exposing a naive dream

A

EVALUATING THE INEFFICIENCIES OF THE AMERICAN SINGLE-FAMILY HOME

EXPOSING ANAIVE DREAM

I

EXPOSING A NAIVE DREAM

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the

Architecture Department in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of Architecture at

Savannah College of Art and Design

Jodie R. Quinter

SCAD | Savannah, Georgia

© May 2014

Thesis Chair: Professor Huy Ngo

Faculty Advisor: Professor Daniel Brown

Topic Consultant: Ben Baumer

II Exposing a Naive Dream

IIIDedication

To my family:

You have surrounded me with a culture of excellence as well as abundant

encouragement, and instilled in me the characteristics that have allowed

me to succeed from early on. Because of you, I embrace a future beyond

my wildest imaginings. Your unending love and support are the

foundation of my being.

Thank you.

IV Exposing a Naive Dream

VAcknowledgements

To Professor Huy Ngo and Professor Daniel Brown:

This book is dedicated to you. The imprint of your committment to

excellence and your devotion to architectural education is contained

within. Your unselfishness and endless support made this project possible.

Your guidance and example have left a lasting impression on my life.

Thank you is not enough.

As always, Cheers.

VI Exposing a Naive Dream

VIITable of Contents

Establishing the Problem 9Contextual Research

Providing Factual Support 33Conceptual Research

Assessing Inefficiences 53Concept Development

Understanding Design Flaws 77Research Development

Evaluating Room by Room 95Microscopic Analysis

Visiting Parkview Acres 173Site Analysis

Exposing the Dream 197Design Development

Bibliography 227

List of Figures 1

Thesis Abstract 7

1

4

2

5

3

6

7

1

List of Figures

Figure 1: Geo F. Barber & Co. Catalog Page. Image. <http://lisahistory.net/hist111/pw/docs/Incorp.htm>.

Figure 2: Sears Roebuck Catalog Page. Image. <http://southernmemoriesandupdates.com/2011/mississippi/was-most-magnificent-home-n-como- a-sears-roebuck-mail-order-mansion/>.

Figure 3: Levittown, New York. Photograph. <http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2007/10/12/nyregion/20071013_LEVITTOWN_SLIDESHOW_index.html>.

Figure 4: GE Advertisement. Image. <http://public.gettysburg.edu/~mbirkner/fys120/promise.GIF>.

Figure 5: Saturday Evening Post. Image. <http://www.allposters.com/-sp/Moonlit-Future-Saturday-Evening-Post-Cover-August-15-1959-Posters_i8594174_.html>.

Figure 6: The New Yorker. Image. <http://imgc.allpostersimages.com/images/P-473-488-90/60/6008/UQ1B100Z/posters/constantin-alajalov-the-new-yorker-cover-july-20-1946.jpg>.

Figure 7: Brick Front with Vinyl Siding. Photograph. <http://www.city-data.com/forum/attachments/house/14056d1201971951-brick-fronts-cambridge01.jpg>.

Figure 8: Aerial View of Suburb. Photograph. <http://www.appalachianaerialimages.com/index.php#mi=2&pt=1&pi=10000&s=2&p=2&a=0&at=0>.

Figure 9: Formal Dining. Photograph. <http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/tag/racism/>.

Figure 10: Informal Dining. Photograph. <http://www.thestar.com/content/dam/thestar/life/food_wine/2012/03/06/dinner_four_friends_gather_for_family_meal/eating.jpeg.size.xxlarge.letterbox.jpeg>.

Figure 11: The American Dream is Over. Photograph. <http://cosmoscon.com/2012/05/31/is-the-american-dream-over/>.

List of Figures

Figure 12: Zaha Hadid’s Beko Building in Belgrade. Rendering. < http://www.businessinsider.com/zaha-adids-beko-building-in-belgrade-2012-11>.

Figure 13: Single-Family Home Construction. Diagram. Provided by Author.

Figure 14: Living Preference Survey. Diagram. Provided by Author.

Figure 15: Factor of 10. Diagram. Provided by Author.

Figure 16: Energy Consumption by Sector. Diagram. Provided by Author.

Figure 17: “Green” House 1. Diagram. Provided by Author. <http://cdn.homedit.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/grass-facade-building7.jpg>

Figure 18: “Green” House 2. Photograph. < http://windturbineshome.net/wp-content/uploads/house-with-solar-and-wind-energy.jpg>

Figure 19: Life Cycle Cost Study. Photograph.

Figure 20: House, Human, and Brick Average Lifespan. Diagram. Provided by Author.

Figure 21: Accounting for Change in Family Size and Structure. Diagram. Provided by Author.

Figure 22: United States Home Demolition. Diagram. Provided by Author.

Figure 23: Waste Output by Building Sector. Diagram. Provided by Author.

Figure 24: Division of Existing United States Building Stock. Diagram. Provided by Author.

Figure 25: Building Life Cycle. Diagram. Provided by Author.

Figure 26: Quantifiable Marketing. Screenshot. <http://www.kbhome.com/new-homes-houston/westheimer-lakes-lago-vista>.

2

List of Figures (continued)

Figure 27: Grand Entry Foyer. Photograph. <http://www.heartlandluxuryhomes.com/home_type/westminster>.

Figure 28: Living Room “A”. Photograph. <http://www.yelp.com/biz_photos/fine-lines-painting-nashville-2?select=8crKYGttZQ3ynNGedVEfyg#8crKYGttZQ3ynNGedVEfyg>.

Figure 29: Living Room “B”. Photograph. <http://www.yelp.com/biz_photos/fine-lines-painting-nashville-2?select=8crKYGttZQ3ynNGedVEfyg#wlRWi1iLcx91t0YmWS9Uiw>.

Figure 30: Capturing the Light of a Near Death Experience. Image. <http://blog.positscience.com/2013/08/22/near-death-experiences-attributed-to-a-super-sized-burst-of-brain-activity/>.

Figure 31: Interior Natural Light. Photograph. <http://cdn.freshome.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/hallway_window-e1301618656428.jpg>.

Figure 32: Historical United States Housing Trends. Diagram. Provided by Author.

Figure 33: Area of Case Study Homes. Diagram. Provided by Author.

Figure 34: Case Study 1 Space Allocation by %. Diagram. Provided by Author.





Figure 39: Minimum Space Allocation by %. Diagram. Provided by Author.

Figure 40: Kitchen Analysis. Diagram. Provided by Author. Insight gained from Residential Interior Design: A Guide to Planning Spaces by Maureen Mitton.

Figure 41: Kitchen Area by Case Study. Diagram. Provided by Author.


Figure 42: Kitchen Area Case Study 3. Diagram. Provided by Author.



Figure 45: Minimum Kitchen Area. Diagram. Provided by Author.

Figure 46: Living Room Analysis. Diagram. Provided by Author. Insight gained from Residential Interior Design: A Guide to Planning Spaces by Maureen Mitton.

Figure 47: Living Room Area by Case Study. Diagram. Provided by Author.

Figure 48: Living Room Area Case Study 3. Diagram. Provided by Author.



Figure 51: Minimum Living Room Area. Diagram. Provided by Author.

Figure 52: Dining Room Analysis. Diagram. Provided by Author. Insight gained from Residential Interior Design: A Guide to Planning Spaces by Maureen Mitton.

Figure 53: Dining Room Area by Case Study. Diagram. Provided by Author.

Figure 54: Dining Room Area Case Study 3. Diagram. Provided by Author.



Figure 57: Minimum Dining Room Area. Diagram. Provided by Author.

Figure 58: Entry Foyer Analysis. Diagram. Provided by Author. Insight gained from Residential Interior Design: A Guide to Planning Spaces by Maureen Mitton.

Figure 59: Entry Foyer Area by Case Study. Diagram. Provided by Author.

3


Figure 60: Entry Foyer Area Case Study 3. Diagram. Provided by Author.



Figure 63: Minimum Entry Foyer Area. Diagram. Provided by Author.

Figure 64: Breakfast Analysis. Diagram. Provided by Author. Insight gained from Residential Interior Design: A Guide to Planning Spaces by Maureen Mitton.

Figure 65: Breakfast Area by Case Study. Diagram. Provided by Author.

Figure 66: Breakfast Area Case Study 3. Diagram. Provided by Author.



Figure 69: Minimum Breakfast Area. Diagram. Provided by Author.

Figure 70: Laundry Room Analysis. Diagram. Provided by Author. Insight gained

from Residential Interior Design: A Guide to Planning Spaces by Maureen Mitton.

Figure 71: Laundry Room Area by Case Study. Diagram. Provided by Author.

Figure 72: Laundry Room Area Case Study 3. Diagram. Provided by Author.



Figure 75: Minimum Laundry Room Area. Diagram. Provided by Author.

Figure 76: Master Bathroom Analysis. Diagram. Provided by Author. Insight gained from Residential Interior Design: A Guide to Planning Spaces by Maureen Mitton.


Figure 77: Master Bathroom Area by Case Study. Diagram. Provided by Author.

Figure 78: Master Bathroom Area Case Study 3. Diagram. Provided by Author.



Figure 81: Minimum Master Bathroom Area. Diagram. Provided by Author.

Figure 82: Master Bathroom Analysis. Diagram. Provided by Author. Insight gained from Residential Interior Design: A Guide to Planning Spaces by Maureen Mitton.

Figure 83: Master Bathroom Area by Case Study. Diagram. Provided by Author.




Figure 87: Minimum Master Bathroom Area. Diagram. Provided by Author.

Figure 88: Master Closet Analysis. Diagram. Provided by Author. Insight gained from Residential Interior Design: A Guide to Planning Spaces by Maureen Mitton.

Figure 89: Master Closet Area by Case Study. Diagram. Provided by Author.

Figure 90: Master Closet Area Case Study 3. Diagram. Provided by Author.



Figure 93: Minimum Master Closet Area. Diagram. Provided by Author.

Figure 94: Bedroom Analysis. Diagram. Provided by Author. Insight gained from Residential Interior Design: A Guide to Planning Spaces by Maureen Mitton.

4


Figure 95: Bedroom Area by Case Study. Diagram. Provided by Author.

Figure 96: Bedroom Area Case Study 3. Diagram. Provided by Author.



Figure 99: Minimum Bedroom Area. Diagram. Provided by Author.

Figure 100: Reach-In Analysis. Diagram. Provided by Author. Insight gained from Residential Interior Design: A Guide to Planning Spaces by Maureen Mitton.

Figure 101: Reach-In Area by Case Study. Diagram. Provided by Author.

Figure 102: Reach-In Area Case Study 3. Diagram. Provided by Author.



Figure 105: Minimum Reach-In Area. Diagram. Provided by Author.

Figure 106: Walk-In Analysis. Diagram. Provided by Author. Insight gained from Residential Interior Design: A Guide to Planning Spaces by Maureen Mitton.

Figure 107: Walk-In Area by Case Study. Diagram. Provided by Author.

Figure 108: Walk-In Area Case Study 3. Diagram. Provided by Author.



Figure 111: Minimum Walk-In Area. Diagram. Provided by Author.

Figure 112: Powder Room Analysis. Diagram. Provided by Author. Insight gained from Residential Interior Design: A Guide to Planning Spaces by Maureen Mitton.


Figure 113: Powder Room Area by Case Study. Diagram. Provided by Author.

Figure 114: Powder Room Area Case Study 3. Diagram. Provided by Author.



Figure 117: Minimum Powder Room Area. Diagram. Provided by Author.

Figure 118: Full Bathroom Analysis. Diagram. Provided by Author. Insight gained from Residential Interior Design: A Guide to Planning Spaces by Maureen Mitton.

