Home Automation and Smart Home Technology Thomas Wakeman

Home Automation and Smart Home Technology Designing homes for the 21st Century Thomas Wakeman • Welsh School of Architecture Year 3

•

Issues in Contemporary Architecture

2

How do you design a home for the 21st century?

When setting out to design a new home, the minds of most architects and self-builders are usually filled with a multitude of ideas and aspirations and for the most part, this simple question probably never actually comes up. Ideas tend to come intuitively, quickly turning into decisions and not before long, the foundations are being poured and you are under pressure to start finalising plans quickly and making sure the project runs as smoothly and economically as possible. Unsurprisingly, most homes end up becoming a direct reflection of the fashion trends and technology of their time. Designers can delude themselves into thinking that if a building outperforms itself right now, this will still be the case 40, 50 years down the line. If you consider, however, the majority of UK homes built during the 60’s and 70’s in a time where new innovation and technology was becoming widely available, the majority had already become outdated and obsolete as little as 20-30 years later, whilst their pre-war counterparts are still going strong today. Why is this?

The money and resources invested in a new home must represent a lifespan that can justify that investment, but are we still fundamentally constructing new homes in 2013 the way we were 50 years ago? This essay attempts to ask, what is the definition of a “smart” home? How long should a 21st century home be designed to last, and what does the resurgence of home automation in the last decade mean for modern construction?

Architectural Design Magazine, 1967.

1

1

Vidle, A. 2012. Troubles In Theory Part III: The Great Divide: Technology vs Tradition. The Architectural Review

1

It was in 1923 when Le Corbusier first coined the phrase “A House is a machine for living in”, perhaps one of the most profound statements in contemporary architecture. 80 years later, that vision of an efficient automated home for the machine age finally started to become a reality with the advent of prefabrication and “modern conveniences”.

The word ‘convenience’ is the quintessential term here, everything was designed in mind of a utopian vision where all the laborious and everyday mundane tasks would be overcome by the flick of a switch. It conjures up images of the first fitted kitchens with built-in modern appliances, arrays of mysterious dials, elaborate lighting design and cheap plastics, Amtico and Formica.

A short 25 minute recording from 1967 entitled “The 21st Century”2 attempted to depict what a home might be like in the year 2001. It is fascinating seeing how architects, and engineers imagined technology would evolve, and albeit very retro and Star Trek, the majority of the actual concepts have become a reality. Most of the components were envisaged for entertainment and convenience: 3d television; surround sound; CCTV; flat pack furniture; automatic blinds and microwave ovens. Also, the idea that people could work from home and need never enter the office again, with a quote from Winston Churchill “A home is more than just a living unit”, demonstrating early concepts for the fax machine, personal computer and teleconferencing. At the same time, Monsanto, ironically the corporation responsible for some of the most controversial developments in bioengineering, GM crops and chemicals like agent orange, released a 12 minute video “house of the future”3, depicting a futuristic automated house made entirely from plasticbased products.

Following the 60’s and 70’s, technologies quickly became obsolete or abandoned and the driving forces to push their development were too expensive for domestic application. As with any new technology, it is wise to err on the side of caution as hidden problems can reveal themselves. Asbestos, lead-based paints and pipes, aluminium electrical conductors and vulcanised rubber insulation, galvanised steel plumbing, asphalt-based flat roofs and a whole array of short-lived toxic synthetic materials are but a few of the architectural nightmares

Source: ence

http://jezebel.com/5325679/stacked-for-conveni-

Walter Cronkite - "The 21st Century" CBS, March 12, 1967

2 The CBS Show 1967, The 21st Century, Walter Cronkite March 12, 1967 <https://www.youtube.com/ watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=__MGYrcapdk> 3 Disney’s House of the Future in (the old) tomorrowland, Monsanto, June 13 1957, online video, <http:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoCCO3GKqWY>

1960’s Integrated kitchen advert. Source: httpwww.examiner.comarticlehistory-of-the-modern-kitchen-part-1-whereit-all-began

2

inherited from the era.

