Green Rehab, perhaps

We'll miss you . . .

2009-07-15T22:50:00.003-04:00

Sadly, we are selling our house. Career developments mean we're moving away from Asheville. There's not much else to say here except that it was a great experience, and hard to walk away from a house that we enjoyed living in so much.

You can see the listing, or take the virtual tour.

Energy Savings Impact of our Green Rehab

2009-07-04T11:00:00.007-04:00

Recently, I calculated the impact of our green rehab in terms of cost savings, reduced energy use, and reduced CO2 emissions. As you can see from the graph below, we cut everything roughly in half from our previous house, which was a rental of similar size, layout, and type of energy use (electric/gas).

I also charted the average Southeast household.

Asheville is a bit cooler than the rest of the Southeast, so it makes sense that we would use a bit more heat than, say, Atlanta. But as you can see, we cut our heat use dramatically from the rental property. It was probably worse than average for Asheville, but I'd guess that we are substantially more efficient than the average Asheville home.

Also, we have chosen to use wood for a large portion of our heat, so that reduces our carbon footprint. (Another technical point is that the "heat" portion of this estimate might include more energy for hot water since the water coming into the pipes is significantly colder in winter than summer.)
Our energy use for appliances and lighting is far lower than the average Southeast household. Energy star and CFLs really do work.
With respect to hot water, our average energy use is only a bit less than average, but keep in mind that with two adults and 3 kids, we have twice as many people (and thus laundry, dishes, and showers/baths) than the average household.

All of these figures are a bit rough, but I'm sure I am pretty close. I do this for a living, but I didn't want to put the time into this to increase the precision. My data come from utility bills and personal financial records, but otherwise I just used some standard factors, etc. to calculate approximate numbers.

Converting Intermediate Base to Candelabra Base Bulb Socket

2008-06-09T09:12:00.006-04:00

I think the post on the intermediate base bulb socket debacle has gradually become the most popular "googled" article on my blog. I thought I'd provide a quick update on a new product that has finally appeared on the market: a converter to allow me to use candelabra CFL bulbs in our ceiling fans.

Frankly, I think Home Depot should give these away. But I found them for about $2 here and this seems like the best price going. Assuming that this company allows returns, I'm going to count up my sockets and put in a "bulk" order and try them out.

As I mentioned, the best 60 watt equivalent CFL bulbs I've found with a candelabra base are Bright Effects at Lowe's. This bright bulb is hard to find and I only found two brands that I thought were worth trying. I'd be interested to hear from anyone else who's found an alternative.

Update: I bought the converter illustrated above and so far I am generally satisfied. I was able to convert all but 2 of my ceiling fans to use a candelabra base CFL bulb. The remaining two fans each use a single 60 watt intermediate base bulb that points downward from the fixture and is enclosed by a globe. Using the converter makes the CFL extend out too far and the globe can't be attached to the fixture by about 1/2 inch (maybe a bit less). So if you want to try this solution, I suggest you verify that your CFL will fit in the fixture even if it is positioned a bit further out of the socket than would normally be the case.

I've got a few spare converters as a result, anyone in Asheville want some?

Keeping cool, no AC

2008-06-07T17:40:00.003-04:00

Friday I arrived home from a business trip. We're in the middle of what passes for a heat wave here (having lived in Houston before this, sure doesn't seem like it). It was 88 degrees outside, and 78 degrees inside.

As discussed elsewhere, we renovated the house to stay cool without AC and it worked!

The Guide Arrives After the Journey Is Complete

2008-03-28T13:32:00.003-04:00

Story of my life in some respects.

REGREEN, the Guide for Green Home Renovation, has just been released.

I haven't read it yet, but it looks very useful on first skim. I'm probably going to start by looking at the basement section - we have an unfinished basement and although it is not a candidate to become "living space" I'm interested to see what suggestions might be useful for improving that space. Maybe the journey isn't complete after all . . .

Of course, I'll also be looking to boost my ego by noting how many of the recommendations we already implemented!

How many light bulbs does it take to screw up an energy efficient house?

2008-01-03T20:59:00.000-05:00

The answer is 12. But this isn't a funny riddle.

Allow me to explain. Our goal was to purchase lighting fixtures that were entirely energy efficient. I've been using CFLs for over 15 years for lamp, indoor, outdoor, ceiling fan and other fixtures. As they've become more compact and offered more variety in lighting detail, they've become the main lighting source wherever I've lived. But this was to be the first time we tried to go for 100% by selecting lighting fixtures that would be functional and attractive with CFLs.

The results? We ended up with 42 CFLs and 3 tubes that use a total of about 720 watts, and a total of 11 incandescents and 2 halogens that use a total of about 720 watts.*

I feel like the victim of an energy crime. The conspirators? Hampton Bay Fans and Home Depot.**

But before I explain myself, briefly I'll explain why 3 bulbs didn't make the cut. First, we found that CFLs would not work in our range hood and that only the recommended halogen bulbs would work. These are not particularly efficient bulbs and we use them a lot, so that's a shame.

Second, we have one fixture that we needed to put on a dimmer switch. First, I tried a 24 watt Neptun Helix dimmable CFL. It burned out after about 3 days. Then I tried an "efficient" halogen bulb that was about 25% less energy than the incandescent we ended up using. It too burned out after about 3 days. I kind of wonder about that dimmer switch . . .

OK, but if that was it, I'd feel pretty satisfied about coming close to the goal. The big problem is our ceiling fans.

We bought 12 ceiling fans for our home with the goal of avoiding air conditioning use. (We also have an attic fan.) We wanted to purchase light kits (usually sold with the fans) that would be CFL-compatible and generally did not want the style with the downward facing bulbs - generally we prefer the saucer or globe style, and there are a wide variety of choices in this general style.

It turns out that we bought our fans just as some new regulations were kicking in that required ceiling fans to be packaged with CFLs if they used a standard medium base bulb. So . . . ceiling fan manufacturers simply switched to alternative bases.

At Lowe's, most of the ceiling fans use candelabra-base bulbs. Some of the lower-end fans do have medium-base sockets and are, indeed, packaged with CFLs. We ended up with 3 ceiling fans that use candelabra bulbs (3 each). This is annoying, but there are CFLs available for these fan light kits.

Lowe's sells 60 watt equivalent Bright Effects brand candelabra CFLs that we like. These are hard to find in the 60 watt equivalent brightness, though, I also tried TPC brand bulbs that hum like an old, noisy computer. These are only available by mail order which should have told me something. There is more selection in the 40 watt equivalents, but this would not have provided ample lighting in our living room and bedroom where these fixtures are our main source of light.

Hampton Bay - which is basically Home Depot's upscale house brand - chose another option - to begin selling fans that use the previously obscure "intermediate base" bulb size. This bulb is so obscure that it is not only impossible to find CFLs in this size, but so far I've found that Home Depot is the only place that stocks ANY bulbs that use this base. And the bulbs that they sell with the fans are cheap, cheap, cheap. Of the 58 bulbs in our house, 5 have burned out - 2 incandescents sold with the Hampton Bay fans, 1 CFL and the 2 bulbs discussed above.

(Hampton Bay also offers one fan using the latest efficient bulb option: LEDs. However, if you read the reviews you'll conclude that the light kit is basically a night light. I didn't verify this for myself and the fan isn't displayed in stores here because it was stocked after the displays. Even though it appears to be a pretty lousy product, it has earned a feature on the Energy Star ceiling fan home page, which in my opinion has a pretty unhelpful discussion of light kits that doesn't really discuss how to choose one that is likely to be efficient.)

We bought and installed 4 52" Gazebo Plus fans with 2 intermediate base bulbs, and 2 42" Courtney fans (apparently no longer available) with 1 intermediate base bulb each. Together the lights on these fans use 600 watts - about 45% of our potential electric lighting demand - yet representing only 20% of the bulbs in the house. They also happen to be in high-use areas - above the office desk I'm typing at and in the kids' bedrooms (where lights tend to get left on by forgetful youngsters).

When we selected these fans, and perhaps when we bought them, they were sold using medium base bulb sockets. (We aren't sure what the boxes said because the electrician discarded the boxes well before we realized what was happening.)

Using some contacts I have due to my profession, I've learned that Home Depot intentionally switched away from medium base bulbs due to the new federal regulation. Furthermore, its senior management have commented that Home Depot wasn't prepared to offer intermediate base bulbs because of the production rush. This professional contact was offered some intermediate base CFLs - which were offered to me in turn - but these are 40 watt equivalent bulbs and the lighting is barely adequate in those rooms as it stands.

So as you can imagine, I'm pretty annoyed with Home Depot / Hampton Bay. I'm stuck with lighting that isn't efficient. Furthermore, probably in a few years the intermediate base bulb will go the way of the Betamax and I'll be stuck with light bulbs that are almost impossible to replace. In fact, I'd really like them to personally replace our lighting . . . but the fans are already beyond their replacement period and in any event I'd probably have to do the replacement work myself which isn't a trivial task.

There are other ceiling fan sources out there, but I haven't checked them out.

But let me mention something practical regardless of bulb type - if you're considering lighting your home with ceiling fans, it is hard to find fans with bright fixtures these days. Take care and note that most have maximum 60 watt bulbs and 1-2 sockets for the globe/saucer style. For a medium to large room, 120 watt equivalent lighting isn't very bright.

* I counted bulbs, but didn't check each bulb's wattage to come up with an exact figure. So after calculating my estimated total wattage, I took the liberty of rounding off a few watts to make the numbers match. If anything, I've overestimated the CFL wattage.

** Note that in a prior post, I said some nice things about Home Depot. Too bad they fell short here.

We're not such bad polluters after all

2007-12-02T21:37:00.000-05:00

Unless you're fascinated by the workings of city inspectors and appeals processes, this post probably won't be for you. Fair warning! Lots of text and blah blah blah ahead!