Figure 119: Full Bathroom Area by Case Study. Diagram. Provided by Author.

Figure 120: Full Bathroom Area Case Study 3. Diagram. Provided by Author.



Figure 123: Minimum Full Bathroom Area. Diagram. Provided by Author. Insight gained from Residential Interior Design: A Guide to Planning Spaces by Maureen Mitton.

Figure 124: Establishing Case Study Excess Square Footage. Diagram. Provided by Author.

Figure 125: Energy Expenditures by Housing Characteristic. Graphic Text. Provided by Author. <http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2009/>.

Figure 126: Energy Expenditures by Case Study. Graphic Text. Provided by Author.

Figure 127: Energy Savings Based on Excess SF. Chart. Provided by Author.

Figure 128: Aerial View of Site Neighborhood. Photograph. <http://gis.auglaizecounty.org/auglaizegis/>.

5


Figure 129: Priorities in Deciding Where to Live. Graphic Text. Provided by Author. Information from 2013 National Association of Realtors Community Preference Survey.

Figure 130: Site Demographics. Diagram. Provided by Author. <http://www.minsteroh.com/econ-development/minster-data>.

Figure 131: School Ratings. Diagram. Provided by Author. <http://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/ohio/districts/minster-local/minster-jrsr-high-school-15427>.

Figure 132: Local Architects do not Advertise Residential Services. Diagram. Provided by Author.

Figure 133: Local Weather and Climate. Diagram. Provided by Author. <http://www.minsteroh.com/econ-development/local-weather-and-climate>.

Figure 134: Average Temperatures by Month. Diagram. Provided by Author. <http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/graph/45865>.

Figure 135: Average Precipitation by Month. Diagram. Provided by Author. <http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/graph/45865>.

Figure 136: Sun Path Diagram. Diagram. Provided by Author.

Figure 137: Neighborhood Growth Analysis Period 1. Diagram. Provided by Author. <http://gis.auglaizecounty.org/auglaizegis/>.






Figure 142: Select Total Worth. Chart. Provided by Author. <http://gis.auglaizecounty.org/auglaizegis/>.

Figure 143: Select Square Footage. Chart. Provided by Author. <http://gis.auglaizecounty.org/auglaizegis/>.

Figure 144: Evaluated First Floor Plan. Document. Provided by Cara Meyer. Grey overlay provided by author.

Figure 145: Proposed First Floor Plan. Drawing. Provided by Author.

Figure 146: Evaluated Second Floor Plan. Document. Provided by Cara Meyer. Grey overlay provided by author.

Figure 147: Proposed Second Floor Plan. Drawing. Provided by Author.

Figure 148: Evaluated South Elevation. Document. Provided by Cara Meyer.

Figure 149: Proposed South Elevation. Drawing. Provided by Author.

Figure 150: Evaluated East Elevation. Document. Provided by Cara Meyer.

Figure 151: Proposed East Elevation. Drawing. Provided by Author.

Figure 152: Evaluated North Elevation. Document. Provided by Cara Meyer.

Figure 153: Proposed North Elevation. Drawing. Provided by Author.

Figure 154: Evaluated West Elevation. Document. Provided by Cara Meyer.

Figure 155: Proposed West Elevation. Drawing. Provided by Author.

Figure 156: Site Plan. Drawing. Provided by Author.

Figure 157: Lot Plan. Drawing. Provided by Author.

Figure 158: Square Footage Evaluated. Graphic Text. Provided by Author.

Figure 159: Square Footage Proposed. Graphic Text. Provided by Author.

6


Figure 160: Resulting Differences. Graphic Text. Provided by Author.

Figure 161: Resulting Relationships. Graphic Text. Provided by Author.

Figure 162: Equivalent Houses by way of Area Reduction. Diagram. Provided by Author.

Figure 163: Vignette A. Photograph. <http://www.houzz.com/photos/242367/Residences-in-DeBordieu-Colony--Georgetown--SC-beach-style-entry-charleston>.

Figure 164: Vignette B. Photograph. <http://www.houzz.com/photos/622268/Farinelli-Construction-Inc-traditional-hall-other-metro>.

Figure 165: Vignette C. Photograph. <http://www.houzz.com/photos/122439/Kids-Workspace-Office-transitional-kids-grand-rapids>.

Figure 166: Vignette D. Photograph. <http://www.houzz.com/photos/798227/Lottery-Home-2011---the-Mackenzie-transitional-laundry-room-edmonton>.

Figure 167: Vignette E. Photograph. <http://www.houzz.com/photos/445033/Gabriel-Builders-eclectic-family-room-other-metro>.

Figure 168: Vignette F. Photograph. <http://www.houzz.com/photos/445027/Gabriel-Builders-eclectic-family-room-other-metro>.

Figure 169: Front View of Proposed House. Rendering. Provided by Author.

Figure 170: Back View of Proposed House. Rendering. Provided by Author.

Figure 171: Building Section 1. Drawing. Provided by Author.

Figure 172: Building Section 2. Drawing. Provided by Author.

Figure 173: Wall Section Detail. Drawing. Provided by Author.

Figure 174: Final Presentation Boards. Image. Provided by Author.

7 Exposing a Naive Dream

ThesisAbstract

8Thesis Abstract

Exposing ANaive Dream

Jodie R. Quinter

May 2014

This thesis addresses the diminishing capacity of the architect in today’s

homebuilding industry by exposing their historical, environmental, and

psychological significance, resulting in a reevaluation of the traditional

paradigms of residential design, and the revelation of the architect’s role

in this process.

9 Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 1

Establishing the Problem

CONTEX TUAL RESEARCH

10Establishing the Problem | Contextual Research

The following contextual research works towards an understanding of

how the contemporary single-family home environment has escalated

into what can be seen lining the streets of America today, and seeks to

establish the flaws associated with this development.

1


Although noble in intention, the response to the housing

crisis following World War II, which resulted in the mass

production of uninspired single-family homes, has

escalated into modern day “suburbia.” The result is a lack of

customization in the homebuilding industry, which misleads

most to assume that the architect no longer has a vital role in

the design and construction process. While modern homes

are filled with innovative objects, the cookie cutter makeup

of the home itself has yet to be reinvented to reflect the way

we really live in a more progressive and less formal society.

As the homebuilding industry experiences a brief pause

between a recession and a comeback, we find ourselves with

the unique opportunity to rethink the results of the suburban

era and transform the archetype of the single-family home

with adaptable, efficient and innovative concepts. It is time

to evaluate the absence of thought and self-discovery in

the current homebuilding industry and create innovative,

functional, and responsible residences, rather than icons of

stature.

With headlines such as “The Architecture Meltdown”1 and

“Want a Job? Go to College, and Don’t Major in Architecture”2,

the apparent decline in the relevance of the architecture

profession is no secret. Historically esteemed as professionals

alongside doctors and lawyers, architects seem to be losing

grip on their purpose in the building industry and, thus,

their significance to society. The collapse of employment

within the field affirms this notion. In 2009, Norman Foster

laid off over a quarter of his staff. Gensler, one of the largest

architecture firms in the United States, followed suit, laying

off 750 of approximately 3000 employees, or roughly 25%.3

If firms of the stature of Foster and Gensler cannot maintain

their historical levels of work, surely this problem has

escalated from theoretical to practical. As the construction

industry begins to gain pace and the recent economic

recession dissolves into history the question arises: how can

1 Timberg

2 Rampbell

3 Ibid.


architects reestablish their relevance to society, and progress

forward with the rest of the building industry?

The present-day foreclosure crisis has exposed the flaws of

current housing trends, particularly in relationship to the

single-family home, revealing “a preponderance of houses

that are oversized and poorly designed.”4 Throughout history,

architects have found designing the single-family home

appealing due to it’s potential to serve as a testing ground

for innovation and design ideas, as it is small enough in scale

to experiment without the potential ramifications associated

with the clientele of larger civic and commercial projects.

Perhaps the silver lining of the prevailing foreclosure crisis

is that with an increased public awareness of the negative

outcomes of current residential design trends there is a clear

path for architects to prove their relevance in the building

industry, using the single-family home as the testing ground.

4 McGuigan

One may argue that the single-family home is too facile to

make apparent to the general public the significance of the

architecture profession. It is not the genre of architecture

that is continually appearing on magazine covers, or the

type that is drawing tourists from across the globe. However,

if one evaluates the type of architecture that truly comes

to the forefront with respect to its impact on our personal

lives, it will undoubtedly be that with which we are most

familiar with in the every day. The buildings in which we

live stimulate us on a daily basis; they tell us the most about

who we are, and who we aspire to be. Our homes offer

the most personal aspect of architecture we will likely ever

come into contact with. While “there is much more to say

about a great cathedral than about a generic shed… [The

likes of the shed] have a much greater impact on how we

live than a distant cathedral.”5 The single-family home, with

the detriment brought onto its make up through current

design practices, needs crucial attention. Revolutionizing the

5 Goldberger


Figure 1: Geo F. Barber & Co. Catalog Page Figure 2: Sears Roebuck Catalog Page


seemingly irrelevant role of the architect in home design and

construction processes provides a large-scale opportunity

to reestablish the importance of the profession in the

building industry. Public esteem for physicians evolved out

of the relationship individuals have with their own doctor,

not a doctor they see on the television or read about in the

newspaper. So too can public esteem for architects evolve

out of the intimate process of home design.

Architecture is rooted in the necessity of protecting humans

from the natural elements of this world. The home, specifically,

cultivated out of the basic notion of providing shelter. While

contemporary homes serve this fundamental purpose, it is

difficult to comprehend how the often inefficient, grandiose,

and expansive modern home evolved out of these primitive

notions. In order to discern how the home of the future can

be redefined, one must first understand how the current

middle to upper class housing market has escalated into what

can be seen lining the streets of America today, and establish

the flaws associated with this development.

The majority of present-day homes undoubtedly find roots

in the concept of catalog homes. Companies such as Sears

Roebuck and Geo. F. Barber and Co. could not have foreseen

the effects of their business strategy on current day housing

trends at their inception. Rather, these companies were

simply using media, through the form of catalogs and the

mail, to reach a broader public in remote areas as a part of

their business plan. In fact, an evaluation of early catalog

homes by these two companies presents a vast amount of

architectural integrity. Their contribution to today’s problems

lies in the fact that “eventually, [their] catalog cousins, were

not motivated by grand architectural visions, but were

rational consumer choices based upon the perceived value of

the design for the cost incurred.”6 A brief discussion of Geo. F.

Barber and Co. of Knoxville, Tennessee serves as testimony to

this idea.

6 Alcorn


Figure 3: Levittown, New York


Catalogs of Geo. F. Barber and Co. provided over 20,000

sets of house plans ranging in cost from $600 to $14,000

to clients across the entire United States, with the majority

falling into a price range slightly above the average cost of

the American home at that time.7 Due to the nature of the

catalog as the primary source of advertising these homes to

the masses, the Barber company was limited in its ability to

convey architectural ideas, and instead had to target their

potential clients in a manner in which they would personally

understand; through photos, renderings, and text.