Energy efficiency and environmental control as we know it today was touched upon with the idea of “solar cells” and the concept of entirely electronic. Though commonplace nowadays, this was a pipe dream and often took the sideline. Financial gain was the only incentive, tariffs such as Economy 7 becoming popular because it was cheaper to run hungry appliances on surplus down-time power. “Clean” all-electric heating was a new concept, where “polluting” solid fuels, gas flues and chimneys would all become a thing of the past. Storage heating became popular in the UK due to its extremely cheap running costs. Elements would heat up thermal stores overnight, much the same as modern heat pumps, this heat was then available to use during the day. The concept of efficient resource use had begun, but mainly for all the wrong reasons.

1964 advert for vinyl asbestos floor tiles, source: http:// www.2edges.com/ebay/march-08/ruberoid.jpg

1964 advert for vinyl asbestos floor tiles, source: http:// www.2edges.com/ebay/march-08/ruberoid.jpg

3

50 Years on... The Emergence of the “Smart Home” By the early 1990’s, new technology in construction and environmental control started to make a comeback.

Major concerns about the stability of the global environment created a new driving force for change. The construction industry and housing sector were deemed most responsible for global resource and fossil fuel consumption; legislation and the cost of living quickly became the incentive for much more energy efficient and high-tech homes. Coupled with the birth of the internet and mobile technologies, the “Smart House” was developed with a wide range of technologies widely available to integrate into a house (right). Combined with new methods of air-tight construction, high levels of insulation, super-efficient glazing and a concern for the “healthy home” including issues such as controlled ventilation, low VOC paints, non-toxic fabrics e.t.c. it became possible to construct “healthy”, “low impact” and “Passivhaus” standard homes with virtually no net energy consumption.

In reality, the scale of smart home adoption has not kept up with the pace of technological developments in the UK. Michael McDonough, The Smart House, states: “Convenience would-it was assumed-drive the market, and smart house technology would be a selling point in new house sales. The internet-just starting to blossomwould function as a communications pipeline. Eventually everyone would want the stuff, and a golden age of automated ease would dawn”. Instead, it has become vogue in high-end construction, with self-builders and DIY enthusiasts being the main advocates. Initial setup costs seem to outweigh the long-term benefits, and specialist consultants are required. Early integrated systems were complicated, and as McDonough suggests, relying on one bespoke system to run your entire house can prove problematic when something goes wrong. Maybe passwords get forgotten, or the software company no longer exists. Ironically, the website listed in the book for monitoring the performance of McDonough’s own next generation smart home in upstate New York, the “e-House2000” is already no longer available 13 years on. Julie V. Iovine, New York Times, refers to “The smartalec home”: “If the 1990’s brought widespread consumer acceptance of in-home theater, wireless communications, home PC’s and smart appliances, the new decade brings promise -- or threat -- of ‘’convergence,’’ the ultimate integration of everything in the house.”

Source: http://www.triconhomes.com/home-automation/

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

4

HVAC controls MVHR Heat pumps Central air Energy management Smart metering Home cinema and audio Satellite Fibre-optics Energy efficient lighting Security, CCTV and alarms Phones Data Mobile devices Solar arrays Window blinds Rainwater harvesting Smart appliances

Is technology damaging our health?

As homes become more sophisticated and energy efficient, new technologies allow designers to achieve outstanding performance without changing the actual construction. Boasting extremely good R-values and air tightness, expanded insulation products including polyurethane, polystyrene and polyisocyanurate foams have taken the lead, with concerns over their long term health effects. Recent fears over the use of brominated compounds, fire retardants and toxic blowing agents have led to the EU proposing a ban of some common chemicals by 20154. Off-gassing can cause compounds associated with cancer, hormonal inbalance and cognitive disorders like autism to accumulate in the environment, a situation reminiscent of asbestos. Similarly, MDF uses the neurotoxin formaledhyde as an adhesive - as MDF is now used so extensively, there is warrant for concern both from fine particles and formaldehyde vapours which have yet unknown long term health effects.

