agree. But cultural preferences aren't controllable wholesale, its just a quantification of some generalized preferences. Which isn't such a bad thing either.
Pretty much the only way to nudge corporate or cultural preferences in a capitalist society is to present short term financial incentives. Which isn't so bad, but the fact remains that sustainable practices (not only environmentally) are inherently long term and requires holistic thinking. So it is a fundamental issue, which makes it very awkward.
But the most fundamental error in the system IMO is that we've seriously under-valued our environment and the true price of our behavior. We can talk ethics and morals all day, but its being undervalued in $$ too. As the wise indigenous people believe; we don't own this land, we're borrowing from our future generations.
Coming back down to earth, yes, architects should be involved. Not for the sole sake of diversifying our services, but especially if you feel that we are better suited than others. And if it requires holistic thinking, I still like to believe architects are good at that. And in terms of serving the public, the residents, and occupants, we are in a position where we don't have conflict of interests as opposed to trying to sell specific products or systems.
It is interesting to think of how this could potentially change the face of suburbia. I'm thinking of those neighborhoods (like the one I live in now) that are just 7-8 identical home models randomly distributed along the street, differentiated only by paint color and landscaping. It's interesting to imagine that one person in the neighborhood that decides to make massive exterior renovations to make their home more sustainable and how that would play out in the neighborhood. Would the neighborhood association revolt and press charges, like so many associations do over front lawn renovations or would all the neighbors follow suit and little by little diversify cookie-cutter heights?
Yes, I've been following HomeStar for sometime now. I believe it actually is the brainchild of a SF Venture Capitalist, John Doerr, who proposed it to Obama. Personally, I think it is a great program. It sometimes is called "cash for chalking"
Strawbeary, "Cash for Clunkers" (the car version) was a big success. So much so, in fact, that they had to shut it down early and pass extensions to the rebates in order to fund it. I think this HOME STAR is meant to follow in that model's footsteps... like "cash for chalkers" as gibson suggested, or "cash for caulkers".
Anyway, I just wanted to put this out there to let you all know that this is going on... I do think that designers can be a part of the conversation if we want to, and I think those that want to should try.
"Cash for Clunkers" (the car version) was a big success"
So they didn't have the same issues as the First Home Buyer's program where every 8000 given to the home buyer actually cost 3 times as much for the taxpayer to administer? And what happened to all the old cars and the creation of temporary false demand of new cars? From what I understand, the real benefactors from that were the american car manufacturers and maybe for short term the individuals that were able to recieve those credits. Assuming that it did indeed cost much more to administer, and essentially the tax payers are paying for it anyway, the environment didn't necessarily get better by creating more waste and more new cars on the road(although better mpg in theory), and etc. Why not fund with that same money alternative energy infrastructure for transportation, research of retrofitting existing vehicles with more efficient engines, etc?
Not doubting you, Emily, I don't know for sure either. But I do find some of these programs suspect sometimes. It seems common sense to get on board with these programs that are supposed to benefit the environment, but sometimes the programs seem like thinly veiled attempts to push off financial stimulus programs that stimulate the wallets of the involved parties on behalf of the taxpayers and debt to the future generations.
Not sure why this thread -- among so many others -- feels the need to criticize the AIA. It is both simplistic and misguided to suggest that AIA can, or should, support every supposedly desirable initiative associated with the building industry. Keep in mind, that building industry is HUGE and extraordinarily complex.
AIA is doing quite a lot to push energy efficiency, not the least of which are its lobbying efforts directly with the Congress. Here's information about a House bill AIA currently supporting:
Expanding Building Efficiency Incentives Act 2009 (HR 4226)
Just last week, Congressmen Ron Kind (D-WI), Dave Reichert (R-WA), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Geoff Davis (R-KY), Tom Periello (D-VA), and Chris Lee (R-NY) introduced bi-partisan legislation that would extend or expand a number of existing tax credits designed to create work for the design and construction industry by promoting energy efficiency in the built environment. Many building retrofit projects are on hold because of the economy. These incentives can help spark design and construction work in every community. Their legislation, the Expanding Building Efficiency Incentives Act of 2009 (HR 4226), would, among other things, expand the Energy Efficient Commercial Buildings Tax Deduction, an important federal tax incentive used to promote energy efficient buildings.