This marketing method, rather unintentionally, fostered a

focus among clients on the external appearance of the

house. Thus, the single-family home evolved into an object

that existed primarily to be admired by others from the

exterior, losing focus on the practical applications of the

interior. Ironically, the Barber firm and its counterparts

at the time promoted the attributes of professionally

7 Alcorn

designed architecture without realizing they were laying

the groundwork for exactly the opposite approach in the

future. While these model homes were successful in fulfilling

their purpose initially, the post-World War II housing boom

exploded their use during the 1940s and 1950s, perpetually

changing American expectations for the single-family home.8

Not surprisingly, the number of homes in the United States

did not increase significantly during World War II with

American resources focused elsewhere. As thousands of men

began to return home, the demand for housing increased

quickly and profoundly. The GI Bill made the dream of private

homeownership a conceivable reality for veterans in the

postwar era, ultimately triggering the rapid construction of

thousands of homes throughout the United States.9 Entire

neighborhoods, such as Levittown in New York, were created

as a result. As “custom-built” homes became obtainable to the

8 Wallack

9 Ibid.


Figure 4: GE Advertisement Figure 5: Saturday Evening Post Figure 6: The New Yorker


general public on a large scale for the first time, the fruition of

the American Dream into a “Dream House” became a reality.

Almost all attribute the same principles to the concept of the

American Dream. The dream is a desire for personal fulfillment

and social advancement. It is individualized, proprietary, and

promises reward for pursuits in life. With the cessation of

the war approaching in the mid-1940s, the “Dream House”

ideal began to be “defined in terms of a detached, suburban,

single-nuclear-family house as an expectation to which GIs

and their families could justifiably look forward to after years

of separation, privation and loss.”10 This materialization of the

American Dream is foundational in the evolution of the way in

which homes are designed and built today.

The success of model homes during the postwar era caught

the attention of various manufacturers across the country,

acknowledging the desires of the new consumer economy.

10 Archer

Capitalizing on this, the single-family home quickly became

an advertising tool for contemporary technologies and

controllable environments. “Not only would manufacturers

of building materials prosper, but houses designed

and equipped to hold an array of new appliances from

dishwashers and disposals to air conditioning and television,

would mean rapid expansion of sales for those manufacturers

as well.”11 At this time, the increasing infatuation of Americans

to innovate objects within their home while neglecting

aspirations to evolve the composition of the home itself

became apparent. According to William J. Levitt, the American

real-estate developer responsible for the aforementioned

Levittown, “The best way to build a house is first to make sure

it’s designed for better living, electrically!”12 With the ability

to control the coffee maker from the bedroom and operate

drapes via a switch, the “All-Electric House” in suburban Kansas

City, which drew over 62,000 visitors to its facility in the 1950s,

11 Ibid.

12 Ibid.


demonstrates this shift in societal ambitions in America.13

The proliferation of model homes and technology in the

postwar era is directly related to the increasingly privatized,

self-contained, and controllable domestic environments we

see in single-family homes throughout America today. The

heightened reliance on the automobile at this time only

furthered the expanse of suburban neighborhoods, allowing

people to live in areas ever more distant from city centers.

The American home became progressively centered around

the automobile, with no adaptations to its overall make up

to account for these changes. While it is understandable that

veterans sought refuge and solitude in their homes following

World War II, it is the resulting attitude shift that accounts

for the inwardly focused home designs we see today, which

inherently disengage dwellers from their community, turning

their backs on the world as they hide in their suburban

mansion.

13 Wallack

The expeditious production of homes in the post-World

War II era set the stage for the departure of personal

involvement with an architect in the home design process,

and it has remained relatively the same since. Regardless,

“the dream remains one of the principal reigning paradigms

which American society projects personal success and self-

fulfillment,” and Americans today continue to turn to the

private dwelling in hopes of pursuing their own American

Dream.14

The composition of suburban residences has been rising in

square footage for decades, despite the fact that the average

size of the single family is decreasing. According to the United

States Census Bureau, the average size of a single-family

house built in 2012 was 2,505 square feet, compared to 1,525

square feet in 1973 or 1,905 square feet in 1990.15 In addition,

the average population per household in the United States

14 Archer

15 US Census Bureau


Figure 7: Brick Front with Vinyl Siding


has decreased over an entire person in the last sixty-five years,

currently sized at 2.55 persons per household compared to

3.67 of 1948.16

The term “McMansion” has come to apply to these homes

of excessive volume, as “they are often generic in style,

packed close together on postage stamp-sized lots and

built quickly—much like the fast-food delivery style name

suggests.”17 One can likely envision exactly the type of house

referenced due to the fact that technology, transportation,

and mass production have fostered a homogenous nature

in the construction of similar developments throughout the

entire country. These homes are frequently alike in color and

material, with the largest “room” in the house often being the

garage, reaffirming the value of the automobile in today’s

society. In order to maximize square footage, architectural

details suffer. A recently built home which features brick on

16 “American Households...”

17 Smith

the front, and vinyl siding wrapped around the remaining,

non-street front facades in order to conserve cost is

commonplace in American communities today. This design

affirms the concept that the only concern of the home of

today is how it appears to others from the street.

Developers and builders make these sacrifices in order to

maximize square footage and internal area, as prospective

homeowners are shopping for size, not design. The common

priority of the modern home is that it reflects the owners

overall economic status. In essence, what we see lining the

streets of America today can be classified in style as “generic

homes of wealthy people.”18

In basic principal, homogeneity should not be seen entirely

as a negative aspect of architecture. If every building on

every street were radically different, the effect would

be overbearing. Complacency in architecture allows for

“foreground buildings” and “background buildings,” and when

18 Susanka, Not So Big House


Figure 8: Aerial View of a Suburb


both are present on a street, it provides visual stimulus to

the backdrop of our lives without being overwhelming.19

However, if a street is entirely composed of background

buildings, or buildings that are all very similar, their presence

can no longer be noticed. This is the case in many residential

neighborhoods today. People tend to be conservative,

seeking comfort in the familiar and desiring what has already

been done. Because of this, it is no surprise that they yearn

for their homes to be consistent with the designs presented

by their neighbors, having “no hope of owning a home any

different than the others around them.”20 When this notion is

multiplied several times within the confines of a small area, as

it is in many residential neighborhoods throughout America

today, no foreground buildings exist, ultimately resulting in

the dull nature of the majority of modern day suburbs. When

this concept is applied to the present day single-family home,

the problem is compounded, as what was there initially is

19 Goldberger

20 Wentling

a cookie cutter home, a result of mass production and a

postwar mindset, which is not efficient or reflective of the

way we really live.

Instead of truly evaluating what is needed in the house of

today, homebuilders add on rooms to a preexisting, outdated

formula. For example, some common features of today’s

McMansion include a home theater, a private office, a hobby

room, and a personal gym. All are rooms that would not have

been commonly placed in a home fifty years ago, increasingly

privatizing daily life through the inclusion of all entertainment

activities within the home. In addition, these homes still host

an array of historically typical features such as a grand entry

foyer and a formal dining room. The result is homes full of

spaces that are infrequently used and not reflective of the

way we live today. While society has become progressively

informal compared to that of the past, more formal spaces

continue to remain in the program of our homes simply

because no one really seems to question their use.


Figure 10: Informal DiningFigure 9: Formal Dining


How often do the majority of families today sit down and eat

in the formal dining room? How many times on a daily basis

does one experience the grand entry foyer, or even use the

front door in this automobile driven society? Which of the

images to the left is a more familiar experience? “While we’ve

been busy evolving over the past century, most of our houses

have not. Their evolution has been constricted by outdated

notions of what we think we need and what the real estate

industry says we need for resale.”211It is time to evaluate the

amount of space in today’s McMansions that is no longer

used.

As homes are dehumanized by becoming larger and larger

and yet less reflective of daily behavior, the purpose of

building a house is quickly lost. A home should be built with

the intent to provide a sanctuary and a functional place

to exist on a daily basis. A home is likely to be the most

expensive item one will ever purchase. Why then is there


contentment with simply copying what is next door without

evaluating what it is needed to find personal comfort and

efficiency in home design? “It may come as no surprise that

only 2% of new-home buyers work directly with an architect

to design the space in which they live.”22 Assuredly, this is

due to a lack of understanding by the general public of the

benefits the tasks of an architect can provide in relationship

to the design and construction of a home. Increasingly

common suburban homes and the current foreclosure crisis

offer distinct evidence of the flaws of current home design

and construction practices, commonly undertaken without

the presence of an architect. Despite this, there is a failure

to question this process by the public, simply because of a

fundamental lack of knowledge. Therefore, “it is the architect’s

task, not the public’s, to present the reasons that design can

help.”24 3

22 Bell


24 McGuigan


Figure 11: The American Dream is Over


People will always need houses. According to a 2011 survey

by the National Association of Realtors, 8 out of 10 Americans

desire to live in a single-family detached house.25 1The single-

family home of the future has the potential to set an example

for other forms of architecture to emulate in an attempt

to salvage the American Dream in light of recent political,

economic, and environmental crises. “Good architecture—

whether for private clients or developers—can bring to

the contemporary home sustainability, economy, and

flexibility, as well as sensitivity to place. And isn’t that what

the American Dream should be all about?”26 Emphasized

by American architect Robert Venturi, “The architect’s ever

diminishing power and growing ineffectualness in shaping

the whole environment can perhaps be reversed, ironically,

by narrowing his concerns and concentrating on his own

job.”272How can the relevance of the architect be regained?

It’s simple. Build better buildings. Nowhere is there a greater

25 McGuigan

26 Goldberger

or more widespread opportunity to capitalize on this than

in building better homes. “Home is an invention on which

no one has yet improved,” and it’s time for architects to

get involved.283 “When we have what the ‘Jonses’ have, we

experience firsthand the inadequacy of the dream.”29 4


28 Ibid.


Notes

1 Timberg, Scott. “The Architecture Meltdown.” Salon, February 4, 2012. http://www.salon.com/2012/02/04/the_architecture_meltdown/.

2 Rampell, Catherine. “Want a Job? Go to College, and Don’t Major in Architecture.” The New York Times, January 5, 2012. http://economix. blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/want-a-job-go-to-college-and-dont- major-in-architecture/.

3 Ibid.

4 McGuigan, Cathleen. “House Proud.” Architectural Record, April 2012. http://archrecord.construction.com/community/editorial/2012/1204. asp.

5 Goldberger, Paul. Why Architecture Matters. (Yale University Press, 2011), 3.

6 Alcorn, Michael. “Catalog Castles.” Journal of American Culture 20, no. 3 (Autumn 1997): 1.

7 Ibid., 1-2.

8 Wallack, Catherine. “Dream Home: Remodeling American Expectations with Model Houses.” Journal of American Culture 32, no. 4 (December 2009), 332.

9 Ibid., 332.

10 Archer, John. Architecture and Suburbia: From English Villa to Amercan Dream House, 1690-2000. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2005), 272.

11 Ibid., 270.

12 Ibid., 278.

13 Wallack, “Dream Home: Remodeling American Expectations with Model Houses,” 337.

14 Archer, John. Architecture and Suburbia: From English Villa to Ameican Dream House, 1690-2000, 289.

15 US Census Bureau, M. C. D. “Characteristics of New Housing.” Accessed October 18, 2013. http://www.census.gov/construction/chars/highl lights.html.

16 “American Households Are Getting Smaller – And Headed by Older Adults.” Marketing Charts. Accessed October 18, 2013. http://www. marketingcharts.com/wp/topics/demographics/american-house holds-are-getting-smaller-and-headed-by-older-adults-24981/.

17 Smith, Lisa. “McMansion: A Closer Look at the Big House Trend.” In vestopedia, February 26, 2009. http://www.investopedia.com/articles/ pf/07/mcmansion.asp.

18 Susanka, Sarah. The Not So Big House: A Blueprint for the Way We Really Live. (Newtown, CT; [Emeryville, CA]: Taunton Press ; Distributed by Publishers Group West, 1998), 20.