In terms of home automation, a concern of similar proportions exists around Wifi-based networking creating a cloud of radiofrequency radiation in our homes and places of work. This is now the most universal way of interconnecting devices and systems, and many are moving away from hard-wired setups. What this means for designers, is that conventional cabling or ducting required is being omitted altogether. The long term effects of mobile phone and WIFI exposure has become a topic of great debate over recent years, but it is already widely acknowledged that short-term close range exposure has detrimental effects. A study by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) reported findings that holding a mobile phone to your ear has the effect of heating up the brain, and modifying the rate of brain glucose metabolism5.

This can potentially lead to the development of brain tumours and other neurological disorders. Whether it be for health reasons or improved methods of networking, it is reasonable to speculate that radio frequency devices may become obsolete or even outlawed in 20 years. The implications of this would be astronomical, particularly in construction and the design of homes.

Source: http://greenspaceconstruct.com/

Source: http://www.productsandservices.bt.com/products/ broadband

Thermographic image of the head with no exposure to harmful cell phone radiation.

4 Alex Wilson, Building Green http://www2. buildinggreen.com/blogs/flame-retardant-usedpolystyrene-be-banned-eu 5 Volkow, N.D. et al 2011. Effects of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Signal Exposure on Brain Glucose Metabolism. The Journal of The American Medical Association

Thermographic image of the head after a 15-minute phone call. Yellow and red areas indicate thermal (heating) effects that can cause negative health effects

Source: http://www.hardwareinsight.com/10-cell-phonesyou-better-avoid/

5

Changing the way we construct homes...

If we step to one side from the technological developments and concerns of the past 50 years, it is interesting to consider how little structural design has changed. If you take a typical new build within the last few decades and compare it with a home from the 60’s or as early as the 40’s, there are very few structural differences.

Masonry, cavity wall construction has long been the method of choice. High thermal mass, concrete floor slabs, numerous single-function internal rooms divided by load-bearing walls and wet construction methods are standard issue. Fundamentally unaccustomed to deviating from this norm, contractors have started to retrofit smart technologies into traditional construction, a counterintuitive approach resulting in homes that are the opposite of “smart”. Are we still using thermal mass to heat homes and create that sense of solidity and protection from the elements, when we are speculating that insulation and air tight sheeting be placed on the inside? The logical answer is no. Arguing that masonry homes better stand the test of time over other construction is also unsubstantiated, especially given the insight of the past 50 years. Assuming more physically durable materials guarantee greater longevity is naive; we must consider a material’s ability to be adapted to accommodate structural, aesthetic and environmental alterations. A useful analogy is concrete buildings, which have proven to be some of the shortest lifespan structures because people failed to recognise concrete weathers and degrades just like any other material when exposed to the elements. It is rarely economical to carry out the updates necessary for decaying 60’s concrete buildings and is simpler to knock down and start again.

Even simple tasks like chasing a new electrical box into a wall become extremely cumbersome jobs.

In the design of “smart” homes, not just those integrating “smart technologies”, it is critical to choose construction methods and materials which allow for straight forward modifications down the line. Even if systems design and integration remains a foreign concept to most architects, consideration toward future potential requires considerable thought. In addition, current trends in home design have seen people wanting much more open-plan concepts with flexible space and unconventional layouts. Older homes typically had dedicated kitchen, dining, formal living, and more “bedroom” spaces than you actually need to perform various other functions, typically with one large family bathroom on the upper floor. Nowadays, modern

Typical example of a “Modern” UK Home. Source: http://simslife.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/ roller-shutters-british-house.jpg

Is traditional construction always the right way to go?

US Timber framed home. Source: http://www.prlog. org/10120512-house-construction-at-bryant-lake-lagrange. jpg

6

demands have changed completely, combining kitchen, dining and living into one large space and separate ancillary rooms such as den, study, laundry rooms, pantry, games rooms e.t.c. that can be shut off when you want to. There is also benefit in allocating more space to utilities, mudrooms, and ensuite wetrooms, as well as built-in storage.

