A strange bit of added drama about the article is here on CurbedLA.
And it's been linked to on Treehugger, and in a few other sources...
But what I worry about is, will his celebrity mean that this reverberates into the public sphere, and damage our already tricky reputation with the public?
I thought this was worth a broader discussion than just the comments page of the news post.
farwest, tuna is basically right, although I think that McDonough has for years been THE go-to guy for environmentalist designers, specifically. So, A + B, on your chart. Environmentalists didn't do themselves any favors for a long time but who among us hasn't cited McDonough in a conversation when sustainably-minded architecture has come up? I feel like his conduct threatens any good will that we might have established with not only the public, but also with business leaders, which is potentially even worse.
Also, pay attention to the comments sections of these blog posts...they are getting traffic from associates of his. Here's the Treehugger link.
I posted the following in the "Green Products Suck" thread, but this is its more appropriate home:
"The Fast Company piece sheds some light on McDonough's motivations, which have always seemed to me only partly about making the world a better place. More often, they seemed to be about inflating the "cult of personality" around McDonough himself.
I do appreciate some of what he's doing. But purely from a design and sustainability perspective, his work is pretty conservative and not that original. I've always been puzzled that this bowtied purveyor of corporate architecture was considered the voice of the American environmental movement.
People like Renzo Piano, Norman Foster, Richard Rogers, Grimshaw, Sauerbruch and Hutton, Neutelings Reidijk, etc, are doing so much more for sustainable architecture than McDonough is. And doing it more quietly, with better buildings."
yeah, i'd comment, but apparently because I cited that even the National Enquirer will tell the truth some of the time, i am unable to post a comment worthy of someone named 'babs'...oy vey!
I read the article last night and it basically the tracks his growth from green newbie into a media prince, and more recent personality flaws which have called into question his integrity. ie pushing toward the question of whether he has personally "jumped the shark". Interesting read as he is the one media face that is easily associated with business / corporate rant on sustainability and his personal sense of entitlement to everything green that he touches, including some very expensive consulting fees. Clearly his record has its flaws which he himself has tried to absolve himself of and sweep under the table but he has in many respects brought the issues into the homes of N.America, someone has to lead the charge and he has been the one self appointed to do so.
I see as less about him as an architect of important buildings, as I agree with others above that other architects are doing a better job of that than McDonough, but he has branched out to be more of a leader of all things sustainable across all cultures and societies.
The problem is that he calls into question the validity of the entire sustainability-design movement when he is doubted. (No one doubts the scientific validity of global climate change.)
If he turns out to be a huckster and snake-oil salesman, then it may very negatively affect all of us who are trying to create products and designs that are sustainable. It reduces all of our credibility. That's what I believe McDonough can be faulted for.
WonderK was saying this at the beginning of the thread.....
I'm doing this thesis and I'm reading about all of these guys who do adobe and rammed earth and straw bale homes, and they are all producing very lovely work, and I've never heard of them before. And the couple of homes that I have researched that McDonough has done are HUGE....but made of FSC certified wood and probably full of top of the line Energy Star appliances. I bet if I did energy modeling on the no-namers houses vs. his the results would be eye-opening.
I appreciate that McDonough has made sustainable design a more accessible concept for people, but as I posted on TC, his ego won't fit into the room with others. He needs someone to put him in check. Luckily I think that the overall issues here are far too important to let them be sidetracked by one dudes' self-love fest. If anything the people who will be impacted the most are his employees, and that's a shame.
I've never met him, nor heard him speak, but I have met many of his employees. They all seem to be nice, and intelligent....and in total awe of him. I found that very weird.
if the article cana be believed he is a social moron. a short-term visionary. which is to say NOT visionary at all.
i still think cradle to cradle is fantastic as a model, but jeez, why would anyone who actually cared about the environmental side of architecture and design let that nike project fall out of his hands just for some royalties. does he have a drug habit that makes him so bloody stupid or what?
i don't think his moronic behavior will matter in the end as far as the advancement of green tech etc, but i am personally pissed off at him. what a waste.
you know i think google guys really had it right. figure out the product first, let it expand on its own merits, then monetize later (if at all). this guy blew his market out of the water because he was too greedy to let it get up to a scale where it could have an impact. how dumb IS that?
On the flip side, though, I also don't necessarily want to trust this one journalist, who may have been doing a smear job. I'd like some verification that McDonough is a bit of a self-absorbed megalomaniac before I start to believe it.