The AIA was instrumental in creating and expanding this deduction which has resulted in the construction or renovation of countless buildings nationwide. And in the case of public buildings, architects themselves are often eligible to claim the deduction. Enlarging this tax incentive has been one of the AIA’s top legislative priorities for over two years. We have encouraged Congress to expand the deduction from the current $1.80 per square foot to $3.00 per square foot. HR 4226 does just this.
We need your help to send the message to the US House of Representatives that expanding this tax deduction is essential for creating work for the design and construction industry while at the same time, promoting energy efficiency in the United States. Thus we ask you to send a message to your member of Congress and encourage them to consider cosponsoring this important legislation.
Specifically, the legislation would either extend or expand upon the following key tax incentives for energy efficiency in the built environment.
1) New Energy Efficient Home Tax Credit (45L): Provides a $5,000 tax credit for the construction of a new home that is 50 percent more energy efficient than 2003 standards. Since its creation in 2005, this credit has seen a three-fold increase in usage, but it is set to expire at the end of 2009.
2) Deduction for Energy Efficient Commercial Buildings (179D): Increases and extends a deduction for energy efficient upgrades to commercial buildings.
3) Residential Property Energy Credit (25C): Offers a credit to homeowners to offset the costs of energy efficient retrofits (including new heating and cooling systems, windows, and doors) to their property.
4) Home Energy Rating Credit (25E): Provides a $200 credit for the cost incurred for a home energy rating.
5) Home Performance Auditor Certification Credit (45R): Provides a $500 credit for training to be certified to perform home energy ratings.
AIA is supporting similar legislation in the Senate. These efforts seem to me more broad based than Home Star and tied less to any specific narrow interest.
Given that architects of this country simply will not make any meaningful funds available for lobbying activities, I think AIA already is doing about all it can. AIA literally receives dozens of requests each year to support initiatives like Home Star. It would be a full time job for several people to conduct detailed research on each and every one of these requests to verify whether AIA should - or should not - lend its support.
As I look at the Home Star website, I can appreciate what they are trying to accomplish, but also get the clear feeling that this is a self-serving group being put forth by the home builders of this country -- not exactly the most architect-friendly group I've every encountered. It's not at all clear to me that AIA - and architects - would have a lot to gain by AIA throwing its support behind Home Star.
...this is a self-serving group being put forth by the home builders of this country -- not exactly the most architect-friendly group I've every encountered.
Actually, distant, this sounds just about exactly right. And is again an example of where architects just don't have as strong a lobbying voice as other groups - partly due to sheer numbers, partly due to cash.
Bill Clinton was involved in an energy savings program for inner city development as I recall, but then again Heart attacks and Haiti most likely got in the way.
distant, there are a few things that I would like to mention about the legislation you mentioned above.
1) House bill 4226 and HOME STAR seem to me, on the surface, to be very similar in their goals - creating more energy efficient buildings and providing the means for homeowners to do so. If their aims are similar, why WOULDN'T the AIA support HOME STAR?
2) However, they are very different in that, I have never heard of this bill. I HAVE, however, obviously heard of HOME STAR. Why haven't we heard of it before now? Are the people who support HOME STAR that much noisier, or is that legislation designed like a pre-fab home that's built to move on-site quickly, as opposed to the above bill, which to me seems like some pie-in-the-sky modernist home that will never get built?
3) You said you "also get the clear feeling that this is a self-serving group being put forth by the home builders of this country -- not exactly the most architect-friendly group I've every encountered." Yet HOME STAR is strictly about renovation, not new home building whereas the bill you described above DOES include provisions for new buildings. I'm not too familiar with the home developers of this country but don't they usually stick to new, not renovation?
Also...
4) This thread wasn't meant to "criticize" the AIA outright, but you certainly made that jump. (Do you work for the AIA? Just curious.) It seems like a glaring omission, to me, that they were not on that coalition list; and it seems like at least some of the people on this thread would be interested in participating in a national conversation about home renovation. It would just be nice to know that the money I paid to get that "Assoc. AIA" behind my name is helping to get architects a seat at the table.
It would seem logical that the AIA would at least want to be acutely aware of HOME STAR. I'm not sure how many homeowners actually contact the AIA to find an architect (which I believe has been discussed somewhere here...not willing to play thread archeologist today), but for the few who do it would helpful for the AIA to both inform homeowners about HOME STAR as well as be aware of those architects in the area best suited to provide the assistance they require.
