sustainable housing

[socialistfuture]

Ok so the idea with this one is rather self explanitory,
pop pictures of sustainable living up -

tree huts, tree villages, adobe housing, indigenous housing/villages...eco villages etc.

personally im living in a normal house at the mo.. but might live at a commune later, possible in a cave house that if i can afford it i'll hook up to solar.


http://www.treehouses.org/
A Treehouse In Every State
By 2008!*

Forever Young Treehouses promotes the construction of universally accessible treehouses across the country. While...
unique in character and craftsmanship, use building methods that protect the health of the trees, and work within our client's financial goals.
* 13 down, 37 to go...

being the luddite I am i dunno how to post pictures can sumone tell me how?

also I thought this could have a discussion on affordable housing and the effects of class on housing and communities (and their sustainability - ecological footprint).

[socialistfuture]

free housing... tree housing


Tree sitting is a form of environmentalist civil disobedience in which a protester sits in a tree, usually on a small platform built for the purpose, to protect it from being cut down (speculating that loggers will not endanger human lives by cutting an occupied tree). Supporters usually provide the tree sitters with food and other necessary supplies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_sitting

im going to also work on building myself an earth hut this year

[Delirium]

the best sustainable housing is that of materials that are collected locally and built to suit the climate in which it is built.

[Vanguard1917]

Ok so the idea with this one is rather self explanitory,
pop pictures of sustainable living up -

tree huts, tree villages, adobe housing, indigenous housing/villages...eco villages etc.

Sure. Here are a few pictures of 'indigenous' shack settlements in Africa. They're extremely eco-friendly and environmentally sustainable. And they're only built using materials found locally. There's hardly any electricity consumption, very few household appliances like refrigerators and washing machines (notice the woman carrying washing on her head), and you certainly wont see many filthy roads and cars. They're so at one with nature that they don't even have toilet flushes. This is what low carbon living should be about, in my opinion.

-------

The South African shack dwellers movement Abahlali baseMjondolo, demanding land, work, public services, proper sanitation and decent housing development - and telling Western 'sustainable development' NGOs to fuck off in the process.

Edit: I removed the pictures. The point is to point out that decent, modern housing (with electricity and the household appliances that many in the West now take for granted) is what the people in the underdeveloped world need and it is what they are demanding.

[Delirium]

quit spamming

[Amusing Scrotum]

It really is quite amazing what both environmentalists and anti-environmentalists class as "sustainable housing". For both groups, "sustainable housing" involves huts, mud, trees, etc. -- a 14th century hamlet, in other words.

But, thankfully, that is simply not what it is.

Sustainable housing, development, green building and so on, doesn't find its base in the past. Rather, it takes its lead from the most modern, efficient forms of technology. In other words, it is on the cutting edge of modern science.

Which is why the common definition of sustainable is as follows: sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

That means, for example, a four bedroom detached house with cavity walls that have 60mm of insulation, is an example of sustainable building. If that house has double or triple glazing, possibly argon filled glazing, then it is even more sustainable.

And if you add into the mix dual flush cisterns, a condensing combination boiler, insulated attics, etc., you have a house that is environmentally efficient. In other words, sustainable.

And that's what "sustainable housing" encompasses -- despite the equally bizarre claims of both environmentalists and anti-environmentalists.
_ _ _ _ _

And, please, remove the pictures. Because not everyone's computer can handle that -- mines working at about a quarter of its normal speed right now.

[Vanguard1917]

Sustainable housing, development, green building and so on, doesn't find its base in the past. Rather, it takes its lead from the most modern, efficient forms of technology.

But does it? The emphasis is always on reducing energy use - which is supposedly going to be achieved by reducing people's consumption. There is never any emphasis on the need to increase energy supply. Those who call for 'sustainable development' (a codeword for restraining development) are also the people who are likely to be against large-scale projects to increase our supply of energy (for example, greater investment in nuclear power and hydroelectric power - forms of energy which do not emitt greenhouse gas). You're right - we need high-tech and modern solutions. But these are going to have to be at a higher level than the level of the individual household. We need to greater emphasis on improving the way we produce energy, in order to increase and improve our supply of it.

[chimx]

The emphasis is always on reducing energy use - which is supposedly going to be achieved by reducing people's consumption.

