t r a c t
h o m e _ 2 0 1 2
pushing design, affordability & efficiency forward
thesis proposal by geoff desmit masters of architecture - ball state university 2010-2012
ii
|
|
c o n t e n t s
acknowledgements v i i advisors
ix
abstract
2
final project proposal
4
methodologies
8
case studies
10
Prototype A, the 60 day experiment kitHAUS 100k house project site research + documentation
18
interviews + reflections on research
26
state of the housing market
30
|
iii
32
housing trends rising housing trends tract home_2012 response
36
average household size U.S. single family homes tract home_2012
40
neighborhood deficiencies walkable block structure variable use types
44
site selection + layout site selection site access site amenities site layout + planning lot layout + access
54
tract home_2012 design overall floor plans first floor_main residence second floor_main residence
iv
|
accessory dwelling unit tract home_2012 elevations ADU elevations lot section energy modeling
74
energy use distribution energy models cost / year site energy use / year HVAC system sizing vs. ACH reduction in top three categories tract home_2012 construction
86
detailed wall assemble building envelope costs interior + finish costs system costs total construction costs postscript
97
endnotes
98
image references 1 0 0
|
v
|
This work would not have been possible without the help of many amazing people. As I took on this task I was encouraged and guided by colleagues, professors and professionals. While I am sure many more deserve recognition, I would like to thank these individuals specifically. Dr. Antonieta Angulo: for her encouragement to take a small research project and follow it through to the end. Joshua Coggeshall: for his guidance and encouragement to take on a building industry that most architects and students find undesirable. Walter Grondzik: for his role as my minor advisor, his detailed systems knowledge, and his excitement that pushed me to develop a complete project. Micah Hill: for his professional insight on residential construction and his willingness to invest his time in helping me understand dollar and cents details. Donna Sink: for her role as my major advisor, her constant encouragement and excitement, and her belief that I could produce a complete project, grounded in real numbers, that could be taken to developers to make a reality. Christopher Wright: for his help in developing a detailed cost
a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t s
estimate and his professional insight on the residential market. A special thanks goes out to Ryan Zyger of Tamarak Homes in Vancouver, WA, who took time out of a busy schedule to meet with a graduate student from “some school in Indiana.� It was invaluable to gain insight on the housing market first hand from someone in the industry who is trying to change the way that we look at homes. Last but certainly not least, I want to thank my amazing wife, Emily DeSmit, who at the same time is always my biggest fan and my greatest critic. This thesis is the culmination of a desire and effort to fully understand the mass produced residential market. There has been a negative stigma attached to tract homes for years without the knowledge of why they are disliked. Many have simply heard they are bad but can provide no reasons to justify their disapproval. My initial research was aimed to fill in this gap, to give the reasons to justify the disapproval, and in the end to provide a springboard to work with developers armed with information to produce a better product. The work that follows is a realization of that product.
|
vii
|
a d v i s o r s
major advisor - Donna Sink
minor advisor - Walter Grondzik
Donna Sink is a registered architect who completed her undergraduate studies at the University of Arizona and received her Master of Architecture from Cranbrook Academy of Art. Donna worked in Portland and Philadelphia before moving to Indiana where she runs her own architecture practice. Donna has taught a professional practice course with Wes Janz at Ball State for the last few years and was a major influence in guiding my own ambitions in the architectural field.
Walter Grondzik, an ASHRAE and ASES Fellow, is a professional engineer and Professor in the Department of Architecture at Ball State University. He earned a Bachelor of Architectural Engineering from Penn State and a MS in Mechanical Engineering from Washington University in St. Louis. Walter is a current member of several ASHRAE technical and guideline committees and has been a Passive Conference Chair for two solar conferences. His expertise and interest in the evaluation and improvement of building’s environmental performance was critical as I explored optimal energy solutions.
|
ix
t r a c t
h o m e _ 2 0 1 2
pushing design, affordability & efficiency forward |
1
a b s t r a c t
|
My ideas for a thesis proposal began under the idea that typical housing values in large tract developments have and will continue to collapse and that there is now, more than ever, an opportunity to examine the very nature of hearth and home in the housing industry. Besides simply looking at design, I wanted to explore housing constructability, advancements in building materials and the transformation in residential design in general. As we push forward in energy efficient design, the residential sector has seemed to slip through the cracks while contractors and builders continue to use out-dated construction methods and practices in the name of profitability. It is my hope through this research that we can examine what the modern home is, and by doing so, push design, affordability, and efficiency forward. I believe it is the responsibility of all architects to strive to provide continually better living conditions for everyone and to work with cities and contractors to improve development. It will be extremely important that architects work with developers to demonstrate that good design can be affordable. Hopefully everyone involved will learn a lesson.
2
|
Design counts. The idea is not to eliminate the tract home, but to figure out what causes the issues within this building industry and in turn solve them to offer a better product. This is not, by any means, a new observation on an new problem. Tract homes, dating all the way back to Levittown, were a solution to a problem. By looking at these homes in detail, hopefully we can address the current problem areas and be able to design a better product.
[01] a b s t r a c t
|
3
f i n a l
p r o j e c t
p r o p o s a l
|
“The Real Estate Dictionary” defines tract housing as: “A dwelling that has a similar style and floor plan to those of all other houses in a development.1” Tract housing can usually be delivered to the market at a much lower cost per square foot because volume building makes it possible for the builder to purchase materials and contracts for labor at a much lower rate than conventional home building methods. In response, the price of these homes are often the best selling point. Just how much savings might be at stake depends on which builder the tract builder is being compared to and usually there is a significant difference when compared to a higher-quality custom home builder. However, to be fair, the products are not intended to be the same. The criticisms that stem from substandard construction are only furthered by the high costs and significant time commitments of maintenance, heating, and cooling, leading to a higher cost-ofownership when compared to smaller or custom built houses.2 Lets face it, the housing market is broken. It’s not because home developers can’t make money buildings homes, but quite the opposite. The construction process for homes hasn’t [02]
4
|
changed in 30 years. Builders continue to make homes which are sieves from an energy standpoint, with cheap materials and poor layout. Unfortunately architects touch an extremely small percentage of the residential market, 5-7% tops3, and most of the time are cornered into high end design because most people believe that architects are either too expensive, or out of touch. The public perception of the architect is flawed. Whether that is because we as a profession have failed to raise awareness or because what most people see of architecture are large skyscrapers and museums is up for debate. Regardless, we as a profession have to get the word out that you don’t have to settle for poor design in the name of affordability. In looking at several other projects that have looked to build a more standardized home, it is interesting that most have always come to the conclusion that the problem can not be solved by only a change in design; a change in culture is needed as well.4 Land developers and contractors should be developing communities with good architectural designs and unique attributes for the high-end buyer, as well as developing smaller homes on compact lots which are designed for today’s lifestyle and which are more
importantly, well built. We aren’t going to solve the issues with homes that are so far from the norm that the market becomes extremely small. With this thinking, it is imperative that we start with something that can built in multitude and sell in the market; a 3 bedroom 2 bath model. I want to develop a concept that has recently been proposed in a handful of communities across the country. The concept is to take a single family residence and then place a 1 bedroom, 1 bath unit behind it on the same lot. This property will be able to serve the owner through multiple stages of habitation. First, you live in the main residence and rent the accessory dwelling unit, supplementing your income. Second, you house older kids or parents that need care-taking in the accessory dwelling unit. Finally, you live in the accessory dwelling unit and rent the main residence. This idea isn’t new, but it has never been presented as part of a complete package in conjunction with stringent environmental and efficiency standards. The idea in concept is seen all over the U.S., usually in cities where homes
f i n a l
p r o j e c t
p r o p o s a l
|
5
or row houses have converted garages or “granny flats� built in the back to rent out and supplement the homeowner’s income. Converted units and basements have been around for decades, but never has the idea of a supplemental unit been proposed as part of the initial construction as an integral part of the design. The aim is to attack several of the problems that currently exist in suburban tract home developments. First and foremost, design. The way that people live has changed over the last 30 years, while residential design in mass housing has not. The goal is to come up with a modern design that fulfills the needs of the modern family. Secondly, efficiency and durability. Designing homes that are both energy efficient and that model an efficient use of materials are things that can no longer be overlooked. Tight, well built homes are not only cheaper to live in, but require less energy put in by the homeowner to maintain. Every aspect needs to be carefully thought out, from skin material and insulation type, to window and door placement and orientation.