On November 27, my contractor's violation for "off site sedimentation" or runoff was reduced from "moderate" to "slight," reducing the fine from $500 to $150. This occurred during what I am told was the first ever hearing by the City of Asheville under the new "Stormwater, Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control, Illicit Discharge and Connection Ordinance."

The hearing was pretty involved for such a minor matter. There were a dozen or so city staff involved. A committee of 4 people (I think) were hearing the case, and there were several staff from the city engineering department, and some other people who never spoke who were probably also from the city engineering department.

Mike Weaver, my contractor, wasn't disputing much - he agreed that there had been runoff and that, under the ordinance, that triggered a violation. He felt that the measurement of the amount of runoff was in error. Otherwise everyone agreed on the facts and mostly agreed on when things happened.

Because the city didn't actually measure the area impacted until some days after the violation was issued, Mike's contention was that the dirt had been spread out over a larger area. The dirt was spread out by sweeping and also by vehicle traffic. This matters because the fine schedule is assessed on the basis of area of impact, not the amount of sediment. It doesn't matter if it is just barely covering the road or it is inches deep: same fine.

My role in all of this was to testify about three things.

First, I testified that Mike told me several months back that a city inspector had reviewed his silt fencing and other stormwater measures and had asked him to add gravel to a temporary delivery driveway but otherwise seemed satisfied. However, when I asked city staff for information about this inspection, they could not find any documentation of the visit and told me that it had not occurred. I do not believe this is accurate given the specificity of what Mike had told me.
Second, I testified that I had been to the property on the following day and observed that there had been some cleanup of the dirt in the street, but that due to it still being wet it couldn't really be swept clean. (Try sweeping up a muddy road without using more water to wash it away. Can't be done.) I also testified that the silt fence had been put back up.
Third, I provided pictures that I took on that day.

Overall, I think the committee found what I had to say trustworthy, although it wasn't fully reflected in their record of decision. Most of the points of disagreement, I'd say, are not really central to the issue.

I think the City of Asheville has a lot of room to improve in this area. I've reviewed the work of environmental enforcement staff in several different agencies and areas of work, and it is always tedious work done by people with too much to do, and requiring an excessive amount of paperwork. That's just how it is, nevertheless . . .

1) The city engineering department needs to document things better.

The pre-storm visit (maybe back in April? not sure) was totally undocumented.
The city inspector also claimed that he visited the site three days after the storm to measure the area impacted. However, this was handled irregularly - he said that he wrote the area of impact on the inspection report handled by the original city inspector. In my opinion, this should have been written on a new inspection report.
That same city inspector did file a second inspection report 12 days later (that's when I think he actually made the measurement). I believe this because it wasn't clear what he did during this visit that wasn't also done during the three day later visit.

2) The city engineering department needs to make a during-grading visit. If I understand the process correctly, there are no inspection requirements for the property after the permit is granted until the final engineering inspection at the conclusion of the project. I think the city should add a requirement for the contractor to notify engineering when grading is underway, so that a visit can be made during that process to ensure that things are being done in a satisfactory manner. This shouldn't be permitted to hold up projects; the inspector should come by at a convenient time when already attending to something in the vicinity, but it could be very helpful for preventing such events.

3) The city should add a pre-hearing meeting to find out what the nature of the appeal is so that it doesn't waste so much time. Also, when the dispute is so narrow, the city could allow for a reduced number of committee members to hear the dispute. If a pre-hearing meeting had been held, it would have been clear that the facts of the case were mostly not in dispute. Hearing all this presented for the record took up about half the hearing time. Also, some of the city staff were there just to testify that it was, in fact, Mike's permit (duh). I see no reason that there were a dozen people in there for an hour - could have easily been handled with three or four city staff.

4) The city should revisit how it assesses the severity of stormwater runoff. This is not going to be easy to determine, surely some of the runoff went down a drain so there isn't any way for the inspector to measure the amount of runoff even if they show up right after it stops raining. But also a measurement of square feet taken several days after the fact is also just as irrelevant to the amount of damage. I totally agree with the idea that the fine should be based on the severity of the actual damage, but there needs to be some better way to assess this.

Anyhow, I thought I'd write all this up in hopes that when the city comes around to revisiting this ordinance, it might make some of these changes. Cutting down on construction runoff is really important, and I certainly learned something in this case. Too bad I don't ever expect to apply this knowledge!

Faucets! And Potties!

2007-11-27T21:12:00.001-05:00

Raquel did a lot of research on faucets. She likes them to work. Go figure.

In Houston, we bought a Price Pfister kitchen faucet that was designed exactly how I wanted it, but after less than a year it failed. Their idea of a warranty, as I recall it, was to send me some parts . . . meanwhile, we were sitting there without a faucet. So we bought a new faucet, same model, which also developed a big leak.

By far, most of the faucet research was directed towards the kitchen. Of the many styles available, Raquel quickly decided that a gooseneck faucet with single-lever control offered many advantages, in particular one-hand operation and plenty of room underneath for our large pots, and she liked the idea of a pull-down spring-action sprayer, which makes it easier to replace the sprayer when finished.

Finally, for the icing on the cake, she wanted a one-hole faucet to make countertop cleaning much easier. The idea to have several faucets in the kitchen was suggested early in our planning. It seems to be popular to have not only a normal sized faucet but also a rinsing faucet in a small vegetable washing sink elsewhere in the kitchen. People also install pot fillers on the wall behind the stove. We definitely had neither the space nor the desire for three faucets in the kitchen. But Raquel wanted the best faucet she could find for the one we would buy.

Raquel narrowed down the choices based on functionality, then picked among those based on style. With three kids, we cook and clean a lot. Style was actually pretty important for us because the faucet is a visible focal point even as people enter the house. In fact, we've had people walk in for the first time and comment on the faucet within less than 2 minutes.

Raquel chose a commercial style faucet. Although we could have saved money with a true commercial faucet, these were way too tall and many need to be wall mounted. Based on cost and reputation, we narrowed down the choices to Danze, La Toscana, and Blanco.

Product reviews for these faucets are hard to find, although Consumer Reports has an online review available to subscribers. But at no cost, Terry Love's Plumbing Forum
did have good advice. The Danze was widely condemned for poor quality. La Toscana was an unknown. Blanco had good comments.

Both Blanco and La Toscana boast of solid brass construction. For price and a minor style point, we settled on the Blanco 157-140 Meridian Semi Professional Kitchen Faucet With Pulldown Spray.

We did have some brands that we rejected out of hand. Home Depot carries several Pegasus models, another brand that was roundly condemned for poor quality and lack of durability. Grohe is a high-end brand that also receives poor comments, including our plumber who wouldn't work with it. Kohler makes several pull-down styles, but for more than twice the price of Blanco - so Raquel really didn't research Kohler further. And I already mentioned our prior experience with Price Pfister (which we noticed was a not uncommon experience).

So we did spend perhaps a couple of hundred dollars more on the faucet than we might have, but we think it will really last and be hassle free to operate. And so far, after a month, it has been great.

For most of our other faucets (2 tubs, 1 shower, and 1 sink) we bought Delta. We also bought 1 Moen sink faucet, and 1 faucet that came with the master bath vanity.

Delta was our faucet of choice because it is economical, good quality and it comes in a variety of finishes. However, when we tried to match our black iron finish sink base to a Delta faucet, we learned that Delta had stopped making this finish (perhaps due to the finish rubbing off over time). (We didn't consider Delta for the kitchen because it didn't have the style we were looking for.)

It was very difficult to find an economical black finish faucet - most were over $700 - what's up with that? The Moen Kingsley model faucet (shown here) was economical and attractive, and gets good reviews as far as we can tell. So far it is still black!

Raquel visited the high end showrooms in town, and was surprised to see that they prominently display brands such as Grohe and Danze despite their poor reputations. She guesses that some people only care about style!

Likewise the vanities displayed at those showrooms were poor quality. Instead, we ordered a Cole & Co. vanity online that was 1/3 the price and didn't use the cheap construction methods like glued drawers. Style wins again (for some people)!

Regarding toilets, we bought the Toto Drake Elongated Bowls. Raquel put a lot of research into this because we had a bad experience with a contractor-recommended toilet in Houston. (The same contractor who said Price Pfisters were great.) Terry Love's Plumbing Forum has good information, but also ConsumerSearch summarized reviews very helpfully.

Hoping for low energy use . . .

2007-11-27T21:08:00.000-05:00

Our rental house, just a couple of miles from our new house, was an energy hog. It used mostly natural gas. For the last 12 months in the house, our average energy use was:

250 kWh per month
141 therms per month

. . . which adds up to 11 tons of CO2 emissions per year using one calculator I tried. Yikes!

My long term goal is to get our family to 2 tons per year per adult plus an extra ton for the three kids, so a total of 5 tons per year. Counting everything, not just our utilities.

It'll be a year before we know how we've done in the new house, but here's what I'm hoping for:

less than 125 kWh per month
less than 40 therms per month
plus a little cordwood for the wood stove

. . . which adds up to about 3.5 tons of CO2 emissions per year using that same calculator.

When we get some actual data, I plan to update these calculations with a North Carolina specific calculator.

We do like our appliances, thank you

2007-11-10T15:06:00.000-05:00

Oddly, the #1 post on this website is about our kitchen appliances. So I thought I'd give a quick review (a more detailed review to come much later).

First of all, let's clear one thing up. We didn't buy any LG appliances. So for all you googlers who are here to read about LG, you'll have to read the original post about kitchen appliances to find out why. I've got nothing new to add on that score.

In summary, we like all the appliances we bought and they are pretty much what we expected.

