Permaculture has a great list of ideals that apply in just about anything that can be done. It has a lot in common with a gross of other movements both recent and historical. One thing I find in common with all of them is an attention to systems. We like to use the term "attention to detail" as some sort of buzzword for a good, intelligent, "critically thinking" person. "Critically Thinking" is another of those buzzwords. But "attention to macrocosms" might be more appropriate term for a "system-thinking" person, to replace both of them.
Most, if not all, of these movements are conciously or unconciously being Biomimetic. The "inventors" of Permaculture were certainly being so, even if the term "permaculture" was coined in the '70s while "biomimicry" was first said in the '80s. Yet the practice of biomimicry could be said to be much older. As old as the biosphere, one might say. And that is the reason that Permaculture works, is so close to being universally sound.
Thus, for the best house possible, it is essential to consider those rough guiding points:
Thus, the ideal house depends on where it is put. And thus, like most things good, it is very difficult. In Gunnison it is different than in Denver. In either location, I would rather not "sprawl" and take over yet more land. That seems to me to break some of these points. No matter how great the house is, it is not as good as no house to the rest of the biosphere. Besides, perhaps, a tree. The living trunk and canopy. At least I have yet to see another one. We human beings have claimed plenty of ground, I dare say.
I am intrigued to think about cities such as our local Denver. In order to have a small footprint for a city, one must build up. However, natural building is not very conducive to building up too high It's not possible to build a Rose Tower out of straw. Or even brick.
But what is possible? It would be possible to build a structure more like the Great Pyramid of Giza, which is 480ft tall. The Pyramid itself is probably the tallest "Natural Building" ever made (even if it isn't inhabited). Logistically, it would be difficult to acquire the space in the modern world for such a structure; and it is probably inadvisable from an ecological point of view. But it presents some possibilities.
I would like to see sky-scrapers take some principles from the Deep Green Building movement. Perhaps the natural material isn't very feasible for the supporting framework, but are the local materials in Denver even straw? Perhaps recycled metals and unused foundations could be part of it. Using fly-ash cement in the concrete and other such ideas. Perhaps straw could be part of the insulation, as long as there are good moisture guards. A green living roof seems to be a good idea and is being utilized in cities such as New York and Chicago for office buildings. Then, at least, there is other life atop our cityscapes. If there are enough edible gardens throughout cities, how much would it save on shipping costs? Therefore cut down on the actual cost of living, cut down on the carbon emissions, and become a small carbon storage system. And give office workers a fulfilling thing to occupy their coffee breaks; I have heard that it does wonders for employee moral. Most skyscrapers already have the flat roof that it would require.
Green roofs are actually one of my favorite ideas. I would love to explore all the potential for them. How could a green roof work on a straw-bale and mud walled building? In a snowy climate like Gunnison? Is is possible to still have solar-tube lighting with a green roof? How much roof/yard should be sacrificed for a solar-voltaic system? Any? Can electricity be cut out all together? Probably not.
In a general sense, not considering the specific limitations of an area, the great question to me is how a building can limit its intake of resources from off of its own land. How little can it take in and how much can it give back. Having a "Net-Zero" (or better) building according to its hers rating is a nice crutch, but it assumes that you have no impact on the house. But what if one wants to drive the house? What if there are days that the house should be hotter and days that it should be cooler? What if there is one tenant who likes their house to be about 80° and the next buyer likes it closer to 60°? The house should be able to preform for both without additional energy. Ideally.
My Ideal House:
Though a city can be argued to be a more "sustainable" place to live because it takes less resources for each person, as an average, I would really rather not live in a city. So I have to figure out how best to make a good house in a smaller town or in the country. Without taking more land, without making myself a nuisance.
Thus I do not think that making a new house is the answer. Perhaps renovation; perhaps a renovation so thorough that the original structure is carefully dismantled and a new structure put up on the old foundation. Then all those pieces of the old house can be used somewhere in the new one.
Despite the call to have a small house, I would like to build a relatively large house. With relatively little square-footage to each resident. Perhaps an apartment building, with four-bedroom apartments and a communal living area and an outdoor square. A garden would be necessary, the roof could be part of it.
The entire utility bill should be covered by the local environment, passive heating and cooling of space and water; solar ovens in each unit and a cool corner for dry-storage and the refrigerator; so that the ambient temperature is close to the temperature inside the box. The heat generated by refrigerators could be piped to other rooms.
Indoor and outdoor gardening; composting equipment applicable for the environment (if it is in Gunnison, for example, something that can produce compost year-round). Most of the lighting being passive solar lighting as well. Essentially, the utility bill for the building should be in the negatives every month no matter what.
I would like the house to be build using as low embodied energy as possible.
The other part of the puzzle, though, is to make the set of houses communal and of social gain to the community as well. Not only for the tenants and home-owners, but for neighbors and passersby as well. If it would be possible for the zoning to support small business ventures; so that, at the very least, excess food could be sold or given back to the community. The house should be such a desirable place to live that it would entice others to follow the example. It should foster community enough that people get to know each other better and become strong neighbors who, even if separated by a move, will stay in contact and fellowship.