The subtext is that while I do applaud the efforts the AIA has made for the architectural profession as a whole, esp. with legal issues and what not, it does seem like the AIA usually focuses only the big stuff and often ignores the smaller things. Granted the AIA can't be the end-all to the profession, but I think it might be in their best interest to be a little more holistic in regards to the profession.
We always seem to want AIA to provide total coverage on all those issues that are most important to us individually. Yet, we're not willing to pay dues, or contribute to the PAC, at levels necessary to accomplish those goals. AIA can't be all things to all people. It's simply not possible for AIA to do everything we want - it can only do what it can with the resources it has available..
Obviously the AIA can only go so far and perhaps they have made note of this issue and have filed it somewhere in their online database. I tried looking to see if I could find something but I got impatient with the search function that was taking too long to load.
I think the point I was making was more a generalized observation that I think the AIA does a fine job on behalf of firm owners in assisting with all of the various registration and legal needs they might have and also serving as the face/voice of architects at the federal level (in the bigger picture). Where I think they sometimes fall short is on a smaller scale, esp. in regards to bridging the gap between architects and the greater public.
Clearly this falls on the hands of local chapters to make a little more effort in their communities. I can't speak for every local chapter of the AIA, but it's been my experience that they don't do much other than have annual architecture award ceremonies and luncheons. Sure it's great to take an evening and meet the other offices and reward ourselves for whatever fine accomplishments we have made that year, but it's equally important to make sure we have clients so we can have work to celebrate.
And this is where something like HOME STAR would be propagated. Imagine how great it would be if your average home owner could go to the local AIA and talk to someone about what they were interested in doing (remodel, addition...maybe commercial work) and then get referrals to various offices in town that do just that work...maybe even review their portfolios while they are there. Meanwhile they would also receive information about what the architect will do for them, how to work with the architect, etc.
As it stands now, most home owners will likely find out about HOME STAR either through the news or at their local Home Depot/Lowes when they go to replace an appliance, etc. At this point, if said consumer decides to go that extra step they are now more likely to either do it themselves (if possible) or contact whatever contractor/home builder/construction crew that Home Depot has partnered with.
Sure a one-room home-addition isn't for every office but I would venture to say that there are offices that would be more than happy to work on that job.
HOME STAR: This is kind of a big deal
There is some legislation being hatched out in Washington as we speak called HOME STAR, and it's meant to primarily:
1. Create jobs
2. Make millions of homes more energy efficient
3. Do both of the above very quickly
I blogged about it here, so if you want to catch up, have a look at that and visit the Web sites to find more information.
I wanted to start a thread here because I found something very interesting when learning about HOME STAR. It has been put together by a broad coalition of people involved with energy efficiency and home-building, including Build It Green, ACEEE, the NRDC, the USGBC, AHRI, the Laborers International Union of North America (LiUNA), the Sierra Club, and numerous other manufacturers, retailers, and organizations.
Who's NOT on the list of people that helped put this together?
The AIA.
I'm just really confused because the Gold Star portion of the proposed legislation states that "households that choose to conduct a comprehensive energy audit and then implement a variety of measures that are designed together to provide greater total returns in energy savings."
Wouldn't architects want a stake in this? Or is the profession so far gone that we can't even participate in a conversation about making buildings more efficient?
Thoughts?
What are you blogging about?!?
Can't get to my blog, eh? I've never blogged about sex on the Green Design Collective I assure you, LOL.
HOME STAR
Efficiency First
6 billion dollars for the first year alone? is this in addition to tax credits and rebate programs alreay in place? sounds like the only job an architect is going to get under that is as a field inspector.
"to conduct a comprehensive energy audit and then implement a variety of measures that are designed together to provide greater total returns in energy savings"
There is "design" in there somewhere. I still don't know enough about this to say the AIA should've definitely been involved in this.
the AIA and architects are not unionized. you won't get far with congress or the executive branch these days unless you are a union.
If not AIA, then definitely CORA.
I think a lot of architects feel residential design, when it's not "A House for the Architect's Mother", is a bastard step-child of the discipline. So many houses are built in this country and so few of them - rumor is 2-3% - are built with the input of an architect. So the AIA may feel it's not a priority area.