The french-door style KitchenAid refrigerator is very easy and convenient to use. The thermostat on the ceiling is a mild inconvenience since taller things in the front of the top shelf are difficult to slide around when trying to reach something in back. And the deli tray takes a little getting used to for finding things in the back. But these are hardly complaints.
KitchenAid dishwasher is excellent. Quiet, cleans great, etc. We'll see if the cleaning deteriorates somewhat over time as has happened with a couple of dishwashers we've owned in the past. I've felt that perhaps it was caused by the drain getting gunky.
GE range/oven with warming (up to 450) tray is great. Love the large grates on top, and the grilling surface (used for pancakes once) is nice. Electronic controls are easy to figure out.
GE microwave is still working just fine. Actually we had this already.

One of these days we'll read the manuals for these appliances and find out how to work them :-). In the meantime, they have been very easy to use.

We've moved in!

2007-11-09T14:26:00.000-05:00

Before & After

I will be posting some stories soon about things that interest me (of course), like our ceiling fan fiasco.

We're polluters :-(

2007-09-17T09:17:00.000-04:00

Last Friday, there was a big rain event in Asheville. Some dirt washed off the property and ended up in the street. A city inspector visited the property and cited either the contractor or us, but we haven't seen the citation yet to find out.

This has become a big issue in Asheville recently. The Asheville Citizen-Times wrote a headline story about the runoff resulting from this storm.

Resident complaints about construction mud have raised the profile of runoff problems. Mud is one of the biggest pollutants of North Carolina waterways, harming plants and animals, water quality experts say.

The article also almost gleefully pointed out several local pro-green celebrities who had been cited for stormwater runoff violations. I'm wondering if I forsee a future snide remark or two about me!

For those reading this who don't live in Asheville, let me mention that this was not a particularly remarkable rainfall except that it was the largest in several months.

So here are some thoughts about this whole process, in no particular order.

* I'm not looking to make excuses. We had dirt in the road, and we shouldn't have.

* Over the course of the project, I've asked Mike several times if we had adequate measures in place. Mike assured me that he had spoken with the city inspector about it and, when asked to put down gravel in a certain area, had done so. Except as discussed below, all of the measures were in good condition at the time of the rainfall.

* The inspector who visited the project and wrote up the citation would not speak with Mike regarding the citation. He tried to ask what actions he should take, he asked for a copy of the citation, etc. He felt that the inspector was very rude and not the least bit helpful. He told me he was not trying to make excuses.

* So on balance, I think the city has some room to improve in terms of helping to prevent runoff problems at construction sites. We (owner and contractor) have the responsibility to control our mud, but my experience is that the city's role in this relatively minor incident did not help prevent the incident.

* I say "minor" because just about a week or so ago, I followed a plume of dirt that passed in front of our property back up the street to its source. The city was doing some utility excavation I think under a sidewak and in a street uphill from us. There were no stormwater prevention measures in place and construction-related water had caused a large amount of dirt to be spread down the street for several blocks.

In contrast, you can see from the picture above that not a lot of dirt remained in the street after the rainfall Friday. The major dirt issue in our part of Asheville is a large steep-slope development that is causing a lot of mud. Just the amount of mud carried on all the tire treads of the trucks entering and exiting that property is more than we possibly lost in the rainfall event. Again, I'm not making excuses, but just trying to put this event in perspective. Over time, lots of "minor" events will cause stream damage and the point of this post is to explore why we fell short, so that perhaps others can avoid the problem.

* Friday's rainfall event was bad timing for us. I'd been bugging Mike for literally months to get the grading finished and landscaping in place to help prevent a stormwater runoff event. Due to other aspects of construction, however, the grading was not finished until about two weeks ago. At that point, the landscaper was supposed to get to work.

Unfortunately, our landscaper decided that he couldn't handle the project at that time. He was too busy with other things, etc. So a week before the rainfall, we had a freshly graded yard and no landscaper. I found one in 24 hours, but he said he couldn't do much in the next week. He did get some jute (an organic fabric mat) down on the steep areas to keep them from washing out.

When the landscaper asked me what my deadline was, I told him one thing: I don't want a tropical storm to wash our yard away. Deadline missed, a little.

P.S. - Here's a visual of the front of our property, where things aren't so steep. You can see very little runoff in this area. The dirt from the recently completed city utility project would be out of view to the left, but it did get all washed away during the rainfall.

"Green" materials are hard to buy on a budget AND schedule

2007-09-09T20:49:00.000-04:00

If we were do-it-yourselfers, and had lots of flexibility on our move-in date, we'd have made different choices. I don't feel we made "bad" choices, but we definitely didn't achieve what we wanted to with respect to materials for countertops and floors.

While not the largest amount of stuff by weight or planetary impact, countertops and floors get a lot of attention in the "green building" world because they are so visible. If I could go back and have a re-do on materials in one place, I'd actually have made a different choice on lumber, and done my own research rather than relying on our contractor.

On flooring, our first choice would have been reclaimed wood, second cork, third (perhaps) bamboo, and fourth was the oak we ended up using.

Reclaimed or salvaged wood is difficult to locate and use in a timely manner. And it seems to be expensive, although we didn't really price it competitively. After talking to a couple of area suppliers I figured it wasn't a good choice. We also considered it for cabinets. Basically you have to find a cabinet maker or a floor guy who has a source that he's got a deal with, or you have to be very flexible and patient with your schedule. Even if it costs a bit more, that's the least of your worries in these parts. We didn't consider shipping it in from elsewhere because that kind of defeats the purpose.
Cork looked good to us, but finally there were issues with finding a confident installer. My sense is that a floor subcontractor doesn't want to try anything new, even if you say - don't worry about problems, we can handle them. For one thing, they've got other projects lined up and don't need the delays to make their business run off kilter.
Bamboo ran into the same issue, and we were less confident that we could find a style and price that we would like. Another general problem was that the local market for such materials either caters to high end new construction, or is really just getting off the ground. One local company we were trying to work with kept delaying getting us key information because they were too busy selling festival parking in their lot. I think they had their business plan a bit confused.
So wood was our final choice, and its main advantages were (1) it matched our existing hardwoods, (2) our contractor's usual floor guy was comfortable with it, and (3) it was readily available.

The story was much the same with our countertops. Here there were issues with style and preference, but we almost went with Paperstone. I really liked the material, and we were fairly confident that our contractor could install it. We spoke with a local supplier and considered ordering it online. The suppliers didn't have their act together (see above) and finally there were issues with cost, etc. Our contractor could have installed the countertops if we had ordered them to be shipped in, but he's running behind and we didn't want to add any more work for him.

Instead, we got granite from a local supplier who had some leftovers from a large order that were attractive and a good deal. So we went for green$ over "Green" I guess. It is kind of frustrating that the "Green Building" market is so heavily oriented towards new construction, whatever the price range. I guess that's because volume is still low.

Siding, and an aside

2007-09-09T13:59:00.001-04:00

One of the posts I planned to write a long time ago was about our decisions on siding. We wanted our choice to be as low-impact as possible over the lifetime of the house. We also wanted something in architectural keeping with the house. I'll be honest - this isn't a thrilling post but for the sake of covering everything I had once intended to write about.

Our decisions were:
1) Reuse some of the brick in selective spots.
2) Recycle all of the existing aluminum siding.
3) Install HardiPlank and HardiShingle siding.

These three pictures illustrate before, planned, and final.

The reused brick is visible to the left of the front door covering the new addition. Also along the house below the floor level around that side. (We've also set aside some reused brick for use on walkways.) I was surprised at how little brick we actually had to work with. Apparently a good amount of it was not high enough quality to survive the process.

Recycling the aluminum siding was a no-brainer. It wasn't in great condition, and it can't be easily matched during a renovation even if we liked it.

The final decision on HardiPlank was made easier by our investigation into appropriate siding materials several years ago. It still seems strange to me that a cement-based product is the "green" choice, but there are two main reasons it makes sense.

First, it lasts a long time. And the paint on it lasts a long time (little/no peeling). So bottom line is that the amount of material needed to cover the house over, say, 50 years is less than for a material like wood.

Second, many of the wood alternatives are treated with chemicals. Which, especially during repainting, can be a problem.

If we were starting from scratch, there are some other great alternatives that might have made sense in the context of a different type of wall (e.g., cordwood) and I'm pretty certain that we would have chosen them. One I thought sounded neat was bark. I laughed at first but then as I read about it I thought it would be something I'd try if I were building from scratch. Another option is recycled/reclaimed wood, which can make sense if you have time to acquire the materials from many sources. Good approach for DIYs but harder with a contractor on a schedule.

Final comment, you might notice that the HardiShingles are not used as extensively as the initial rendering indicated. Not really sure what happened here - we were surprised by the change but there seemed to be some reason for it. And we didn't mind the alternative look (the initial look wasn't our idea anyway). So we didn't make an issue of it.

Paper thin walls

2007-09-07T23:03:00.000-04:00

OK, they're not thin, but they are made of recycled paper. And wherever else they got this yucky cellulose stuff.

R-Pro did a very nice job installing the blown cellulose in our walls. We also considered icynene foam. (Our friends who just bought from Ecohouse have it.) Basically for the marginally better performance of icynene we would have paid a LOT.

Cellulose insulation is a recycled fiber product mixed with powdered adhesive and effective fire retardant. It is an earth friendly product and significantly reduces waste in landfills. Here in the picture you can see the cellulose being sprayed onto the walls. As it is sprayed, a liquid is also sprayed to mix with it to bind it together.

The binding prevents it from settling down in the wall over time and also ensures a good barrier to movement of air (although it doesn't "seal" the house). After the installer finished spraying it on, he came back with basically a long stick that he ran along the wall, scraping the excess material off the wall. They then vacuumed it back into the truck for re-use.

We did use a few other forms of insulation in the walls. I noticed that cellulose bats were put in on one hard-to-spray location. And in the basement some simple cottony material was put under the floor. The degree of insulation in that area is not as important.

I think a lot of the attic was done with loose cellulose, which is a slightly different product.