6
|
Zionsville, IN will serve as the test market for this project, trying to change the way that people live by giving them affordable, energy efficient homes that are designed for modern living.
home stages
f i n a l
p r o j e c t
p r o p o s a l
|
7
m e t h o d o l o g i e s
|
In crafting this proposal it was important to examine several poor examples of tract home developments and study the initial and resale value of these areas over a large time span. Due to the recent downturn in home market values in the United States, numerous groups have compiled mountains of data relating to home values. I looked at the initial price to current resale value differentials of homes that fit the typology. While this initial research was quantitative in nature, it was important in order to identify good areas to study. In addition, I wanted to gain a better understanding about how these homes are built and what the contractors are doing to save money. This was important because in order to design and culture a new view of tract homes we need to understand exactly what builders are doing in the field currently. Without the builders and contractor, good design means nothing if it can not reach the end user, in this case the homeowner. This type of qualitative research is only beneficial if people in all stages are involved. In addition to the research that was to present this proposal, I looked into case studies and compiled data to further support
8
|
the validity of my proposal. The tract homes as far back as the 40’s and 50’s were for the most part successful and, as a testament, most still stand today have have maintained and increased in value. I then began to talk to builders in hopes to examine the construction process to pinpoint exactly where the problems are originating. It was my hope that by closely examining the building process I could streamline the designs in order to keep the square foot cost down without sacrificing quality. Unfortunately this is something to this point that has been difficult if not impossible to implement, or something that builders have not considered important because it may have affected their bottom line. In doing this I began to have discussions about the the standards and practices of builders in the market and what we can do to foster the notion that you can have a well built, quality home with a low per square foot cost and a low cost-of-ownership. This will enable us to gain a better understanding of the exact cause of these declines. I wanted to examine these homes from the ground up to pinpoint where contractors were saving money, where builders were cutting corners and where homeowner’s in the end, were having issues
with maintenance and upkeep. Designing the final model was a complex task. After narrowing down the general size and layout through diagramming I focused on the exact feel of the different types of space. Diagrams helped create a language by which several variations could be looked at, dependant on location and orientation. Looking at different opportunities and challenges helped organize the final programming and design. The goal for the final project was to have a comprehensive design for both the main home and the accessory dwelling unit with in-depth analysis of the materials and cost. Special care was taken to ensure the designs could be analyzed in terms of their environmental and energy impact.
m e t h o d o l o g i e s
|
9
c a s e
s t u d i e s
|
Tract homes have been around for 70 years; good and bad examples abound. When looking for ideas of where to start I wanted to focus on the positive to get an idea of where I could start conceptually. The proposal doesn’t require a clean slate and as I’ve stated before, the idea of a tract home isn’t new, but it has never been presented as part of a complete package. The examples that follow are projects that are pushing the limits from an affordability and environmental standpoint.
[03]
Prototype A, in Ridgefield, Washington, is an amazing example of taking standard materials and producing a well build, forward thinking home. kitHAUS makes small prefab accessory dwelling units sold as studios or additional living space. The units consist mainly of recycled aluminum and SIPS panels with a modern style that bends the conventional rules of prefab to create innovative units.
[04]
100k House project is a collection of projects that look to infill vacant lots in Philadelphia with modern designed row houses, built to the highest environmental standards on an even tighter budget. [05]
10
|
P r o t o t y p e
A ,
t h e
6 0
d a y
e x p e r i m e n t The 60 day experiment was the first major influence I ran across when I was looking to narrow in on a thesis proposal in the residential realm. Prototype A in person is simple, but stunning in its execution. The home is organized around a central outdoor elevated courtyard with the main spaces located in the front and back, connected by the circulation core. The upper floor contains kitchen, dining and family room on one end, with the other end incorporating a small sitting room or office and the master suite. The entry and two bedrooms plus a bath are on the first floor with the garage. Prototype A tried to return to a model of living better in a smaller house. At 1,900 sf, it is not small by any means, but compared to the average home size in the U.S. of 2,350 it is below the norm. One thing that was important was that it had to be able to compete in the market it was intended: 3 bedrooms and two bathrooms minimum, two car garage. There were several important takeaways from not only studying the home, but seeing it in person and talking to the builder. Mass production of homes usually saves around 15%, give or take. Prototype A cost about $115 psf; so built on a larger scale that number could get down into the $90’s. When you take out some of the
[06] c a s e
s t u d i e s
|
11
permitting and fees, the hard construction costs could be down around $80 psf. Many of the building practices they used were nonstandard, such as vaulted parallel trusses, 24 o.c. 2Ă—6 framing, rainscreen system, etc. The HVAC consists of a 2-zone mini split system combined with a heat recovery ventilator. Each individual stud cavity was boxed with spray foam and then filled with a high density R21 ecobatt insulation with R31 in the crawl space and R50 in the completely sealed, conditioned attic. Hot water is provided with a Navian instant hot water system with a recirculating pump. They used a standard OSB, but the more advanced Vaporshield Black along with the rainscreen system. Works Partnership Architecture and Tamarack Homes went out of their way to be different. In the prototype, they put in wood countertops and black appliances. The flooring in the house consists of wool carpet and cork flooring. They made sure they did everything the exact opposite of what is considered standard or safe in traditional residential designs. Even painted it black.
12
|
In addition to different materials and systems, Tamarack also went outside the standard building practices when it comes to housing construction in general. Most builders have the framers set the windows. Tamarack uses their siding installers to set the windows which allows them to achieve a tighter building because the same team is making sure things fit and are sealed properly all at once. This allowed them to achieve a great ACH @ 50 PASCAL rating of 1.7. Just to compare, Energy Star only requires that number to be 6 ACH, while at the other end of the spectrum, PassiveHaus standard is .6 ACH. This means that from an energy cost standpoint, the home performs extremely well; only averaging about $70 a month for both gas and electrical combined compared to $125 dollars a month for homes of similar size in the area.
[07] c a s e
s t u d i e s
|
13
[10]
14
|
k i t H A U S kitHAUS was developed by two designers out of Los Angeles that wanted to revolutionize prefab modules and make them both innovative and flexible. These modern units are built in only a matter of days and because of their lightweight materials can be placed just about anywhere. From pre-engineered configurations to custom designs, kitHAUS units can be cabin units, studio spaces, or can even be expanded into multiunit configurations. While they may not be designed as the kind of permanent structure that this proposal is looking to develop, they show a creative use of space and materials. The unit panels are made with aluminum frames with SIPS panel infills and are extremely flexible in their layout.5 It will be important moving forward to keep in mind that flexible layouts and creative uses of materials will go a long way to creating space with an inherent value that draws buyers in and gives them the sense of place that they expect in a modern home.