That said, the AIA, including me, should be active in anything that has to do with building anything, as far as I'm concerned, and especially when it's about building efficiency (not to mention, jobs in our emaciated field).
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.
That's it!
I don't think architects (and by extension their chums-- landscape architects, planners, urban designers, economists et al) can really get involved in this.
It seems to mostly be about appliances, electronics and durable goods rather than any specific building, infrastructural or urban actions.
Many people have continually pointed out that subtle changes (and some drastic changes) to road grid design, building placement and density would ultimately save more energy than changing out TVs and washing machines.
But when it comes to real property... architects and the like only have dominion over things that are nailed down!
montagneux, you missed this statement:
"...implement a variety of measures that are designed together to provide greater total returns in energy savings."
DESIGN. Are we saying that architects aren't capable of DESIGN? This is what my entire graduate thesis was about ... DESIGN renovation strategies to make houses more energy efficient. I don't understand why architects wouldn't want to have input in a process that involves renovating large amounts of buildings.
And liberty bell is right, there's only a small amount of houses in the country that are built with the input of an architect, but isn't this a good opportunity to show that architects can contribute to the process of renovation design as well, even if the original house is a yucky tract-built?
I fear that by continually saying "we don't do this, we don't do that" architects are setting themselves up for extinction.
Let me reiterate, this is going to create A LOT OF JOBS.
doesn't most of this stuff involve systems and appliances? I'm not sure how we could get involved unless they are offering money for the design of passive heating/cooling systems through building form - or if we offer "audits" as part of our services...
This is 1978 all over. Im going to caulk my windows and put on my sweater.
From the blog, I got the impression that the "Silver Star" path was product/appliance based, and the "Gold Star" path was more comprehensive - perhaps involving building envelope, shading devices, cooling/heating strategies, etc.
I know an architect in Seattle that is offering "Green Home Audits" for $350 a pop. She'll visit your home, check it out, then go back and create a list of suggestions for renovating it to make it more energy efficient. And she's not certified with any of the major home energy rating groups, as far as I know. She's just like a one-woman outfit. Of course, to get any auditing work with HOME STAR you would need to be certified by one of the major national organizations, namely BPI (the Building Performance Institute). But, that's a pretty quick process if you know where to begin.
The Gold Star path does allow for creativity... it's a performance path so whatever makes the home better works. From the Web site:
"This performance path represents the future of home efficiency: state-of-the-art building science is used to identify problems, present solutions and deliver verifiable energy savings, generating confidence among homeowners and investors alike. This technology-neutral approach is based on performance, not specific products, so market forces will direct funds to solutions that achieve the best results."
Hello!
Slart - yes!
2step - The forces at play here are much larger and more important than 1978. And a lot more is at stake. Put your sweater on and educate yourself.
emily - i'll read through your blog tonight. on the surface, it sounds very similar to something ed mazria was pushing a while back.
one thing to note about the perpetual 2-3% number that gets tossed around. way back in the day, when i was working for a non-profit housing group, this number got quoted constantly as though it were some kind of gospel truth. the reality is: the 2-3% number refers to the number of homes done in the u.s. which were specifically designed for a particular site and commissioned by a licensed architect for a specific client (be it builder, homeowner, whoever). all of the major homebuilders - beazer, toll, kw, etc. - have a staff that has at least one architect on it who oversees the production of their entire home line. i had a friend who was a p.m. for toll and he actually took me to one of their regional offices in the east to see how they did their operations. and, yes, there were multiple architects working on their product.
point being this: if you really mean to quote how many homes get built in the u.s. each year by an architect (whether spec, home builder, custom, plans, etc.), then that number's much closer to 70%.
now, i don't think any of us here would agree that those particular designs are very good, but that's another matter...
outed, that's why I said it's a "rumor" - the 2-3% number is quoted all the time, but I've never known what it was based on. Your explanation sounds about right.
In my own town, I'd say of the residential remodeling work that happens about 20% involves an architect - mostly it's design by builders.
Back to topic: for example, window replacement has design implications. A lot of homeowners want to improve their homes, and an architect can help you make a better choice than inserting vinyl windows with ad hoc moulding as trim to make up the difference in size between the existing and new window.
