This (Not Very) Old House: Part One

The House Hopping with Preservationists tour began in Virginia, continued to Ohio and jumped across the Midwest to the Great Plains and Montana. Now, we’re headed back to Vermont for a two-part post about a compromise between the historic features of a 1950 prefabricated ranch house and its incredible lack of energy efficiency. Today Jen talks about the history of her pre-fab “fabulous” house.

—————————-

By Jen Parsons

It is tricky business for someone trained in Historic Preservation to be married to an Energy Guy. It gets even trickier when remodeling your own house, while you live in it. Fortunately for us, our 1950 ranch had so little architectural flair to begin with, we joke that when the manufactured parts arrived on a truck and were plopped into assembly, the model name of our home was probably the “Spartan.”

A Home of Superior Permanent Construction

Though it is our home, we are but a number, a single item in the manufactured home series. We are number 31, 521. The most interesting feature of the home included this plaque, which hung in the laundry room (an alcove off the kitchen in the center of the home that also included the hot water heater). The National Homes Corporation of Lafayette, Indiana built the home, and the serial number is stamped in the bottom right corner.

House number 31,521.

With access to the University Library while a graduate student at UVM in Historic Preservation, I only found the following tidbits of information regarding the National Homes Corp.

From “A History of Prefabrication,” by Alfred Bruce and Harold Sandbank, Published by the J.B. Pierce Foundation, 1945:

National Homes Corp., Lafayette, Ind., began production for sale in 1940, and had sold 816 units for private use prior to 1942. During the past year, they produced 2,665 units for public war housing projects, and 102 units for private projects. Their Lafayette plant is working at its maximum capacity of 750 houses per month, which it sends out over a distance of 300 miles. At present, their unfilled orders amount to 2,872 units. The houses are prefabricated in panels on an assembly line, and grouped into four types: two 2-bedroom types selling for $2,000 and $2,400, and two 3 bedroom types, priced at $2400 and $3600. Their plans for post-war distribution are not final, but they are emphatic as to their intention to prefabricate after the war. For the postwar period, they envisage certain changes in construction, design, and distribution, but precise data are not yet ready for publication.

The Exterior of the National Homes Company of Lafayette, Ind. Home, ca. 1945. From "A History of Prefabrication."

Assembly of a National Homes Company home. Judging from the window placement on the front façade and the side façade, this is probably the same model home as ours. From "A History of Prefabrication."

Assembly line of interior panels at the National Homes Company. From "A History of Prefabrication."

Interior wall panel construction. From "A History of Prefabrication."

A larger version of the above images from "A History of Prefabrication."

Our Pre-fab Fabulous Home: The Trailer on the Double-Wide

Our single level, two-bedroom, one bath, 800 square foot manufactured ranch plunked down and rested on its slab in a new post-war suburban development of quarter-acre lots in 1950. As such, one of the cool things about the neighborhood is that the trees are older, taller, and occasionally quite lovely. Quite often, I find new suburban developments rendered more barren and obtrusive by the lack of old growth around them. I call this phenomenon: “House in a field.”

Convenience, proximity and price led us to our little ranch. Without an inherent love for the style, I believe we actually uttered the phrase, “The construction is so basic. It should be easy to fix.” When you remark of “ease” when tackling a home improvement project, you might as well just dig a hole in your backyard and shovel your money into it. It would take less time and cost just as much.

The house had only one prior owner: a man who had met a German woman when he enlisted during the Korean War; he brought her home, and made her his bride. This worked well to our advantage: the German woman was a precision cleaner. Neighbors tell of her vacuuming her driveway of excess dirt.

From appearances, the house remained largely unchanged since the 1950s: the kitchen was laid out galley style. With only four plywood cabinets, a sink, a GE stove, and gold-flecked Formica countertops, the limitations were evident for modern use. The kitchen also suffered from an utter lack of electrical outlets (only one; we chose to plug in the refrigerator and the coffee maker, alternating coffee for toast occasionally). Ceiling mounted light fixtures were also lacking, thereby requiring us to use precious electrical outlets for lamps. These failings signaled that not too much futzing had transpired in the home.

Making pizza in my four square feet of counter space, original cabinets, and ca. 1980 electric stove.