Wonder K .. I agree I was watching some tv show On "THE WORLD"S GREENIST HOMES" the other night and I swear that wasn't a single shack under 7,000-8,000 sf that's just plain crap! Makes us look as though green building is like spreading pixie dust over any old house to make it sustainable. Its more about the products in the house as opposed to how one lives in the home and the relative relationship with the site and natural systems in that location.
Bottom line its always hard to be a modern day messiah and not be flawed in some respects, just better to acknowledge your flaws and failures and move on without acting like your "shit don't smell."
But can the market afford this blow out jump? I'm worried that the movement just took a giant step back with this article. There are already so many nay sayers out there that are say sustainability in architecture doesn't work and this doesn't article doesn't help. Although the concept isn't new to the vast majority of us here on Archinect, I think in mainstream America (okay Midwest mainstream America) it's still a new concept that people are still warming up to. If they see that all that this "big name" person has been a load of crap, what makes you think they will be motivated to keep moving forward. It's a hell of a lot easier to stay in place even though it may be detrimental, especially when the one who was supposedly treading a new path really wasn't.
A couple of points.
Obviously there can be a disconnect between his persona and his message.
I think his message at least at the time (and probably still today) was important, needed to be preached to especially the corporate world.
I think this in my view at least, was always his appeal, importance. Not some specific building he did. Lot's of people have big ego's and still get there message out there look at Bono etc...
As to others doing green architecture better/more beautifully. Those big names listed above are perhaps doing better green architecture than McDonough, but better objectively not necessarily. As WonderK pointed out many "no-name" architects have been (since at least the 70s) and are still doing great low/no energy buildings (strawbale, earthships, rammed earth etc). In fact as WonderK wondered if energy profile(s) were done such buildings are probably way better for the planet than anything by the Renzo's, etc of the world. Much of this work doesn't get discussed for two main reasons i think. The practitioners aren't part of the normal architecture "circuit", aren't interested in press and don't do what people/media feel is "contemporary architecture. It is often of a sort of very dated 70sesque hippie vibe. Not exactly ArchRecord friendly.
I think the tendency is to prefer contemporary architecture that is green via some exciting new tech approach. Rather than old non fashionable, common sense methods.
"'m worried that the movement just took a giant step back with this article."
Let's take a step back and gain some perspective here. Are you KIDDING?
If you're expecting some some sort of major fallout from this ONE article that an insignificant proportion of the population will read, I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. The "environmental" movement has enough legs now on its own that even if McD is on the way out, nobody's likely to even notice.
My father has a new venture selling solar hot water heaters and he's aware of green building - but I guarantee that he's never heard of McD. And I think that's pretty typical.
I agree with you on the point of them not being part of the "circuit." But I would say that many of these projects ARE contemporary, and if they are portrayed as "not contemporary" or if they aren't even portrayed at all, then someone is not doing their job. Case in point, Rick Joy's Tuscon Mountain House, made of rammed earth walls. Not the best view but it's very modern.
I mean, not to split hairs here, but has the profession been so obsessed with the idea of the "shiny new building" for so long that everyone has lost perspective?
OK, some of the things he pushed were pretty good, but they were not HIS ideas. It pisses me off that he tried to copyright even things that were clearly not his. This does not hurt any movement, except inept architects have one more excuse to think twice about 'sustainability'. This is the most despicable part of the entire story imho.
Also, his work always kinda sucked. Tell me one building of his that anyone here finds good.
All this article will change is good ol' Billy's social schedule, the movement will continue, because, quite frankly, we really don't have a choice. My guess is that hollywood will look for another designer-savior, or maybe there is one already out there?
Overall, I think that this story is more of a reminder that if architects want to have larger roles in society, they need to be ready to be called out if what they spout is total bullshit.
We need more of this type of journalism going on, and I wish it was our magazines (Arch Record, LAND, etc...) doing it. Architecture has become a profession of pansies spewing out artsy language and covering their dismal track records.
No Dustin - I am not kidding you. Where I live this the whole sustainable movement is still seen with a lot of skepticism. I spent a good portion of the project I am just finishing up with fighting every which way from sun up to sundown for the GC to see the advantages of going green. I have a few colleagues who think the whole movement is a bunch and will use McDonough (they've actually heard of him) now as a case in put. So for me, yes in my immediate realm I am a little worried...