Key Provisions:
Administrative Process: The HOME STAR program must meet several overarching goals. To be successful, HOME STAR must rapidly put construction workers back to work as well as create good, living-wage jobs for American workers; generate a minimum of new government bureaucracy; provide clear lines of authority; and offer a transparent process for all participants.
i'd like to see the numbers on a $6 billion (in the first year) government program and how much is allocated to 'generate a minimum of new government bureaucracy'.
you're right, outed -> http://www.archinect.com/forum/thread/Can I ask a favor?
Of course people need to take steps to be more earth-friendly, however I'm curious to know how many home owners are going to be willing and financially capable to make renovations right now? Consumer spending is still hesitant at best and layoffs are still lingering in the air. I can't help but think that perhaps this is a good idea that unfortunately is being implemented at a bad time.
Supposedly this is a 2-year-only program. And I heard that the DOE has committed to having the rebate database up and running in 30 days. So I think the gist is that they are trying to keep the bureaucracy to a minimum.
wonder This is my guy.....I don't know if you know him but he puts things into a nice perspective in his articles: This on is a particularly good read if your into residential housing and saving materials and saving energy.
http://www.buildingscience.com/documents/insights/bsi-030-advanced-framing
I started that thread too!
Interestingly, I don't see Architecture 2030 on the list of coalition supporters either. Too political, maybe? Although the Sierra Club isn't exactly apolitical...
Morse code guy, the financing is part of the deal... $200 billion is supposed to be allocated to the states to help them set up financing infrastructure so that homeowners can actually take out loans or lines of equity to get this stuff done. I think the point is to make certain that people will have access to credit, unlike what's been going on recently.
isn't easy access to credit one of the main reasons we are in this mess to begin with?
I just think this is going to benefit Sears and Best Buy than it would dramatically cause a shift in related industries.
My argument is not necessarily with the home itself but more of an argument on supply chains and logistics.
I'll draw something in illustrator or sketchup to explain.
I like the idea. I'm behind it.
But if there British are accurate with their estimates, energy consumption is only going to drastically increase over the next 20 years with the bulk of electrical consumption from consumer electronics rather than lighting, HVAC and critical appliances.
Perhaps, we need to rethink some of our cultural preferences before we open up the way for factories to churn out more products.
Like.. as far as water recycling, electricity consumption and being able to afford the technology to make either really worthwhile with a bigger ROI.... wouldn't it make more sense to look towards laundromats versus individual homes?
renovation is becoming a real business here in japan. like outed said about usa most builders here have architects on staff so it is all done by architects in some way or other...the model is pretty tight as a business though. it only works in volume, which means small players are squeezed out or give up if they can't expand fast enough.
actually, my step-father in law was an executive of a major national home-builder here then started his own renovation company when housing began to give way to renovations as a way to make money in housing market, about 10 years ago. he just retired, but his operation covered three prefectures (equivalent to state or province) and he made money, but was not so easy.
the resistance to this idea for architects is perhaps based on an intuitive understanding of that business model, Emily. I know from experience, making a career as an architect focusing on houses is hard. most/many offices will turn down houses even, because the work is too much for a small fee. at least that is how it was in all offices i worked at. so making even lower fees for all that extra work is a hard sell and probably indicates it will only work as a niche market.
that is not to say it isn't worth it, nor that it can't work...only that what you see as architects being blind could be simply that they are seeing a different part of the problem than you are...
i don't think it is just architects being too proud to do houses. that was never a problem. it's more properly about money.
or is that completely off base?
yeah i feel that, DJ dub::k. it is a bit of a pity.
I know former architects here who work as advisers for corporations here in Tokyo to make buildings more energy efficient. Corporations are generally interested because their energy bills go down. Am not sure how to get things to be more substantial than that but would really like to try. How to do for houses seems much more of a challenge because the pay-back is not always so clear.
Actually we are doing a house now that we tried to introduce some green-ish ideas. it has a planted roof, thermal windows with low-e coatings where appropriate, and we made sure every room has two operable windows on opposite sides for cross ventilation. natural lighting of course (by law). but that is all standard.
we wanted to do more, but when we tried to use a heat pump to heat the house we checked out govt support for the system and kind of hit a wall. they were offering 500 dollars, which was not remotely enough to make financial sense so clients were not interested. there were other problems. the system the govt supported wasn't compatible with the radiant floor heating we are using, and other things got in the way....so we dropped it. the house will be pretty energy efficient and all that, but we kind of felt the govt and even the energy industry was not really aligned with the reality of construction. We were advocates but felt kind of let down by the way things were being sold.
not sure if this actually has a point, except that sometimes the problem isn't the architects but the way things are arranged economically and so on...maybe it means we have to be stronger advocates and make our own systems ....?
and even if this proposal won't offer design work opportunities, what's wrong with architects being more proactive as advocates for energy saving measures? don't we forever talk about diversifying the kinds of services that architects provide?
it could be in the form of a list of things to change, or even filling out evaluation sheets for homes?