Around 1980, a shed roof addition extended both gable ends toward the rear of the house and formed a long, narrow rectangular room with brown carpet and wood-paneled walls. We fondly called this “The Trailer on the Double Wide.” This added another 350 square feet or so of questionably useful space to the main block of the house, and was accessible through an opening punched out where the rear exterior wall of the original kitchen had been. More brown carpet had covered the floors of the bedrooms, with blue carpet covering the living room, while the kitchen and bath received a reprieve with VAT and vinyl tile, respectively.

Vinyl Asbestos Tile (VAT) remained under the carpet in most living spaces. Darn the “Spartan” model—our neighbors had hardwood.

As for any architectural flair of Post War building styles, features were quite Spartan as well. The two panel interior doors are old growth Douglas fir with lovely, tight grains for the stiles and rails, and plywood panels. Clear glass doorknobs and brass hinges complemented these doors. Varnish has darkened the doors over time, yet they still remain lovely.

Varnished doors and glass doorknobs.

A concave shadow molding and V-joints join the walls to each other and the walls to ceiling. The long pieces of molding were nailed to the wall with a plaster cast joint in each corner where the wall molding and ceiling moldings meet on two sides. The plaque explains this joint as allowing for expansion/contraction of a home, resulting in crack-proof walls. While this sounds unusual, we have to keep in mind now that many people were still quite used to having cracked plaster walls, and this was a home of the future, with newer, lighter modular materials.

The wood molding joins together in a plaster V-joint.

——————

So, how do the Preservation Student & the Energy Guy work together in this pre-fab house? Stay tuned for part two. 

——————

Jen Parsons graduated from the University of Vermont with a Masters degree in Historic Preservation and lives in the Green Mountain State. With a young child at home, she mostly preserves heirloom cookie recipes currently. She is sick of remodeling old houses, this being her third, and is looking forward to finally rehabilitating her 1966 Scotty Gaucho canned ham camper this summer…or building a tiny house. You never know.

Open Space is a Finite Resource

Open space is not a renewable resource. It is finite.

Open space in Vermont -- view from Mad River Glen in September 2010.

It seems like an obvious statement. Once open space is developed, it likely never will be returned to a natural state. Preservation, as a whole, understands this concept. Master plans often center growth in specific areas. Our National Parks, wildlife refuges, scenic areas, and similar conservation areas work to protect our invaluable, limited open space. Segments of land may be slated for development, but for future generations. After all, it is likely that our population continues to grow and land continues to be developed.

Will we ever run out of space? Hopefully not in our lifetime, right? But what about a few generations after us?

I heard this statement about open space at a workshop this week, the first of seven classes of Road Ecology training, The course is taught by Keeping Track, an organization that provides technical training to a variety of professionals and citizens in order to promote better knowledge of how to monitor, detect and record wildlife. The Vermont Agency of Transportation, the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, and the Vermont Department of Fish & Wildlife  work together to coordinate this training and encourage their employees to take the class; it has been a great success.

The purpose of ecology training in relation to transportation brings us back to the fact that everything is connected. Transportation projects can impact the environment and the landscape in many ways, positive or negative, seen or unseen. When people beyond the biologists understand how intertwined the ecosystems are, it allows transportation staff to see projects differently and to develop creative, innovative solutions that allow our roads and transportation systems to be safe for humans and wildlife. In addition, those not in transportation can gain a better understanding of the safety and construction standards that must be met. Collaboration on site, like a planning charrette, brings out the most innovative solutions.

Day one was an introduction to reptiles, animals and wildlife tracking. While it is not historic preservation, it is a unique opportunity to learn more about how decisions are made beyond cultural resources. Designing a bridge or a roadway that is safe for wildlife has the potential to affect cultural resources, and vice versa.

Wildlife, open space, cultural resources, transportation — the connections are clear as a bell. Stay tuned throughout the next few months for course highlights and important lessons.

Frosty Windows in the Bungalow

A few of the windows in our house turn frosty on extremely cold days. The ice is on the storm window some on the interior window, too.

