On Apr 19, 2:12 pm, email@example.com wrote:
One factor is minimizing the amount of effort to live in a house.
Stair climbing and walking long distances to get to a different room.
Difficulty of hauling grocery items in from a shopping trip. Using
lever style door knobs instead of round ones is a simple example.
Another factor is good sound isolation.
And, psychological factors such as being able to look outside.
Christopher Alexander does it somewhat with his "Design Patterns", but
he doesn't go into any actual studies.
Here's a link to the SmartHousing initiative for Queensland Oz.
A lot of useful stuff, most of it applicable anywhere. I've done designs
using it. I like the approach because (a) many of the suggestions for
good design are low-cost, and (b) unlike many initiatives, the people who
maintain the resource respond to comments and suggestions - a few of my
own have been incorporated in the material.
Good livability for whom?
Each person has a unique definition of that word.
You should look for a designer that has perfected the *Elements of
Design* approach and I only know of one person that has done that.
What are *Elements of Design*?, you ask.
You've already mentioned some, lever door hardware for example.
Another one is *traffic patterns* which are described by entry
Rocker switches that can be turned on with an elbow and 2 arms of
groceries is another example.
Another would be *furniture placement*, and the list goes on and on
perfected by asking the right questions of thousands of clients about
the most overlooked aspects of how they use a home.
This cannot be learned in school for no school teaches it, it has to
be learned on the job.
Is this the sort of thing you are looking for?
If it has an angled joint of sufficient height they can make it
Completely armless doodz, say, arab bank officials that have had their
arms chopped off for stealing, can simply slap a flaccid dick at the
rocker to turn it on/off.
Yes, of course, remove all switches and install 100 hour hand dipped
tarragon flavored soy candles.
I think that green building practices are a good way to go, as well as
generally building smaller, and efficiently for efficiency, and also
for the soul. Something that is not only liveable to you but also to
your neighbors, community and environment.
On Apr 29, 2:22 am, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
I think that the term "green" in terms of building practices is vague
and misused. When I see large mansions termed green, I wonder if
something has been lost in translation.
Some think that high rises are so wonderful, but when I see that the
building costs are twice that of a stick built home, I don't see any
big gains in livability.
I don't see the point of going to smaller in terms of livability, or
I'm (temporarily) living in a highrise and do see and experience
problems with it.
But you just questioned 'large mansions termed green'.
As for seeing the point; for one, consider going smaller as meaning
potentially less use of resources.
(This post was brought to you by the Google Groups validation word,
On Apr 30, 1:05 pm, email@example.com wrote:
The marginal cost of a square foot of a stick built home is about
$80.00, so I don't see square footage as a particular waste until one
gets over 4,000 square feet. But many have the desire to use expensive
cabinets, flooring, and tile which can send those costs to several
hundred dollars a square foot and still get the "green" label.
when u design a house, u don't design just the interior; u design the
exterior called open space. these places include road leading to the house
and the walk way to the entrance: front or back. the outside look is more
important than the inside because people walk by don't necessary go into u
after u done than, then u start to worry about the open space of u house.
things like hall way, stairway, corridor, and even the open space between
kitchen appliances and furnitures. then u have to check whether the house
follows the guild lines where "forms follow functions" and "less is more."
whether the color and the house is artistic to u instinct.
the room and the house don't necessary bigger than what u need and every 30'
there should be a shear wall.
there should be a cleanout for plumbing every 100'.
now u can check u house whether it follows the building code line by line
and page by page. i presume u're building a house that is small enough to
satisfly part nine of the national building code of canada or the
international building code in the united states which don't need an
architect nor an engineer to seal any drawings.
You may wish to consider expanding your definition of cost.
This post was brought to you by the Google Groups post-verification
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.