19 Goldberger, Why Architecture Matters, 221.

20 Wentling, James. Designing a Place Called Home: Reordering the Suburbs. 1 edition. (Springer, 1994), 34.

21 Susanka, The Not So Big House: A Blueprint for the Way We Really Live, 31.

22 Bell, Bryan. Good Deeds, Good Design: Community Service through Architecture. 1 edition. (Princeton Architectural Press, 2003), fourth cover.

23 Ibid., 13.

24 McGuigan, Cathleen. “House Proud.” Architectural Record, April 2012. http://archrecord.construction.com/community/editorial/2012/1204. asp.

25 Ibid.


Notes (continued)

26 Goldberger, Why Architecture Matters, 36.


28 Ibid., 184.


Providing Factual Suppor t

CONCEPTUAL RESEARCH

2

The following addresses the flaws established as a result of contextual

research regarding the American single-family home environment, and

evaluates these issues statistically in an effort to determine the validity of

such conclusions by way of factual support.

34Providing Factual Support | Conceptual Research


The idolatry of starchitects has made it seem like architecture is only for exceptional buildings. Architecture is perceived as a luxury good. It can be, but it’s not only that. —Scott Timberg

Figure 12: Zaha Hadid’s Beko Building in Belgrade


Present day architects are generally viewed by the greater

public as a luxury involving additional cost which most

perceive to be uneconomical in the design and construction

of their homes. Because of this, the mind of a potential

homebuyer often finds itself caught somewhere between

affordable mediocrity and unattainable fantasy when

considering purchasing or building a home.1 The common

misperception that architects are out of economic reach

for the majority of society directly results in the expanse

of mass production housing that can be seen throughout

America today. Our homes, likely our most expensive and

intimate possession, have “our lowest expectations for

personal fulfillment” and “the simple reason for this misfit is

cost.”2 Today’s homebuyers frequently allow up-front costs to

outweigh all other considerations.

Why then would potential clients involve the additional

1 Dickinson

2 Ibid.

charge of an architect when they can purchase and

complacently live with a plan-book home design that

maximizes the largest square footage their budget can afford?

Benefits such as low interest rates and mortgage interest

tax deductions have made it possible for homeowners to

invest more money towards building the home of their

dreams. Rather than investing these additional funds toward

architectural quality, homebuyers instead often trade up

for a larger home, ultimately obtaining an object that they

cannot really afford.3 Certainly the general public does

not understand the benefits the services of an architect

can provide in relation to single-family home design and

construction, and are unable to distinguish the architect’s

value in this process enough to justify the “added” cost.

The general public cannot be held entirely responsible

for misunderstanding the value an architect can add to

the homebuilding process. While most architects are

3 Gauer and Tighe


Figure 13: Single-Family Home Construction

33%

2%OF NEW HOME-BUYERS

WORK DIRECTLY WITH AN ARCHITECT

TO DESIGN THEIR HOME

LOST OPPORTU

NITY

SINGLE-FAMILY HOMECONSTRUCTION:

OVERALL WORKVALUE IN THE

CONSTRUCTIONSECTOR

SUBURB

RURAL AREA

currently living in a city, but would prefer to live in...

currently living in a suburb, but would prefer to live in...

currently living in a rural area, but would prefer to live in...

58% 25% 17%

12%

10% 15% 75%

70% 18%

LIVING PREFERENCE:

CITY


certainly willing to establish the flaws associated with

suburban developments from the outside, there is a lack of

involvement in addressing the future of such developments

in architectural education, and a general failure by the

profession to assess the ways in which an architect’s services

can benefit the design and construction of the single-family

home. It seems as though the architectural profession feels

that suburban developments are out of their domain of

practice and essentially “are places not worth caring about.”4

Through current practices associated with non-monumental

buildings, with suburban residences falling into this

architectural category, architects are portraying a disregard for

the well-being of society, and sending the general message of

“we don’t give a fuck” according to James Kunstler.5

The following statistics validate this premise. Single-family

home construction accounts for nearly one-third of the

4 James Howard Kunstler


overall work value in the United States construction sector

each year.6 Despite its substantiality as a significant economic

activity, architects are generally uninvolved in single-family

home design, working directly with homebuyers on only

2% of new homes constructed, with suburban residences

continuing to comprise the majority of American homes

being built each year.7 The adjusted statistic that results

is a total of 32.3%, or nearly one-third, of the overall

construction value in the United States being constructed

each year with no immediate participation by an architect

as a direct outcome of current homebuilding trends. This

reality reflects a staggering amount of wasted opportunity

by the architectural profession in general in regards to their

prominence in involvement in the design and construction of

the built environment as a whole.

In addition, despite rumors of projected urbanization in the

6 “Analysis of the Life Cycle Impacts…”

7 Bell


33%

2%OF NEW HOME-BUYERS

WORK DIRECTLY WITH AN ARCHITECT

TO DESIGN THEIR HOME

LOST OPPORTU

NITY



CONSTRUCTIONSECTOR

SUBURB

RURAL AREA




58% 25% 17%

12%

10% 15% 75%

70% 18%

LIVING PREFERENCE:

CITY

Figure 14: Living Preference Survey


United States, a 2013 survey conducted by the National

Association of Realtors revealed that the desire by the

general public to live in single-family detached homes in

suburban and rural neighborhoods is not fading. In fact, more

Americans prefer this type of dwelling condition than live

there currently, indicating a prevailing system composed of a

flawed housing model commonly designed and constructed

with no contribution by an architect.8 As a result, the reality

is affirmed that suburbia is not going away. Therefore, a

necessity of involvement by the architecture profession

in shaping the future of such developments is critical not

only to the ability of the profession to capitalize on wasted

work opportunity in order to regain prominence in the

building industry, but also to ensure a responsibly configured

suburban paradigm of the future.

The challenges facing society today in regards to current

home design and construction practices are uniquely

8 “National Community Preference Survey”

American; a direct result of reliance on the automobile in

addition to wagering too heavily on the suburban dream.9

It is time for architects and the general public to look more

closely at the ways in which homes and neighborhoods

are constructed, and address how they can be improved

in order for the planet to return to balance.10 Nowhere is

there a greater opportunity to capitalize on this than by

combating the problems presented by suburbia, “the greatest

misallocation of resources in the history of the world.”11 It is

time the American Dream is taken a little more seriously by

creating places worth caring about and fighting for.

While being “less bad” never provides an ultimate solution,

marginal changes to the main component of a failing system

when working together provide an opportunity to achieve

greater results. Because of this, it is essential that the single-

9 “Who Cares About the ‘Burbs’?”




2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100 2110

22%

RES

IDEN

TIA

L

19% COMMERCIAL

ENERGY CONSUMPTION

BY SECTOR.

29% TRANSPORTATION

30% INDUSTRIAL

40% BUILDINGS

26.6%

15.8%

13.2%

10.0%

6.3%4.8%4.6%2.6%2.5%

13.5%

space heating

space cooling

water heating

lighting

refrigerationelectronicswet cleaningcookingcomputers

others

Figure 16: Energy Consumption by Sector

Figure 15: Factor of 10


family detached home as an individual entity be addressed

as an outcome of its role as the primary component of this

inefficient, yet most desired by the general public, system. If

there is any hope of redefining these “automobile slums,”12

architects and society must work together to dissolve the

misunderstanding of the architect’s value in the design of

these homes and neighborhoods in order to foster better

development in the future; an endangered future that

hinges on the efficiency of the built environment with

unprecedented magnitude.

In order for human society to sustain itself into the next

century, the efficiency of the use of resources on this planet

will have to increase by a factor of ten.13 Few will argue that

one of the ways architects continue to remain relevant is

related to the resource consumption of the built

environment, particularly in relation to climate change


13 Guy, Rinker, and Gibeau

and the current issue of global warming. The building

sector in the United States is responsible for a majority of

the energy consumption by sector, exhausting over 75%

of all electricity produced by American power plants, in

addition to accounting for nearly one half of all greenhouse

gas emissions in America.14 Furthermore, construction

activities in the United States are directly responsible for the

consumption of 60% of the materials used in the US economy

each year, excluding food and fuel.15 These figures provide

clear evidence that it must be one of the highest priorities of

our time to improve the quality of the built environment in

order to combat these climate change related issues by way

of achieving increased levels of resource efficiency.

It is estimated that by the year 2035, over three-quarters

of the building stock in the United States will be new or

14 “AIA Sustainability 2030 Toolkit.”



BY THE YEAR 2035, 75% OF THE BUILDING STOCK IN THE UNITED STATES WILL EITHER BE RENEWED OR NEW CONSTRUCTION. THIS PRESENTS A HUGE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE AND FOR ARCHITECTS TO BE A PART OF THE SOLUTION


renewed construction.16 This projection makes apparent a

vast amount of potential for the architectural profession to

get involved in making a difference in working towards a

stable climatic future for the planet. Consequently, architects

inarguably continue to matter as a direct result of their

responsibilities to society that go beyond the design and

construction of even the most beautiful buildings.17

This notion of responsibly constructing the built environment

has come to be coined by society as “green” building. With

that title comes several implications placed onto the resulting

architecture by a somewhat resistive general public in regard

to this type of design and construction, particularly in relation

to single-family homes. Potential homebuyers often associate

applied technologies, such as solar panels or wind turbines,

as the only form of increasing the efficiency of the built

environment. This mode of thinking is directly responsible


17 Goldberger

for the cautious attitude with which these homebuyers often

approach sustainable single-family home design concepts,

as Americans overwhelmingly desire to live in dwellings that

resemble the archetypal image of home, and therefore do

not associate these applied technologies with that vision. The

architectural profession understands that the same levels

of efficiency that can result from the use of technologies

such as solar panels and wind turbines can also be achieved

by integrating sustainable solutions during the design and

construction process, and can, therefore, be attained without

the home having to resemble something out of a science

fiction film.18 For this reason, seeking an accurate portrayal

of “green” building will often result in multiple perspectives

dependent of who is being asked.

There are several problems with the concept of branding

architecture as green, and, therefore, succumbing the

associated design and construction practices, and ultimately



NO.

NOFigure 17: “Green” House 1 Figure 18: “Green” House 2

NO.

NO


buildings, to the potential implications related to the term

by the general public. By labeling architecture as green, it

somehow legitimizes any other alternative mode of design

and construction, as if building insensibly should ever be

consciously acceptable.19 “In what universe did it ever make

sense to build a house that wasn’t energy efficient? Or where

the air inside wasn’t clean and free of mold? Or where the

detailing wasn’t carefully crafted to ensure that the building

would last?”20 Through gradual change over time, society has

moved away from historically sensible modes of crafting the

built environment, and, as a result, has become so accepting

of inefficient and low-quality construction methods and

materials that they have been forced to label what previously

was known as building with common sense as an entirely

new idea: green.

In addition, it should be noted that green is a completely

19 Ireton

20 Ibid.

relative concept.21 If a house is built to net-zero energy

building standards but remains filled with countless

unsustainable and irresponsibly manufactured products,

is it really green? It must be accepted that constructing,

inhabiting, and operating any building is not possible without

doing some level of harm to the planet. As a result, the

practice of building green comes to be a measure of how

much harm a building does, and the question becomes: at

what point in this quality curve can it officially be considered

green?22 In an attempt to answer this question, it is affirmed

that the concept of green is entirely comparative, and

consequently can be considered a notion that simply entails

doing less harm than is being done currently.