Look familiar? That’s quite typical for my house, now.  I remember some icy windows in my parents’ house, too. To combat the ice, every winter my parents would blow dry the plastic over the large metal frame picture window in our 1957 ranch house. While we would lose our windowsills for the winter and the cats would sometimes scratch holes in the plastic, my parents assumed it beat the alternative of having icy window panes. It made sense to me. About 10 years ago, they replaced some of the windows, including that old picture window (with larger double hung windows).  After that, I didn’t see frosted windows or plastic over windows until this winter in our bungalow.

The 1-over-1 wood frame windows in this house are all original, glass included. They are in good condition (some TLC needed such as the sash cords) and I love them. Unfortunately, 16 of the 19 original 2-over-2 wood storms have been replaced with metal triple track storm windows. Perhaps they were cheaper or considered more efficient at the time, but those metal storms are a pain. The windows get stuck in the tracks and some of them hurt my fingers when I try to slide the windows up or down.

However, these metal storms are better than nothing. I say this based on accidental winter experiments and casual observations about my house so far.

(1) The windows that have metal storms with the glass down (screen up) are icy on the exterior rather than the interior (mostly) (see picture above).

(2) The windows that have the metals storms with the screen down (meaning I haven’t slid the glass down yet) are icy on the interior wood frame window (seen in the picture below).

(3) The windows with the metal storms that aren’t set in the tracks properly allow for a bit of ice on the interior window.

(4) With the metal storms set properly, these windows do not feel drafty.

(5) As for the wood storms? Two of those windows do not open, and if they did, would open to the enclosed front porch, so they are completely ice free. As for the functional wood storm? It is the one window in the house that does not allow any moisture or ice on the interior wood window and barely collects  ice on the exterior storm.

Not as bad in this window. Notice that the screen is down. Ice has not formed on the inside yet, but at night it will.

What’s the point of sharing all this? We are attempting to study the energy/moisture/air flow in our house this winter in order to assess heating bills and weatherization measures that we may need to take for later in the winter or next year. Vinny and I are in favor of the original windows, always, but we understand that some might need to be covered that hair-dryer-blown plastic sheet. That’s okay – it certainly is cheap enough. For now, we’re making observations like those listed above and we’ll see how it changes throughout the winter — and how it changes once our furnace is replaced (no central heat in Vermont in January – ah, another story for another day!) What are your best weatherization tips?

On a different note, I like the look of the wintry, frosted, icy windows – it certainly is winter in Vermont!

Cold Weather Coming! Insulation!?

Who else is getting chilly in the Northeast? Maybe it’s chilly in the Midwest, too? And the Northwest? Certainly you southerners are still enjoying the summer sun’s warm rays with a few lovely, blustery fall days. My memory could be skewed, but I am fairly certain that October was still very warm in the North Carolina Sandhills.

Normally, I wouldn’t mind this chill, except right now we are lacking heat in our house. (Thanks again, Irene.) We’re working on it with insurance, so hopefully it will be warm again soon. Fortunately, as new homeowners, we have a never-ending list of projects to do, which means there is enough reason to move constantly and keep warm. My favorite task is painting. I love painting! We’ll talk paint colors again soon.

Before fun aesthetic matters like paint colors, let’s get back to insulation issues. I was relieved to hear that I am not crazy after my rant against spray foam insulation. See the comments by Maria and Henrietta.

As I’ve mentioned, this year’s winter will be for observing how our lack of insulation affects our 1928 house. The attic is insulated, so all will be okay this year. Next year we’ll decide what we’re missing. Between now and spring I would like to acquire more knowledge about insulation. Colleagues and friends know my stance on insulation (at least insulation in my house), and I’d like to have more credible answers – rather than just some knowledge combined with gut instincts – for when they ask me questions about their house. While I’ve never claimed to be an expert, people know that I care about historic structures. There is no use in caring and not applying preservation know-how or learning it.

Step One: Acquire References.

My list of references from reliable sources includes:

(1) Issues: Weatherization from the National Trust for Historic Preservation (with special note to insulation)

(2) Technical Preservation Services: Weather from the National Park Service

(3) Energy Costs in an Old House from Historic New England

(4) Q&A from Old House Online (Old House Journal)

(5) Q&A from Historic HomeWorks (John Leeke)

What have you found helpful? What can you add?

Step Two: Read & Comprehend. That is a project for winter.