I will also mention that we got excellent recommendations for Home Energy Partners as another good installer in the Asheville area. Mike picked R-Pro but we liked them both. There are probably some other competitors in the market but I didn't hear anything one way or another about other companies.

Grading and all that yard stuff

2007-09-07T22:45:00.000-04:00

The "greenest" thing most people notice about our house will be the plants, at least if you don't count one of the very brightly painted rooms. Right now the yard doesn't look so green. And, strangely enough, the "greenest" thing in our yard is black. More on that later.

The back and side yards had to be completely regraded due to various aspects of the house construction. We're on what is considered a pretty moderate slope here in Asheville. Back in ol' Houston, we'd be a citywide curiosity with such a steep yard.

Still, I was pretty surprised by how flat the backyard was after grading. Steve cut a pretty sharp grade against the back of the property and rolled a gentle slope down to the street. Initially I thought we'd have a big wide grass "driveway" (but not for cars) sloping gently down from the back door to the street.

Instead, my friend Charlie Hopper of Cogito came by and suggested that we open up a large flat area off the back yard, then have steps going up into the rest of the backyard, and also down to the street. He described this as an outdoor "room" that we might deck or at least enclose with a small (picket?) fence.

When he first mentioned the "fence" word, I cringed a bit because I've always hated corner lot houses with big privacy fences. But what he was suggesting was more of a visual barrier, something that would remind a child or a ball or an animal that this is where you stop running or rolling. Also it would give passers-by an indication of where our "private" space begins without cutting us off from the neighborhood.

Another big help Charlie gave us was to tip us off that the hemlocks along the side of the house needed to have the soil drawn back from their roots. This picture illustrates things pre-wall. Now there is a 15 foot wall made from landscaping timbers that holds the soil back from the trees.

We'll also have to get into the hemlock treatment routine as the hemlocks are headed towards extinction in this part of the world due to wooly adelgids.

Charlie's final piece of advice was to keep the dirt we had been trying to give away on Craigslist and use it to restore some yard that had been lost over time. You can see some of the new dirt here just behind and to the left of the fire hydrant.

The front yard didn't require so much tearing up. However, they needed to move the shrubs out because of the work on the house, and the front walk was going to be replaced, too. And the workers were parking there because there isn't much on-street parking in our area. So . . . nothing left alive but the trees (those tulip poplars that block the sun from our roof).

Our plan is to do most of the interesting landscaping next year. This year we have three priorities.
1. Get some ground cover (fescue mix) in so that if a tropical storm comes our way we won't end up covering the neighborhood with clay.
2. A few shrubs, etc. for the front of the house so it won't look so naked. Ewwww.
3. Raised beds for gardening in the back yard.

The greenest feature of our new yard may also be the blackest. On Labor Day, I drove down to Eprida in Athens and picked up about 300 lbs of biochar from "Charcoal Bob," pictured here grinding up the charred peanut pellets. While his assumed nickname is kind of goofy, Eprida is dead serious about changing the way we treat our soil.

There is an international movement to promote the use of biochar for several purposes, especially to sequester carbon in the soil (helping reduce global warming) and to enhance soil productivity (with less fertilizer). Research is underway to fully explain how it works, but in the meantime I'm officially an "early adopter."

Now there's even a YouTube video promoting backyard manufacture of biochar. There are a lot of good reasons that we should prefer to make it in a pyrolysis process (such as at Eprida)
rather than in a backyard setting. The backyard manufacture probably releases enough methane to counter-balance the global warming benefits of sequestering the carbon, and it also releases air pollution. But I'll give these guys some linky love because I think it is OK to make it this way in small amounts while we figure out just how biochar benefits the soil.

So right now the biochar is sitting in bags in our yard waiting for the construction of the raised beds. Hurry hurry Mr. Soil man.

Certified lumber

2007-08-25T16:42:00.000-04:00

We asked our contractor use certified lumber or its equivalent from local sources. I don't think this ended up working out very well, and I'm probably at fault.

By certified lumber, I'm referring to a couple of systems for indicating that the forest products are harvested in a "sustainable" manner. In the USA, there are two widely available certifications:

Forest Stewardship Council - The FSC is the original international forest certification system. It was created in 1993 by forest managers and producers, conservation groups, and labor, indigenous, and other social interest groups from North America and globally.
Sustainable Forestry Initiative - The SFI is a forest products certification program developed by the American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA). It establishes principles and guidelines, based on sustainable forestry principles, that its numerous members must comply with. Further, it requires member companies to also address broader forest policy goals.

As you may infer from the above, the FSC is the preferred "green" certification. Its advantages are extolled on the Credible Forest Certification page. Although I find the pro-FSC position convincing, I decided we'd be OK with either certification due to limited availability.

Unfortunately, I think we ended up with only a portion of our lumber being sustainable. Our contractor asked his regular supplier what they had to offer, and they didn't know what he was talking about. So he checked with Lowe's, and they told him "all their lumber was certified."

Based on my incomplete inspection, I don't think Lowe's officially claims to meet this standard nor are they coming close at the Asheville location.

First of all, I think I saw some SFI (rather than FSC) logos. The Lowe's website only mentions FSC as acceptable certification.

Second, of the lumber I inspected onsite, far less than half had any logo visible to me.

By the time I figured all this out, it was really too late. Well over half the lumber had already been purchased and I just didn't have the heart to tell Mike that he should have compared with Home Depot. And I just noticed that Home Depot has a flashy new eco-home presentation on its website, which on initial inspection appears to have some substance. Wouldn't have been right when I could have done that work myself, since it is what mattered to me.

Five to seven years ago, a number of environmental groups won big victories by convincing Lowe's and Home Depot to endorse sustainable forestry. For example,

We commend Home Depot, Lowes, and other major retailers for giving preference to Forest Stewardship Council certified products and promising to phase-out other wood over time," said Carl Zichella, Regional Staff Director for the Sierra Club.

I imagine that, with these victories, internal and external funding for these initiatives dropped sharply. Perhaps it is time to do a follow-up campaign and push for compliance.

Windows, so hard to buy

2007-08-25T15:26:00.000-04:00

An architect friend of mine selected the ideal windows for his house under construction. Problem was, they are made in Italy and the manufacturer insisted that they be perfect. Schedule didn't seem to be much of an issue.

We were not quite so in touch with the world of windows. We wanted good quality, attractive windows. And energy efficient. And on time (so Italy was out). I thought this would be an area where we'd get very good information and make a quick decision.

Our builder recommended MW Windows because he works with them all the time. So I wanted to see if they were Energy Star and whether they might exceed its standards by some amount. For our region of the country, Energy Star windows have U value of less than 0.40 and Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC) of less than 0.40.

We were told we had two choices, "low-e" and "argon" and that the salesman didn't think the argon was worth the extra cost. I wasn't told how much more cost, nor was I told how different the two windows were. And by the way, we need to order tomorrow. Go look at the website and tell us which you want, please.

Oddly, the MW Windows website didn't seem to have this information.

Well, I pushed back and several calls later the salesman finally figured out the performance data. Today, as I write this, the MW Windows website does have data on the 800 Double Hung Performance window. As you can see, the windows somewhat exceed the Energy Star performance standards, and the argon windows do a slight bit better on the U-value.

When I finally got the data, I was a bit confused because I was also informed that the VLT was 0.52. I had to google this and finally found that VLT stands for Visible Light Transmittance. This is probably of interest to architects, as it indicates how much light is transmitted and takes into account the framing of the window as well as the glass itself.

(Also note that R-value is just the inverse of the U-value, so it is redundant data but some people prefer it.)

Armed with these new numbers, I was reassured that we weren't buying inefficient windows, but then the question remained - "Low-e" or "argon" - or push back and ask for a different manufacturer?

The answer to this question was surprisingly hard to find. And unfortunately I didn't keep good notes. But the gist of what I learned is that a 10% difference in the U-value should be pretty much imperceptible. There were some windows out there that were a bit more efficient, but we decided that the efficiency gain wouldn't be worth the hassle in the construction process and we weren't really very clear on whether those brands would be readily available, etc.

I have this bent towards being methodical, and this was one of several instances where I ran up against a construction industry bias against my approach to life. Sort of like my friend who wanted fabulous Italian windows on his schedule, and yes he knows the stereotype but he's an architect so he expects the unreasonable to just happen!

P.S. - Another interesting window-related comment, not worthy of a full post: Most of the headers had to be rebuilt or shored up due to improper construction when the house was built. They did know how to do it right back then . . . they must have just hired someone who was drunk or didn't care to do it right.

Here's an example of a two repaired windows. The frame on the right had to be reconstructed, the one on the left just needed an additional support for the header.

What's the best flooring choice?

2007-06-19T13:34:00.000-04:00

Status:

Upstairs - existing hardwoods will remain
Downstairs LR/DR - existing hardwoods, need some fill-in but generally can be made nice
Downstairs kitchen/master BR/master bath - need new flooring

Got it? (I'm going to add some floor pictures to this post soon.)

So far I have two leading contenders based in part on this simple overview.

Add more hardwoods, hopefully salvaged wood (consistency, etc.)
Cork - this blog makes it seem so obvious . . .

Any other ideas?

Cool roofing for residential

2007-06-03T16:21:00.001-04:00

After the last couple of posts, I am happy to report that we'll be able to do something that might be considered "green" regarding our roof. All of the details are not yet decided, and I'd appreciate input if anyone cares to share some advice.

UPDATE 9/7/07: Our house is not finished, but we are THRILLED with the cool roof. Things inside are really pleasant even when it is hot.

The Elk Cool Color shingles look totally "normal" and the radiant barrier didn't seem like it was too difficult to install. Combined with the insulation (walls and attic) and I am sure that the many people working in this house appreciate the benefits of this.

Installing this added very little cost to our project. I highly recommend it even if you are installing A/C, unless you live somewhere with cool summers.