DubK - good question. I'm half tempted to say yes.
shiny new building is not really needed, but architecture and architects are. a total vernacular-ish position will only draw scorn from taste makers, and boredom from clients.
I think a lot of what he is being accused of (such as taking claim for others work, hypocrisy or reckless self-promotion) could easily be leveled at any other architect who has achieved his level of notoriety. Fame and power in this profession come at the expense of spurned collaborators and jealous onlookers*. The sin that the architecture world cannot tolerate is that McDonough's buildings are ugly, which seems forgivable enough to me since his contributions to the world are more as a technologist who can change the behavior of large corporations than an aesthete.
I've met and worked on a large project with him (and his firm) acting as a consultant, and I never saw any evidence of him or MBDC acting as anything but conscientious, knowledgeable professionals. As far as I'm concerned, if the world or profession reaches a consensus on Bill McDonough being "bad for architecture" or "bad for environmentalists" I'm ready to quit both.
dustin, you make a good point, but here's the problem i have with him and others like him; when "modern" medicine was trying to get going, it had to deal with the charlatanism of the snake oil salesman and the put on they performed on the unsuspecting. so when the skeptic's raised brow, met with the "high falutin" claims of the doctor that then becomes the problem. i am the guy that buys into sustainability, but is skeptical of charlatans seeking to position themselves to profit from the unproven claims.
janosh, the point of the article is exactly what your second paragraph notes; he's got a "slick willy" problem. you do architecture, love architecture, so why get hung up on licensing and trademark infringements and other Pat Reilly-like "Three-Peat" get rich quick schemes? [oh shit do i Reilly money now?] i mean honestly, he's like those lame ass cyber-squaters...
read the article, decide for yourself, i've wasted enough time on this sycophant.
his ideas were not roundly discredited, except for the foolishness in china. what was discredited was his competency and his tendency to self-destructive behaviour which caused good ideas to lose their strength.
if anyone brings up mcdonough as evidence of the lack of validity of green concepts the only necessary response is that HE was incompetent, the ideas were and are still perfectly fine.
the article points out that people are going elsewhere for their environmental solutions, not abandoning them altogether.
so i am not worried. i am just pissed that he didn't go ahead and get the things finished in a proper manner. if he had done what his projects promised they would have been great examples, and with his access to the media and corporate ears he could have had an impact. now, barring some major changes his impact will be fairly small.
this is not so much about his architecture, but if i were to give an opinion i must say his work is sub-standard schlock in terms of design content. thats ok, not all architecture needs to be progressive nor even interesting. since he is not known as a design-architect in fact i think that is just fine. pity about the rest though.
i agree with jump's point - the article was less a repudiation of green/sustainable/ecological design than to use mcd as a case study on the disconnect between idea and execution.
remember, fast company is primarily a business magazine and one aimed at entreprenuers. it's a kind of cautionary tale to their readership and, i suspect, a very different story than the one the author set out to write. my guess is that they got into the research and started to see behind the veil, expanded the scope a bit, and used it to go in a whole other direction.
finally, to answer someone's point above - the only two people i've known who worked directly in his office said that working there (ie all the other people, the kind of environment) was great but that bill himself was unsufferable. kind of makes you wonder what that group could have achieved if he were moved out of the way....
I have my fireplace burning this evening from the fallen tree of last summer. I can't justify spending $2,000.00 to put in a fire place insert in these economic times....hopefully I'm not screwing up the enviroment to much. I'm burning Maple if that makes any difference,
and my house is 1,000 square feet....but feels like alot more because of the vaulted ceilings 14/12 pitch in the living room and all of the bedrooms...and oh ya the house is cut granite stone with a rough finish...walls are 14" thick. oak floors and steel casements with internal storm windows. I have exterior storms sitting in the garage which I might dig out this window and also put them in place just to cut down on heat loss..Do you think I'm Nuts?
McDonough and that Fast Company article
The original article is here: Green Guru Gone Wrong
The Archinect news posting is here.
A strange bit of added drama about the article is here
on CurbedLA.
And it's been linked to on Treehugger, and in a few other sources...
But what I worry about is, will his celebrity mean that this reverberates into the public sphere, and damage our already tricky reputation with the public?
I thought this was worth a broader discussion than just the comments page of the news post.
Here's (as far as I can tell) the first page of the article (WonderK's link starts on page 8, not sure if that was intentional or not).