A research report published last year by Ipsos MORI for the RIBA entitled ‘The way we live now: What people need and expect from their homes’, attempts to understand what the average person looks for when choosing a home. Victorian and Georgian homes are particularly popular, as they often have many of the ‘character’ aspects people look for which have become removed altogether from modern designs. Large windows, high ceilings, feature fireplaces, architectural millwork and large dramatic living and dining spaces with the potential to knock through into the kitchen are common with this era of construction. They also typically include plenty of built-in closets and features such as bookcases, basement (cellar) space for storage and utilities, and the raised timber floors and lathe plaster walls make rewiring and modification straight forward. Nooks and spaces under stairs, around bay windows, larder pantries and unusual rooms also provide excellent potential for a whole range of diverse modern functions. Most participants, when asked about the ‘home information pack’, and the relevance of energy efficiency in influencing their choice, said this would not be a deciding factor, especially if any of the above were particularly strong.

Have we lost the art of designing good interior spaces in favour of white boxes devoid of the tangible things people actually want? Undeniably, a lot of current trends in home and interior design are also highly influenced by the American market, even down to the demand for American-style appliances: fridge-freezers, oven/range arrangements, washers/dryers, spray taps (faucets) and the whole array of built-in features like garbage disposal, central vacuum, laundry chutes, built in closets e.t.c. common in US homes. These are gradually filtering their way into the UK market, but a lot of aspects are just not compatible with the way we build here. Construction methods need to change to better accommodate flexibility, large spans and systems that didn’t exist 50 years ago.

Today: Images from Danish Timber Construction Firm, Mi Casa 'Building with wood, Unique Living with MiCasa Key findings: consumer needs and demands for 21stcentury housing What people need and expect from their homes: • • •

• • • • •

7

“Large windows for natural light, large rooms and high ceilings, typically referred to as ‘period features’ Large main living area for eating and socialising, either with members of the household or for entertaining guests Layouts which take into account technology used within the home (this meant they expected homes to have enough television and plug sockets for them to arrange rooms and furniture in different layouts, to support greater use of electronic devices. They also expected suitable provision for computers and telephones which, with wireless technologies, are now moved around the home) Space for private time away from other members of the household Private space outside, particularly for families, or access to green public space in urban locations Long-term and short-term storage for functional items, and for personal possessions people have chosen to keep during their lives Dedicated space for domestic utility tasks, such as, washing, drying and ironing clothes, as well as for storing vacuum cleaners, rubbish bins and recycling Options for different layouts, as no consensus was reached for a single standard layout which was preferred across all households and life stages”

The American and Scandinavian model of construction: The call for timber framing The American market for smart homes and automation has progressed at a much faster pace than in the UK. American architects and housebuilders have integrated much more sophisticated and standardised methods into regular construction. The Market Potential for Smart Homes’ evaluation of the US market comments: “The American experience demonstrates it is possible to link up kitchen appliances, intruder alarms and home entertainment centres... moreover, some modern home network solutions now have a consistent and logical look and feel about them, and their use is becoming more intuitive”. Having first hand experience of a number of American-built houses, I can agree that this typically is the case, and there are a number of reasons why. The first reason is space. Typically, integrating systems into a home requires space for running cables and ducts to rooms and housing mechanical devices and equipment.

Although the actual footprint is not necessarily any larger, the average floor area can be up to 2-4 times an equivalent UK home. The nature of the American climate and the low frost line in many areas makes it logical to dig basements, providing ample space for plant rooms, laundry, storage and all the clutter that gets squeezed into cupboards and garages in the UK. Many would argue, given the cost of land, this would be an equally logical solution here.