The very least reason they should be part of this initiative, aside from job creation is because they should participate in the decision making process on how to evaluate energy efficiency. You know, just so we can avoid the flaws of LEED.
And even if that's already decided by the Building Performance Institute, just offering energy audits is a very valuable service to be able to provide.
ckl, I totally agree.
Also, thanks jump for your perspective. *I* just don't want architects to be left out in the cold, and I want our profession to want to be part of the solution. It sounds like you in your practice were trying to accomplish just that, and you're totally right that sometimes the system gets in the way. I think some of the legislation out there right now will push for stricter building codes. In fact, I think adoption of the 2009 IECC (energy code) is mandatory for any states who wish to take ARRA funds for energy efficiency programs. I'm still not sure how that all works though, but making sure that our codes are a) current and b) flexible enough for us to make holistic design decisions is important.
"Perhaps, we need to rethink some of our cultural preferences before we open up the way for factories to churn out more products."
I agree. But cultural preferences aren't controllable wholesale, its just a quantification of some generalized preferences. Which isn't such a bad thing either.
Pretty much the only way to nudge corporate or cultural preferences in a capitalist society is to present short term financial incentives. Which isn't so bad, but the fact remains that sustainable practices (not only environmentally) are inherently long term and requires holistic thinking. So it is a fundamental issue, which makes it very awkward.
But the most fundamental error in the system IMO is that we've seriously under-valued our environment and the true price of our behavior. We can talk ethics and morals all day, but its being undervalued in $$ too. As the wise indigenous people believe; we don't own this land, we're borrowing from our future generations.
Coming back down to earth, yes, architects should be involved. Not for the sole sake of diversifying our services, but especially if you feel that we are better suited than others. And if it requires holistic thinking, I still like to believe architects are good at that. And in terms of serving the public, the residents, and occupants, we are in a position where we don't have conflict of interests as opposed to trying to sell specific products or systems.
It is interesting to think of how this could potentially change the face of suburbia. I'm thinking of those neighborhoods (like the one I live in now) that are just 7-8 identical home models randomly distributed along the street, differentiated only by paint color and landscaping. It's interesting to imagine that one person in the neighborhood that decides to make massive exterior renovations to make their home more sustainable and how that would play out in the neighborhood. Would the neighborhood association revolt and press charges, like so many associations do over front lawn renovations or would all the neighbors follow suit and little by little diversify cookie-cutter heights?
Yes, I've been following HomeStar for sometime now. I believe it actually is the brainchild of a SF Venture Capitalist, John Doerr, who proposed it to Obama. Personally, I think it is a great program. It sometimes is called "cash for chalking"
I didn't know cash for clunkers, which this is sim to, was a sucess. It was?
Strawbeary, "Cash for Clunkers" (the car version) was a big success. So much so, in fact, that they had to shut it down early and pass extensions to the rebates in order to fund it. I think this HOME STAR is meant to follow in that model's footsteps... like "cash for chalkers" as gibson suggested, or "cash for caulkers".
Anyway, I just wanted to put this out there to let you all know that this is going on... I do think that designers can be a part of the conversation if we want to, and I think those that want to should try.
Thanks Emily, I meant to say "caulkers", architect spelling you know.....
Good point about the AIA being absent on this, you would think this is something they would aggressively lobby for? Have they even endorsed it?
"Cash for Clunkers" (the car version) was a big success"
So they didn't have the same issues as the First Home Buyer's program where every 8000 given to the home buyer actually cost 3 times as much for the taxpayer to administer? And what happened to all the old cars and the creation of temporary false demand of new cars? From what I understand, the real benefactors from that were the american car manufacturers and maybe for short term the individuals that were able to recieve those credits. Assuming that it did indeed cost much more to administer, and essentially the tax payers are paying for it anyway, the environment didn't necessarily get better by creating more waste and more new cars on the road(although better mpg in theory), and etc. Why not fund with that same money alternative energy infrastructure for transportation, research of retrofitting existing vehicles with more efficient engines, etc?