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/130/the-mortal-messiah.html?page=1%2C0
WonderK, when you say "our already tricky reputation with the public," do you mean:
A. Environmentalists
B. Architects
C. People who Love McDonough
D. Some other group.
I believe she is referring to the environmentalists; more specifically the sustainable/green movement within architecture itself.
Whoops, thanks Dustin, sorry about that.
farwest, tuna is basically right, although I think that McDonough has for years been THE go-to guy for environmentalist designers, specifically. So, A + B, on your chart. Environmentalists didn't do themselves any favors for a long time but who among us hasn't cited McDonough in a conversation when sustainably-minded architecture has come up? I feel like his conduct threatens any good will that we might have established with not only the public, but also with business leaders, which is potentially even worse.
Also, pay attention to the comments sections of these blog posts...they are getting traffic from associates of his. Here's the Treehugger link.
I posted the following in the "Green Products Suck" thread, but this is its more appropriate home:
"The Fast Company piece sheds some light on McDonough's motivations, which have always seemed to me only partly about making the world a better place. More often, they seemed to be about inflating the "cult of personality" around McDonough himself.
I do appreciate some of what he's doing. But purely from a design and sustainability perspective, his work is pretty conservative and not that original. I've always been puzzled that this bowtied purveyor of corporate architecture was considered the voice of the American environmental movement.
People like Renzo Piano, Norman Foster, Richard Rogers, Grimshaw, Sauerbruch and Hutton, Neutelings Reidijk, etc, are doing so much more for sustainable architecture than McDonough is. And doing it more quietly, with better buildings."
yeah, i'd comment, but apparently because I cited that even the National Enquirer will tell the truth some of the time, i am unable to post a comment worthy of someone named 'babs'...oy vey!
I've been wronged by Babs once or twice too. Don't sweat it.
I read the article last night and it basically the tracks his growth from green newbie into a media prince, and more recent personality flaws which have called into question his integrity. ie pushing toward the question of whether he has personally "jumped the shark". Interesting read as he is the one media face that is easily associated with business / corporate rant on sustainability and his personal sense of entitlement to everything green that he touches, including some very expensive consulting fees. Clearly his record has its flaws which he himself has tried to absolve himself of and sweep under the table but he has in many respects brought the issues into the homes of N.America, someone has to lead the charge and he has been the one self appointed to do so.
I see as less about him as an architect of important buildings, as I agree with others above that other architects are doing a better job of that than McDonough, but he has branched out to be more of a leader of all things sustainable across all cultures and societies.
Perhaps spreading himself a bit thin in doing so!
Yes.
The problem is that he calls into question the validity of the entire sustainability-design movement when he is doubted. (No one doubts the scientific validity of global climate change.)
If he turns out to be a huckster and snake-oil salesman, then it may very negatively affect all of us who are trying to create products and designs that are sustainable. It reduces all of our credibility. That's what I believe McDonough can be faulted for.
WonderK was saying this at the beginning of the thread.....
Precisely.
I'm doing this thesis and I'm reading about all of these guys who do adobe and rammed earth and straw bale homes, and they are all producing very lovely work, and I've never heard of them before. And the couple of homes that I have researched that McDonough has done are HUGE....but made of FSC certified wood and probably full of top of the line Energy Star appliances. I bet if I did energy modeling on the no-namers houses vs. his the results would be eye-opening.
I appreciate that McDonough has made sustainable design a more accessible concept for people, but as I posted on TC, his ego won't fit into the room with others. He needs someone to put him in check. Luckily I think that the overall issues here are far too important to let them be sidetracked by one dudes' self-love fest. If anything the people who will be impacted the most are his employees, and that's a shame.
I've never met him, nor heard him speak, but I have met many of his employees. They all seem to be nice, and intelligent....and in total awe of him. I found that very weird.
if the article cana be believed he is a social moron. a short-term visionary. which is to say NOT visionary at all.
i still think cradle to cradle is fantastic as a model, but jeez, why would anyone who actually cared about the environmental side of architecture and design let that nike project fall out of his hands just for some royalties. does he have a drug habit that makes him so bloody stupid or what?
i don't think his moronic behavior will matter in the end as far as the advancement of green tech etc, but i am personally pissed off at him. what a waste.
you know i think google guys really had it right. figure out the product first, let it expand on its own merits, then monetize later (if at all). this guy blew his market out of the water because he was too greedy to let it get up to a scale where it could have an impact. how dumb IS that?