It should cost nothing, but generate wealth instead. Of every kind.
All of the doors, therefore, would face into the same space. It would encourage foot traffic, for automobile consideration would be smaller - having no driveway, even, into the property. Though every unit could have a solar oven, there would be one central communal kitchen with a stove big enough to cook for everyone. To encourage relationships. Supplies would be shared like in a commune so that there is less external consumption. Having one kitchen is also more energy efficient than having single separate ones. The mailboxes would be in one place outside of the home for another meeting place. The apartment complex could have an attached shed space for all, but with divisions and the possibility to add partitions and more separations. We don't want to push people's trust too far. But inside, there would be doors, lockable from each side, into the next door neighbor.
Because of solar energy concerns, the complex would probably have to be built fairly linearly; for they would all need southern exposure. The entry-ways would therefore need to be on the north, I think and the sheds could be up there as well, connected or not, The communal area would be on the north with the doors along with some gardens and the walk-ways in (not cement, because that's really hard on people's knees; something softer would be preferable). The communal kitchen would be a thin sliver of an apartment between all of the others so that it could have a solar oven of its own... but then again, perhaps that is unnecessary. Solar cooking is possible in the apartments.
In order for a lot of this to fit and work, it would defy the square shape. There would be less straight lines in this house. The shape would have to be artistic.
Another idea that I liked in a hippy house somewhere in the world is a community comments mailbox. Where people could leave poetry. Perhaps a space for public graffiti and play. Perhaps space for public classes and workshops to be able to be held there, like at the Fred Field center or Parish Hall. The house(s) should be open and valuable.
Most, if not all, of these movements are conciously or unconciously being Biomimetic. The "inventors" of Permaculture were certainly being so, even if the term "permaculture" was coined in the '70s while "biomimicry" was first said in the '80s. Yet the practice of biomimicry could be said to be much older. As old as the biosphere, one might say. And that is the reason that Permaculture works, is so close to being universally sound.
Thus, for the best house possible, it is essential to consider those rough guiding points:
- Catch and store energy: This is very important for a building. Because people are generally pretty bad at it (we are too spoiled). We need a home to be a comfortable temperature and environment inside no matter what is happening outside and that takes quite a lot of power. For the best dwelling, that power should not come from anywhere else but home. Ideally.
- Observe and interact: Watch what nature is doing and consider "vernacular building". What will work in this climate and with your soil and ecosystem. And with your local building materials.
- Use and value diversity: Notice that diversity reduces vulnerability to a variety of threats, it increases resiliency, and can take advantage of the unique nature of the environment in which it resides. Here is a chance for that "Attention To Detail" motif.
- Use edges and value the marginal: The interface between things is where the most interesting events sometimes take place and often they are overlooked. Think about the gray areas and how one thing a thousand miles away from another can have profound butterfly effects. These are often the most valuable, diverse and productive elements in the system.
- Integrate rather than segregate: Thinking about the edges and interplays will probably lead directly to this. Relationships develop between everything; with the right things in the right place those relationships can be very powerful. More than the sum of the parts, so to speak. Things can work together and support each other.
- Design from patterns to details: By stepping back, we can observe patterns in nature and society. These can form the backbone of our designs, with the details filled in as we go.
- Use and value renewable resources and services: Make the best use of nature's abundance to reduce consumptive behavior and dependence on non-renewable non-local resources. Again, anything that is taken out is returned. Hopefully in folds.
- Obtain a yield: Think of it as a continuation of point 4. Ensure that you are getting truly useful rewards as part of the work that you are doing; not only for you yourself, but also for the land under the house and the rest of the ecological system around you. Be a part of that system and gear past being regenerative or restorative but progressive. The walls of a house do not really separate you from the rest of the world.
- Produce no waste: By valuing and making use of all the resources that are available nothing goes to waste. "Waste" is returned to the rest of the system.
- Use small and slow solutions: Think "Small House Society". Small and slow systems are easier to maintain than big ones. Though sometimes increased size can mean increased efficiency, it also means increased difficulty. Make the best use of local resources and produce sustainable outcomes.
- Apply self-regulation and accept feedback: Keep learning and keep growing. Keep evolving. Keeping an open and flexible mind is one key to staying young in the head.
- Creatively use and respond to change: We can have a positive impact on inevitable change by carefully observing, and then intervening at the right time.
Thus, the ideal house depends on where it is put. And thus, like most things good, it is very difficult. In Gunnison it is different than in Denver. In either location, I would rather not "sprawl" and take over yet more land. That seems to me to break some of these points. No matter how great the house is, it is not as good as no house to the rest of the biosphere. Besides, perhaps, a tree. The living trunk and canopy. At least I have yet to see another one. We human beings have claimed plenty of ground, I dare say.
I am intrigued to think about cities such as our local Denver. In order to have a small footprint for a city, one must build up. However, natural building is not very conducive to building up too high It's not possible to build a Rose Tower out of straw. Or even brick.