[11] c a s e
s t u d i e s
|
15
1 0 0 K
h o u s e
p r o j e c t
IS-Architects is working with a developer to create LEED Platinum homes for $100 psf (constructed). Their first home, the 100k House, was a test to see what they could do to take the contractor approach of simple materials and easy construction to create a modern home that was both practical and energy efficient. The 100k House project was the first project designed as a case study for building affordable LEED homes. The two that were built represent the ongoing efforts to build better homes for less. Both homes received LEED Platinum certification and the project won the USGBC LEED for Homes Project of the Year Award in 2010.6 They could build these units elsewhere, but both the local architect and the developer, PostGreen Homes, wanted to focus on improving their own community. The sites are carefully selected, usually dilapidated or vacant lots in areas of Philadelphia looking to or already expanding. These particular homes are amazing examples of what you can do on a limited budget with a little creativity and ingenuity. They portray a creative use of materials [08]
16
|
and represent the kind of savings, both in material and energy, that can be had without outrageous materials or methods. They aren’t reinventing the wheel, but by taking a slightly different approach they have been able to come up with a quality product catered to a different breed of homeowner.
[09] c a s e
s t u d i e s
|
17
s i t e
r e s e a r c h
+
d o c u m e n t a t i o n
When exploring the site opportunities for this project, there were several things that were important. The site had to fit the general typology of a midwest town. It was important that the area be expanding. The area needed to have multiple business types within walking distance and it needed to have a real estate economy that would support the development. This proposal is meant to be implemented on a large scale so it was imperative that you could take the ideas being developed and apply them elsewhere. That being said, on the northwestern fringe of Indianapolis, only twenty minutes from downtown Indianapolis, lies the burgeoning town of Zionsville. From upscale and uniquely fashionable boutiques to rare and vintage antiques shops, local zoning has preserved the local, hometown feel. Nestled among the shops are fine restaurants and quaint cafes that have made visiting Zionsville popular. Surrounding the village is a mosaic of preserved historical homes, many dating back to the 19th century. Zionsville maintains its distinctive country village
18
|
|
charm and quality of life. The following pages show a glimpse of the amenities that are within walking distance, most within 5 minutes. In addition to areas to play, eat, and shop, larger shopping centers are within a 5 minute drive and there are bike and walking paths easily accessible.
[12]
s i t e
r e s e a r c h
+
d o c u m e n t a t i o n
|
19
[13] north main
20
|
NEIGHBORHOOD eat play shop
ore
sycam
in
ma
w oak
eagle creek coffee 10 south main
plums upper room 112 south main
the friendly tavern 290 south main
grant’s grill & oyster bar 65 south first
villaggio rest. & bar 40 south main
serenity 135 south main
ganache chocolatier 55 east pine
cobblestone grill 160 south main
s i t e
r e s e a r c h
village pizzeria 55 east hawthorne
+
d o c u m e n t a t i o n
|
21
NEIGHBORHOOD eat play shop
ore
sycam
in
ma
w oak
22
lions park 100 south elm
simply yoga 260 south first
carter toy museum 91 south main
hussey-mayfield lib. 250 north fifth
canterbury manor 605 starkey road
sullivan museum 225 w hawthorne
njs studio spa 70 east pine
zion nature center 690 beech
massage therapy 410 west oak
n burton mem. park 1008 west oak
|
[14] zionsville trail
s i t e
r e s e a r c h
+
d o c u m e n t a t i o n
|
23
[15] south main
24
|
NEIGHBORHOOD eat play shop
ore
sycam
in
ma
w oak
village geek 90 north first
the choosy pet 25 east cedar
village clock shop 5 north main
jewel box jewelers 100 south main
kogan antiques 195 south main
a step above bridal 110 north main
village yarn shop 40 north main
brick street mall 47 south main
ballerinas & bruisers 180 south main
earth explorer toys 27 east pine
s i t e
r e s e a r c h
+
d o c u m e n t a t i o n
|
25
i n t e r v i e w s
+
r e f l e c t i o n
One of the major things I believed, and the initial crux of my thesis, was the idea that typical housing values in large tract developments are collapsing. Poor lending practices and the inflation of property values has led to a housing market that no longer works. I was recently pointed to an article by Allison Arieff, a contributor for the New York Times and former editor in chief of Dwell Magazine. The article, Shifting the Suburban Paradigm, echos the sentiment that I have towards the residential housing market. She starts out the article with a pretty succinct question, “Is there anything made in America that’s less innovative than the single-family home?” Maybe we need to take a step back and ask why people buy homes? Arieff comments that in the tough times for the housing developers, no one actually changed the way they did business, and why would they? They were still making money. Instead, they just hired better advertisers and more salesmen. We’ve all seen the signs and the brochures, Granite Counter-tops and Stainless Steel Appliances!!, is that why we buy a home? In the initial stages of my research I was able to sit down with Ryan Zygar, partner at Tamarack Homes, in Vancouver WA. It was obvious
26
|
o n
r e s e a r c h
|
that Ryan had a passion for home building and not only were we able to talk about the prototype A (suburban_tract) but the state of the housing market in general. What WPA and Tamarack did with the prototype was to try and put something into the housing market that people would buy; a modern house using the same materials, the same look, to fit the vernacular of the neighborhood but yet do it in a different way. Ryan and I both agreed, the housing market was broken. The huge boom in the housing market the last 30 years (prior to the crash in 2007) wasn’t because there were that many more people that could afford homes. It was a variety of reasons, the main one being that lending practices changed and put people into homes which they simply couldn’t afford. I’ve been saying this the entire time, the general practice of home building hasn’t changed in 30 years. What is interesting is that the number coincides with the major push in this country for Americans to be home owners.
As Ryan pointed out, “during the Reagan administration, the percentage of Americans that owned a home was about 63%. We’ve all heard the ideas that when oil is at $80 a barrel, that’s sustainable from an economic standpoint. In the 1980’s, when 63% of Americans owned a home, that was sustainable from a economic standpoint.” People who could afford homes moved to the suburbs and those who couldn’t lived in the cities or rented. When President George H. Bush took office in 1989, there was a huge push to increase the number of Americans that owned a home, as it was part of the American Dream to own a home. This led to the additional reform of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in 1992; sweeping reforms that incentivised lenders to loan to middle and low income families. This trend continued through President Clinton’s administration. In 1995, Freddie Mac began receiving affordable housing credits for buying subprime securities and mortgages. During those 12 years, home ownership numbers rose above 67%. When President George W. Bush took office, he pushed even harder to ensure that
anyone who wanted to own a home, could, and in 2003 legislation was passed to lessen regulations and make it easier for Americans to receive home loans. By the end of his time in office, just before the housing bubble burst, over 70% of Americans were home owners. The issue; there weren’t 7% more Americans that could afford a home, lenders were just putting people into homes that couldn’t afford them. All this circles back to what is actually pushing people to buy homes? Is it really the belief of all Americans that owning a home, with the green, freshly cut yard and the white picket fence is the end goal of a life spent working? While there are many differing opinions on what the American Dream is as it relates to home ownership and exactly how it is changing, one thing is clear; new home buyers are putting pressure on builders to make distinctive, cost-competitive products which is inspiring builders to make fundamental changes. Builders are now beginning to respond by bringing down home prices
i n t e r v i e w s
+
r e f l e c t i o n
o n
r e s e a r c h
|
27
and sizes. They are competing with an oversupply of existing homes, and costs for materials such as lumber and copper are rising. In the boom, buyers based home purchases on the expectation of big profits at resale. Demand grew for everything oversized and lavish, whether the features would be useful to the current buyers or not. New designs will be simpler; builders will need to analyze their designs and processes to cut costs. Shrewd designers will work with off-the-shelf material sizes and minimize labor-intensive measuring, cutting and nailing and material waste. During my research I also had the opportunity to meet with two builders in Indianapolis, Micah Hill of ReDevelopment Group (www. redev.net) and Chris Wright of Wright Works (www.wrightworks. net). Both are working in the Indianapolis area to provide homes and designs that meet these new standards. Talking with them was important in understanding where the home building industry was and where they thought it was headed. For the same reasons buyers like fuel-efficient vehicles, they are drawn to highly energy-efficient homes. A new energy-efficient, weather-
28
|
tight structure is one of the strongest arguments for new construction, with rising fuel costs, buyers see efficiency as a “must.” When the National Association of Home Builders surveyed members last year, 68% predicted homes were going “greener,” with low-emissivity windows, engineered wood components, water-efficient dual-flush toilets, low-flow faucets and other water-conserving features. Home-products manufacturers are making it easier, with counters, wall coverings, tile, hardwood flooring and paint with recycled content and reduced or eliminated off-gassing.7 Even the appraisal industry is on board, training appraisers to give extra credit for some green features when establishing the value of a home. The best designs will understand buyers’ needs and these products will have a sense of purpose.