Not doubting you, Emily, I don't know for sure either. But I do find some of these programs suspect sometimes. It seems common sense to get on board with these programs that are supposed to benefit the environment, but sometimes the programs seem like thinly veiled attempts to push off financial stimulus programs that stimulate the wallets of the involved parties on behalf of the taxpayers and debt to the future generations.
There is one consistent big winner among all these programs, the government!
Where can one obtain a look at the numbers behind such projects?
Not sure why this thread -- among so many others -- feels the need to criticize the AIA. It is both simplistic and misguided to suggest that AIA can, or should, support every supposedly desirable initiative associated with the building industry. Keep in mind, that building industry is HUGE and extraordinarily complex.
AIA is doing quite a lot to push energy efficiency, not the least of which are its lobbying efforts directly with the Congress. Here's information about a House bill AIA currently supporting:
Expanding Building Efficiency Incentives Act 2009 (HR 4226)
Just last week, Congressmen Ron Kind (D-WI), Dave Reichert (R-WA), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Geoff Davis (R-KY), Tom Periello (D-VA), and Chris Lee (R-NY) introduced bi-partisan legislation that would extend or expand a number of existing tax credits designed to create work for the design and construction industry by promoting energy efficiency in the built environment. Many building retrofit projects are on hold because of the economy. These incentives can help spark design and construction work in every community. Their legislation, the Expanding Building Efficiency Incentives Act of 2009 (HR 4226), would, among other things, expand the Energy Efficient Commercial Buildings Tax Deduction, an important federal tax incentive used to promote energy efficient buildings.
The AIA was instrumental in creating and expanding this deduction which has resulted in the construction or renovation of countless buildings nationwide. And in the case of public buildings, architects themselves are often eligible to claim the deduction. Enlarging this tax incentive has been one of the AIA’s top legislative priorities for over two years. We have encouraged Congress to expand the deduction from the current $1.80 per square foot to $3.00 per square foot. HR 4226 does just this.
We need your help to send the message to the US House of Representatives that expanding this tax deduction is essential for creating work for the design and construction industry while at the same time, promoting energy efficiency in the United States. Thus we ask you to send a message to your member of Congress and encourage them to consider cosponsoring this important legislation.
Specifically, the legislation would either extend or expand upon the following key tax incentives for energy efficiency in the built environment.
1) New Energy Efficient Home Tax Credit (45L): Provides a $5,000 tax credit for the construction of a new home that is 50 percent more energy efficient than 2003 standards. Since its creation in 2005, this credit has seen a three-fold increase in usage, but it is set to expire at the end of 2009.
2) Deduction for Energy Efficient Commercial Buildings (179D): Increases and extends a deduction for energy efficient upgrades to commercial buildings.
3) Residential Property Energy Credit (25C): Offers a credit to homeowners to offset the costs of energy efficient retrofits (including new heating and cooling systems, windows, and doors) to their property.
4) Home Energy Rating Credit (25E): Provides a $200 credit for the cost incurred for a home energy rating.
5) Home Performance Auditor Certification Credit (45R): Provides a $500 credit for training to be certified to perform home energy ratings.
AIA is supporting similar legislation in the Senate. These efforts seem to me more broad based than Home Star and tied less to any specific narrow interest.
Given that architects of this country simply will not make any meaningful funds available for lobbying activities, I think AIA already is doing about all it can. AIA literally receives dozens of requests each year to support initiatives like Home Star. It would be a full time job for several people to conduct detailed research on each and every one of these requests to verify whether AIA should - or should not - lend its support.
As I look at the Home Star website, I can appreciate what they are trying to accomplish, but also get the clear feeling that this is a self-serving group being put forth by the home builders of this country -- not exactly the most architect-friendly group I've every encountered. It's not at all clear to me that AIA - and architects - would have a lot to gain by AIA throwing its support behind Home Star.
Actually, distant, this sounds just about exactly right. And is again an example of where architects just don't have as strong a lobbying voice as other groups - partly due to sheer numbers, partly due to cash.