Looking forward to using the attic fan, too, next summer when it is hot and we finally have the electricity turned on!

First, three pieces of important background information.

We are not installing A/C in our home. This is somewhat unusual but not considered crazy in these parts. So we want to do everything we can to keep the house cool so that we don't have that expense.
About 5 years ago, we replaced a roof in Houston, TX. I tried to find a "cool" roof but there was nothing on the market that was remotely cost-effective, and most roofers had no idea what I was talking about. (Try shipping ceramic tiles from California as a good way to bust a budget . . .)
Mike Weaver's bid was for an industry standard price of about $45/square (we need about 30), representing 30-year shingles.

So to see what we could do, I wanted to find (a) a reasonably priced metal roof and (b) any new developments in "cool" conventional shingles.

Metal Roofs
Having had some experience finding metal roofs to be unbudgetworthy (is that a word?), I was prepared to write them off. But Tim and Clarke thought there might be a new product on the market of some interest, so we tried to track it down. The figure that was reported back to me was $325-350/square plus higher labor costs, end of story.

(Anyone out there think I missed something? I find it strange that when I drive through the countryside in northern Alabama, I see metal roofs all over the place. And they were the norm when I looked about during a trip to Australia recently. What's up with this?)

"Cool" shingle roofs
There's a lot of interesting research on cool roof shingles out there to find. Energy Star is one place to start, although the spreadsheets with the products leave something to be desired when one is trying to link that up with actual products on the market.

I may have missed something, but it appears that the Elk Prestique Cool Color Series is the only product on the market that is a true "cool roof" asphalt shingle product. It just recently came on the market, so I am very excited that it is available since there was nothing like it just a few years ago. We got some prices on various Elk products from a local company and they are (roughly) as follows:

30-year shingles: $47 per square
40-year "cool" shingles: $100 per square
50-year shingles: $76 per square

So the price premium for the "cool" shingles is about $25 per square, depending on how you value that last decade of expected life on the roof. This adds up to around $750 total.

(I later found another Elk shingle that is "cool," but the price is apparently much higher than the Prestique line so I did not investigate further.)

If we can avoid installing an A/C, then $750 is a bargain, and even if we end up with one, I figure we need to save about $20 per month of cooling to break even.

(Aside: Our "green building" consultants have a potentially controversial perspective on using asphalt shingles. They think asphalt will be too valuable to landfill in 30 years and it will all be recycled, so it is actually a recyclable product right now. Given that an aluminum roof has very high embodied energy content, seems like a reasonable conclusion to me. And by the way, we tried to find someone in Western North Carolina who would recycle the existing shingles, cheap asphalt, but we couldn't.)

(Another aside: It is worth noting here that a "cool" roof can cause a slight increase in winter heating bills, but it is hardly worth considering. A roof keeps water and heat out of the house, but it is the insulation that keeps warm air in the house.)

Radiant barrier
We are also looking at installing a radiant barrier to help keep the roof from heating things up in the house. Thermal dynamics of a roof is a non-intuitive type of thinking, so if you're curious, read the article and do some research (this ORNL analysis could help). But this is a very big deal in places with high air conditioning demand.

Radiant barrier products include paints, foils, wraps, and pre-coated roof decking. This FSEC study verifies the benefits of using a foil retrofit. We haven't yet researched these products, so I'm not implying any endorsement and, in fact, hoping someone will point me to the perfect evaluation.

One surprise that makes the evaluation a bit more complicated is that the decking on the roof appears to be in good enough shape to keep. We thought it had been warped too much due to the stress of a poorly structured attic, but it now seems we can keep it. So a paint, foil, or wrap product might be better there, but for the new additions we might want to go for the pre-coated decking.

I have seen some comments online that paints are not as effective as other materials, but nothing solid to back those up. Help would be welcome. [Verified: See my comment below.]

Again, a few hundred dollars (which is probably what we're estimating here) should be a very worthwhile investment in keeping the house comfortable when the sun is high and bright (even if it isn't bright enough to install solar energy, sigh).

Edit 3/30/2009: Updated link to shingle manufacturer to reflect new company ownership.

Why our "green" house won't be solar (yet)

2007-06-02T16:58:00.000-04:00

Almost two months ago, we learned that we needed a new heating system. Over the past couple of months, we've been struggling with what to do.

When we planned the project, we planned "to get started first with solar hot water, then consider PV panels." I thought we were "ideally placed, with a large south-facing roof that gets full sun in the summer when the sun is up high, and full sun in the winter when the sun is lower because the trees in front of us lose their leaves." Well, that dream is deferred, and here's why.

Basically, not enough sun. And here's the evidence, from a picture taken in November 2006, which I didn't pay close attention to.

But it took Ole Sorensen about 10 minutes to figure this out "scientifically" using a device like the Solar Pathfinder. It's the trees, they block too much of the sun.

To back up, we asked our contractor to involve two firms that had been recommended, Solar Dynamics (Ole's company) and the larger Sundance Power. We were interested in the following possible pieces of a system:

radiant heat, either floors or radiators,
solar heated water for hot water use and to provide partial supply to the heating system, and
the necessary boiler to supplement the system.

While Mike had worked with Sundance before (and liked them), and they happened to drive by the next day and did a quick visit to the site, we didn't work with them for two reasons. First, they were only interested in projects that involved solar, but mainly because they are so busy that it would have taken them about 3 weeks just to make an initial site visit to determine what was feasible.

Ole was very responsive. He came out pretty much immediately to scope out the potential for radiant heat. I had assumed that we would have to do radiators in the existing house, but might be able to install radiant floor heat in some of the addition. Ole endorsed the practicality of floor heat throughout the house, since we had all the subfloors accessible already, and said that the cost savings of going with radiators would be limited or nil.

Also, a mixed floor heat/radiator system would be more expensive because, as I gathered, the temperature of the water/steam supplied to the different radiators is different. Kind of complex.

At this point, we were pretty excited because the comfort of a radiant heat system appealed to us, the opportunity to use solar energy to support it was terrific, and, well, it all seemed so easy.

Then I met with Ole onsite, and got the bad news about the solar. Turns out we just wouldn't have enough hours of clear sun in the summer, and in the winter the trees would, in fact, block a very significant amount of sun. The solar system could work, but it would have to be oversized (more expensive) to capture a useful amount of energy.

(Or we could cut down the trees. Which we won't do, but if disease strikes, we'll be calling Ole.)

End of solar fantasy. No solar hot water, definitely no PV.

We still wanted to explore radiant floor heat. I'll keep this short. Basically, we were told it would cost around $17,000 for the full system. In comparison, the forced air furnace system would cost somewhere around $7,000. While we were willing to pay more for the radiant heat system (it would add value to the house and we would like it more, etc.), we ultimately decided that $10,000 was too much of a premium.

Three factors swayed us in this direction, in order of importance.

We are buying a wood stove, which IS radiant heat. Comments on the company's website (see the Jussaume comment, for example) suggested that it might be even better at heating the house than we had anticipated, so we'd be using whatever system we bought relatively less of the time than we might otherwise.
Some friends who lived for two winters in a house with radiant heat, then renovated their own house with a forced air furnace, gave us their reactions to the radiant heat. While they liked the radiant heat, they didn't feel it was incredibly superior to forced air.
We're not putting in air conditioning, but forward compatibility with A/C is a good idea. Using ductwork, rather than pipes for water/steam, is an advantage from this perspective.

Because we've chosen not to install the radiant heat, I am a bit disappointed that we won't be able to move forward with using solar energy to provide some of the heat during the winter, except in the form of cordwood. But we can still install solar hot water and PV sometime . . . and we'll install the conduits to make that relatively simple.

Why our "green" house won't be Energy Star certified

2007-04-25T10:58:00.000-04:00

In North Carolina, Progress Energy offers a 5% discount on residential electric rates for houses that are Energy Star certified. I thought it would be neat if we could get certified and save some money, but alas . . .

It costs well over $500 to obtain an Energy Star certificate. We're not planning to operate air conditioning, and right now we're leaning towards a gas furnace/radiant solar heating combination, so really our electricity bills should be less than $1,000 per year. (Setting aside the possibility of solar PV for purposes of this discussion.) Thus, the discount would be less than $50 per year - taking us 10 years to recoup the certification fee.

I was so surprised that this policy made so little sense that I checked with the only authorized Energy Star inspector in our area, and he agreed. He also thought the Progress Energy estimate for the cost of certification might be on the low side, but I didn't ask his price.

I should note that new homes are certified by the builder. I assume it is a pretty cost-effective process since the cost can be spread over many homes. And paying the certification fee might also make sense for people who are doing home renovation with an eye towards making the house more attractive to buyers, or people who expect to pay electric bills of well over $2,000 per year.

What are these?

2007-04-19T14:58:00.000-04:00

Our contractor found these curious stone (?) cones scattered around the job site, including on the roof! Sorry I didn't put anything in the picture for reference, but a penny would just about be the same size. They are irregular in dimensions, but otherwise of the same texture. The material is not particularly heavy (or light).

Any ideas?

The best wood-burning stove

2007-04-11T20:31:00.000-04:00

Clarke Snell, of Think Green Building, gave me some pretty detailed advice on picking out the best wood stove. But it isn't a clear-cut case. Here's my paraphrased version of his advice, with some of my own brief investigation thrown in. You'll see that we haven't picked the best wood-burning stove, so maybe you'll help us decide?

Barring power outages, we'll be heating just the main floor of the house with the wood stove - say, around 1,000 square feet. And we'll be doing this on an intermittent basis since we probably won't use the stove as much during the work week. So, according to Clarke (just assume this from now on), the perfect stove for us would be small (lower heat output), fuel efficient, low emissions of soot (particulates), and have some thermal (or radiant) mass. Mass is important because then you can burn a hot fire for a while (more efficient) but enjoy the heat gradually as it is absorbed and then re-emitted.