No. The emphasis is on reducing energy use by maximizing efficiency.

This is why sustainable housing tends to take housing positioning into account so as to maximize heat retention by using nature's heater (the sun).

[socialistfuture]

it seems like theres a few things vanguard is not capable of understanding.

[Amusing Scrotum]

The emphasis is always on reducing energy use - which is supposedly going to be achieved by reducing people's consumption.

Who's emphasis? That's certainly not what I emphasise. Nor is it what professional bodies, like RIBA and CIBSE, advocate. And, on this particular subject, those bodies tend to set the overall tone -- for better or worse. (An example of that, is the RICS's recent battle with the Government over the HIP.)

Now, given that these bodies set the tone, and don't emphasise "reducing energy use", your statement becomes a bit of a strawman. A strawman which substitutes a few twits on the fringe of this debate, for the people who will actually make the decisions and set the course.

That is, the professional bodies of the industry, and the corporations that make up the industry, are the people with power here. Not the scientists on the fringe, not the environmental activists, and not even the politicians.

And, as chimx pointed out, the main focus right now, "is on reducing energy use by maximizing efficiency."

That's why, for example, new builds have to have condensing boilers. It's also why lots of properties have had attic insulation installed on the Governments tab. And so on and so forth.

Think of it, if you like, in terms of the recent Champions League final. Liverpool's dominance, in terms of possession, represents energy. Their lack of attacking brilliance -- for example, a Kaka who can open up the tightest of defences and can affect a game tremendously without being that involved over the full 90 minutes -- represents their efficiency.

As it stands, they lose 2-1. If they increase their efficiency, by say signing a Kaka, they do a lot better.

And, likewise, as it stands with regards sustainable housing, the emphasis is also on signing a Kaka. By installing condensing boilers, etc., it is hoped that overall efficiency is increased to a level that means all that dominance of possession, is not lost.

So that's what sustainable development is -- increasing efficiency without compromising our basic needs.

And whilst you have a point that things need to be done on a larger scale as well, that's not what's in debate here. What's up for debate here, is sustainable housing. And, despite your claims, and the claims of people like socialistfuture -- who is very much the yin to your yan -- it doesn't involve huts, mud and trees.

And, even in the developing world, that's not what it entails. Just look at some of the modern development in China if you don't believe me -- in particular, look at the work of William McDonough & Partners.
_ _ _ _ _

And, thanks for removing the pictures.

[socialistfuture]

ill put up sum links for permiculture set ups in the first and majority world, and do a wee write up on appropriate technology in the next cpl days.

[anarchista feminista]

Originally posted by Amusing [email protected] 25, 2007 02:31 am
It really is quite amazing what both environmentalists and anti-environmentalists class as "sustainable housing". For both groups, "sustainable housing" involves huts, mud, trees, etc. -- a 14th century hamlet, in other words.

But, thankfully, that is simply not what it is.

Sustainable housing, development, green building and so on, doesn't find its base in the past. Rather, it takes its lead from the most modern, efficient forms of technology. In other words, it is on the cutting edge of modern science.

Which is why the common definition of sustainable is as follows: sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

That means, for example, a four bedroom detached house with cavity walls that have 60mm of insulation, is an example of sustainable building. If that house has double or triple glazing, possibly argon filled glazing, then it is even more sustainable.

And if you add into the mix dual flush cisterns, a condensing combination boiler, insulated attics, etc., you have a house that is environmentally efficient. In other words, sustainable.

And that's what "sustainable housing" encompasses -- despite the equally bizarre claims of both environmentalists and anti-environmentalists.
_ _ _ _ _

And, please, remove the pictures. Because not everyone's computer can handle that -- mines working at about a quarter of its normal speed right now.
I agree. I would much prefer to live in the kind of sustainable housing that has solar power, and has things like insulation. Not a hut. It's better for the environment, sure, but not always as effective in providing warmth. I think there is a bit of confusion when it comes to sustainability. It doesn't mean we need to be a primitivist society.

[socialistfuture]

primitism is only one kind of sustainable, and isnt even always sustainable ie if a primitist hunted to much that they wiped out a species, or cut too many trees for their village that they wiped out a forest or ended a species of tree.