When stripped down to its basic meaning, the architecture

profession recognizes green building as that which is efficient;

a term defined as “capable of producing desired results

21 Ibid.

22 Ibid.


TOP 3 BARRIERS TO SUSTAINABLE DESIGN1 ADDS SIGNIFICANT COST TO A PROJECT2 LACK OF MARKET INTEREST3 HARD TO JUSTIFY...all based on perception of economics


without wasting materials, time, or energy.”231 In moving

forward with this investigation, the above definition of green

applies in all instances where the term is used, and will only

refer to design concepts that incorporate construction and

maintenance practices that conserve resources, perform

efficiently, and work towards the overall goal of significantly

reducing or eliminating any negative impacts on occupants

or the environment by way of their existence.242

Few will argue that the fundamental lack of quality in the

modern built environment can be directly attributed to

economic decision-making. Economic factors govern nearly

every decision in the planning and construction of the built

environment, resulting in the prevalence of low-quality

designs realized through inefficient and commonly mediocre,

yet inexpensive, construction methods that can be seen

throughout America today. Because of this, it comes as no

23 Dictionary


surprise that the top three barriers to green design by the

general public are all based on perceptions of its

economics: “that it adds significant costs to a project, that

there is a lack of market interest, and that it is hard to justify,”

and therefore building sustainably is falsely perceived by

potential homebuyers as a luxurious mode of construction

that only the affluent can afford.251

This modern perception of green building is somewhat ironic

given the fact that historically it was the poorest people that

lived the most sustainably, while the wealthy were those who

could pay for the inefficiencies associated with superfluous

designs.262 Regardless, it is because of this economic mode

of thinking that society has unknowingly approved a

perception of the built environment whose quality tailors off

into an acceptance of increasingly uninspiring surroundings.

Therefore, despite the relativity of the term green, any positive

25 Pivo

26 Ireton


change demonstrates an attempt to reverse this negative

quality curve and salvage the efficiency and architectural

quality of the built environment.271 In order for the

architectural profession to successfully aid in the process

of achieving such changes, the fallacies behind the current

economic barriers associated with sustainable single-family

home design must first be exposed.

27 Sallette


Notes

1 Dickinson, Duo. House on a Budget. (Newtown, Connecticut: Taunton Press, 2007), 5.

2 Ibid., 10.

3 Gauer, James, and Catherine Tighe. The New American Dream: Living Well in Small Homes. First Edition. (New York, New York: Monacelli Press, 2004), 12.

4 Ibid., 12.

5 Timberg, Scott. “The Architecture Meltdown.” Salon, February 4, 2012. http://www.salon.com/2012/02/04/the_architecture_meltdown/.

6 “Analysis of the Life Cycle Impacts and Potential for Avoided Impacts Associated with Single-Family Homes.” United States Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/imr/cdm/pdfs/ sfhomes.pdf.

7 Bell, Bryan. Good Deeds, Good Design: Community Service through Architecture. (1 edition. Princeton Architectural Press, 2003), fourth cover.

8 “National Community Preference Survey.” National Association of Realtors, October 2013. http://www.realtor.org/sites/default/files/ reports/2013/2013-community-preference-analysis-slides.pdf.

9 “Who Cares About the ‘Burbs’?” Blog. OpenCity Projects, October 28, 2013. http://opencityprojects.com/blog/diversity/who-cares-about- the-burbs/.


11 James Howard Kunstler: The Ghastly Tragedy of the Suburbs. TED Talks, 2004. http://www.ted.com/talks/james_howard_kunstler_dissects_ suburbia.html.

Notes

12 Ibid.

13 Guy, Bradley, M. E. Rinker, and Eleanor M. Gibeau. “A Guide to Deconstruction.” Deconstruction Institute, January 2003. http://www. deconstructioninstitute.com/files/learn_center/45762865_guidebook. pdf.

14 “AIA Sustainability 2030 Toolkit.” The American Institute of Architects. http://info.aia.org/toolkit2030/index.html.

15 Guy, Rinker, and Gibeau, “A Guide to Deconstruction.”




19 Ireton, Kevin. “Is Green Building Too Expensive?” Fine Homebuilding, April 16, 2008. http://www.finehomebuilding.com/how-to/depart ments/taking-issue/is-the-cost-of-green-building-too-expensive.aspx.

20 Ibid.

21 Ibid.

22 Ibid.

23 Dictionary, Merriam-Webster. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Massachusetts: Merriam-Webster, Inc., 2006.


25 Pivo, Gary. “Promising Economics.” GreenTech. http://www.u.arizona .edu/~gpivo/ULI%20article.pdf.

26 Ireton, Kevin. “Is Green Building Too Expensive?”


Notes

27 Sallette, Marc A. “Design Values.” Urban Land. http://www.wbdg.org/ pdfs/urbanland_1105.pdf.

Notes (continued)


Assessing Inef f iciencies

CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT

3

The following assessment exposes the economic and environmental

deficiencies that come as a direct result of the inadequate life cycle of the

single-family home of today and a narrow perception of the term “cost”

by the general public.

54Assessing Inefficiencies | Concept Development


It is not difficult to understand that the best way for potential

homebuyers to control the costs associated with building

their home is to be directly involved in the design process.

Despite being marketed by builders as “custom homes,” the

reality is that today most homebuyers are not truly involved

in composing the home of their dreams, and instead this

customization and personal involvement is being forged by

a variety of predetermined options that the client can then

tweak to suit their individual family’s needs. By essentially

removing themselves from having direct involvement in the

design process, potential homebuyers are blatantly ignoring

their largest opportunity to control the costs of their project,

and, therefore, do not truly comprehend or question all

of the ramifications associated with the cost, quality, and

quantity decisions being made as a result. Consequently,

today’s homebuyers are frequently unable to understand the

potential economic benefits that can result from sustainable

design solutions.

The common misconception by the general public that green

building is too expensive can be attributed to a very narrow

perspective of cost based only on the amount of money

required up-front to implement sustainable strategies such as

extra insulation, higher quality materials, or energy efficient

appliances.1 This limited focus ignores all other potential

financial rewards made possible through the implementation

of efficient design solutions by way of lower operation and

maintenance costs such as less frequent need for repairs

and replacements and a reduction in use of both water and

energy, ultimately resulting in considerably lower monthly

utility bills. In addition, a house that makes use of sustainable

strategies has the capability to maintain its level of quality

longer by being constructed as a well-crafted product, and

can therefore offer the initial homebuyer added market

value in an attempt for future resale. The results of a survey

conducted in 2006 which concluded that 86% of Americans

looking to purchase a home would select one option over

1 “Analysis of the Life Cycle Impacts...”


another based solely on it’s energy efficiency confirms this

claim.2 This assertion becomes even more significant when

considering that this percentage will likely continue along

an upward trajectory given the fact that costs of energy

have consistently increased by 1-2% over inflation each year,

making the financial argument for green building an even

more convincing case.3

It is worth noting that this is not the first time in American

history that society has been encouraged to project future

return on investment in order to justify higher up-front

costs in regard to single-family home construction. With

assistance in enforcement by building codes and regulations,

the general public has already been made aware of several

design decisions that are beneficial to include when building

a single-family home, despite the fact that they add to


3 American Institute of Architects

the initial cost of construction.4 For instance, Americans

understand the worth of creating foundations that extend

below the frost line, and the purpose of placing vent fan

systems in bathrooms in order to expel moisture.5 Both of

these examples require higher up-front costs when looked

at historically, yet society no longer questions their validity

as they have a clear understanding of the advantages

of incorporating these solutions into the design and

construction of their home. So too can the architectural

profession find success in facilitating the fabrication of a

more efficient residential building sector if they are able to

adequately make apparent to the general public the benefits

of the associated sustainable design solutions; benefits rooted

in economics, as cost trumps almost all other considerations

for potential homebuyers.

Perhaps it is their ability to pay for themselves that has caused

4 Bayer, Gamble, Gentry and Joshi

5 Ibid.


BUILT IN1998

$90,000ENERGY COSTS

$180,000REPLACEMENTS

$181,900PRICE OF HOME

20%

MORE THAN UP FRONT COST

Figure 19: Life Cycle Cost Study


green design solutions to become somewhat of a victim of

their own success. When a payback period enters the picture,

expenditures become an investment rather than simply an

item of consumption. Consumers today are not concerned

with the return on their capital when purchasing something

luxurious such as a Mercedes or a yacht, yet they seem to

resist this principle when it comes to sustainable design.

The realization is that it is the ability of technologies such as

solar panels to offset up-front costs over a period of time that

has potential homebuyers solely focused on their financial

equation.6 Consequently, the public considers “an investment

in energy efficiency like any other investment. If the payback

on solar panels is fifteen years... but the same money invested

in the stock market would net a bigger return in fifteen years,

they buy stock.”7 The problem with this mode of thinking is

similar to that of the public’s perception of the term “green” in

6 Ireton

7 Ibid.

that it revolves around the concept of applied technologies

that can be added to a home that is already designed, rather

than consider solutions that can be realized through the

design process that result in inherent sustainability such as

capitalizing on site features, using higher quality materials,

and reducing overall square footage. As a result, this common

perspective on the economics of green building by the

general public is void in that it does not address an all-

encompassing vision of sustainable decision-making.

Society frequently only considers up-front costs as the total

valuation associated with purchasing a home. However, the

reality is that truly defining the “cost” of a home is a much

more complex and convoluted issue when looking at the

larger economic picture that comes as a result of owning

such an item. For example, if a price tag of $350,000 is agreed

upon at the point of sale is that the cost of the home? Or

is it the more than $796,000 you will potentially pay for this


IN AN ATTEMPT TO REDUCE INITIAL COSTS, HOMEBUILDERS AND CLIENTS ARE ACTUALLY CREATING THE GENESIS OF ECONOMICALLY FLAWED DECISION MAKING IN THE PROCESS OF DESIGNING AND CONSTRUCTING HOMES


same purchase over a 30-year mortgage?8 In reality, this

difference in cost would be even more extreme if monthly

operating expenditures such as water and fuel bills were

taken into account. In fact, a 2010 study conducted by the

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality concluded

that the lifetime energy costs associated with operating

a home built in 1998 total approximately $90,000.9 This

study also demonstrated that the average lifetime costs

associated with replacements for that same home were

on the order of approximately $180,000.10 This combined

$270,000 expenditure that results from simply operating and

maintaining a 1998 home dwarfs the average initial cost of

a home in that same year: $181,900.11 When looked at from

this perspective, what does defining the “cost” of a home truly

entail?

8 Ireton.


10 Ibid.

11 “Median and Average Sales Prices...”

By focusing solely on up-front costs, homebuilders and clients

today are often ignoring the potential of the single-family

home to accrue savings through deliberate design decisions

that take into account future expenditures. Therefore, in an

attempt to reduce initial costs, homebuilders and clients are

actually creating the genesis of economically flawed decision

making in the process of designing and constructing these

homes.

Every decision made during the design process for a

building project has an impact on cost to some degree.12 By

projecting eventual expenses, such as monthly utility bills

or repairs, which will come as a result of these decisions,

architects and homebuyers are able to make increasingly

effective economic choices that have the ability to control

the inevitable costs associated with owning and operating

a single-family home. The process of assessing future

expenditures in order to sensibly evaluate competing



alternatives in validating a design solution based on its

economics is known as life cycle cost analysis. Life cycle cost

analysis provides a methodology to compare all possible

design solutions in a more holistic manner than is done

traditionally by bringing to the forefront issues such as

average lifespan, maintenance required, and energy efficiency,

eventually drawing financial conclusions based on this

evaluation.13 The consideration of both initial and prospective

costs associated with design decisions is crucial in reaching

the most economically effective solutions for potential

homebuyers in the process of designing their homes.