Secondly, 90% of US homes are timber framed6, as well as being a highly sustainable material, with the UK CAT promoting British softwoods like larch and Douglas Fir as excellent framing materials, the availability of high-performance external cladding: long-lasting cedar shingles; engineered cellulose fibre siding and highperformance alu-clad timber windows, it is much more economical, especially when building up several storeys.

The lightweight and hollow nature of timber framing also makes installing commercial-sized mechanical systems adapted for domestic use, efficient ducts and electrical conduits very economical. Standard, consumer-friendly networking and data faceplates are placed in walls around the home, and typically all terminate in a radial nature to one main basement plant room. It has become common to future-proof homes for electrical and mechanical updates by installing large ducts between important locations such as the main board, TV’s, hall control panel, thermostat/climate control panel e.t.c. making it easy to

Scandinavian Timber Framed System by Mi Casa, Energy Efficient Project. Source: http://www.micasa.be

6 Centre for Alternative Technology, http://www. sda-uk.org/timber.htm

Source: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1299989/billybarsbasement-theater-etc-build/150

8

rip out or pull through new wiring if and when required.

In a conference by Mathieu Gallissot and Olivier Gandit entitled ‘From home automation to smart homes’, an important comment was made: “While a typical home automation system has a relatively long life cycle (with an average of 25 years, identical to electrical installations), brown and white products have a shorter cycle of life, with renewing every 5 - 10 years... The technology associated to these products also changes faster, and therefore, systems must adapt in consequence.” This means that the main investments in a system are likely to remain fixed for a large portion of the building’s lifespan, but as interfaces become sleeker and more user-friendly, faceplates, appliances, user control panels e.t.c. need replacing.

On the topic of user interfaces and peripherals in the home, Chris Tweed, BRE Centre for Sustainable Design of the Built Environment, in his publication Understanding occupants’ interactions with low energy architecture: getting beyond the “stupid user” mentality’ puts forward the concept of “affordances” in architectural systems design. A simple analogy is to look at occupants’ understanding of room thermostats. Even though it is an extremely simple and common component of all homes, it represents an invaluable “affordance”; the ability for people to control their environment and regulate their heating consumption. Tweed refers to two folk theories of room thermostat behaviour: “The first is the feedback theory” (which is technically accurate from a designer’s point of view) “...in which the thermostat shuts down the heat supply when the monitored room temperature reaches a value (the set point) indicated by the thermostat... and switches it on again when the temperature drops below a lower specified temperature.”

“The second folk theory is the valve theory, which assumes that the thermostat controls the flow of heat from the boiler by narrowing and widening an opening in the heat supply pipes or ducts.” (Kempton, 1986). This is a common misconception, as wall thermostats do not have this capability, they only regulate the ambient temperature in the room. “The valve theory leads occupants to adjust the thermostat setting frequently to respond to changing conditions and requirements. Occupants, for example, will often turn the thermostat down before going to bed, thereby providing their own night setback for the heating system.” Although this is at odds with low energy and Passivhaus design, it can actually be more efficacious and energy efficient to introduce fluctuations, because the heating is only operating when people want it to be.

(left) 1970's home automation: lighting control panel (right) today: Phillips whole-house LCD panel combining multiple functions into one ethernet-controlled system

1952 Honeywell thermostat advert. Source: http://www.vintage-adventures.com/en/home-appliance-furnishings/6211952-honeywell-ad-thermostat-jigglers.html

9

Tweed argues that complex mechanical systems integrated into low-energy homes can place significant cognitive, physical and psychological demands on their inhabitants, especially people with little or no technical knowledge: “Ingold (2000) argues that it requires specific skills to release affordances from an environment.

Thus the relational links between an organism and its environment are reinforced. The affordances afforded by an environment can only be released to an organism which possesses the knowledge and skills to be able to exploit them.” Contrary to Tweed’s argument, multiple reports by researches from the University of Ulster7 and MIT8 and “Smart Technology for Ageing, Disability, and Independence”9 put forward the idea that consideratelydesigned smart systems can be extremely beneficial and often a necessity to those individuals you might consider least technically-minded and capable. For the ageing, elderly and disabled community, various complex technologies allow people to access their homes and live independently in situations where constant care and assistance would otherwise be required.