As smaller measures this year, we’re making sure to close the storm windows and add insulated curtains. If necessary, maybe we’ll tackle weather stripping. However, I really do not expect the house to be especially cold. It’s a good house and I have faith in it.

If Someone Offered Free Vinyl Siding

Note: This is going to get a bit lengthy, but if you are interested in my ongoing battle with insulation decisions, read on.

Last week, we had a free post flood assessment offered courtesy of Efficiency Vermont. The organization has really stepped up to help those affected by the flood throughout Vermont. Though I signed up beforehand, I heard more about the post flood assessment at the Button Up Vermont Workshop, and was under the impression that the assessment would address all sorts of flood related problems: moisture, mold, air sealing, insulation, etc. Although insulation wasn’t on my list of post-flood worries, I was eager to talk to someone about mold and cleaning my house and to hear about other energy efficiency measures for future reference.

I need to note that the contractor who visited my house was a subcontractor of – not an employee of – Efficiency Vermont.

Upon the contractor’s arrival, I summarized the flood damage and events for him, but what he really wanted to see was the basement. After I explained the water levels and what we did to clean the basement, etc., he looked around and asked if I would be opposed to spray foam.

SPRAY FOAM?  As if I wanted to talk about spray foam. However, I gave the contractor the benefit of the doubt and said that I am opposed to spray foam, but if he could convince me of the merits of spray foam, then I’d consider. This was a matter of understanding the product, not questioning his professional abilities. He didn’t have a great answer for me, but we talked about air flow and the space in between the first floor joists. (For reference, there is absolutely no insulation in my basement.) He said my basement was perfect for foam because it could be hidden and there wasn’t really an aesthetic to ruin; it’s not like I had a dry laid stone foundation. Aesthetics is only one part of my concerns.

The contractor mentioned that normally putting spray foam in a basement like mine – just between the joists, above the concrete foundation – would be about $1500. Hmm, that sounded like a good chunk of savings. I considered it a bit more, with caution. I said I had to talk to my husband about it. When I couldn’t reach him, I called my father-in-law, who seemed to be in favor of it. However, I was still not convinced (because I’m difficult like that).

In the meantime, the contractor said he would do a blower-door test. That was neat! If you’re wondering, our house is completely average for air leakage. While this was going on, I was frantically reading about spray foam online and harassing a few preservation colleagues for their opinions (thanks, Jen). Nothing I read about spray foam was beneficial to historic buildings. Nothing. Yikes! For starters, here is a paper from Historic New England.

Why so frantic? Well, it seemed like a decision that I had to make that day. Admittedly, I did not ask outright, but that seemed to be the case. Back to discussions with the contractor. He had said that either you insulate everything or nothing at all; you can’t insulate half your house if the other half is not insulated. I brought that up, figuring that my walls did not have insulation. Why should I insulate the basement, I asked? No good answer. He also told me that spray foam isn’t reversible. And he never mentioned anything about a vapor barrier.

Finally, Vinny and I had a chance to talk. I told him that something about spray foam just made me nervous (well, lots of things) even if it’s just in a few spots. I didn’t want to regret doing something later. The only thing that sounded good about this offer was that it would be absolutely free to us. Vinny, agreeing with my hesitation, said to me,  “If someone came around and offered free vinyl siding and installation, would you take it?”  Without skipping a beat I scoffed and said, “No.”  He replied, “There’s your answer.”

Good point. Doing something to my house just because it’s free, when it’s something that neither one of us feels comfortable with or has researched enough, would be a ridiculous decision. My main conclusion was that the 83-year-old house does not have any problems, but I change the air flow, it’s quite possibly asking for problems. Right? Why ruin a good thing and fix something that doesn’t need to be fixed? Before we decided on the amount of heat loss and cost and understand how this house works through winter, we shouldn’t mess with the system.

However, this particular contractor was focused purely on air sealing. To his credit, he did talk buildings with me and gave me much to think about. He looked in the attic and checked out the insulation there (currently 6″ of cellulose that possibly doesn’t extend to the eaves – yes, I am aware that it needs to be addressed). He was patient with me and didn’t give me a hard time when I sort of said okay for spray foam and then nevermind. Perhaps it was my own mistake, but I was not under the impression that this assessment would only be about air sealing. After all, you can’t air seal your basement and not consider the effects on or what is needed for the rest of the house.