Bill Clinton was involved in an energy savings program for inner city development as I recall, but then again Heart attacks and Haiti most likely got in the way.
distant, there are a few things that I would like to mention about the legislation you mentioned above.
1) House bill 4226 and HOME STAR seem to me, on the surface, to be very similar in their goals - creating more energy efficient buildings and providing the means for homeowners to do so. If their aims are similar, why WOULDN'T the AIA support HOME STAR?
2) However, they are very different in that, I have never heard of this bill. I HAVE, however, obviously heard of HOME STAR. Why haven't we heard of it before now? Are the people who support HOME STAR that much noisier, or is that legislation designed like a pre-fab home that's built to move on-site quickly, as opposed to the above bill, which to me seems like some pie-in-the-sky modernist home that will never get built?
3) You said you "also get the clear feeling that this is a self-serving group being put forth by the home builders of this country -- not exactly the most architect-friendly group I've every encountered." Yet HOME STAR is strictly about renovation, not new home building whereas the bill you described above DOES include provisions for new buildings. I'm not too familiar with the home developers of this country but don't they usually stick to new, not renovation?
Also...
4) This thread wasn't meant to "criticize" the AIA outright, but you certainly made that jump. (Do you work for the AIA? Just curious.) It seems like a glaring omission, to me, that they were not on that coalition list; and it seems like at least some of the people on this thread would be interested in participating in a national conversation about home renovation. It would just be nice to know that the money I paid to get that "Assoc. AIA" behind my name is helping to get architects a seat at the table.
It would seem logical that the AIA would at least want to be acutely aware of HOME STAR. I'm not sure how many homeowners actually contact the AIA to find an architect (which I believe has been discussed somewhere here...not willing to play thread archeologist today), but for the few who do it would helpful for the AIA to both inform homeowners about HOME STAR as well as be aware of those architects in the area best suited to provide the assistance they require.
The subtext is that while I do applaud the efforts the AIA has made for the architectural profession as a whole, esp. with legal issues and what not, it does seem like the AIA usually focuses only the big stuff and often ignores the smaller things. Granted the AIA can't be the end-all to the profession, but I think it might be in their best interest to be a little more holistic in regards to the profession.
Agreed.
We always seem to want AIA to provide total coverage on all those issues that are most important to us individually. Yet, we're not willing to pay dues, or contribute to the PAC, at levels necessary to accomplish those goals. AIA can't be all things to all people. It's simply not possible for AIA to do everything we want - it can only do what it can with the resources it has available..
The AIA has a PAC?
Obviously the AIA can only go so far and perhaps they have made note of this issue and have filed it somewhere in their online database. I tried looking to see if I could find something but I got impatient with the search function that was taking too long to load.
I think the point I was making was more a generalized observation that I think the AIA does a fine job on behalf of firm owners in assisting with all of the various registration and legal needs they might have and also serving as the face/voice of architects at the federal level (in the bigger picture). Where I think they sometimes fall short is on a smaller scale, esp. in regards to bridging the gap between architects and the greater public.
Clearly this falls on the hands of local chapters to make a little more effort in their communities. I can't speak for every local chapter of the AIA, but it's been my experience that they don't do much other than have annual architecture award ceremonies and luncheons. Sure it's great to take an evening and meet the other offices and reward ourselves for whatever fine accomplishments we have made that year, but it's equally important to make sure we have clients so we can have work to celebrate.
And this is where something like HOME STAR would be propagated. Imagine how great it would be if your average home owner could go to the local AIA and talk to someone about what they were interested in doing (remodel, addition...maybe commercial work) and then get referrals to various offices in town that do just that work...maybe even review their portfolios while they are there. Meanwhile they would also receive information about what the architect will do for them, how to work with the architect, etc.
As it stands now, most home owners will likely find out about HOME STAR either through the news or at their local Home Depot/Lowes when they go to replace an appliance, etc. At this point, if said consumer decides to go that extra step they are now more likely to either do it themselves (if possible) or contact whatever contractor/home builder/construction crew that Home Depot has partnered with.
Sure a one-room home-addition isn't for every office but I would venture to say that there are offices that would be more than happy to work on that job.
the aia does have a PAC.
link
if you tab to recipients, they've supported some pretty shady individuals...
The first thing that came to mind when I saw PAC was Performing Arts Center.
Ah, looks like they are making some announcements today about this:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6211C320100302?type=politicsNews
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.