Michael Yannell, 44, lives in a new Chicago home that is designed to be net zero energy, which means it will produce as much energy than it consumes -- or more. The $1.6 million, 2,675-square-foot house is the first of its kind in Chicago, which has achieved green sheen with its energy-saving public buildings and scores of planted roofs. 
Michael Yannell, 44, lives in a new Chicago home that is designed to be net zero energy, which means it will produce as much energy than it consumes -- or more. The $1.6 million, 2,675-square-foot house is the first of its kind in Chicago, which has achieved green sheen with its energy-saving public buildings and scores of planted roofs. Chicago Tribune
16 Comments
Sounds green to me.
There is more to being 'green' than just energy consumption, but that obviously just flew right past this guy.
2,675 sf and it's just the big pimp and two cats. tres green.
<i>Michael Yannell's ComEd bill is almost surely less than yours.</i>
damn, i hope so. my electric bill is less than $20/mo on average...
Carl-
There is more to 'being green' than energy consumption, but that's actually the largest and most important aspect of 'being green' seeing as energy usage is at the root of most of our more pressing environmental problems i.e. climate change, ocean acidification, heavy metal contamination, etc. Buildings are the largest contributors to global CO2 emissions, so addressing their efficiency should be the first priority of any architect or designer.
http://www.sincerelysustainable.com
hmmm, 2675 sf seems svelt compared to most suburban mcmansions. then there is the public transit option available withing chitown and a high walk score too...
I'd beg to argue that reducing overall resource consumption is a greater priority then just looking at energy usage for us architects and designers. But then, it appears that I have a broader holistic ecological perspective then Mr. Author does.
This hypothetical argument regarding ideal home size and location is somewhat beside the point seeing as the market largely dictates what gets built and where. Can every person in the U.S. live inside a major city center? No. Does everyone want to? Certainly not. So large homes are going to be built far outside metropolitan areas simply because people want them. Most people don't prioritize the environment.
So from an environmental standpoint, wouldn't it make sense to make these larger and more remote homes, that are going to be built anyway, as energy efficient and as sustainable as possible? I think the ire here is a bit misdirected. Urban planners and the general public's continued appetite to sprawl is the real detriment to the environment; not the net-zero energy home itself. That's a true holistic perspective.
Apparently you didn't read my comment, or I'm misinterpreting yours, but energy consumption reduction is the most important priority in building design if you claim to be even remotely environmentally responsible. So your assertion that you believe yourself to have "have a broader holistic ecological perspective" than myself doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. Especially when the metrics you chose to showcase for sustainability is a walk score and public transit. These are but very small pieces of an overall picture of environmental friendliness.
As a sustainable design consultant, I work with architects all day long on this stuff. The goal of course is to shift the public's paradigms in regards to housing, where they live, and how they consume energy, but until that happens, you've got to make the best of what's out there. Criticizing the marketplace and being smug and idealistic about what gets built and where not only serves to drive your business elsewhere, but it also does nothing for the environment. Architects are notoriously arrogant and infallible when it comes to there design philosophy and view of how structures should be built and operate. It's these architects that ignore the marketplace and sit atop their castles made of ice cream who are experiencing record low billings at the moment. The ones I work with, who are embracing actual the new standard of sustainable design, are profiting and having a significant impact on a wide range of projects both public and private.
It's easy to critique, but what have you designed or lived lately that's bettering the environment, or at best lessing your impact upon it?
And sustainable design consultants - hell, any specialized consultants - are notoriously certain that the solution offered by their specialized area of knowledge is the only right, true answer.
The architect's job is to ensure that all the players get their chance to make their case, then provide the best possible solution using everyone's input. Still, you can't make everyone happy all of the time, so whoever doesn't win is going to blame it on the architect's "big ego".
And, as for myself, the way I contribute to bettering the environment is to renovate existing structures. Typically these are buildings older than 50 years, that no longer contribute to sprawl.
I wouldn't get a general practitioner to perform brain surgery. While still fallible, specialists are designated as such for a reason.
I think what lb is pointing out is that specialists see everything through their lens - in other words brain surgeons think that they can cure any ailment, including an ingrown toenail.
Perhaps your attitude is showing through, a quote like "Architects are notoriously arrogant and infallible when it comes to there design philosophy and view of how structures should be built and operate. It's these architects that ignore the marketplace and sit atop their castles made of ice cream" makes me think that the arrogance in your daily life is more your own attitude reflected back at you. Most architects I know who are responsive to the environment and context around their work are inherently "green" and sustainable - and have the thankless job of trying to balance the myriad of forces that go into building someone's home or school or factory.
I think most urban planners are by definition anti-sprawl (please note the word urban in their title). Its the developers who were the ones that built the ex-urbs farther and farther out in an effort to find cheap land where they can get the government to pony up the money to bring out the infrastructure to their door and the bankers who lent them the money that drove the current economic crisis and are the people you should really be trying to convince instead of the architects who are trying to do the best they can with what the resources they have available, and from your attitude I don't get the feeling you understand that.