If someone such as myself who is so vehemently opposed to spray foam (in my own house anyway) could waver a bit by the temptation of free work and materials, then surely I was not ready to make such an important decision without any warning ahead of time. I hate to think that others made rash decisions for their own buildings.

This is not meant to sound like a rant, but more to explain why I was probably the worst candidate for this type of flood “assessment.” I am grateful for Efficiency Vermont’s assistance to flood victims across the state and think overall they’re doing a great job. However, their sub-contractors on this job should be better informed.

The most beneficial part of the “assessment” was realizing just how much I need to study before making decisions about insulation. It was a good reality check for me as a new homeowner to think carefully through every major project.  But for now, I’m holding true to my anti-spray foam and air sealing, especially because the drafts of my historic house are no worse than a normal house less than half its age.

We can discuss other types of insulation after I read some more material. This graduate thesis by Sarah Elizabeth Welniak, Energy Efficiency in Historic Buildings, seems like a good place to start. What else do you recommend?

Button Up Vermont Workshop

Last week I attended a Button Up Vermont workshop, hosted by Efficiency Vermont, geared toward those affected by the recent Irene flooding.  Efficiency Vermont is an organization committed to teaching Vermonters how to reduce energy costs, choose more sustainable energy sources and to increase the use of local energy. Many flood victims are forced to rebuild portions or all of their homes, choose new heating systems, choose new insulation, buy new appliances and much more; therefore, Efficiency Vermont is aiming to guide people to energy efficient choices.

The workshop announcement sparked my interest for three reasons. (1) Since the workshop was geared towards post flood recovery, it would discuss cleanup such as mold and moisture concerns, which is currently one of my main concerns. (2) We do need to buy a new heating system, and we are trying to decide between oil or wood pellets or both. (3) Also, I was curious to hear what they would say about windows and historic materials. Would they advocate replacement or maintaining what is existing?

To my delight, one of the first things the presenters discussed was mold and moisture. Fun, right? Much of it was geared toward wood and fabric, not concrete. But, I think here is where I solidified my idea to scrub the basement walls. More on that particular endeavor another time. It was generally helpful in the sense that it made me feel better as we had done many of the right things so far. And, it was a good reminder of what we still needed to accomplish. Many people had questions about dirt floor basements or mold on furniture.

Regarding heating systems, it is something I know little about (first time homeowner here!) so I appreciate any discussion on the different systems. Efficiency Vermont offers rebates and incentives to buy certain systems (that goes for appliances, too).

Now, about windows. I am relieved and proud to hear that Efficiency Vermont said that new windows are not worth it; the payback required for the ridiculously expensive windows is much too long. Hooray! That was exciting for me, a historic window lover.

The main part of the workshop (it was more like a lecture, than a workshop) was the discussion about insulation, specifically spray foam insulation. Yuck. I do not like any of it, partially because I have a hard time believing that it’s not toxic in some way (off gases?) and partially because I think it’s ugly. All insulation is generally hideous looking, but something about spray foam creeps me out. Am I crazy? Anyway, while I know energy efficiency is related to insulation, I tend to care less about wall insulation because I want my house to breathe. So if that means a drafty house, I am okay with it. (I know, I expect a lot of disagreement here.) I was disappointed by the emphasis on this insulation, but a lot of people do have to replace the insulation on their first floors, so the discussions were appropriate for the setting.

Overall, I’m glad I attended the workshop. After all, maintenance is preservation and preservation is maintenance, right? Has anyone else been to something similar? What did you think?

Lecture: “The Power of Preservation”

The Yestermorrow Design Build School in Waitsfield, VT is hosting a summer lecture series addressing sustainability through different avenues. One of those avenues is historic preservation.

On July 27, Jean Carroon (FAIA, LEED AP) presented “The Power of Preservation: Understanding the Environmental Value of Older and Historic Building Conservation.” Carroon is a principal at Goody Clancy in Boston, MA; she is well known and highly regarded for her work combining historic preservation, sustainability and architecture. Her book, Sustainable Preservation: Greening Existing Buildings (Wiley & Sons) was published in 2010.