But what is possible? It would be possible to build a structure more like the Great Pyramid of Giza, which is 480ft tall. The Pyramid itself is probably the tallest "Natural Building" ever made (even if it isn't inhabited). Logistically, it would be difficult to acquire the space in the modern world for such a structure; and it is probably inadvisable from an ecological point of view. But it presents some possibilities.
I would like to see sky-scrapers take some principles from the Deep Green Building movement. Perhaps the natural material isn't very feasible for the supporting framework, but are the local materials in Denver even straw? Perhaps recycled metals and unused foundations could be part of it. Using fly-ash cement in the concrete and other such ideas. Perhaps straw could be part of the insulation, as long as there are good moisture guards. A green living roof seems to be a good idea and is being utilized in cities such as New York and Chicago for office buildings. Then, at least, there is other life atop our cityscapes. If there are enough edible gardens throughout cities, how much would it save on shipping costs? Therefore cut down on the actual cost of living, cut down on the carbon emissions, and become a small carbon storage system. And give office workers a fulfilling thing to occupy their coffee breaks; I have heard that it does wonders for employee moral. Most skyscrapers already have the flat roof that it would require.
Green roofs are actually one of my favorite ideas. I would love to explore all the potential for them. How could a green roof work on a straw-bale and mud walled building? In a snowy climate like Gunnison? Is is possible to still have solar-tube lighting with a green roof? How much roof/yard should be sacrificed for a solar-voltaic system? Any? Can electricity be cut out all together? Probably not.
In a general sense, not considering the specific limitations of an area, the great question to me is how a building can limit its intake of resources from off of its own land. How little can it take in and how much can it give back. Having a "Net-Zero" (or better) building according to its hers rating is a nice crutch, but it assumes that you have no impact on the house. But what if one wants to drive the house? What if there are days that the house should be hotter and days that it should be cooler? What if there is one tenant who likes their house to be about 80° and the next buyer likes it closer to 60°? The house should be able to preform for both without additional energy. Ideally.
My Ideal House:
Though a city can be argued to be a more "sustainable" place to live because it takes less resources for each person, as an average, I would really rather not live in a city. So I have to figure out how best to make a good house in a smaller town or in the country. Without taking more land, without making myself a nuisance.
Thus I do not think that making a new house is the answer. Perhaps renovation; perhaps a renovation so thorough that the original structure is carefully dismantled and a new structure put up on the old foundation. Then all those pieces of the old house can be used somewhere in the new one.
Despite the call to have a small house, I would like to build a relatively large house. With relatively little square-footage to each resident. Perhaps an apartment building, with four-bedroom apartments and a communal living area and an outdoor square. A garden would be necessary, the roof could be part of it.
The entire utility bill should be covered by the local environment, passive heating and cooling of space and water; solar ovens in each unit and a cool corner for dry-storage and the refrigerator; so that the ambient temperature is close to the temperature inside the box. The heat generated by refrigerators could be piped to other rooms.
Indoor and outdoor gardening; composting equipment applicable for the environment (if it is in Gunnison, for example, something that can produce compost year-round). Most of the lighting being passive solar lighting as well. Essentially, the utility bill for the building should be in the negatives every month no matter what.
I would like the house to be build using as low embodied energy as possible.
The other part of the puzzle, though, is to make the set of houses communal and of social gain to the community as well. Not only for the tenants and home-owners, but for neighbors and passersby as well. If it would be possible for the zoning to support small business ventures; so that, at the very least, excess food could be sold or given back to the community. The house should be such a desirable place to live that it would entice others to follow the example. It should foster community enough that people get to know each other better and become strong neighbors who, even if separated by a move, will stay in contact and fellowship.
It should cost nothing, but generate wealth instead. Of every kind.
All of the doors, therefore, would face into the same space. It would encourage foot traffic, for automobile consideration would be smaller - having no driveway, even, into the property. Though every unit could have a solar oven, there would be one central communal kitchen with a stove big enough to cook for everyone. To encourage relationships. Supplies would be shared like in a commune so that there is less external consumption. Having one kitchen is also more energy efficient than having single separate ones. The mailboxes would be in one place outside of the home for another meeting place. The apartment complex could have an attached shed space for all, but with divisions and the possibility to add partitions and more separations. We don't want to push people's trust too far. But inside, there would be doors, lockable from each side, into the next door neighbor.
Because of solar energy concerns, the complex would probably have to be built fairly linearly; for they would all need southern exposure. The entry-ways would therefore need to be on the north, I think and the sheds could be up there as well, connected or not, The communal area would be on the north with the doors along with some gardens and the walk-ways in (not cement, because that's really hard on people's knees; something softer would be preferable). The communal kitchen would be a thin sliver of an apartment between all of the others so that it could have a solar oven of its own... but then again, perhaps that is unnecessary. Solar cooking is possible in the apartments.
In order for a lot of this to fit and work, it would defy the square shape. There would be less straight lines in this house. The shape would have to be artistic.
Another idea that I liked in a hippy house somewhere in the world is a community comments mailbox. Where people could leave poetry. Perhaps a space for public graffiti and play. Perhaps space for public classes and workshops to be able to be held there, like at the Fred Field center or Parish Hall. The house(s) should be open and valuable.