Layout of apartment with embedded technology to support independent living7

7 Augusto, J. C. et al. 2004. A New Architecture for Smart Homes Based on ADB and Temporal Reasoning.

8 Coughlin, J.F. et al. 2007. Older Adult Perceptions of Smart Home Technologies: Implications for Research, Policy & Market Innovations in Healthcare.

9 Mann, W. C. 2005. Smart Technology For Aging, Disability, and Independence: The State of the Science.

10

The NEST Thermostat and Low-Carbon Design When designing smart, energy efficient homes which must accommodate any age group, experience suggests designers should assume that the end user must need absolutely no technical understanding whatsoever.

System controls must be simple and intuitive. This may seem a challenge when, as Tweed mentions, most people struggle with simple tasks like annually cleaning heat recovery filters. I would argue that any aspect of maintenance will always be an issue to the inexperienced, regardless of system complexity, but most will opt to have an engineer visit once a year to carry out a service anyway, just as you would with a boiler. Designers should not design out excellent systems just because they require maintenance, but they should consider how people like to use those systems and how they can be designed around the way people live.

In part, smart systems are accomplishing this by making it increasingly straight forward to combine all the multiple conventional controls together into one simple interface. Rather than having separate controls for the heating, hot water, security alarm, computers/ TV, lighting, ventilation, sound system e.t.c. one main touchscreen panel in a central location can combine everything, allowing systems to play off one another. In addition to accessing this panel via a smart phone, simple additional remotes linked by ethernet cables can activate the main panel from other locations in the house. As the whole system is just a series of low voltage on/off relays, standard wall plates and devices like thermostats can be used, making it extremely easy to replace and update components down the line.

Source: http://www.nest.com/

The final and possibly most important consideration in modern smart home design considers that analogy of the room thermostat, and how we now heat and climate control our homes. As a response to advances in construction and changes in how we use our homes, energy efficiency becomes a driving factor in design, and it is time to question whether traditional heating systems are up to the task. Typically, low-carbon and passive homes have very few heat losses and ventilation is controlled carefully. An efficient gas boiler and radiators would be used so intermittently as to become inefficient and actually create uncomfortable waves of heat that scorch the air and create an unhealthy atmosphere.

In the US, radiator and wet heating systems went out of fashion a long time ago in favour of ducted Typical US Basement Plant room and furnace. Source: http://www.finehomebuilding.com/how-to/articles/basement-worth-remodeling.aspx

11

systems, transporting air from a central furnace or air conditioner to individual rooms, allowing you to instantly and intermittently heat spaces when needed. This method of heating is far more flexible, can incorporate heat recovery and eliminates radiators and all the components prone to failure in wet heating systems. As separate thermostats control each room, demand has lead to the development of a new concept thermostat

by NEST, and has been available in the US since 2011.

The thermostat differs from traditional controls, in that there are no timers, and it is much more responsive, ‘learning’ how you heat your home by logging every time you adjust the temperature, creating an average profile for the week. Depending on your system, it also sets back the heat source’s firing time from the moment you turn it on according to how long it takes to heat up the room, making it extremely efficient. Again, the beauty of this device is that you can also access it over the internet remotely, so that you have control if you are away.

Thermostats are such a benign and uninteresting thing that most architects and designers simply fail to consider them, but as they typically regulate up to 50% of the energy use in a home10, they are extremely important little devices.

It is up to architects and designers to be innovative in choosing ways of heating new homes. Tatiana Dzhigit, in a Finish publication from the Mikkeli University of Applied Sciences11, discusses how people living in Passive and Low Carbon homes generally require “topup” heat during the winter months. Temperature, in this sense is more a psychological phenomenon; people like the feeling of “warmth” you get from a heat source, even when the ambient temperature is technically ‘comfortable’. An internet search of “topup” heating for heat recovery systems brings up many blogs and forums where people have innovated by installing electric heaters in their heat recovery ducts to cheaply and efficiently achieve this “topup” heat.