Chances are, if you are involved with historic preservation or sustainability or a related field, you have heard the same facts and theories over and over.  As a profession, we are still struggling with green initiatives and compromise and doing our best to decide if the long term benefits are in fact what they say they are. It’s going to take some time before we can evaluate the best practices of today.

While lectures can blend together, Carroon gave a superb presentation, one that sounded fresh and insightful. Her words proved way above the same old ideas. I thoroughly enjoyed the entire lecture. She began (1) by asking the audience if we believed in flossing our teeth and then (2) saying that preservation is shooting itself in the foot. What an intriguing beginning!

Rather than reiterate the presentation, I thought I’d share some snippets that I found particularly interesting and thoughtful (I’m a habitual note taker to insure that I do not forget anything — though my disclaimer is that these bullet points are not exact words from Carroon; some may have my interpretations. Read her book for her exact words!)

* Preservation is the keystone to sustainability. If you want to save the earth, then you have to save the largest objects on it – buildings. You have to save buildings in order to save the earth. In the 1970s, the motto “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle” came about, though we have since dropped reduce and reuse. We should always reduce and reuse before we have to recycle (i.e. in the case of buildings, before we have to tear apart a building for salvage). Similarly, if you want to save the polar bears, you have to save the buildings. [We’re all connected!]

* Today’s work on buildings is often taking out the “miracle materials” of yesterday. New materials should always be suspicious, even the green products can have environmental impacts. New construction is the #1 source for toxicity according to the EPA, which places it ahead of coal fired electric plants.

* Sustainability is not about embodied energy; it is about avoiding impacts.

*Sustainability is not something that is finite. It means stewardship. We’ll never be done with it; just like building maintenance and historic preservation is never done. There is no such thing as a maintenance free world  (hence, the flossing).

*The GSA has documented evidence that its older buildings are 20% easier to clean (20% less chemicals are required). The older materials are more durable, cleaner, and can be repaired.

*Regarding the non-historic building stock, such as those from the 1960s/70s: these present more of an opportunity because there are fewer aesthetic negotiations.

*Why don’t we talk about building density? A “Zero Energy” doesn’t mean anything, especially if it’s not populated. These are not sustainable. Buildings should function as networks, not individuals. Smart streets planning and complete streets projects are undertaking such ideas.

*Sustainability is also about the sustainability of institutions and the quality of life of people who live/work/play there. A sustainable area means nothing if it’s not inhabited.

* Sustainable = stewardship = daily action = great rewards.

*The preservation community needs to be a compromising agency, not an agency of no. If we keep fighting battles (i.e. windows), we’ll lose the war.

*We need to create a culture of reuse or repair. We need to recognize what we have and what exists.

If you ever have the opportunity to hear Carroon speak or to say hello to her, you should. She is lovely and brilliant.

One reason I’d recommend hearing a talk by Jean Carroon is due to the fact that she dazzled me as a listener, but her talk also inspired me to internally ponder and respond to issues she mentioned. Keep reading for my response to an issue that struck me as important.

I found Carroon’s talk to be refreshing, especially the discussion about sustainability never being reached (in the sense that it will always require stewardship). However, I strongly disagree with her about the windows battle. Everyone has a different opinion, but replacement vinyl windows will never be okay according to my own preservation standards. Reproduction windows are a different story. To me, windows will always be important because they define styles. They tell stories. Windows are not the greatest cause for lost heat in a building. Once they’re gone, it cannot be undone.

I do not find historic preservation to be an agency of no; though I see how it comes off that way. But, I imagine, any time that a resource is being protected, there will be the word “no” involved. And although as preservationists it is imperative to get a grasp on sustainability and to learn to work together with environmentalists and professionals of similar fields (and really all fields), we must remember that it is still our mission to protect and preserve our heritage. The definition of historic preservation is drastically different than it was 50 years ago, but I believe that the roots of the field still take top priority. Roughly, I refer to the roots as the documentation, sharing, teaching and caring of buildings, trade, culture and landscape. Preservationists before us understand that so much of value could be lost without their efforts and at the same time, so much of the past could be valuable to the present and to the future.

Thus, I mean to say that I am constantly amazed by the intertwined existence of professional fields today and how well we can mesh; I love how preservation can be a huge umbrella, as can environmentalism and sustainability and planning and so many others. It proves how connected we are. Yet, I believe that historic preservation must remain true to itself. We can rethink and adapt and fit with other fields, but let’s be sure that historic preservation is still historic preservation and not a green retrofitting fad with history on the side.

