Making plans

Things are looking surprisingly doable with this piece of land. I've been cranking out lots of thoughts for the past few weeks, discarding many, and forming the remaining ones into somewhat of a plan. This piece of land is actually supporting many of of the things I had speculated upon in earlier postings, and you will see that these plans incorporate those concepts, as well as many others.

The driveway is naturally at a much lower grade than the land. This works nicely with an earth sheltered design

I think an elevation like this could use space very efficiently, maximize solar benefits from the south facing windows while leaving some south facing roof for hot water and maybe photovoltaic. The north portion of the house will be primarily stairs, storage, & baths.

These windows are just stand ins, but the idea is that the south facade will be covered in windows.

I am working with an engineer to revise this plan moving the house closer to the road to cut costs.

A design like this probably requires a lot of concrete construction, so I'm looking into ICFs. I'm also still trying to come up with a way to shade the main level windows from the summer sun. I would love to hear any critique and suggestions in the comments.

Sloping the roof - part 2

Determined that shape must make a difference, I mulled over the roof styles further, and I'm very intrigued with this one:

Here are my reasons:

Simplicity
The entire roof is a single face, which will make construction simple and inexpensive, maintenance rare, and runoff very manageable.

The Sun
This design favors one large wall over the other three, just as the sun shines from one cardinal direction more than the other three. This coincidence could be used to maximize solar gain, while minimizing cold and breezy north facing surfaces. By filling the large side with windows, the sloping eaves would welcome all of the winter sun while shading the home from the summer sun.

Large outer wall
Typical roofs leave the greatest height in the house along the middle. This roof puts that height along an outer wall allowing the height to be used by dramatic windows (like mentioned above.) Ceiling height is only really impressive when it is drawn attention to.

Yes, all this attention on one wall does leave its short counterpart without much to offer, but certain rooms don't require tall ceilings, hot sunlight and good views, like bathrooms and storage


What do you think? No, it's not much to look at yet, but remember we are still just theorizing.

Sloping the roof

I had previously boiled the purpose of a home down to the simple "form containing livable space" definition. A key factor in a space's livability is in its protection from the elements. I've briefly mentioned considerations in protecting from the cold by reducing surface area and shaping the house around a cube, but a cube's flat top isn't the best way to to protect from precipitation, and therefore I'm inclined to let some of the worries about water leakage fall off the side of the house by way of a sloped roof.

This is where it gets interesting because unlike a cube where there is really only one way to shape it, a "cube" with a sloped top can be shaped many ways for example...

But what's really the difference? They each can have similar slopes, and the difference in surface/volume ratio that I talked about earlier is insignificant. Do these shapes and roof styles possess any inherent advantages over each other? At this point siting becomes an important factor, but let's assume that any site is available.

My quick evaluation:

• 2, 3 & 7 have more ridges which add to the complexity & cost
• 4 & 5 are simpler, with 4 being the simplest.
• 2 & 7 are symmetrical, while 1, 3, 4, 5 & 6 offer unique properties to different sides while adding to the sense of 'front and back'
  
• 1, 2 & 3 are very conventional, while the rest are more unique.
  

What else makes these very different styles different? Why choose one over the other? Please leave your comments...

The other side of a cube

I had raised the discussion over at GardenWeb and received some great practical critique of my thinking, and of this idea of a cube shaped house. Some of the mentioned drawbacks are:

1. "Flat roofs leak easily"
2. "A box house isn't very appealing"
3. "Think about snow load"
4. "Other things (especially site) are more important than shape"

Here are my current thoughts on each of these points:

1. Flat roofs leak easily
Yes they do, and yes there are ways around it like covering the roof with a thick and solid PVC membrane, growing a "green roof" with a good drainage system etc.. But these techniques are complex and outright contradict my philosophy of design in which I strive to harness simple natural principles rather than using high tech solutions. So then, I should choose to abandon the perfect cube and value a slight tip of the roof allowing gravity to freely pull water off my house over a savings in surface area.