10 11

The original US Honeywell thermostat, 1955. Source: http:// www.flickr.com/photos/army_arch/4328862268/

Innovative 1990’s “Smart Home” design: Integer house, Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Source: https://connect. innovateuk.org/web/ticleanuc/blogs/-/blogs/few-wordsabout-controls-and-lighting

http://www.nest.com/

Dzhigit, T. 2012. HEATING SYSTEM FOR A PASSIVE HOUSE IN FINLAND.

12

A fitting ending for the “smart home” topic and that question of designing homes for the 21st century, may be the current debate about “the hearth” (or rather its absence) in low-energy design. Simon Unwin observes that fireplaces were once the essential, life-sustaining hub of the home. They were a central focal point of living spaces and an opportunity for people to congregate of an evening, and in many ways, with open plan living, families are going back to a time where they see the benefits of living together in one space as much as possible. There is good justification for the humble fireplace to become an important part of new design, either as a primary means of water heating or as a ‘top-up’ heat source. Modern fireplaces can be highly efficient and balanced gas or electric types can be electronically controlled by a room stat. A wood pellet stove may even be appropriate.

It is now more accessible than ever to make the most of natural and sustainable sources of fuel as well as responsibly sourced timber construction materials in every element of homes. Smart systems and considerate design can now achieve an uncompromising harmony between the need for sustainability and the advanced, high-tech demands our modern lives. This presents a big challenge and unprecedented learning curve for architects and engineers, but what is has to offer is the potential to be innovative and reshape the way we will live over the course of the 21st century.

Wood Pellet Stove by Newform energy http://www.ecobuild.co.uk/var/uploads/ exhibitor/2517/4kwuv9pg8s.pdf and Rika Evo Aqua model as featured in the Grand Designs Crossway House (first “zero-carbon” house in Kent, UK) http://www.newformenergy.com/project/crossway

[4000]

13

References Addy, B. et al. 2008. Timber and the Sustainable Home: Eight Architects Debate the Challenges Ahead. London: Trada Technology Ltd. A demonstration ‘Passiv Haus’ retrofit project at Cottesmore Road, Leicester. [Online] Available at: http:// retrofitforthefuture.blogspot.co.uk/.

Augusto, J. C. et al. 2004. A New Architecture for Smart Homes Based on ADB and Temporal Reasoning.

Jordanstown, UK: University of Ulster.

Baig, E. C. 2011. Review: Newfangled Nest thermostat is hot, USA TODAY 26 October 2011. [Online]. Available: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/ edwardbaig /story/2011-10-25/nest-thermostatreview/50917506/1 Boorer, P. and Harris, C. 2005. The Whole House Book.

Centre for Alternative Technology. [www.sda-uk.org/ timber.htm] Brown, E. 2008. Wireless home automation wakes up, eWeek Windows for Devices Mar 17, 2008. [Online].

Available: http://www.windowsfordevices.com/c/a/ News/Wireless-home-automation-wakes-up/.

Butcher, B. 2010. Passivhaus diary, part 19: Hotting up, Building.co.uk 16 February 2010. [Online]. Available at: http://www.building.co.uk/passivhaus-diary-part-19hotting-up/3158231.article.

Coughlin, J.F. et al. 2007. Older Adult Perceptions of Smart Home Technologies: Implications for Research, Policy & Market Innovations in Healthcare. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology AgeLab. Davidoff, S. et al. 2006. Principles of Smart Home Control.

Human-Computer Interaction Institute, School of Design Carnegie Mellon University. London: Springer-Verlag Ltd. Dina, D. 2011. A visit to PRP’s Greenwatt Way, Sustainability AJ. [Online]. Available at: http://blog.emap. com/footprint/2011/10/13/a-visit-to-prps-greenwattway/.