The economic capability of such an evaluation has been

highlighted by the sustainable movement as the associated

techniques often possess the power to considerably limit

future building expenditures.14

Despite the fact that several sustainable solutions often


14 Ibid.

require higher up-front costs, explaining the public’s

resistance towards this movement, they tend to have lower

life cycle costs when compared to competing alternatives

as a direct result of the increased levels of quality and

efficiency of such solutions. Consequently, common design

and construction practices executed today as a result of their

low initial cost when evaluated from a life cycle perspective

often can actually cost clients more money over time than

a comparable sustainable solution. By evaluating design

decisions based on life cycle cost, architects are given the

opportunity to offset the additional fees of their hire to the

single-family homeowner, while saving the client money

throughout the lifespan of owning their home. This puts

to rest the perception that fees associated with hiring an

architect are an additional cost that only the wealthy can

afford. This methodology is the most effective argument

in demonstrating to potential homebuyers the value of

efficiency in single-family home design by addressing

sustainable solutions from the viewpoint of an investment


50 79 100+

Figure 20: House, Human, and Brick Average Lifespan


decision. By financially validating sustainable solutions

through life cycle cost analysis, architects are afforded the

opportunity to speak to the economically driven mindset

of the client while concurrently fulfilling their obligation to

society to reduce the negative environmental impacts of the

built environment.

When evaluating the life cycle of a single-family home from

an economic perspective, it is generally adequate to assess

future costs on a timeline of twenty-five to forty years due to

the effects of time on the value of the US dollar. As a direct

result of inflation making the value of a current dollar worth

much more than that of a future dollar, roughly 90% of the

total equivalent cost in life cycle cost analysis is typically

consumed in the first twenty-five years.15 Consequently,

an evaluation period longer than forty years tends to add

minimal benefit to the life cycle cost analysis, unless very low


rates of interest are used.16

The same timeline does not hold true when considering the

life cycle of a single-family home from an environmental

perspective, as inflation of the US dollar is not directly

involved in the evaluation process, and environmental

impacts are ongoing throughout the entire building

lifespan from material manufacturing to deconstruction or

demolition; currently an average period of fifty years for a

home in the United States based on data put forth by the

National Association of Homebuilders.17

At first glance, fifty years may seem to be an acceptable

length of time for the existence of a single-family home in

the United States. However, when compared to the lifespan

of the people who occupy it and the materials that compose

it, it becomes brief. This insufficient lifespan of the American

16 Ibid.

17 “Analysis of the Life Cycle Impacts…”


ONE HOUSE.

30’ H x 30’ W WALLWALL AROUND THE

ENTIRE UNITED STATES

CONSTRUCT A

270,000 TORN DOWN ANNUALLY

IN THE UNITED STATES

1 BILLIONBOARD FEET GOING TOLANDFILLS EACH YEAR

resulting in...

enough timber to...

Figure 21: Accounting for Change in Family Size and Structure

Figure 22: United States Home Demolition

ONE HOUSE.

30’ H x 30’ W WALLWALL AROUND THE

ENTIRE UNITED STATES

CONSTRUCT A

270,000 TORN DOWN ANNUALLY

IN THE UNITED STATES

1 BILLIONBOARD FEET GOING TOLANDFILLS EACH YEAR

resulting in...

enough timber to...


home of today can be directly attributed to its inability to

adapt. Adaptation for future use is a particularly problematic

issue when it comes to home design. A custom home

implies a tailored fit for a specific family, and it should be. But

in this tailored fit there must also be consideration of, and

accommodation for, future occupants and future use.

There is one thing for certain in this life and that is that the

passage of time will have effects on people. As a result, family

size, family structure, and the needs and desires of individuals

change as well. In order for any building to find long-lasting

success, it must be able to change with time as a direct result

of the fact that we, as people, change.18 The lack of ease

with which the home of today can adapt is demonstrated

by the finding that 92% of building related waste output

comes as a result of renovation and demolition.19 In fact,

the Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that

18 Goldberger


renovation projects generate the majority of construction and

demolition materials associated with residential buildings.20

The single-family home of the future must account for

inevitable programmatic evolution by incorporating room

for the unpredictability in life, ultimately fostering the ease

of its capability to change with time. By engineering homes

to “allow for ease of maintenance and future modification, we

will [truly] be serving ourselves as well as our planet.”21

Unfortunately homes today are built in a manner that does

not lend itself to permanence, and therefore successful

integration into future societies. The materials, methods of

construction, excessive size and poor proportions of mass

production housing do not result in superior objects that

have the ability to withstand the tests of time. The failure

to realize this in the design and construction of the built

environment today directly results in the tearing down of




82%

6.1%

3.3%

5.7%

2.9%

92%OF BUILDING-RELATED

WASTE IS FROMRENOVATION AND

DEMOLITION

BUILDINGS ACCOUNT FOR30% OF WASTE OUTPUTIN THE UNITED STATES.

136 MILLION TON

S AN

NU

ALLY

Comm

ercial = 71.6 billion square feet Resid

entia

l = 2

56.5

bill

ion

squa

re fe

et

Single-family detached homes

Single-family attached homes

Apartments in 2-4 unit buildings

Apartments in 5+ unit buildings

Mobile homes

Figure 24: Division of Existing United States Building StockFigure 23: Waste Output by Building Sector


270,000 homes in the United States each year, totaling one

billion board-feet of timber going to landfills, or enough

demolition debris to construct a wall thirty feet high and

thirty feet wide around the entire border of the continental

United States annually.22 It is in building with the intention

of extending the insufficient lifespan of the common home

of today, and, therefore, reducing waste output while

allowing future generations to capitalize on the materials and

embodied energy of existing homes, that the true potential

for sustainable development in the years to come lies.

The home can no longer be viewed as a throwaway

commodity that needs to last for only one family’s use.

Regardless of whether it is designed with or without

immediate participation by an architect, it is crucial that the

American single-family home of the future is developed in a

way that allows it to serve initial occupants as well as several

generations to follow. This will allow the structure to survive


a timeline well beyond the current fifty year standard.23

Neighborhoods should feel as if they began long before and

will continue to exist for many generations to come.24 In

this regard, better building will legitimately serve people

contemporarily as well as those in the future in addition to

the planet.

Despite the fact that the home of the future should be built

to last multiple generations, the reality is that at some point

its useful life will come to an end. At this time, it is important

to consider the value of deconstructing, rather than

demolishing. It is somewhat ironic that Americans today value

the concept of recycling something as simple as a plastic

bottle, yet when it comes to the materials that compose

the construction of a single-family home, this notion is

rarely considered. In fact, the United States Environmental

Protection Agency has recently estimated that only 20-30% of

23 Wentling

24 Goldberger


BUILDINGLIFE CYCLE:

AVOID END OF LIFE.

OCCUPY

CONSTRUCT

TRANSPORT

MANUFACTURE

EXTRACT

END OF LIFE

RECYCLE

DEMOLISH

Figure 25: Building Life Cycle

We are entering an epical period of change in this world. We’re going to have to downscale, rescale, and resize virtually everything we do in this country, and we can’t start soon enough to do it.

—James Howard Kunster


of waste associated with construction and demolition is

currently being recycled,251 despite the fact that 75%-90%

of a house can typically be reused.26 This reality becomes

increasingly important when considering the fact that 110

million residences already exist in the United States, of which

70% are single-family homes that will eventually reach the

end of their useful life.273By introducing deconstruction, and

therefore recycling, to the current single-family home life

cycle, a more cyclical use of housing materials that avoids end

of life becomes possible. In the process of doing so, jobs can

be created, the life of landfills can be extended, and a reduced

need for the extraction of new materials can be realized

by continuing the life of those that already exist, further

diminishing the environmental impacts of single-family home

construction on the planet.284


26 Solomon



Ultimately, homes are built because of a belief in the future—

the future of existence and the future of families. Few things

show commitment to the years to come like architecture,

and building well demonstrates a belief in a better future.291

“We’re going to have to change this behavior whether we like

it or not. We are entering an epical period of change in this

world... We’re going to have to downscale, rescale, and resize

virtually everything we do in this country, and we cannot start

soon enough to do it.”302

In order make this possible, and therefore combat the

problems posed by suburbia in working towards a more

climatically stable future for the planet, a third way of building

the single-family home needs to be made available to the

general public; a middle ground somewhere between mass

production housing and an excessive dream that promotes

the involvement of an architect. A new approach grounded

29 Goldberger



in the realities of time, money, and efficiency that focuses

on the homeowners’ true physical needs and psychological

aspirations, as well as the single-family home’s contribution

to the larger community, is necessary.311 By facilitating the

creation of a more ethical American single-family home

environment, architects are given the ability to capitalize on

wasted work opportunity while demonstrating their belief in

the fact that our greatest places are yet to be built, and the

greatest times are still to come.322

As Henry David Thoreau once said, “What’s the use of a fine

house if you haven’t got a tolerable planet to put it on?”

31 Dickinson

32 Goldberger


Notes

1 “Analysis of the Life Cycle Impacts and Potential for Avoided Impacts Associated with Single-Family Homes.” United States Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/imr/cdm/pdfs/ sfhomes.pdf.

2 “AIA Sustainability 2030 Toolkit.” The American Institute of Architects. http://info.aia.org/toolkit2030/index.html.

3 American Institute of Architects. The Architecture Student’s Handbook of Professional Practice. (14th edition. Wiley, 2008), 358.

4 Bayer, Dr. Charlene, Michael Gamble, Dr. Russell Gentry, and Surabhi Joshi. “AIA Guide to Building Life Cycle Assessment in Practice.” The American Institute of Architects, 2010.

5 Ibid.

6 Ireton, Kevin. “Is Green Building Too Expensive?” Fine Homebuilding, April 16, 2008. http://www.finehomebuilding.com/how-to/depart ments/taking-issue/is-the-cost-of-green-building-too-expensive.aspx.

7 Ibid.

8 Ibid.

9 “Analysis of the Life Cycle Impacts and Potential for Avoided Impacts Associated with Single-Family Homes.”

10 Ibid.

11 “Median and Average Sales Prices of New Homes Sold in United States.”

12 American Institute of Architects. The Architecture Student’s Handbook of Professional Practice, 356.

13 Ibid., 356.

14 Ibid., 356.

Notes

15 Ibid., 360.

16 Ibid., 360.



19 Guy, Bradley, M. E. Rinker, and Eleanor M. Gibeau. “A Guide to Deconstruction.” Deconstruction Institute, January 2003. http://www. deconstructioninstitute.com/files/learn_center/45762865_guidebook. pdf.




23 Wentling, James. Designing a Place Called Home: Reordering the Suburbs. (1 edition. Springer, 1994).

24 Goldberger, Paul. Why Architecture Matters, 195.


26 Solomon, Christopher. “Don’t Demolish That Old House; Recycle It.” MSN Real Estate. http://realestate.msn.com/dont-demolish-that-old- house-recycle-it.



Notes (continued)



30 James Howard Kunstler: The Ghastly Tragedy of the Suburbs. TED Talks, 2004. http://www.ted.com/talks/james_howard_kunstler_dissects_ suburbia.html.

31 Dickinson, Duo. House on a Budget. (Newtown, Connecticut: Taunton Press, 2007), 6.


77

RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT

Exposing a Naive Dream | Chapter 4

Understanding Design Flaws

4

The following research addresses psychological aspects of single-family

home design, and considers how conversations between architect and

client can focus on the intangible aspects of the built environment and

their relationship to phsyical comfort, rather than quantifiable principles

such as square footage.