2. "A box house isn't very appealing"
I disagree. Simple shapes can be very appealing. A special kind of care needs to be put in to it, but if you give the right designer just about any functioning form, he/she will be able to make it appealing. To point out a commonplace example, take Apple's iPod. It is a simple rectangle, and by that description could be quite ugly, but a brilliant designer chose a precise rounding of the corners, a pure and glossy uninterrupted finish, and controls that appear harmonious with the form, and he created one of the most appealing designs of the century. Conversely you can take a simple shape and with the right proportional ornamentation make something magnificent (think Colosseum or Parthenon.) I personally find nothing less appealing in architecture than looking at something and seeing profligate design decisions uninformed by function (ala the McMansion roofline).

3. "Think about snow load"
A good point since the house will be in Connecticut and we receive a couple good snowfalls per year. A nice steep roof would shed some snow pounds, but I don't think we get enough snow here to justify such a tall roof alone, so the snow weight consideration will come back up when it's time to do the structural engineering.

4. "Other things (especially site) are more important than shape"
We don't have a site selected yet, but we will be looking for something very private, probably quite wooded. Aside from that, I would like the house plans to help determine the kind of site we choose, and that is why I'm working out some rough ideas first. Who knows, I may need to start over once the land is bought, but the exercise in design can only help the whole process.

p.s. sorry it's been so long since the last post. life comes in waves.

efficiency of 3d solids

I spent the weekend sketching, most times beginning with 7 straight lines that resemble a cube in perspective. The question of how closely I should adhere to my premise that a cube is the "best" shape kept coming to mind. I had based this premise on a general understanding, but I now needed to run the mathematics to give me a scale on how advantageous the house geometry really is.

This chart shows the surface areas of various shapes, each containing 1000 cubic units of volume. I mentioned in my last post several of the benefits to reducing surface area, and these results give me a sense of the factor of those benefits. (the "house" shape is a square house with a gable roof & in most cases the proportion of dimensions affects these figures.)

A relevant consideration is the fact that roofs & foundations are often much more expensive than walls, and they transmit heat in different ways, so the idea of minimizing footprint should be factored in with other decisions as well.

I was directed toward some great examples and discussion of cube houses by the folks at designcommunity.com. Here are a few inspirational pics:

first stroke

To begin thinking about a design, I am going to treat this blueprint as I would a painting - laying down the big strokes first so that I don't get caught up in the pores of the skin before marking out accurate proportions in the figure.

In either case, I need to understand the purpose of my strokes before touching the canvas. I have boiled down the purpose of a house to this overly simple definition: a form containing livable space.

Thus, my first considerations will be of the best possible shape for this form. Now I greatly appreciate that geometry is free, whereas building materials aren't. So then, I will splurge on a lavish geometric shape that minimizes surface area while maximizing volume of "space" (another free substance!)

Being economical is only one of many reasons for choosing to minimize surface area. The energy efficiency of a home is largely determined by how much heat escapes through the outer surfaces, and reducing the area of these surfaces can only help. By reducing the material usage and increasing the energy efficiency, we consequently have a lower impact on the environment, less required maintenance, and a more durable home.

Simple geometry tells us that a sphere is our most efficient three-dimensional solid. Natural laws exhibit this every time we blow air into a shape (a bubble for example).

After some very enjoyable pondering on building a spherical house, it is pretty clear that this shape doesn't fulfill the very important principle of practicality in building and living. My estimation is that all benefits this shape embodies would be negated by making it livable (flat floors, construction complexity etc.)



It seems that the 90 degree angle truly is the "right" way to build a house and the ideal shape which holds the most volume while tolerating nothing more or less than 90 degrees is the perfect cube.

This simple shape will be the first stroke I put on my canvas blueprint. It will of course be affected by many forthcoming decisions, (probably most dramatically by roof slope) but it makes an ideal starting point.

Please join me in scrutinizing these seemingly simple ideas, and leave a comment below.