I agree, Jump.
On the flip side, though, I also don't necessarily want to trust this one journalist, who may have been doing a smear job. I'd like some verification that McDonough is a bit of a self-absorbed megalomaniac before I start to believe it.
Wonder K .. I agree I was watching some tv show On "THE WORLD"S GREENIST HOMES" the other night and I swear that wasn't a single shack under 7,000-8,000 sf that's just plain crap! Makes us look as though green building is like spreading pixie dust over any old house to make it sustainable. Its more about the products in the house as opposed to how one lives in the home and the relative relationship with the site and natural systems in that location.
Bottom line its always hard to be a modern day messiah and not be flawed in some respects, just better to acknowledge your flaws and failures and move on without acting like your "shit don't smell."
But can the market afford this blow out jump? I'm worried that the movement just took a giant step back with this article. There are already so many nay sayers out there that are say sustainability in architecture doesn't work and this doesn't article doesn't help. Although the concept isn't new to the vast majority of us here on Archinect, I think in mainstream America (okay Midwest mainstream America) it's still a new concept that people are still warming up to. If they see that all that this "big name" person has been a load of crap, what makes you think they will be motivated to keep moving forward. It's a hell of a lot easier to stay in place even though it may be detrimental, especially when the one who was supposedly treading a new path really wasn't.
A couple of points.
Obviously there can be a disconnect between his persona and his message.
I think his message at least at the time (and probably still today) was important, needed to be preached to especially the corporate world.
I think this in my view at least, was always his appeal, importance. Not some specific building he did. Lot's of people have big ego's and still get there message out there look at Bono etc...
As to others doing green architecture better/more beautifully. Those big names listed above are perhaps doing better green architecture than McDonough, but better objectively not necessarily. As WonderK pointed out many "no-name" architects have been (since at least the 70s) and are still doing great low/no energy buildings (strawbale, earthships, rammed earth etc). In fact as WonderK wondered if energy profile(s) were done such buildings are probably way better for the planet than anything by the Renzo's, etc of the world. Much of this work doesn't get discussed for two main reasons i think. The practitioners aren't part of the normal architecture "circuit", aren't interested in press and don't do what people/media feel is "contemporary architecture. It is often of a sort of very dated 70sesque hippie vibe. Not exactly ArchRecord friendly.
I think the tendency is to prefer contemporary architecture that is green via some exciting new tech approach. Rather than old non fashionable, common sense methods.
Perhaps this should or will change who knows....
"'m worried that the movement just took a giant step back with this article."
Let's take a step back and gain some perspective here. Are you KIDDING?
If you're expecting some some sort of major fallout from this ONE article that an insignificant proportion of the population will read, I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. The "environmental" movement has enough legs now on its own that even if McD is on the way out, nobody's likely to even notice.
My father has a new venture selling solar hot water heaters and he's aware of green building - but I guarantee that he's never heard of McD. And I think that's pretty typical.
I agree with you on the point of them not being part of the "circuit." But I would say that many of these projects ARE contemporary, and if they are portrayed as "not contemporary" or if they aren't even portrayed at all, then someone is not doing their job. Case in point, Rick Joy's Tuscon Mountain House, made of rammed earth walls. Not the best view but it's very modern.
I mean, not to split hairs here, but has the profession been so obsessed with the idea of the "shiny new building" for so long that everyone has lost perspective?
OK, some of the things he pushed were pretty good, but they were not HIS ideas. It pisses me off that he tried to copyright even things that were clearly not his. This does not hurt any movement, except inept architects have one more excuse to think twice about 'sustainability'. This is the most despicable part of the entire story imho.
Also, his work always kinda sucked. Tell me one building of his that anyone here finds good.
All this article will change is good ol' Billy's social schedule, the movement will continue, because, quite frankly, we really don't have a choice. My guess is that hollywood will look for another designer-savior, or maybe there is one already out there?
Overall, I think that this story is more of a reminder that if architects want to have larger roles in society, they need to be ready to be called out if what they spout is total bullshit.
We need more of this type of journalism going on, and I wish it was our magazines (Arch Record, LAND, etc...) doing it. Architecture has become a profession of pansies spewing out artsy language and covering their dismal track records.