78Understanding Design Flaws | Research Development


The kind of economy that has everything to do with cost

cannot be the only economic discussion in regards to how

and why homes are designed. Present day society is shifting

in desire towards an economy that has much less to do

with physical objects, and much more to do with human

response—an experience economy. The experience economy

is distinct in relation to the goods and services offered by

previous economies, such as the agrarian and industrial

economies, in that it comes to fruition through direct

involvement of human interaction. Compared to that of the

past, it is hard to quantify this intangible type of economy, as

it exists solely in the minds of individuals. When experiences

are the primary economic offering, one must look at physical

objects and services, commoditized attributes of previous

economies, as a means of engrossing civilization and evoking

a human response. What results is the engagement of

individuals “on an emotional, physical, intellectual, or even

spiritual level.”1 With a societal shift towards becoming

1 Pine

purchasers of experiences that reveal themselves to the

buyer over a period of time, what better vehicle is there

for capitalizing upon the new experience economy than

architecture?

By designing innovative and adaptable homes, architects

have the ability to allow their projects to foster authentic

experiences that will inherently advertise the advantages of

using their services to others. It may come as a surprise that

Starbucks, a company that has found unprecedented success

and growth throughout the world in selling coffee, scarcely

advertises at all other than secondarily through the traveling

iconic image that is their coffee cup. In essence their lack of

advertising compared to their competitors is saying, “If you

want to know who we are you have to come experience

us.”2 So too can the experience of intelligent and responsible

homes and neighborhoods allow architects to achieve

unprecedented success in homebuilding by facilitating

2 Joseph Pine


Figure 26: Quantifiable Marketing


rewarding occurrences for homebuyers and therefore

making their services relevant to the generation immersing

themselves in the new experience economy.

The composition of American homes and neighborhoods

today has a vast amount of positive experiential potential

that currently remains untapped. To contribute to the

experience economy, these homes must transcend the

physical limitations of the built environment and capitalize

on the opportunity of using architecture to evoke feelings,

sensuousness, and a perception of the physical world that

involves both emotion and reason. Surely the house of the

future, coupled with the new experience economy, can

provide an environment that allows the transcendent

qualities of greater historic architecture to come full circle.

Much like the principles of the experience economy, true

residences of the future will use physical attributes to enrich

the experience of being by manifesting the capacity of the

human soul and spirit.

It is no surprise that in the context of home design the

discussion between client and builder is generally related

to the quantifiable attributes of the built environment

such as size, cost, number of bedrooms, and number of

bathrooms. Often, the characteristics of architecture that

make it experiential cannot be quantified, and therefore

are not marketed as consumer goods to the client. This is

due to the fact that the design principles and decisions that

have the ability to truly tap into the experience of being are

often intangible, and therefore unquantifiable in the minds

of the general public. In the words of Albert Einstein, “Not

everything that can be counted counts, and not everything

that counts can be counted.”3 So the critical question arises:

how can the intangible be adequately quantified for the

consumer in order to generate understanding of the value

of these unquantifiable principles and their capability of

evoking human response in a way that engages conversation

regarding home design and construction practices?



In answering this question successfully, future conversations

between client and architect can address issues such as

quality and space, rather than speaking strictly in terms of size

and volume, a concept that finds particular importance in

relation to the design of dwellings.4

In an increasingly chaotic and demanding society, a home

should be built as a refuge, a resting place that evokes peace

within the mayhem of everyday life. For this very reason,

it is crucial that one of the most important psychological

responses a home fosters is physical comfort. Physical comfort

can only be measured in the minds of individuals, and

therefore requires careful manipulation of several intangible

architectural principles in order to facilitate its being for a

given individual. It is through truly understanding the value of

the unquantifiable aspects of architecture by both architect

and client, and the employment of these principles in the

design and construction of a home, that this evocation can

4 Susanka, Home By Design

be realized.

The lack of attention given to these unquantifiable principles

in present day home design directly results in dwellings that

fail to include many of the qualities important to humanizing

life. As single-family homes grow larger, and are filled with

grander spaces in hopes of impressing their visitors, they

make the dweller feel smaller, ultimately dehumanizing the

home environment. This realization lends itself to an analysis

of one of many unquantifiable architectural principles

capable of being conducive to comfort: proportion. Rooted

in mathematics, proportion refers to a comparison between

the length, width, and height of architectural elements.5

Proportion plays a critical role in the perception of space, and

therefore has an impact on the way that space evokes feeling.

Good proportions are often unknowingly sensed, and have

the ability to impart a feeling of satisfaction and calm.6 The

5 Gauer and Tighe

6 Ibid.


Figure 27: Grand Entry Foyer


proportion of the home itself, as well as smaller objects within

the home such as doors, windows, and rooms, should be

relatable to one another in addition to the human scale in

order to create an easily perceptible whole for the dweller.

The occupant’s perception of a space is automatically drawn

to the longest dimension between plan and ceiling height.7

Because of this, the height of a room is capable of making

one feel comfortable or uncomfortable. As an example, in

reference to the aforementioned grand entry foyer, does the

space created by the two-story entry really feel comfortable

and welcoming, as a front door should, or does it feel more

like an elevator shaft? A small footprint coupled with a high

ceiling height is not conducive to comfort, and therefore

occupants do not desire to spend time there. If the grand

entry foyer is a space that people show no eagerness to

occupy, why allocate so much volume to it within the design

of a home? The reason is simple. Priority is given to an over


the top first impression of grandeur, ultimately sacrificing

any consideration for how much space is consumed or the

emotional response the space truly evokes. Amazingly, the

priority in this type of design is almost mindlessly given to

a few brief moments spent occasionally by visitors rather

than to designing the space for the experience of the actual

occupants.

Because of the capability of proportion to evoke comfort, a

degree in architecture or mathematics is not required to

understand when a space is well proportioned. “We sense

these things intuitively. That is the beauty of proportion.”8 An

additional example of dehumanization through the neglect

of proportion in many modern day homes can be found

in the living room. Next to the kitchen, the living room is

perhaps the most utilized space in a home. Because of this,

builders often accommodate the second largest amount

of square footage to this space within the home, the first

8 Gauer and Tighe


Figure 28: Living Room “A” Figure 29: “Living Room “B”


being the garage as a result of society’s present day focus

on the automobile. Though this allocation of space seems to

make sense in its basic concept, what has resulted is living

rooms of incredible volume that require several people and

an extensive amount of furniture to occupy them at any

given time in order to feel comfortable to the individual. In

essence, the living room has evolved to be out of proportion

in reference to the human being that occupies it.

“There’s a big difference between being alone and feeling

lonely—and nothing accentuates loneliness more than

broad, open expanses of space. Smaller, more cozy places

evoke a sense of security and introspection.”9 Which living

room image caters better to the proportions of an individual?

How small do the chairs in the first image look when

compared to the overall volume of the room? Similar to the

grand entry foyer, this type of design decision is executed

to present visitors with a stage set of splendor while the


proportions favorable to living comfortably as individuals are

hidden backstage. Motives such as this directly result in the

homes of excessive size and decreased efficiency which are

commonplace throughout America today. When the architect

and the client understand proportion, they have a powerful

tool at their disposal in providing comfortable spaces in

an efficient manner that are reflective of the way people

really live. In addition, they have the ability to deliberately

manipulate these principles for other desired psychological

reactions.

Beyond proportion, perhaps the most powerful intangible

tool at the architect’s disposal is light. The thoughtful use

of light in design has the ability to transcend the physical

limitations of the built environment in order to reach the

soul of the occupant. The importance of light to society can

be indicated through several common metaphors. “We ‘shed

light on’ something that is obscure. We are ‘in the dark’ when

we don’t understand. We are ‘illuminated’ by someone’s


Figure 30: Capturing the Light of a Near Death Experience


insights… and we often hear that in near-death experiences

people find themselves moving toward a brilliant light.”10

These examples demonstrate the prominence of the innate

relationship that humans feel with light. Capitalizing on this

relationship allows the architect to carefully employ the

features of light in the design and construction of a home,

creating a significant impact on the occupant’s perception of

the space around them.

In many ways current suburban home design practices

take for granted natural light.11 According to American

architect Louis Kahn by “depending on the touch of a finger

to a switch, [we] are satisfied with static light and forget the

endlessly changing qualities of natural light, in which a room

is a different room every second of the day.”12 Often with

economics determining location, developers place windows


11 Ibid.

12 New Perspective on Light

and skylights into the surfaces of a home and scatter artificial

light fixtures through the spaces that do not receive natural

light, frequently in a manner which neglects how and where

daylight will penetrate the structure and therefore affect

interior space and living conditions.13 In addition, because

many homes are chosen from plan-books or predesigned

home models with little to no regard for site conditions,

they fail to capitalize on sun patterns, ultimately affecting

both interior comfort and energy efficiency. Certainly the

grand, two-story window display in a living room may look

appealing in a photograph, but does the client or developer

consider how that space will feel on a summer day in regards

to comfort if the windows are facing south on the chosen

site? Does the developer even mention to the client how this

decision will affect their energy bill? If misused, natural light

and sun exposure can be detrimental to the physical comfort

of a home. Conversely, when used with intention, sunlight

can be transformed into the best attribute of a home’s interior.



Figure 31: Interior Natural Light


Unfortunately developers and builders today often fail to

capitalize on this opportunity, frequently ignoring how light

permeates a physical structure with enough capacity to

animate a room, wash over a surface, and draw occupants

from one space to another. Through careful placement of

windows and light fixtures by an architect, space can feel

untroubled and more balanced, and therefore physically

more comfortable for its occupants.14 The architect and client

who understand the use of light have at their disposal yet

another intangible tool in creating spaces of both comfort

and efficiency in the design and construction of a home.

Architecture is imperceptible without light, and in home

design, light should be used intentionally as a primary tool in

generating sensuous and mood filled spaces.152

Light and proportion are just two of many intangible assets in

the architect’s toolbox capable of contributing to successful


15 Gauer and Tighe

and efficient home design. If potential homebuyers are

able to engage in conversations about, and find value

in, principles such as these, the architectural integrity of

suburban neighborhoods in America has the capacity to

increase exponentially. However, if the predominant client

focus remains centered around the thought of public display,

the conversation regarding the essential and unquantifiable

aspects of architecture is quickly degraded. In order to truly

find success in building homes of the future, clients must

be engaged to evaluate real needs and to suppress the

idea that a home exists solely to impress others. When the

home is designed primarily as an icon of stature, “it loses its

essential quality and becomes one more item of conspicuous

consumption, like a yacht or a Cadillac.”163

16 Nelson


Notes

1 Pine, B. Joseph, and James H. Gilmore. “Welcome to the Experience Economy.” Harvard Business Review, July 1998. http://hbr.org/1998/07/ welcome-to-the-experience-economy/.

2 Joseph Pine: What Consumers Want. TED Talks, 2004. http://www.ted. com/talks/joseph_pine_on_what_consumers_want.html.

3 Susanka, Sarah. The Not So Big House: A Blueprint For the Way We Really Live. (Newtown, CT; [Emeryville, CA]: Taunton Press ; Distributed by Publishers Group West, 1998.), 5.

4 Susanka, Sarah. Home by Design: Transforming Your House Into Home. (Newtown, Connecticut: Taunton Press, 2004), 6.

5 Gauer and Tighe, The New American Dream: Living Well in Small Homes, 28.

6 Ibid., 28.

7 Susanka, The Not So Big House: A Blueprint For the Way We Really Live, 76.



10 Susanka, Home by Design: Transforming Your House Into Home, 125.

11 Ibid., 8.

12 “New Perspective on Light.” WordPress. Architecture in Transformation, November 20, 2012. http://arch3150.wordpress.com/2012/11/20/new- perspective-on-light/.