i n t e r v i e w s
+
r e f l e c t i o n
o n
r e s e a r c h
|
29
s t a t e
o f
t h e
h o u s i n g
m a r k e t
|
Before the housing bubble burst in 2005, the average length of stay in a single family home was a little over 11 years for all home buyers, 9 years for first-time buyers, and a little under 13 years if the analysis was confined to trade-up buyers.8 These numbers have been steadily falling since the mid 80’s. Before the collapse, there were people buying homes and not even moving into them; they were buying homes and then turning around and selling them again, inflating home prices. “When you make the money so easy to get, the housing market has no incentive to look at itself and ask, what do we need to do in order to fix us?…because everyone was still making money.” - Ryan Zyger
% of homes behind or in foreclosure 10
30
|
1970 1977 1985 1995 1997 1999 2000 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
2.1%
1980
- Government establishes Freddie Mac, and it along with Fannie Mae are designed to purchase and securitize mortgages. - Community Reinvestment Act passed to encourage financial institutions to offer credit to low income groups and minorities. - Rising interest rates and over-development in real estate sector leads to Savings and Loan Crisis in 1989. - “Blueprint for Reinvention of HUD� proposes sweeping changes in public housing reform and FHA. - Taxpayer Relief Act offers tax relief for people on the profits gained from the sale of their personal residences. People start investing in second homes and investment properties. - Fannie Mae encourages institutions to offer home loans even to people who do not qualify for conventional loans. - Home ownership in the U.S reaches record high as 67.7% of American families own their home. - Congress passes the American Dream Down Payment Act. Freddie Mac reports to Federal Oversight committee - US Homeownership rate reaches 69.2%. The price of residential properties in some states increases by more than 20%. Fannie Mae discloses a $1.2 billion accounting error. - U.S Housing bubble bursts as more than 845,000 homes fall into foreclosure. - Housing prices fall, sales decrease, an additional 1.25 million homes fall into foreclosure. - Beginning of the Subprime Mortgage crisis, resulting in 4 large banks invested in mortgage securities filing bankruptcy. In four months, U.S. housing prices drop 7.5%. Additional 2.2 million homes fall into foreclosure. - U.S. sees the largest drop in housing prices since the Great Depression. By March 2008, housing prices had fallen 14.1% - Banks write off $31 billion in mortgages, foreclose on 3.95 million homes, 2.21% of all homes in the U.S. - Banks write off an additional $8 billion in mortgages, foreclose on 1.96 million homes.9
1984
1989
1990
1995
2000 s t a t e
2005 o f
t h e
h o u s i n g
14%
2010 m a r k e t
|
31
h o u s i n g
r i s i n g
t r e n d s
h o u s i n g
|
t r e n d s
d e s i g n
Quick profits from the resale of homes are out of the equation. This puts emphasis on design and on features that buyers will enjoy now. Shrinking demand for oversized and lavish. Extending living space outdoors .
n e i g h b o r h o o d
Almost one-third of American adults today are “doubled up,� or living in the same household with another adult generation. Could be kids who have come back home to live after college, or aging parents who have moved in with adult children. 7 Market for new and old homes with ADUs (accessory dwelling units) is strong. Buyers mostly want them as rentals, for supplemental income.
Opening up of rooms, maximizing layouts and sight lines.7 Emphasis on access to walking and biking paths, adjacency to outdoor space.
32
|
e n e r g y
c o n s t r u c t i o n
Efficient lighting and appliances, faucets that promote water conservation. Not only greener living, but cheaper living.
Lower operating costs reassure consumers who are putting every penny into a purchase and must contain ongoing expenses.
Installing updates that are more cost effective in the long term.
Educated homeowners are making informed choices, taking an active role in home improvement.
Residential energy use is the only sector that has seen a considerable increase per capita in the last half a century, while industrial, commercial and transportation sectors have either remained similar, or in the case of industrial energy use, gone down.11
Staying in homes longer, investing in updates instead of moving. Buyers equate big homes with escalating utility bills, housekeeping and maintenance burdens.12
h o u s i n g
t r e n d s
|
33
t r a c t
h o m e _ 2 0 1 2
r e s p o n s e
d e s i g n
The design concept was to take a single family residence and then place a 1 bedroom, 1 bath accessory dwelling unit behind it on the same lot. Converted units and basements have been around for decades, but this design of a supplemental unit is proposed as part of the initial construction, as an integral part of the design, making a property that can serve the owner through multiple stages of life. The goal: come up with a modern design that fulfills the needs of the modern family.
34
|
n e i g h b o r h o o d
The typical single family tract development is planned with no pedestrian consideration. The layouts seem arbitrary, made up of winding roads and cul-de-sacs, with little to no thought given to public space. Proposed is a return to neighborhoods that are based on a walkable block which helps orientate people and encourage pedestrian traffic.
e n e r g y
Designing homes that are both energy efficient and that model an efficient use of materials are things that can no longer be overlooked. Tight, well built homes are not only cheaper to live in, but require less energy to be put in by the homeowner to maintain. Of total energy consumption in the United States, residential structures consume 22%.11 While many have turned to concepts which produce their own energy, the best way to reduce energy costs is to simply use less.
c o n s t r u c t i o n
The construction process for homes has remained largely unchanged for three decades. By closely examining the building process we can streamline the designs in order to keep the square foot cost down without sacrificing quality. This is achieved not only through good design, but through strict accountability by both the architect and builder to foster the idea that you can have a well-built, quality home with a low per square foot cost and a low cost-of-ownership.
h o u s i n g
t r e n d s
|
35
a v e r a g e
U . S .
s i n g l e
h o u s e h o l d
f a m i l y
s i z e
|
h o m e s
The average size of the U.S. household has decreased from 3.37 in 1950 to 2.53 in 2010. In addition to the average household size decreasing because of a greater percentage of people living alone, the average family size decreased from 3.54 in 1950 to 3.05 in 2010.13 This reduction is inversely proportional to the average size of a new, single family home. In 1950 the average size of a new, single family home was only 983 sf, compared to the average home built in 2010 of 2438 sf.13
36
|
2438 sf 983 sf
| 2 0 1 0
| 1 9 5 0 2.53
3.37
Average size of household
Average size of household 292 sf/person
964 sf/person
a v e r a g e
h o u s e h o l d
s i z e
|
37
t r a c t
h o m e _ 2 0 1 2
This dramatic increase in the amount of square feet used per person correlates to the rise in U.S. energy consumption per capita. Since 1950, the average energy use per person has gone from 210 million Btus per person to 308 million Btus per person.11 In 2007, the largest distribution of homes built averaged 3500 sf, accounting for 26% of all homes. In 2010, the largest distribution of new homes built in the U.S averaged 2100 sf, accounting for 27% of homes built,13 showing a growing trend for smaller homes.
38
|
1950
1980
2010
308 million Btus 210 million Btus
tract home_2012 is 1960 sf, 19.6% smaller than the average size of a single family home built in 2010.