Unfortunately, smaller stoves are less efficient, and there aren’t many small stoves with mass. Lacking hard data, we have to guess whether a larger, more efficient stove burning not at full efficiency (because you’ll be damping it down) will be more or less efficient than a smaller stove with lower ratings but burning at full tilt. [Note: I'm going to look into the method for generating these numbers sometime in the near future and edit this post. Come back in a few days if you're interested.]

We also want a stove with glass - a nice viewing area for gathering 'round. So that constrains this list. Clarke also told me it's not meant to be exhaustive, maybe you know another that is just perfect?

Stove	Thermal mass?	Soot emissions (g/hr)	Efficiency	Heat output (BTU)	Area heated (sf)	Price	Req'd clearance
Vermont Castings - Defiant	No	0.8	72%	55,000	2,400	?	30x15"
Hearthstone - Homestead	Soapstone	1.9	63%	50,000	1,800	$2,200	10x7"
Woodstock - Keystone	Soapstone	1.9	72%	45,000	1,300	$2,200	pad 36x52" (44x58" rec)
Hearthstone - Tribute	Soapstone	3.0	63%	36,000	1,300	$1,500	pad 29x34"
Vermont Castings - Intrepid	No	2.1	75%	27,000	1,200	?	23x8"

All of this information comes from manufacturers and is generated using test procedures, so actual performance in a home would vary. Fuel efficiency is computed as a percentage of potential wood energy turned into useful heat. For example, a stove with a 50% efficiency rating turns 50% of the energy in the wood into useful heat. According to studies, open fireplaces are rated at from 0 - 15% efficient. An old Franklin style metal wood stove is about 25% efficient. Pellet stoves can be more efficient, up to 78%. These stoves are all "EPA II" rated stoves, by the way.

The clearance is the minimum SidexBack clearance for the type of installation we're doing, including all the accessories, the best possible stovepipe, etc. Of course, these extras cost $ and those costs aren't reflected in this table at the time. Someone installing in a corner, in a fireplace, etc. would use different guidelines from the manufacturer's website. I may edit this another day to reflect the dimensions of the hearth area, I think that would be more useful actually.

Some other tips for burning clean and efficient:

Burn seasoned (dry) wood
Create small, hot fires (don't overheat)
Install a thermometer on the flue to verify that the smoke heat is 300-400* F - this strikes a balance between efficient combustion and minimal pollution
And look at the smoke ("Method 9") - if you see too much smoke, it isn't efficient (ideally, the emissions would be 100% CO2 and H2O, but . . .)

Other fuel optionsIf' you've read this far, you're really into this topic. I'm thinking about two other fuel options, pellets and "homemade" charcoal. I'm interested to know if anyone has information on either of these (recommended stoves, pros/cons, etc.) please do tell.

Of course, there's natural gas - but we are trying to shift to non-fossil fuels as much as possible. We'll also need to find a sustainable, renewable source for the fuel we consume. That's another topic . . .

Oops, we need a new furnace

2007-04-10T09:25:00.000-04:00

In fact, the chimney, furnace and A/C turn out to be write-offs. But I get ahead of myself.

Yesterday (well, actually over the last few days but mostly yesterday) we learned the following:

The furnace flue (which runs up the chimney) needs to be replaced.
But it would be cheaper to just vent directly out of the basement.
But if you want to do that, you need a new furnace.
Which you should get anyway because the furnace you have isn't very efficient (contrary to what we thought before yesterday).
And the chimney is blocked, your gas logs don't vent.
And the chimney is in need of structural repair.
So why don't you just knock down the chimney & fireplace since you're not using them.
The A/C unit isn't big enough for the entire house, so you'll need another one to add to this one.

I think that's all we learned.

So here's what we've decided, so far.

We'll put in minimal duct work for the A/C but we are not going to install A/C. We're hoping that insulation, ceiling fans, trees and roof overhang shade will keep the house cool enough during the hot part of the summer to make it w/o A/C. (Clarke Snell suggests a dehumidifier as a second step before installing A/C if necessary. I'm not sure that would work with open windows.) But the house will be ready to put it in if we (or some other future owner) feels it necessary.
We'll replace the furnace with a new boiler, and install radiant heat. We are now going to look into installing solar hot water so we can have an integrated radiant heating and hot water system. If it's possible, we'd like to install radiant floor heat in the new addition (kitchen & master bedroom) and then we'll use either radiators or baseboard radiators to heat the rest of the house.
We'll knock down the chimney, maybe the fireplace too. We'll prepare for and perhaps install a wood stove in its place.

We're also going to consider options for the furnace fuel. Natural gas is the typical decision in this circumstance, but we're going to look into fuel oil since Blue Ridge Biofuels sells residential biofuel (it is only B20 right now but hopefully will be B100 in the future). The only efficient residential oil furnace I've seen is by Adams. Any tips?

Why we opened up the exterior walls, and other photos

2007-04-07T22:09:00.000-04:00

Here are a few pictures during demolition. One of our early decisions was to completely remove the plaster from the exterior walls so that we could install blown cellulose insulation, rather than just blowing in loose cellulose from above.

Good call.

The 2nd floor exterior was covered with aluminum siding. Turns out that underneath it was stucco over this ribbed cloth with wires. (Anyone know what this stuff is called?)

The plaster was broken in places, allowing for the free exchange of air between the exterior world and the space between the plaster walls (basically heavy wallboard). Also, you can see at the bottom of the wall that the overhang is completely open. There are holes in the soffit, too.

I'm guessing those plaster walls got pretty much freezing cold during the winter, and the prior owners must have run the furnace full blast trying to warm up the neighborhood.

Anyone wonder why studies show that residential energy efficiency can be increased so much? Or why the power utilities have enjoyed the public's ignorance?

Photo #2 shows an interior wall downstairs. I think the wiring is artistic.

The deed says that the house was built in 1953, but this wiring says it was built a longer time back.

We found lots of newspaper scraps, etc. in the walls but haven't been able to date the house to any year in particular.

Photo #3 shows a surprise chimney that we found behind a duct in a wall. This chimney is now gone, but it was kind of neat to see that the house once had a wood stove or something of the kind in the old kitchen. It is a shame we couldn't use the chimney.

A few decisions coming up this week as demolition wraps up. I'll post some ideas and would sure love some suggestions.

Planning for solar, active and passive

2007-03-03T15:57:00.000-05:00

We're planning to have solar hot water and, eventually we hope, solar electricity in our home. We're ideally placed, with a large south-facing roof that gets full sun in the summer when the sun is up high, and full sun in the winter when the sun is lower because the trees in front of us lose their leaves.

For the same reason, the house is well-placed from a passive solar perspective, although we couldn't take full advantage of it for several reasons.

One problem is that we should really have larger windows on the south-facing (front) side of the house. Ours aren't small, but Tim C suggested that if they extended to the floor, then we'd be better off. For obvious (to us) aesthetic and cost reasons, this idea didn't get seriously considered.

The other major problem is that it isn't possible to place any "thermal mass" in range of the direct sunlight. Since we were planning this project during the time of year when the sun was lowest, it was a perfect time to look and see where the "thermal mass" should be located.

A "thermal mass" is a surface that absorbs sunlight and radiates it as heat. The idea is that in the cool time of the year, sun should strike the surface. During the warm part of the year, the surface should get relatively cool during the night and then help slow the heating of the house during the day. We can do the latter, but not the former.

Turns out that when the sun is low, it is still too high to reach anything other than the floor. We've got and will have hardwoods, so there is not really an opportunity to put stone, brick, or some other ideal "thermal mass" in the path of the sun.

But back on the topic of active solar, we are planning to get started first with solar hot water, then consider PV panels. We haven't investigated either very thoroughly, but here are some first impressions.

For solar hot water, I figure we can just tie in to the existing hot water heater and plumbing with the conduit we are putting in between the attic and the basement. I don't know that there is much more to think about. (Maybe electrical? I'd assume whatever pump is required would not draw much power.)

For photovoltaics, I had gotten excited, briefly, about a company that is promising to essentially install their PV panels in our house. (We'd then pay them for the electricity it generates.) However, this company is apparently blowin' smoke according to a number of people. I'd love to see a business offer this product, but will have to wait it seems.

If we decide to purchase a system, I'm told that the size system we'll want for our house will run well over $10,000 to install. Hmmmm. Anyhow, we'll wait at least a year to see how much electricity we're using before considering this step.

Cabinets and countertops

2007-03-03T15:50:00.004-05:00

We're about to discuss materials for countertops and cabinets. We want the materials to be:

durable
from sustainable sources
non-toxic
moderately priced (similar to or less than a not-fancy granite countertop)

Any thoughts?

Safe from radon we think

2007-03-03T15:37:00.000-05:00

Parts of Asheville are known to have high levels of radon, but our neighborhood was considered safer. Still, we wanted to be sure. So we borrowed a radon test meter and put it in the basement.

It is important to avoid disturbing the place where the meter is located during the test. "Disturbing" means exchanging the air by opening doors, windows, etc. You want to get the highest reading possible so you know the potential risk.

When we're done, I think there will be less routine air exchange in the basement. We're covering up the one door to the exterior from the basement, so air leaks around that door will be reduced.

However, good news, we had only 2 picoCuries per liter (pCi/L) of radon, which is half of the EPA's action level. We may re-test after construction is finished to be sure, but we do not need to plan for remediation.

Kitchen appliances

2007-02-27T22:39:00.000-05:00

Our kitchen appliance decisions were made early in the process, based on a recommendation that prices are lower this time of year . . . the new models are coming into the showrooms and it is a good time to buy up the remaining stock.

I was surprised at how much time and discussion went into buying a refrigerator (note: I've linked to this year's model, I think it is about the same), range and dishwasher. Our top two criteria were energy efficiency and reliability (along with customer service if the appliance failed). Warranties seemed to be pretty consistent across makes.