What do you think?

———————————————

If you have the opportunity to attend a lecture at Yestermorrow, I’d highly recommend it. Yestermorrow is a lovely, intimate venue for lectures

Pro Preservation Advertisement

These ads are all over the Dulles International Airport. They made my night! How cool is this to see in a public space? Love it.

Building Aesthetics: Air Conditioners

I’m not one for air conditioning. It’s too strong and too cold in stores, restaurants, movie theaters and office buildings. I feel like I’m missing out on the summer season and living in a fake climate. Windows and breezes; that’s what I like. And that is how many historic houses were built: to take advantage of cross breezes. Historic houses certainly were not designed with central air conditioning in mind, and window units prevent the function of windows.

There are few things that can ruin a historic house like a window unit air conditioner, don’t you think?

See the air conditioner on the third floor. An example from Shelburne, VT.

Of course, the arguments and reasoning for air conditioners are many. I have lived in the south – the North Carolina Sandhills – so I understand heat and humidity for months out of the year. Working in an office without air conditioning would have been miserable. Then again, the office wasn’t designed for air circulation and cross ventilation.  Now I find myself shocked at the number of air conditioners in Vermont. It’s really not that hot here, and our summer days are so few. I can’t understand why people wouldn’t want a summer breeze blowing through their houses. To each his own?

Should we start designing buildings to work with nature once again? Then we’d spend less money on electricity. Just a thought.

In the meantime, take note of the air conditioning units on buildings that you pass. Where you would put them instead? Or, would you choose a window or wall unit rather than altering the interior to fit central air? Has anyone come across this problem? What does an AC unit do to the architectural integrity of a building?

Does anyone else feel this way? Or would you rather just have air conditioning and take it as a necessary item in today’s world?

Happy Earth Day

Happy Earth Day, everyone!

Do you normally associate Earth Day and historic preservation? By now you’ve probably heard the buzzword combination of sustainability + historic preservation. The greenest building is one that’s already built. (This is credited to Carl Elefante, if you’re wondering.) Read his article  in the Summer 2007 National Trust Forum.

Think about it. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that an existing structure does not demolition, removal of materials, manufacturing and delivery of new materials. That’s why an existing building is a money saver, generally.

Would you like to proof for yourself or to convince others of this? Check out The Greenest Building created by the May T. Watts Appreciation Society.  On this site you can use an energy calculator to determine the embodied energy in a building and the energy used and lost by demolition. Compare existing energy v. new energy.

Also check out the May T. Watts blog, The Greenest Building is the one Already Built, which has relevant information, despite its lack of updates. The blog talks mostly about embodied energy and how to calculate it.

“Preservation saves energy by taking advantage of the nonrecoverable energy embodied in an existing building and extending the use of it.”

– ASSESSING the ENERGY CONSERVATION BENEFITS of HISTORIC PRESERVATION: Methods and Examples, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

Have you read the National Trust’s position on sustainability? In a nutshell it is this:

Historic preservation can – and should – be an important component of any effort to promote sustainable development. The conservation and improvement of our existing built resources, including re-use of historic and older buildings, greening the existing building stock, and reinvestment in older and historic communities, is crucial to combating climate change.

Browse through the National Trust’s Flickr set called Reuse It! — some images are more heartbreaking than others (like an abandoned school in Montana or an abandoned train depot in Texas), but some are fun (art deco buildings in Iowa). A lot of pictures show buildings just dying for a new use; they are in still sound and in cities and just need a vision.

Aside from the actual building materials, existing structures are already sited with infrastructure and opting for new development means new roads, utility lines, further trips for emergency services and so much more.

Earth Day is about making the earth a better, healthier planet and taking care of our environment. Historic preservation wants to do the same thing. While the environmental and preservation approaches may have differences, they share the overall vision. So this combined movement of sustainability and preservation may be complicated in instances when “green” methods interfere with historic features, but it’s a learning process and we’re on the right track. Like all of the best ideas, it’s a combined effort to see it through.

SAVE ENERGY. SAVE HISTORY.

Let’s not keep repeating the fate of Land’s End.