1960 sf
| t h _ 2 0 1 2
774 sf/person
a v e r a g e
h o u s e h o l d
s i z e
|
39
n e i g h b o r h o o d
w a l k a b l e
b l o c k
d e f i c i e n c i e s
s t r u c t u r e
lack of walkable block structure
40
|
|
walkable block structure
A study of 400 neighborhoods showed that households in pedestrian friendly neighborhoods make over three times as many transit trips and nearly four times as many walking and bicycle trips as households located in neighborhoods with poor pedestrian environments. Households in the highest pedestrian friendly areas drive half as much as those in the least pedestrianfriendly areas. Vehicle miles traveled per household in pedestrian-unfriendly neighborhoods could be reduced by as much as 10% with a significant improvement in the environment. The studied measures of pedestrian friendliness were density, proximity to employment, grid pattern streets, continuous sidewalks and easy street crossings.14
There is now an emergence of a new class of buyers - economically farsighted, environmentally conscious, and socially active - who are creating a major shift in the housing market. Buyers are seeking the convenience and sociability of a more complete community. n e i g h b o r h o o d
d e f i c i e n c i e s
|
41
v a r i a b l e
u s e
t y p e s
single building type and use
42
|
adjacent variable use types
Although conventional subdivisions are often called “neighborhoods,� they lack the characteristics traditionally found in neighborhoods. Zoning codes do nothing to promote shared parking or low parking ratios, eliminating the incentive for mixed building uses which are evenly distributed throughout suburban fabric. The largest reason for the deficiencies however is the absence of a neighborhood structure. The diverse and compact neighborhood unit, which was the building block of smart growth, has been abandoned and even outlawed, contributing to the fractured and inefficient landscape of suburbia.15 This has led to a less-efficient use of energy, natural resources, farmland, open spaces, time, and money.
Existing land-development regulations promote the separation of uses. Commercial, residential, and civic uses are separated from each other with no regard for distance and daily needs are only accessible by car. Roads are arranged in a discontinuous pattern that reduces choice of route and mode of transport. n e i g h b o r h o o d
d e f i c i e n c i e s
|
43
s i t e
s i t e
s e l e c t i o n
+
l a y o u t
|
s e l e c t i o n
zionsville indianapolis
metro area In looking for a site to start this re-imagined tract development, it was important that the site fit the general typology of a midwest town; that the area be expanding, that there were multiple business types within walking distance and that it had a real estate economy that could support the development.
44
|
indianapolis, indiana
th_2012
ore
sycam
boone county
in
zionsville
ma
w oak
Some towns where this could be implemented would need to update zoning laws and adapt current development standards. Zionsville, IN was chosen largely because key zoning and development standards are already in place. Numerous studies have been done on how to adapt non or low-functioning suburban areas; this project aims to target the need for new housing stock.
s i t e
s e l e c t i o n
+
l a y o u t
|
45
s i t e
a c c e s s
How far people are willing to walk to work, shop or to transit depends upon many factors. Pedestrian accessibility, the availability and condition of sidewalks and the amount and speed of traffic all contribute to how far and how often people choose to walk. Studies find the maximum walking distance is usually 1/4 mile.16 This is largely due to pedestrian unfriendly environments. As neighborhoods achieve higher densities and improve community shopping and pedestrian accessibility, the willingness to walk increases.
46
|
Aside from riding for exercise, studies show people are willing to ride a bicycle 1/2 mile for shopping and personal trips.16 Many of the same factors that effect walking distance also effect the distance people are will to ride a bike to get to amenities.
s i t e
s e l e c t i o n
+
l a y o u t
|
47
s i t e
a m e n i t i e s A key to encouraging diverse neighborhood structures is providing residents and businesses the opportunity to interact. This is done not only by having places to eat, play and shop within walking and biking distance, but by providing a sufficient network of sidewalks, trails and paths. The availability and condition of sidewalks where people feel safe, with a sufficient buffer and low speed limits, encourage the decision to leave the car in the garage. Zionsville and many other towns are now taking advantage of abandoned rail lines to create extensive trail and path networks; with planned trails to connect to adjacent towns that also have expanding networks.
e a t
48
|
p l a y
s h o p
trails & paths established planned proposed
s i t e
s e l e c t i o n
+
l a y o u t
|
49
s i t e
l a y o u t
+
p l a n n i n g
The site itself, currently a cornfield, is located on the east side of Eagle Creek, with downtown Zionsville opposite. Organized into 3 blocks, the 18.33 acre site can accommodate 47 .20 acre lots. Half the lots have views down to Eagle Creek and across to downtown, while all the lots look out onto shared greenspace. Perimeter trails can connect to the expanding system Zionsville already has in place. The tract home_2012 design concept is designed to fit on these compact, feature-rich lots; a single family residence with a 1 bedroom, 1 bath unit behind. This property will be able to serve the owner through multiple stages of habitation; living in the main residence while renting the accessory dwelling unit to supplement income, housing older kids or parents that need care-taking, and finally living in the accessory dwelling unit and renting the main residence.
traditional subdivision layouts. In this case, the addition of an accessory dwelling unit adds further density, with a neighborhood of 47 lots providing homes for 94 occupants groups or families. When going through design options, there was always the notion that the home design itself could be varied. This could be the addition of bedrooms and bathrooms or slight variation in layout. The opportunity also exists for other architects and builders who share similar design and construction philosophies to come in and purchase lots to add further variety to the neighborhood fabric. In the case of this specific research product, further iterations of tract home_2012 were not explored so that intense focus and energy could be put into the building cost analysis and energy modeling.
The block structure allows for increased density when compared to
This idea has never been presented as part of a complete solution in conjunction with stringent environmental and efficiency standards.
50
|
eag
le c
Es
ree k
-
yca mo re
b lo ck layo u t 4 7 lo t s s hare d gre e ns pace s t re e t par ki ng s hare d alle ys t rai l ne t wo r k
18.33 acre site
s i t e
s e l e c t i o n
+
l a y o u t
|
51
l o t
l a y o u t
+
a c c e s s The suburban residential blocks are deep and because of that, have the potential for increased density. The addition of alleys in the back can expand and increase connectivity. The alley need not be the only method of access however, as seen in many functioning neighborhoods. In these cases, access to both the home and accessory dwelling units could come from both the street or the alley, or both. Parking and cars play a critical role in the functionality of the urban and suburban landscape. Allowing on-street parking not only creates an additional buffer between the street and the pedestrian, but allows a reduction in the surface area needed to park cars on the lots themselves.
th_2012 access options
52
|
9’
57
6s
f
shared alley
150’
smaller setbacks
large side yard
main residence 2 0 ’ f ro nt s e t b ack 1 0 ’ s i de lo t s e t back -
19
9’
60
sf
ADU 1 0 ’ re ar s e t b ack 5 ’ s i d e lo t s e t back -
20’
60’ .20
street parking
acre lot size
s i t e
s e l e c t i o n
+
l a y o u t
|
53
t r a c t
o v e r a l l
54
|
h o m e _ 2 0 1 2
f l o o r
p l a n s
d e s i g n
|
main residence
first floor second floor total
- 1042 sf - 918 sf - 1960 sf
garage
- 572 sf
ADU
- 576 sf
t r a c t
h o m e _ 2 0 1 2
d e s i g n
|
55
f i r s t
f l o o r _ m a i n
r e s i d e n c e
tract home_2012 is a modern interpretation of the classic American Foursquare. Like the classic, the first floor contains the living room, eating area, kitchen and stair; in this case with a more open concept and only divided by builtin casework which separates the entry and living area. Large floor to ceiling windows in the living room as well as surrounding the patio entrance allow ample light into the main living areas. Additional windows on the small setback side are clerestory only, allowing light while maintaining privacy. The kitchen island contains the sink as well as an oversized area for additional seating. The 9 foot ceilings allow for stacked upper cabinets to provide ample storage while maximizing floor space. A separate rear entry serves as a mudroom with additional floor to ceiling built in storage. At the rear are a laundry room and half bath, along with an alcove off the kitchen to serve as a home office or technology center for the home computer and a place for kids to do homework or crafts. The two car garage is sized to allow for additional storage and contains the insulated mechanical closet.