Our construction advisor, Sally S, did most of the research. But she wanted a bit to get started with.

For the refrigerator, we wanted a bottom-freezer model, since those are more energy efficient. Side-by-side are more popular, but not well regarded for efficiency. I started with my favorite site, ConsumerSearch. As I write this today, they have just updated the review. However, when we were making our decision, the LG French Door Refrigerator was strongly recommended for efficiency, temperature control and noise (not much). But as we dug further, we found a lot of negative reviews of LG appliances, specifically that the warranty / repair service was horrible and a huge hassle.

However, I'm glad we looked at the LG, as we had never seen a french door style fridge before. It has the advantage of the side-by-side fridge, with the narrow doors that won't block as much movement in the kitchen when open. So we were hooked, and asked Sally S to look at the other available models.

For the range, we wanted gas. I was in an appliance showroom (picking out the washer dryer) and saw a GE profile range with a small, lower oven. We had thought having two ovens would be great, as we often entertain and it is a challenge scheduling all the different foods in a single oven. But we couldn't justify the expense of a large wall oven. So this seemed to be a nice compromise, except that the GE model had a strange lower oven design and it didn't appear to have a rack for the food. It was more like a drawer and I just didn't get it. Most of the other ranges with small ovens had warming ovens, but we asked Sally S to look for some gas ranges with secondary ovens that cooked at 400 degrees, minimum.

Here's where I had a bit of an insight that wasn't part of the product pitch. One can use the smaller oven for a lot of routine cooking that isn't appropriate for a toaster oven, and it will use a lot less energy than a full sized oven. So this is a good opportunity to achieve a bit of energy savings that won't be reflected in an energy star rating. (And ranges aren't rated for energy efficiency.)

I also discovered the following table, which is available in a number of locations on the internet so I consider this fair use. I know it is hard to read, but it basically says that an electric oven costs about 17 cents compared to a gas oven costing 7 cents for the same meal. Gas prices are a bit higher relative to electricity now, but the basic analysis is the same. Furthermore, we'll be getting a convection gas oven so the efficiency is even greater. I also read that the insulation on self-cleaning ovens is better, so those make a good choice.
For the dishwasher, we didn't have much to say other than that all the gee-whiz features were unnecessary and, since it was going to be very close to our bedroom, it should be quiet.

Turns out that we had enough to really narrow down the choices. ConsumerSearch summarizes the Consumer Reports reliability ratings pretty well, but in the course of this research I learned that its reliability scores have some quirks that make them of questionable use. They get their data from their members, and reliability is scored on any kind of repair needed, regardless of how serious it is from a user's perspective. There's no control for the pickiness of the member, so one might presume that there is less tolerance for minor problems with higher priced appliances. Anyhow, we decided to take that with a grain of salt. Sally S did a survey of the appliance dealers she works with routinely and got their input. The guy at Home Depot even gave high marks for some equipment that he couldn't sell.

She ended up strongly recommending the KitchenAid refrigerator and dishwasher as being the best balance between budget (OK, not cheap) and reliability. We liked the refrigerator, it is quite energy efficient, etc. Oddly, I noticed that there is not a lot of difference in price and energy efficiency between the 25 cu ft models and the slightly smaller models (down to say 20 cu ft). We seem to keep biggering things, I would have been happy with a 20-22 cu ft model but couldn't see a reason to push for it.

For the dishwasher, there were two KitchenAid models to choose from. (There is also a contractor grade model that isn't often on the showroom floors. It is slightly less expensive but somewhat noisier.) The more expensive one basically has more rack adjustments and a couple of marginally useful wash cycles that the less expensive one doesn't have. It is also slighly quieter according to the KitchenAid data. I'm basically paraphrasing the salesman here. He had the higher end one at home, and said they used the rack adjustments often enough because they had some funky huge plates for entertaining. We couldn't think that the rack adjustments were worth $200, so we bought the (I've updated the link to what I think is this year's version) more basic model.

For the range, there were two options. All the other manufacturers made only warming drawers. I thought we were going to buy the Maytag. The smaller oven was on top, and it had racks that seemed "normal." I had come to the conclusion that on a day-to-day basis, we'd probably use the smaller oven more often than the larger oven, so I liked it being on top.

The other option was the GE Profile I had told Sally S that I didn't like. As I mentioned, I didn't like the design or location of the smaller oven as much. However, we did like the cooktop much better. It had a grate that covered the entire top of the range, giving us the maximum space possible for big pots holding lots of food for family & guests. In contrast, the Maytag range makes space for controls along the right side of the cooktop, compressing the cooking space slightly.

(Now that I've seen this, maybe I should try for the lottery and reconsider.)

Price really wasn't a consideration in the comparison, and I'd have to say this was pretty much splitting hairs, but we went with the GE Profile.

There you have it. Our idea of energy-conscious appliance choices.

One of the things I realized during this process was the extent to which federal energy efficiency standards and EnergyStar ratings miss key aspects of achieving energy efficiency. Many of our decisions were subjective and would be impossible to work into some kind of rating system.

Construction guidelines

2007-02-26T21:53:00.000-05:00

We drafted some 'green building' guidelines for our contractor. Most of these follow the reduce-reuse-recycle approach.

Lumber is to be certified by Forest Stewardship Council or equivalent approved by owners (preference for local sawmill if feasible) if needed products are available
Where appropriate, we request that reusable materials be salvaged
Where feasible, we request that materials be recycled (e.g., aluminum siding)
If no location can be identified for reuse or recycling of materials, we ask to be given a reasonably brief period of time to locate someone who may want them
We request no smoking inside the home be strictly enforced
We request that lower-emission glues and paints be considered, especially to avoid long-term exposure
Avoid vinyl as much as possible
Install piping/electrical conduits for future solar hot water / PV installation

One thing that is frustrating is that 90% of the 'green building' guides out there are for new construction, and it is not possible to think in the same way for rehab / renovation. But every now and then I find something concise that is applicable to rehab, like this Southern Living Idea House in Georgia.

Picking a contractor

2007-02-26T19:39:00.000-05:00

Our last home construction project was in Houston, Texas. We were adding on a screen porch, replacing the roof, and other various things. We were interested in 'green building' but lo those many 5 years ago the concept was new. I even drove over to Austin to a green building convention only to find that most of the technologies were aimed at (1) commercial buildings and (2) new construction. There was also a niche market for silliness, such as recycled rubber shingles that were high priced, of dubious durability, and probably took a gazillion joules of energy to form into the shingles. When I looked around Houston for help, there was one architect (nice guy, but really way too expensive for our modest project) and a few other dreamers who weren't focused enough to help on our project. For a city of nearly 5 million people, there were almost exactly None doing what we wanted to do.

Fast forward to Asheville 5 years later, a city 1/20th the size of Houston, but with 100 times more green building. Should be a cinch to find that dream contractor, right? Not so fast.

First of all, we had only a few weeks to choose a contractor. Second, we were new in town and knew not very many people. Third, these folks are busy, green is 'in' and the contractors are not waiting around for me. Fortunately, we had gotten a bit of a head start due to a false start with buying the house a month or so before it became a reality. Had we needed to start from zero, there's now way we could have closed the deal in 60 days.

I probably called a dozen contractors. Those I got from referral tended to be better about answering the phone. Cold calling people from the green building directory ended up with "no way" or (more likely), no reply to the voice mail.

Early on I was lucky enough to find Clarke Snell and Tim Callahan of ThinkGreenBuilding, one of the rare cold calls that paid off. Tim guided me through the basics of evaluating the home and figuring out what we needed to look for in a contractor. We spent several hundred dollars for his advice, and it was well worth it.

Near the end of the process, we narrowed the pool down to three contractors: MrRehab (a pseudonym), Mike Weaver (plus Sally S), and Bellwether Builders. From first impression, MrRehab was the clear favorite - he walked into the house, seemed to "read" it perfectly, and get what I was hoping for. He promised to come back with a member of his crew on Monday and call me with next steps. Two weeks later, I finally got a call returned with him saying that he wasn't up for the job. There was some more back-and-forth, basically he wanted the job but didn't want to have to get specific anytime in the next month or so because he was busy. That wouldn't work with my financing, and MrRehab was not MrCommunication. I thought a contractor who could get back to me within, say, a week of a promised deadline might be a better choice.

The other two choices were excellent. Raquel and I felt as if we were flipping a coin between them.

Bellwether had the edge when it came to a clear understanding of green building, and more enthusiasm about matching design to budget.
Mike Weaver had the edge with renovation experience, and, as a structural engineer, he seemed to intuitively know what to do about the structural issues (while Bellwether put in large contingencies $$$ and promised to consult a structural engineer). We also had a project manager in Sally S who we were including in the deal to help us work through the many details of design and materials selection (Bellwether had this in house).

We chose Mike Weaver / Sally S on the basis of the need to have three structural issues resolved as part of the construction process, and because we had access to Tim C and Clark S to help us out with 'green' issues. We might have chosen the 'too many cooks' path, but that remains to be seen.

Washer / dryer

2007-02-25T16:42:00.001-05:00

One of the first things we did when we bought the house was to buy a new washer and dryer. OK, this is probably strange but we had bought used w/d units when we moved in to our rental and we HATED the dryer. It took HOURS to dry clothes.

(I discovered that the rooftop exhaust vent was filled with lint, so that's probably part of the reason.)

So we bought a new washer / dryer and got it installed right away.