No Dustin - I am not kidding you. Where I live this the whole sustainable movement is still seen with a lot of skepticism. I spent a good portion of the project I am just finishing up with fighting every which way from sun up to sundown for the GC to see the advantages of going green. I have a few colleagues who think the whole movement is a bunch and will use McDonough (they've actually heard of him) now as a case in put. So for me, yes in my immediate realm I am a little worried...
DubK - good question. I'm half tempted to say yes.
shiny new building is not really needed, but architecture and architects are. a total vernacular-ish position will only draw scorn from taste makers, and boredom from clients.
I think a lot of what he is being accused of (such as taking claim for others work, hypocrisy or reckless self-promotion) could easily be leveled at any other architect who has achieved his level of notoriety. Fame and power in this profession come at the expense of spurned collaborators and jealous onlookers*. The sin that the architecture world cannot tolerate is that McDonough's buildings are ugly, which seems forgivable enough to me since his contributions to the world are more as a technologist who can change the behavior of large corporations than an aesthete.
I've met and worked on a large project with him (and his firm) acting as a consultant, and I never saw any evidence of him or MBDC acting as anything but conscientious, knowledgeable professionals. As far as I'm concerned, if the world or profession reaches a consensus on Bill McDonough being "bad for architecture" or "bad for environmentalists" I'm ready to quit both.
*Often this is me.
WonderK,
That is one nice rammed earth project.
dustin, you make a good point, but here's the problem i have with him and others like him; when "modern" medicine was trying to get going, it had to deal with the charlatanism of the snake oil salesman and the put on they performed on the unsuspecting. so when the skeptic's raised brow, met with the "high falutin" claims of the doctor that then becomes the problem. i am the guy that buys into sustainability, but is skeptical of charlatans seeking to position themselves to profit from the unproven claims.
janosh, the point of the article is exactly what your second paragraph notes; he's got a "slick willy" problem. you do architecture, love architecture, so why get hung up on licensing and trademark infringements and other Pat Reilly-like "Three-Peat" get rich quick schemes? [oh shit do i Reilly money now?] i mean honestly, he's like those lame ass cyber-squaters...
read the article, decide for yourself, i've wasted enough time on this sycophant.
his ideas were not roundly discredited, except for the foolishness in china. what was discredited was his competency and his tendency to self-destructive behaviour which caused good ideas to lose their strength.
if anyone brings up mcdonough as evidence of the lack of validity of green concepts the only necessary response is that HE was incompetent, the ideas were and are still perfectly fine.
the article points out that people are going elsewhere for their environmental solutions, not abandoning them altogether.
so i am not worried. i am just pissed that he didn't go ahead and get the things finished in a proper manner. if he had done what his projects promised they would have been great examples, and with his access to the media and corporate ears he could have had an impact. now, barring some major changes his impact will be fairly small.
this is not so much about his architecture, but if i were to give an opinion i must say his work is sub-standard schlock in terms of design content. thats ok, not all architecture needs to be progressive nor even interesting. since he is not known as a design-architect in fact i think that is just fine. pity about the rest though.
i agree with jump's point - the article was less a repudiation of green/sustainable/ecological design than to use mcd as a case study on the disconnect between idea and execution.
remember, fast company is primarily a business magazine and one aimed at entreprenuers. it's a kind of cautionary tale to their readership and, i suspect, a very different story than the one the author set out to write. my guess is that they got into the research and started to see behind the veil, expanded the scope a bit, and used it to go in a whole other direction.
finally, to answer someone's point above - the only two people i've known who worked directly in his office said that working there (ie all the other people, the kind of environment) was great but that bill himself was unsufferable. kind of makes you wonder what that group could have achieved if he were moved out of the way....
DubK,
I think the answer is generally yes....
I have my fireplace burning this evening from the fallen tree of last summer. I can't justify spending $2,000.00 to put in a fire place insert in these economic times....hopefully I'm not screwing up the enviroment to much. I'm burning Maple if that makes any difference,
and my house is 1,000 square feet....but feels like alot more because of the vaulted ceilings 14/12 pitch in the living room and all of the bedrooms...and oh ya the house is cut granite stone with a rough finish...walls are 14" thick. oak floors and steel casements with internal storm windows. I have exterior storms sitting in the garage which I might dig out this window and also put them in place just to cut down on heat loss..Do you think I'm Nuts?
puts the stain in sustainability
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.