56
|
main residence first floor entr y liv in g kitc h en & eatin g office h alf bath laun dr y m udroom m ec h an ic al garage patio
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
main residence first floor garage
- 1042 sf - 572 sf
7 6 9 5
8
3
2
4 1 10
t r a c t
h o m e _ 2 0 1 2
d e s i g n
|
57
s e c o n d
f l o o r _ m a i n
r e s i d e n c e
main residence The second floor contains two bedrooms with a shared hallway bathroom. Each of these bedroom has a builtin closet and large floor to ceiling windows to let in large amounts of natural light. The upstairs hall has a built in wall of storage as well as several areas that open to below to take advantage of large windows to light both the upper and lower floor. The master bedroom is located in the rear with a connected bathroom and closet. The master bedroom sits toward the rear of the house and includes the space above the rear entry which, with tall windows, makes an excellent sitting or reading space. The bathroom has a walk in shower and double vanities. Rooms are adequately sized, avoiding overly large rooms and limiting wasted space.
58
|
second floor h all bedroom on e bath room bedroom t wo m aster bedroom m aster bath c loset
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
main residence second floor
- 918 sf
5 4 6 7
3
2
1
t r a c t
h o m e _ 2 0 1 2
d e s i g n
|
59
a c c e s s o r y
d w e l l i n g
u n i t _
ADU The ADU starts with a canopy over the walkway from the provided parking space to the front door. You enter the unit into a small entry that opens to the main living area which contains a single file kitchen. The kitchen includes all major appliances with tall cabinets to maximize storage. In the back is a large bedroom with build in wardrobes along the back wall. These spaces are separated by a bathroom and utility core with contains room for storage and a stacked washer/dryer. The unit will employ a mini split HVAC system with one unit in the main living space and one in the bedroom. The closet in the utility core will house a small HRV and an instant hot water heater.
60
|
covered walk liv in g space bath room & utilit y bedroom parkin g
1 2 3 4 5
ADU
- 576 sf
1 5 4 3 2
t r a c t
h o m e _ 2 0 1 2
d e s i g n
|
61
t r a c t
h o m e _ 2 0 1 2
e l e v a t i o n s
face brick
cement board siding
19-2 _
_ 19-2
10 _
|
12
|
14
|
4
|
front elevation
62
|
standing seam metal panel 23-2 _ _ 19-2
_ 8-4 4 _
|
36
|
10
|
19-4
|
side elevation cement board panel
face brick
t r a c t
h o m e _ 2 0 1 2
d e s i g n
|
63
t r a c t
h o m e _ 2 0 1 2
e l e v a t i o n s cement board siding
face brick
19-2 _
_ 10-4
|
8-8
|
24
|
rear elevation
64
|
standing seam metal panel _ 23-2 19-2 _
_ 10
|
26-4
|
7
|
10
|
18-6
|
4
|
side elevation cement board siding
face brick
t r a c t
h o m e _ 2 0 1 2
d e s i g n
|
65
66
|
|
v i e w
f r o m
e .
s y c a m o r e t r a c t
s t .
h o m e _ 2 0 1 2
d e s i g n
|
67
cement board siding
A D U
e l e v a t i o n s 6 _
|
16
|
side elevation cement board siding 8-6 _
|
16
|
side elevation
68
|
cement board siding
standing seam metal panel
11-2 _ 8-8 _
_ 7-10
|
15-4
|
20-8
|
front elevation cement board panel
8-6 _ 6 _
|
12-6
|
18-3
|
5-3
|
rear elevation standing seam metal panel
cement board siding
t r a c t
h o m e _ 2 0 1 2
d e s i g n
|
69
70 |
s e c t i o n
20 sidewalk
9 buffer
on street parking
street
greenspace
l o t
6 4 94
shared alley
parking
ADU
main residence
37
9
18
t r a c t
h o m e _ 2 0 1 2
d e s i g n
|
71
v i e w
72
|
f r o m
s h a r e d
g r e e n s p a c e
|
t r a c t
h o m e _ 2 0 1 2
d e s i g n
|
73
e n e r g y
m o d e l i n g
e n e r g y
d i s t r i b u t i o n
u s e
The DOE01 and Energy Star classify energy use into seven main categories, splitting heating and cooling into separate categories to show differences in each IECC02 zone. Further graphics will show heating and cooling combined. Energy modeling was done through HEED03 with climate data drawn from IECC Zone 5.
$1,012 energy cost / year
74
|
$308
$286
$264
|
Annual energy bill for a typical single family home is approximately $2,200.17
$242
$88
46%
heating / cooling
14%
water heating
13%
appliances
12%
lighting
11%
$22 dollars in energy costs (1% of energy cost) Department of Energy - www.energy.gov 02 International Energy Conservation Code - www.iccsafe.org 03 Home Energy Efficient Design - www.energy-design-tools.aud.ucla.edu/heed 01
plug loads
4%
home electronics
e n e r g y
m o d e l i n g
|
75
m o d e l s
2x6 wood studs @ 24� O.C.
The energy model run to meet energy code is based on the 2008 California Energy Code, which went into effect January 1st, 2010. This code is one of the strictest residential energy codes in the nation and is set to be replaced by the 2015 California Energy Code currently being developed.
76
|
ACH - 5.0 or less - air-retarding house wrap appliance package
The Energy Star model was ran to conform to EPA guidelines for Energy Star qualified homes Version 3 (2011). Program requirements are designed to be met for buildings in IECC Zone 5. The second iteration only adds a heat recovery ventilator (HRV) to the HVAC system. Items listed are additions or changes to previous models.
HRV - 75% efficiency
furnace - AFUE .78 - air conditioner - SEER 13 - water heater - EF .60 windows and doors - double pane - U .35
furnace - AFUE .90 air conditioner - SEER 14.5 water heater - EF .67 windows and doors - double pane - U .32
energy star
energy code
insulation - walls - R 21 - ceiling - R 38 - floor - R 19
energy star +HRV
e n e r g y
2x4 double studs, 24� O.C. highest rated appliance package
The advanced construction model exceeds Energy Star qualifications by improving on several aspects. These include but are not limited to higher insulation values and improved windows. The tract home_2012 model is based on this model with the addition of a high efficiency HRV.
passivhaus
ACH - 1.0 or less
HRV - 85% efficiency
adv. construction
furnace - AFUE .97 air conditioner - SEER 19.5 water heater - EF 2.40 windows and doors - triple pane - U .18
adv. construction +HRV
insulation - walls - R 42 - ceiling - R 60 - floor - R 38
insulation - walls - R 45+ - ceiling - R 60+ - floor - R 45+ windows and doors - triple pane - U .14 ACH - 0.6 or less
The passivhaus model is designed to adhere to the strict standards set forth in the Passivhaus guidelines. Specific insulation values and wall construction types are not mandated in Passivhaus so the model was run to meet the measurable metrics of air changes per hour and heating and cooling loads.
e n e r g y
m o d e l i n g
|
77
e n e r g y
c o s t
/
y e a r This graph shows each home’s total energy cost per year. The homes are compared to a single family home that meets current energy code in order to observe the percent reduction. tract home_2012 costs 56% less to operate when compared to a single family home that meets energy code. Passivhaus01 is shown as a reference for what the most advanced methods in housing construction can produce. Although building to passivhaus standards does yield an additional 4% reduction in energy cost, the cost/benefit ratio is lower.