Do you want to solve the problem of sprawl, which puts a big fat multiplier on the energy cost of every single activity that is done in a car-dependent neighborhood? Then the people you should really look down upon for their "arrogance and infallibility" is the bankers, zoning officials, the developers and tell them why infill development, inner city development, mixed use and income development, small scale development is the greenest possible way to construct and renovate our built environment. To tell zoning and public officials that they have the power to insure "net-zero" development in the ex-urbs by refusing to supply them with utilities and waste treatment (I admit, that's a bit heavy-handed, but it would achieve the desired effect.) In other words, you want to make a change then follow the money.
(What?! I'm limited to 2500 characters! It takes that much for me just to get started!)
Seems to me you would rather harass the people who would, if it not for your attitude, be on your side so that we could all really work to convince the real forces behind the waste and negligence to get their act together. But no, they get a big fat "Oh well..." in the form of; "Criticizing the marketplace and being smug and idealistic about what gets built and where not only serves to drive your business elsewhere, but it also does nothing for the environment"
Back to the house. While it may be a bit big for me (and I don't know how keen I am regarding all that exposed wall in a heating climate) I have to say that in terms of making an example for what you can do in your house, in Chicago - or any other city - should be applauded. If this house was tiny I'm sure there would be people here who would be saying "Well, of course anyone can make an 800 square foot house net-zero, but my clients (when they can renegotiate their mortgage) want something that's at least 2,500 square feet!" There's no winning with some people. Do the best you can with what you got. Go out again and do a little bit better tomorrow.
I agree with all your points and a large part of my firms business is dedicated to working with the various facets needed to implement more sustainable practices.
And while it would seem natural to assume urban planners are there as part of the solution, they often do contribute to the problem of sprawl more than you'd think...at least in Atlanta. Some of the decisions they make here not only discourage mass transit use, but actually encourage single car drivers. Unfortunately, not all urban planners are as seasoned and fulfill their intended role as the ones you may have been privy to knowing or have worked with. Trust me, I wish I knew more like that.
Excellent post(s), crowbert.
despite the reputation of architects as "arrogant and infallible when it comes to there [sic] design philosophy and view of how structures should be built and operate", i've met very few architects the reputation actually fits. architects do have a deeper background and experience in the construction and operation of buildings than a lot of other people, but most are happy to - and are continuously trying to - learn more. we learn from contractors, consultants, clients - hell, everybody who knows something we don't.
within 30 seconds of meeting a consultant last week, in front of a new client, i was having to grin at a jab on architects told at my expense. not unusual: i've found that it's more likely that i'll be disparaged by a consultant for being an "arrogant" architect, immediately before that consultant tells me how things must be, than it is that i'll be in a situation where i'm communicating any "infallible" knowledge to someone else.
i actually agree with a lot of what The Author has said in all of the above posts. 'green' needs to happen wherever it can happen, in whatever circumstances we're given. we very seldom control all of the conditions. if the client has the site and the program, we push for the best result we can get.
but Author, come on, the blanket statement about architects makes me go back and reread for other unthinking over-generalizations.
and blaming the current doldrums in architecture offices on such assumptions is simply asinine. arrogance, like generosity, curiosity, temper, talent, and greed, affects all categories. and, right now, so do economic woes.
I've told this story here before, but it's relevant:
I once had a garage door installer essentially tell me my entire design sucked because I had, in routing the ductwork bulkhead through the garage to keep it out of an occupiable indoor space, not left enough room for his door track to be mounted in the typical and easiest location for him.
This garage door installer had exactly one issue to deal with. In a typical house design, lore says, an architect faces over 100,000 decisions. So this guy was berating me for failing on 1/100,000 of the project, but because it was in his area of specialization, he viewed me as a failure.
But I do agree that green is good wherever it happens, as long as it's actually green and not only greenwash.
funny the arrogant architects i know were doing green design before long before the agonizing acronym called LEED existed. Trombe walls, grey water ponds, passive solar came with the turf. or, i should say xeriscaping.
Mr. Author,
As a landscape architect and architectural designer, currently employed as the manager of sustainable design/project manager for an international practice, a policy wonk, and a soon to be university lecturer teaching about ecocities and sustainable infrastructure - I can confidently claim without being arrogant the I have a broader holistic ecological perspective then you. This is just a reflection of my education and professional practice integrating complex urban systems and large buildings into the regional ecology.
Every problem is a nail when you are a hammer. Energy is the only issue when you see the world through energy models.
From my perspective (and that of Al Gore) the world has plenty of energy resources that don't emit GHGs, but limited potable water and finite ecological habitat - it's just that we're running out of time. I'd rather not get into a pissing contest over which metrics best represent sustainable urbanism, because in general we both agree that we need to change the built environment and peoples lifestyle to create a future for our grandkids and great-grandkids.
Oh, sorry to hear that you live in Atlanta. Please try to conserve water, you have a major drought happening. So what's the deal with using pine needles as mulch everywhere when there isn't a pine tree in sight?
Sincerely,
TK RLA LEED-AP
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.