I really like using Consumer Search, and found their recommendation to be good advice. We bought the Frigidaire Gallery front-loading washer and stackable gas dryer. We wanted an energy efficient, stackable set. There were really only a few contenders, and we've been very happy with our choice. A few comments:

If you want to stack, you pretty much have to match, I've read. I don't know how true this is, but otherwise (if you're like me) you could consider mixing brands and such.
Dryers aren't rated for energy efficiency because it is assumed that they all use about the same energy to dry. I wonder about this, as the new dryer doesn't get as hot as any other I've owned. I think it must have better insulation.
The washer affects the dryer's efficiency. The salesperson urged me to go with a slightly more expensive model that had a much higher spin rate. Often, clothes come out of the washer nearly dry. Obviously, this means less time in the dryer.
The capacity of the Frigidaire Gallery front loader is smaller than we've been used to with top loaders. However, since both it and the dryer are faster than any machine we've ever had. Both washer and dryer typically take 40-45 minutes for a complete "normal" cycle. I think they work just as fast if not faster than the (older) larger capacity units we've used in the past when you consider the total time elapsed to handle, say, four loads of clothes from start to finish. It does require more frequent intervention, but considering that we're saving on both water and energy, that's a good choice.
We bought a gas dryer. If natural gas prices go through the roof in 5-10 years as some believe, well, maybe there will be biogas available by then. But as long as our choices are inefficient electricity (generated mainly from coal) and natural gas.
We got a great price and good service from Discount Appliance Center (Asheville/Hendersonville).
Oddly, the washer came with door opening to the left, and the dryer with the door opening to the right. We'll probably reverse one of these when we stack them. I think there are instructions for doing that somewhere around here . . .

We do plan to air-dry clothes in the basement and backyard at our new house. But this isn't always feasible (cold, rainy weather . . .) so we've got the whole package.

Financing a rehab or renovation project

2007-02-25T16:41:00.002-05:00

Based on what I've learned so far, financing has got to be the #1 reason that people don't do what we are doing very often. As it turns out, we will be spending more money on the rehab than on buying the house. Unless you're pretty well off, you need a loan to cover both the purchase and the renovation.

I found that many lenders were simply not equipped to assist us. Of those that were, they typically seemed to do this sort of loan rarely, if at all.

I found three different types of loans that might work for someone trying to do a project like ours. I spoke with perhaps a dozen different lenders; some I called from the yellow pages, others I got from referrals. At least six of them were able, in theory, to help me out.

Commercial loan - The idea here is that you borrow the money as if you are purchasing a property to "flip" even though you "probably" aren't going to flip it. This can be the simplest in terms of paperwork, and you pay only interest during the construction period. When you are done, you need to refinance using a conventional mortgage loan. I was concerned about the potential for interest rates to rise, so this one didn't work since there is no way to lock in interest rates.
FHA 203(k) Rehab Loan - You can read all about this, but basically you borrow the money to buy the house plus enough to do your project. Two appraisals are required - as-is and future value. I was warned that the local FHA inspector was pretty picky and would often require things that had previously been inspected to be torn out and done over. There are some nice energy efficiency options. But there doesn't seem to be a lot of volume, I was told that National City Mortgage lends most of the money under this program through a single office. Whatever its advantages, the big negative for this route was that all the lenders were offering this loan at a premium of 6/8ths or even 1 point above the conventional 30-year mortgage rate.
Purchase plus construction loan - Basically the same as a FHA 203(k) except without the FHA rules (or mortgage insurance). My sense is that these were first developed for purchase of land plus construction, and that they have been adapted to our purposes (leading to much confusion in the official paperwork). This is what we decided to do, and I'll describe it more fully below.

Bottom line is that with research, I was able to find financing. But this took a lot of time and effort, far more than I had put into prior home purchase financing searches (and I'm obsessive about finding that 'great' deal).

There were two lenders in Asheville that I found with competitive purchase plus construction (PPC) loan programs: Bank of America (Stacie Peterson 828-251-8343) and Southeast Mortgage Group. I was surprised to find that Bank of America was competitive; in prior research, I've found large banks to be overpriced and inflexible for small fish like me. But on a recommendation, I called - it ended up being a very close decision that came down to rates.

One thing that is unusual about a PPC loan is that you pay interest only during construction, then begin paying what is essentially a conventional 30-year mortgage when construction is done. After a few dead ends, I settled on treating the construction interest as if it were a fee like points or an appraisal. Bank of America's 30-year interest rate was a little better than Southeast Mortgage, but during construction the interest rate was roughly the prime rate rather than the final interest rate. The difference in the during-construction interest rates added up to several thousand dollars, which was enough to tip the scales in favor of Southeast Mortgage.

Another interesting thing I figured out is that there is a big advantage to paying lots of points under this scenario. I adjusted the sales price so that the seller paid most of the points on the house (thus rolling these into the mortgage). By paying points, I reduced the interest rate as much as possible. This, in turn, reduced the total interest we would pay during construction. I'm probably the only customer Chris ever saw who paid full points on a loan, but in our case I'm certain that it was the right choice.

We had enough cash to be flexible on the downpayment + fees so this made the deal easy to configure to our tastes. If you're tight on downpayment cash, this might get a little harder. On the other hand, you are only required to provide a downpayment to cover 20% of the purchase price plus fees. The downpayment for the rehab portion of the loan can be covered by any equity that appears in the appraisal of the projected future value of the house. In our case, the total cost of the project was just about 80% of the total projected future value of the house, so we didn't need any more cash to put in to the project. I was confused about this part of the deal for a while, and kept overestimating how much cash we needed for the downpayment.

By far the biggest challenge, however, was timing. Here's what has to happen, in rough order.

Get pre-approval for a loan (not really knowing how much it will cost).
Get a final contract for purchase of the house.
Design your rehab project, including the possibility of conducting more intrusive inspections than normal to discover the type and condition of structural features (which means you need a very cooperative seller, or the house is already displaying those features visibly).
Find a contractor.
Get a contract with your contractor.
Get the contractor approved by the lender (unless, by chance, he/she has already done business there).
Finalize the loan papers.
Send everything to the attorney (or title company, whoever is closing for you).
Close.

Note that steps 3 through 6 are not a normal part of the house-buying process, and that you are dealing with people who are not used to working fast (i.e., contractors and, if you need one, architects). And if you want a good one, chances are that he/she is probably already busy with lots of work. And the lender wants someone who will get started more or less right away. And the seller doesn't want this to drag on for more than, say, 60 days. Which means you have about 40 days to study your rehab project, design, and (most difficult) get a bid (more than one?) from a contractor you like (how do you know you like him/her?).

For those of us who can't afford to buy a house and have it sit around for a year or so, this is a daunting process. But we did it!

The kind of house

2007-02-25T16:41:00.001-05:00

It all started with location. We had taken the kids to a nice city park to play, and found a house for sale just up the street. I peeked in the window. It didn’t seem like what we were looking for on the surface, it also seemed to be in an ideal location, with a nice lot. The neighborhood seems friendly and walkable.

When I think about green building (reduce, reuse, recycle), it all starts with location. The house is near our jobs, church and (future) schools, and on a bus line (one bus an hour, oh well), so we can reduce our need for driving.

We'll also be able to reduce in other ways . . . the back yard gets full sun, and is large enough for a good-sized garden as well as play space for the kids. So we'll be able to reduce our need to buy food.

We've chosen a developed lot with an existing structure, so we're reusing both land and building materials, rather than clearing and building fresh.

There are some other assets, such as solar exposure and the opportunity to recycle some of the home materials, but I'll write about those later.

Before we talk about design, a few remarks about the house. As we found it, the house had a need for foundation repairs, some damage to a couple of walls due to a leak, and in need of a cosmetic overhaul, to our eyes both inside and out, but certainly anyone would have wanted to do a good deal of work inside.

The basement is large and clean, but not really suitable for finishing out.
The first floor, at left, had a kind of odd floor plan. The dining room had been converted into a master bedroom, and a relatively basic dining room added at back. The rear wall of the addition was built on a retaining wall, which is wearing out and needs replacement.

The second floor, which I'll illustrate below, was just fine - it has three bedrooms, a bath and another small room without a closet.

As we entered the design phase, we decided to keep the second floor mostly as-is, but to do 'major renovations' to the first floor.

We had a lot of help from the contractors we spoke with, which I'll discuss in another post, but here's the design we settled on.

The basement will remain as-is, we're moving the laundry to the second floor and generally tidying up down there, but otherwise we'll leave work for the future. Also the furnace, in good shape, will remain.

The second floor will remain mostly the same, although cosmetically it will be redone. However, the small room will become a laundry room and utility space (kids computer, etc.).

We'll have the boys in the larger bedroom, our daughter in the top right bedroom, and the third bedroom will be a guest room. At least that's the plan right now. The windows aren't shown, but there is good light in all the rooms, and the kids rooms will have light from the east - to help wake them up in the morning!

The first floor gets a full renovation. We're taking out the load-bearing wall to the existing living room in order to open up the space, replacing the back addition, adding on a side porch and redoing the bathroom. And we'll be expanding the front porch and including a covered area in the back for bikes and other stuff. Wow.

This took some effort to come to a decision on. A good way to "reduce" is to use less space in a home design. The house started out at 1,877 sq ft and will end up being a bit less than 2,300 sq ft. According to one news story, the ever-expanding American house is now 2,349 sq ft on average, so we are below average. Yet it is humbling to realize that just a couple of generations ago, people would have been quite pleased with half this house for a family of our size. We did an estimate of what we felt we "needed" and came up with 2,100 sq ft. So we didn't go over by too much.

We had trouble finding a way to keep it smaller and still include an entrance closet and a pleasant office. It also seems a bit odd to have the entrance to our bedroom be through the kitchen (or through the bath), but it was no less odd to have the entrance through the dining room (the other option).

We also expanded the bathroom, and here we didn't reduce. But we (or Raquel, that is) did think about the need for relaxation and comfort. We'll see what we can do about designing light later on.

There's no garage or carport, we're keeping it that way. There's a gas (formerly coal?) fireplace, we're keeping it the same.

So that's the basic plan. We'll be making detailed decisions later . . .