01
78
|
1% of energy costs per year Passive House Institute US - www.passivehouse.us
26%
$2,942
$2,244
$2,171
56%
adv. construction +HRV
adv. construction
energy star +HRV
energy star
energy code
54%
$1,347
60%
passivhaus
24%
$1,282
$1,173
energy cost / year th_2012
e n e r g y
m o d e l i n g
|
79
s i t e
e n e r g y
u s e This graph shows each home’s total site energy use in kBtu / sqft / year. The homes are again compared back to a single family home which meets current energy code in order to observe the percent reduction in overall site energy use. tract home_2012 uses 62% less energy than a single family home which meets energy code. Beyond Energy Star guidelines, there is a greater kBtu / sqft reduction as a percentage of total site energy cost because heating is such a large percentage of the total energy reduction. Natural gas is 325% more cost effective per kWh equivalent than electricity.
1% of energy costs per year kBtu / sqft / year
80
|
24%
26%
21%
25%
54%
56%
58%
60%
62%
85.50
67.67
64.29
36.32
passivhaus
adv. construction +HRV
adv. construction
energy star +HRV
energy star
energy code
67%
32.51
27.99
energy cost / year vs. kBtu / sqft / year th_2012
e n e r g y
m o d e l i n g
|
81
H V A C
s i z i n g
v s .
A C H
0 1
This graph shows the required output of each home’s HVAC system contrasted against the home’s ACH. As a home’s infiltration rate02 (IR) gets smaller, the amount of energy it takes to heat and cool the volume decreases dramatically. The required HVAC system output for tract home_2012 is 49% less than a single family home which meets code. The current Energy Star guidelines require a home’s ACH to be 5 or less in zone 5, measured with a blower door test at 50 pascals03. By stark contrast, passivhaus requires an ACH of 0.6. Getting the ACH down to 1.0 is achievable through good design and strict construction tolerances.
1 kBtu / sqft / year (normalized HVAC system sizing ) air changes per hour 02 IR at winter design low temp in cubic feet per minute (used for HVAC sizing) 03 pascal (Pa) - unit of pressure 01
82
|
17%
IR - .68
IR - .45
32.92
IR - .45
5.0
56%
29.65
IR - .09
1.0 5.0
49% adv. construction +HRV
48.54
adv. construction
51.52
energy star +HRV
58.65
energy star
energy code
44%
passivhaus
12%
IR - .09
1.0
25.63 0.6
IR - .05
th_2012
7.6 kBtu / sqft / year vs. ACH
e n e r g y
m o d e l i n g
|
83
30% e n e r g y r e d u c t i o n i n t o p t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s
65%
As illustrated in previous graphs, the reduction in HVAC system sizing is directly related to ACH and how the home is built. Other factors also play large roles, such as insulation value and window and door U value.
84
|
energy code
While the energy reduction in hot water heating is also substantial, these graphs are meant to illustrate that to see large drops in energy use, the way that we construct homes has to change. Even with the best performing appliances on the market, the 19% reduction in energy use only accounts for less than 1 kBtu / sqft / year in energy use.
energy star +HRV
A reduction of 65% energy use in the heating / cooling category is great in its own right, but this reduction of over 40 kBtu’s per year is 76% of the total energy reduction in the advanced construction scheme.
adv. construction +HRV
The following graphs show the energy reduction in the top three energy use categories in kBtu / sqft / year. The comparisons are between the best case in each energy model scenario; energy code, energy star + HRV and advanced construction + HRV.
63.43
44.62
kBtu / sqft / year 1% of energy use
heating / cooling th_2012
22.20
11%
14%
19%
10.89
9.70 water heating th_2012
1.63
adv. construction +HRV
energy star +HRV
energy code
energy code
energy star +HRV
adv. construction +HRV
85%
5.59
5.19
4.88
appliances th_2012
e n e r g y
m o d e l i n g
|
85
t r a c t
d e t a i l e d
h o m e _ 2 0 1 2
w a l l
c o n s t r u c t i o n
a s s e m b l y
tract home_2012’s wall assembly starts with a 2x4 double stud framing system. This system consists of two, aligned, 2x4 wall assemblies at 24” O.C., with a 2” space in between. The framing is done based on OVE (optimum value engineering) standards. OVE framing standards are designed to lower material and labor costs while improving the energy performance of the building by reducing thermal bridging and minimizing areas where air infiltration can occur. This construction will also include right-sized, insulated headers and sill and top plate gaskets. The main wall contains blown dense cellulose insulation with an approximate R value of 30. Outside of the main wall, 2” of rigid insulation add an additional R-10, attached to the fully taped ZIP sheathing systems that acts as the air and water barrier. A UV resistant building paper is placed on the rigid insulation wherever a rain screen system is employed, but it is not needed if face brick or an overlapping cladding system is used. Triple pane, fiberglass framed, casement windows and insulated doors finish off the wall assembly.
86
|
|
cement board siding 3/4” furring strips UV resistant building paper triple pane windows 2” rigid insulation R-10 ZIP sheathing system blown cellulose insulation R-30 2x4 double stud framing OVE standards 2 4 ” O. C insulated, hung headers sill and top plate gaskets
th_2012
t r a c t h o m e _ 2 0 1 2 c o n s t r u c t i o n
| 87
2x4 double stud, 24” O.C.
R 30 - blown cellulose
ZIP sheathing
R 10 - 2” rigid insulation
UV resist. building paper
3/4” furring
cement board siding
b u i l d i n g
e n v e l o p e
c o s t s windows and doors triple pane windows - U .18 exterior wall system building framing m a t e r i a l s l a b o r insulation blown cellulose R-30+ rigid foam R-10+ exterior cladding c e m e n t b o a r d standing seam metal panel b r i c k roofing standing seam roof TPO roof guttering & downspouts
88
|
$13,213
$23,300 $65,610 $30,870 $10,632 $24,108
$102,123 total price $52.10 per/sf t r a c t
h o m e _ 2 0 1 2
c o n s t r u c t i o n
|
89
i n t e r i o r
+
f i n i s h
c o s t s interior walls and flooring drywall flooring millwork and finishing finishing and trim p a i n t c o n t r a c t r a i l i n g s lighting
casework built-in cabinets kitchen cabinets appliance package
90
|
$3,250 $44,087 $10,184 $18,718 $15,185
$8,500
$15,925 $71,762 total price $36.61 per/sf t r a c t
h o m e _ 2 0 1 2
c o n s t r u c t i o n
|
91
s y s t e m s
c o s t s
electrical electrical allowance conduit and connect
plumbing heat pump water heater fixtures & install sewer and water hookup
H VAC H VAC s y s t e m s a n d d u c t i n g gas furnace - AFUE .97 air conditioner - SEER 19.5 heat recovery ventilator air filtration unit additional construction costs
92
|
$5,250 $9,750 $2,000 $7,750
$12,500 $7,710
$35,210 total price $17.96 per/sf t r a c t
h o m e _ 2 0 1 2
c o n s t r u c t i o n
|
93
| building envelope costs
$23,300 $65,610 $30,870 $10,632
$24,108
$13,213
windows and doors triple pane windows - U .18 exterior wall system building framing insulation blown cellulose R-30+ rigid foam R-10+ exterior cladding c e m e n t b o a r d standing seam metal panel b r i c k
|interior & finish costs
$44,087 $10,184 $18,718 $15,185
$3,250 $15,925 $8,500
94
|
lighting casework
roofing
$102,123 total price $52.10 per/sf
interior walls and flooring drywall flooring millwork and finishing finishing and trim p a i n t c o n t r a c t r a i l i n g s
built-in cabinets kitchen cabinets
appliance package
$71,762 total price $36.61 per/sf
|system costs
$5,250 $9,750
$2,000 $7,750
$12,500
$7,710
electrical electrical allowance conduit and connect plumbing heat pump water heater fixtures & install sewer and water hookup H VAC
systems and ducting gas furnace - AFUE .97 air conditioner - SEER 19.5 heat recovery ventilator air filtration unit
t o t a l
c o n s t r u c t i o n
c o s t s
The costs outlined here are the constructed costs for their respective category. These costs are based on detailed analysis of materials, labor, and cost per square foot estimates. They do not include the cost of land, permits, or fees. These costs are for the construction of the main residence and do not include the garage or the ADU, so as to not skew the numbers. Volume building savings is an estimate of the savings when negotiating the cost of materials and labor for multiple homes.