14

Disney’s House of the Future in (the old) tomorrowland, Monsanto, June 13 1957, online video, <http://www. youtube.com/watch?v=DoCCO3GKqWY> Dzhigit, T. 2012. HEATING SYSTEM FOR A PASSIVE HOUSE IN FINLAND. Bachelor’s thesis, Building Services Engineering, Mikkeli University of Applied Sciences.

Available at: http://publications.theseus.fi/bitstream/ handle/10024/39377/Dzhigit_Tatiana.pdf?sequence=1 Finlay, S. et al. 2012. ‘The way we live now: What people need and expect from their homes’. A research report for the Royal Institute of British Architects by IPSOS MORI. Forestry Commission 2006. Forestry Statistics 2006, Imports, exports & apparent consumption of wood products. [Online]. Available at: http://www.forestry.gov. uk/pdf/fcfs06_imports.pdf/$file/fcfs06_imports.pdf.

Gallissot, M. and Gandit, O. 2010. From Home Automation to Smart Homes: Using the KNX model to enhance houses intelligence. KNX Scientific Conference 2010. SIRLAN Technologies, 4th–5th November, 2010. Sassenage, France: Sirlan Technologies, pp. 1-11.

Iovine, J. 2000. When Smart Houses Turn Smart Alec. The New York Times 13 January 2000. Available at: http:// www.nytimes.com/2000/01/13/garden/when-smarthouses-turn-smart-aleck.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm.

Koskela, T. et al. 2004. Evolution Towards Smart Home Environments: Empirical Evaluation of Three User Interfaces. London: Springer-Verlag Ltd. Mann, W. C. 2005. Smart Technology For Aging, Disability, and Independence: The State of the Science. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Available at: http://books.google. co.uk/books?id=HopxJS7cfjIC&printsec=frontcover#v=o nepage&q&f=false McDonough, M and Trulove, J. 2002. The Smart House.

New York: HarperCollins Publishers.

Miller, J. 2007. Wooden Houses: From Log Cabins to Beach Houses. New York: Ryland Peters and Small.

Orme, J. 2008. Timber Frame or Blockwork? Home Building and Renovation, June 2008. [Online]. Available at: http://www.homebuilding.co.uk/advice/key-choices/

15

structural/timber-or-blockwork.

Pragnell, M. et al. 2000. The Market Potential for Smart Homes. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation; York Publishing Services Ltd. Ryckaert. A. et al. 2008. Building With Wood: Unique Living with Mi Casa. Belgium: Lannoo [http://www. micasa.be] Ryker, L. 2005. Modern Homes + Alternative Energy: Off The Grid. Utah: Gibbs Smith.

The Integer Millenium House, Watford, IEA – SCH Task 28 / ECBCS Annex 38: International Energy Agency Sustainable Solar Housing. [Online]. Available: http:// www.ecbcs.org/docs/Annex_38_UK_Watford.pdf.

The CBS Show 1967, The 21st Century, Walter Cronkite March 12, 1967, online video, <https://www.youtube. c o m / w a t c h ? fe a t u r e = p l a y e r _ d e ta i l p a g e & v = _ _ MGYrcapdk> Tweed, C. Understanding occupants’ interactions with low energy architecture: getting beyond the “stupid user” mentality. BRE Centre for Sustainable Design of the Built Environment (SuDoBE), Welsh School of Architecture.

Unwin, S. 2003. Analysing Architecture. London: Routledge. (pp. 75-84).

Vidle, A. 2012. Troubles In Theory Part III: The Great Divide: Technology vs Tradition. The Architectural Review [Online]. Available at: http://www.architecturalreview.com/troubles-in-theory-part-iii-the-great-dividetechnology-vs-tradition/8633393.article.

Volkow, N.D. et al 2011. Effects of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Signal Exposure on Brain Glucose Metabolism. The Journal of The American Medical Association [online]. Available at: http://jama. jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=645813 Wilson, A. Building Green http://www2.buildinggreen. com/blogs/flame-retardant-used-polystyrene-bebanned-eu

16