additional construction costs
$35,210 total price $17.96 per/sf
cost for main residence volume building savings @ 50 homes final estimated cost
$209,095 total price $31,364 -15% $177,731 t r a c t
$106.68 per/sf
h o m e _ 2 0 1 2
$90.68 per/sf c o n s t r u c t i o n
|
95
|
p o s t s c r i p t
Despite the severity of the housing market, there is still a need to design and build new homes; people will always need a place to live and the housing landscape is constantly changing. In looking at population growth and the estimates of the housing stock needs by 2020, right now there are not enough lots being planned and developed to meet the demand.
With this thesis I have gained a new understanding and appreciation for the mass produced residential market. It is my hope that this work applies intellect to a field of design that frequently suffers from emotional bias, ignorance, and, for the lack of a better description, professional denial.
Throughout the process of researching and assembling this work, the #1 question I was asked by others was: Why tract homes? My response varied depending on who asked, but it always included my sentiment that if we as Architects don’t try and provide an alternative to what is out there, things are never going to change. In spite of the negative stigma that has been attached to tract homes and developments, they continue to be built by the hundreds of thousands every year, mostly without an architects involvement.
The goal of this research, beyond creating a modern design for today’s buyer, was to challenge and dispel the misconceptions about green, energy efficient design. While Energy Star is a step in the right direction, it is simply not enough and the rate at which the standards are improving lag behind other energy use sectors. This work shows how with simple changes, we can transform the residential building industry, and shortly, the methods and practices that are considered costly, foreign or advanced can become the norm.
While there are a handful of builders who are looking at new ways to construct homes, it is going to take architects and builders working together to change 30 plus years of entrenched habits.
Any questions or inquiries about the work contained herein should be directed to tracthome.2012@gmail.com
p o s t s c r i p t
|
97
e n d n o t e s
e n d n o t e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
r e f e r e n c e s
Jack P. Friedman, Jack C. Harris and J. Bruce Lindeman. (2008). Dictionary of Real Estate Terms. New York: Barronâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Educational Series, Inc., 7th edition. Kopec, David. March (2003). Attack of the Cookie-cutter Home. Realty Times. Works Partnership Architecture. (2010). suburban tract. <http://tracthouse.tumblr.com/thestudy>. Works Partnership Architecture. (2010). suburban tract. <http://tracthouse.tumblr.com/thedesign>. about. nuts & bolts. (2010). <http://www.kithaus.com/kh_about.swf>. Ludeman, Chad. (2010). 100K HOUSE PROJECT. < http://postgreenhomes.com/customize/>. Lewis, Marilyn. (2012). Smaller, cheaper, more flexible â&#x20AC;&#x201D; and 5 other ways new homes are changing with the economy. MSN Real Estate. < http:// realestate.msn.com/8-ways-the-economy-is-changing-new-homes>. Emrath, Paul Ph.D. (2009). How Long Buyers Remain in Their Homes. NAHB, American Housing Survey, U.S. Census Bureau and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. <http://www.nahb.org/generic.aspx?%20sectionID=734&genericContentID=110770&channelID=311>. HomeGuide411. (2010). The U.S. Housing Crisis - How the Housing Crisis Burst. < http://www.homeguide411.com/index.php?option=com_ content&view=article&id=16 >. Homes in Foreclosure. National Deliquency Survey, Mortgage Bankers Assoc. < http://www.doctorhousingbubble.com/housing-market-non-paymentsforeclosures-10-financial-charts-united-states-housing-problems/>. How We Use Energy. (2011). The National Academy of Sciences. <http://needtoknow.nas.edu/energy/energy-use/>. Li, Roland. (2011). 10 Trends in U.S. Housing. International Business Times < http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/271769/20111222/housing-trendhomebuyer-residential-2011-2012-mortgage.htm?page=4>. People and Households Data. (2011). U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC. < http://www.census.gov/people/>. 1000 Friends of Oregon. (1994). LUTRAQ Update. Portland, OR. Tachieva, Galina. (2010). Sprawl Repair Manual. Washington. Island Press.
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
98
|
|
16
David Unterman. (1990). Accommodating the Pedestrian: Adapting Towns and Neighborhoods for Walking and Bicycling., in Personal Travel in the US, Vol. II, A Report of the Findings from 1983-1984 NPTS, Source Control Programs, U.S. DOT. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2009). Where Does My Money Go?. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. <http://www.energystar.gov/index. cfm?c=products.pr_pie>.
s u g g e s t e d
a d d i t i o n a l
17
r e a d i n g
Day, Jennifer Cheeseman. Projections of the Number of Households and Families in the United States:1995 to 2010. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Current Population Reports, P25-1129, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Andres Duany, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, Jeff Speck. (2000). SUBURBAN NATION: The Rise of Sprawl and the decline of the American Dream. New York. North Point Press. Alana Stang, Christopher Hawthorne. (2005). the gren house: New Directions in Sustainable Architecture. New York. Princeton Architectural Press. Characteristics of New Housing. (2010). U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC. <http://www.census.gov/construction/chars/>.
-
e n d n o t e s
|
99
i m a g e
[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]
[ [ [ [ [ [ [
0 1 1 1 1 1 1
9 0 1 2 3 4 5
] ] ] ] ] ] ]
1 0 0 |
r e f e r e n c e s
|
levittown_page51_2. [online image] <http://www.jamescolincampbell.com/comparable-sales-approach/>. [online image] < http://exploitedtimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/tract-homes.jpg>. Works Partnership Architecture. 1st July, 2010. [online image] < http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l5aywqhACx1qbh7dvo1_400.jpg>. kitHAUS. k1_4.jpg [online image] < http://www.kithaus.com/>. PostGreen Homes, photo by Sam Oberter. passive_exterior_06.jpg [online image] < http://postgreenhomes.com>. Hodney, Chris. www.chrishodney.com [online image] < http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l7exj4Av0c1qbh7dvo1_400.jpg>. personal photograph. PostGreen Homes, photo by Sam Oberter. 100k Exterior Front Image. [online image] < http://www.flickr.com/photos/postgreen/3501927588/in/set72157617694297920>. PostGreen Homes, photo by Sam Oberter. passive_exterior_03.jpg [online image] < http://postgreenhomes.com>. kitHAUS. k1_3.jpg [online image] < http://www.kithaus.com/>. kitHAUS. k1_2.jpg [online image] < http://www.kithaus.com/>. 15th August, 2008. [online image] <http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/Zionsville%2C_Indiana_street.png>. homeSlider2.jpg [online image] <http://www.zionsville-in.gov/>. homeSlider5.jpg [online image] <http://www.zionsville-in.gov/>. homeSliderMainSt.jpg. [online image] <http://www.zionsville-in.gov/>.
t r a c t
h o m e _ 2 0 1 2
pushing design, affordability & efficiency forward 1 0 2 |