13 Susanka, Home by Design: Transforming Your House Into Home, 8.

14 Ibid., 143.

Notes


16 Nelson, George. Problems of Design. 2nd edition. (Whitney Library of Design, 1965), 13.


Evaluating Room by Room

MICROSCOPIC ANALYSIS

5

96Evaluating Room by Room | Microscopic Analysis

The following investigation evaluates the ever-increasing size of the

single-family home in America, and assesses five case study homes on a

room by room basis in order to discern any advantages or disadvantages

that come as a result of this increase in area.


2.94 2.76 2.69 2.63 2.65 2.62 2.57 2.58

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

1645’2 1740’2 1785’2 2080’2 2095’2 2266’2 2434’2 2392’2

Figure 32: Historical United States Housing Trends


Several of the inefficiencies of the common home of today

can be directly attributed to the fact that its composition has

been rising in square footage for decades despite the fact that

the average size of the American family has been decreasing.

According to the United States Census Bureau, the average

size of the single-family house built in 2012 was 2,505

square feet, compared to 1,525 square feet in 1973 or 1,905

square feet in 1990.1 In addition, the average population

per household in the United States has decreased over an

entire person in the last sixty-five years, currently sized at

2.55 persons per household compared to 3.67 of 1948.2 This

consistent swelling in the size of the American home has

happened gradually, with a general failure by both society

and homebuilders to look back and analyze this progress. In

essence, we are sleep walking our way into the future while

failing to question how the composition of the single-family

home has escalated into what we see lining the streets of

1 US Census Bureau

2 “American Households...”

America today, ultimately failing to recognize and establish

the inefficiencies associated with this development.

Perhaps it is the realization of personal discontent with

experiencing what the “Jonses” have that has led to this

constant search for “home” by way of continuously adding

more and more space. Upon further investigation, the

realization occurs that none of this excess is essential to

living well, and this search for something more can actually

be fulfilled by something less.3 The failure to realize this in

the design and construction of homes today has allowed

this continuous swelling of the American home to continue

along an upward trajectory, while its functional and

environmental efficiency, and, therefore, overall comfort,

decreases simultaneously. It is time to evaluate the sources

of these inefficiencies and acknowledge that quantity is

not the equivalent of quality in the design and construction

of the American single-family home. In a field currently



We crave, as people, a more supportable pace and scale.—Sarah Susanka


suffering from naive economic decision-making, it is crucial

to recognize this fundamental rule of economy: “There is

no direct ratio between quantity and quality. More does

not mean better.” Increasingly modest housing provides

homeowners both qualitative and quantitative benefits.

“The initial cost of construction will be lower, as will the

cost of maintenance, especially fuel bills. Our lives will be

calmer and more serene because the stress of shelling out

timely payments will be reduced. And society will reap

environmental benefits thanks to reduced consumption of

limited resources.”4

In what instance does a child feel like they’re getting more:

When they are presented with a slice of bread, or when that

slice of bread is cut up in to four pieces? Though the actual

quantity of bread is the same, he or she will assume they are

getting more with four pieces because their eye is able to

4 Gauer and Tighe

recognize multiple segments.5 This principal also applies to

the perception of space. Doing more with less offers new

possibilities for elegance and inventiveness in the design

of a single-family home that induce increased comfort and

efficiency levels and can truly be more impressive than

the expansive amounts of space commonly presented by

suburban homes in America today. “We crave, as people, a

more supportable pace and scale.”6 A modest reduction

in unnecessary space will allow more funds to go towards

architectural quality, and help to combat the problem of

homeowners obtaining objects they cannot really afford to

operate and maintain.

Does it come as a surprise that a considerable portion of

people owning a second home begin to consider it as

their primary residence after a period of time?7 Why is this?



7 Ibid.


Homebuyers often only consider the typical suburban model

home when purchasing their first “dream home,” a decision

grounded in the realities of the American workaday culture.

This results in a lack of self-discovery in the design of the

home, permitting the client to unknowingly settle for what

society has deemed the norm. When considering a second

home, potential homebuyers begin to think more about what

they truly need, how they really would like to live, and, to a

certain degree, neglect what the real estate market says is

required for resale.

The second home is centered on values that are personal,

rather than economic or social, and is often designed for

a more informal manner of living.8 It is for these reasons

that over time the owners of second homes unconsciously

transition from the first house to the second as it relates

to them on a more personal and comfortable level. “The

second house is a place where from the beginning, free from

8 Nelson

the limitations of the workaday house, you can build all the

qualities that have to do with good living.”99 The single-family

home of the future will find success when its design focus

mirrors the useful and informal nature of many second homes.

Ultimately, the question becomes: how does one evaluate

and adequately quantify the level of success in new

residential development? What is it measured against and

who measures it? The degree of success in architecture

cannot be generalized or arrived at via a formula as it is

in mathematics. There is no absolute right or wrong, or

predetermined criterion that determines the achievements

of the built environment. Rather, success or failure is open-

ended and undoubtedly varies based on the perception

of the evaluator. A social science investigation as to what

establishes a personal definition of success in residential

design is necessary, eventually producing a set of criteria

9 Ibid.


4050’2

case study 5

3675’2

case study 4

3150’2

case study 3

2550’2

case study 2

22250’

case study 1

Figure 33: Area of Case Study Homes


that forms the basis of the design process and ultimately

sets the stage for eminent development. In order to do so,

the inefficiencies associated with the increasing size of the

modern home in America must be discerned by way of a

case study investigation that seeks to establish the flaws

associated with this development, ultimately obtaining an

understanding as to what level of “excess” the contemporary

American home encompasses, in addition to evaluating

how this additional square footage directly affects energy

consumption and costs.

The following information analyzes five case study homes

currently built in various suburban locations throughout

America whose programs feature the same number of

bedrooms and bathrooms as the project program requires

despite the drastic variation in their square footages, ranging

in size 2250 SF to 4050 SF. For privacy reasons, the owner,

location, and design of these homes is not presented.


2250’2

4.7%BREAKFAST

1.9%ENTRY FOYER

6.4%DINING ROOM

10.7%LIVING ROOM

4.6%KITCHEN

16.5%CIRCULATION

3.6%BATHROOMS

2.6%LAUNDRY ROOM

10.8%MASTER BEDROOM

21.7%BEDROOMS

1.9%BEDROOM CLOSETS

5.9%MASTER BATHROOM

2.9%MASTER CLOSET

CASE STUDY 1: 47.5% PRIMARY SPACES43.7% SECONDARY SPACES

Figure 34: Case Study 1 Space Allocation by %


2550’2

4.3%BREAKFAST

2.8%ENTRY FOYER

6.1%DINING ROOM

8.8%LIVING ROOM

6.6%KITCHEN

11.5%CIRCULATION

5.4%BATHROOMS

1.9%LAUNDRY ROOM

8.8%MASTER BEDROOM

16.4%BEDROOMS

2.1%BEDROOM CLOSETS

5.6%MASTER BATHROOM

3.0%MASTER CLOSET




3150’2

3.8%BREAKFAST

3.3%ENTRY FOYER

6.7%DINING ROOM

9.5%LIVING ROOM

5.9%KITCHEN

14.8%CIRCULATION

4.5%BATHROOMS

2.1%LAUNDRY ROOM

9.1%MASTER BEDROOM

16.4%BEDROOMS

2.1%BEDROOM CLOSETS

5.7%MASTER BATHROOM

2.8%MASTER CLOSET

5.2%OFFICE / STUDY




3675’2

3.9%BREAKFAST

3.0%ENTRY FOYER

5.6%DINING ROOM

9.4%LIVING ROOM

6.5%KITCHEN

10.5%CIRCULATION

5.8%BATHROOMS

2.2%LAUNDRY ROOM

12.1%MASTER BEDROOM

14.5%BEDROOMS

2.2%BEDROOM CLOSETS

4.6%MASTER BATHROOM

4.1%MASTER CLOSET

4.6%OFFICE / STUDY




4050’2

3.5%BREAKFAST

3.6%ENTRY FOYER

5.1%DINING ROOM

7.6%LIVING ROOM

10.7%KITCHEN

10.6%CIRCULATION

5.0%BATHROOMS

1.6%LAUNDRY ROOM

9.8%MASTER BEDROOM

14.5%BEDROOMS

1.8%BEDROOM CLOSETS

5.9%MASTER BATHROOM

3.0%MASTER CLOSET

5.5%OFFICE / STUDY




1370’2

1.8%LAUNDRY ROOM

5.1%MASTER BEDROOM

3.6%BREAKFAST

10.5%LIVING ROOM

7.5%KITCHEN

6.9%BATHROOMS

3.1%ENTRY FOYER

8.8%DINING ROOM

2.9%BEDROOM CLOSETS

15.4%BEDROOMS

4.8%MASTER BATHROOM

2.4%MASTER CLOSET

12.8%CIRCULATION

MINIMUM: 47.3% PRIMARY SPACES38.0% SECONDARY SPACES

Figure 39: Minimum Space Allocation by %


The layout of a kitchen should be determined

by the triangle between the three primary work

areas in the kitchen: the sink, range, and

refrigerator. Each leg of the triangle should be

greater than 4’ and less than 9’. For maximum

productivity and efficiency, the sum of the three

legs of the work triangle should be greater than

12’ and less than 26’. By introducing a second

sink, a two-cook kitchen can be created with

work triangles that do not intersect without

adding a considerable amount of extra

square footage.

128 square feet

103 square feet

1

1

2

KITCHEN.

Figure 40: Kitchen Analysis

The layout of a kitchen should be determined by the triangle

between its three primary work areas: the sink, range, and

refrigerator. Each leg of the triangle should be greater than

4’ and less than 9’. For maximum productivity and efficiency,

the sum of the three legs of the work triangle should be

greater than 12’ and less than 26’. By introducing a second

sink, a two-cook kitchen can be created with work triangles

that do not intersect without adding a considerable amount

of square footage.

KITCHEN


KITCHEN.123456

103 square feet170 square feet187 square feet240 square feet432 square feet103 square feet

(4.6%)(6.7%)(5.9%)(6.5%)

(10.7%)(XX.X%)

226 square feet average

1 2 3 4 5 6

KITCHEN.123456


(4.6%)(6.7%)(5.9%)(6.5%)

(10.7%)(XX.X%)


1 2 3 4 5 6

Figure 41: Kitchen Area by Case Study


12’ - 0”

15’ - 7”

15’ - 5”

15’ - 7”

48% 59%CASE STUDY 3Total square feet:Excess square feet:

18789

CASE STUDY 4Total square feet:Excess square feet:

240142

Figure 42: Kitchen Area Case Study 3 Figure 43: Kitchen Area Case Study 4


20’ - 9”

20’ - 10”

13’ - 0”

7’ - 11”

77%CASE STUDY 5Total square feet:Excess square feet:

432334

MINIMUMTotal square feet:Excess square feet:

1030 0%

Figure 44: Kitchen Area Case Study 5

Figure 45: Kitchen Area Minimum


ESTCODE

Figure 46: Living Room Analysis

The size of a living room is determined by the arrangement of

furnishings and the space required by code to move amongst

them. In the creation of a six seat living room, such as those

depicted, it is important to remember that the maximum

conversation diameter that is desirable in social settings is

approximately 12’-13’. In addition, it is important to consider

that conversation clusters tend to break off when reaching

large numbers, therefore furnishings should be arranged to

provide for this type of social environment.

LIVING ROOM


LIVING ROOM.123456


(10.7%)(8.8%)(9.5%)(9.4%)(7.6%)

(XX.X%)


1 2 3 4 5 6

LIVING ROOM.123456


(10.7%)(8.8%)(9.5%)(9.4%)(7.6%)

(XX.X%)


1 2 3 4 5 6

Figure 47: Living Room Area by Case Study


Figure 48: Living Room Area Case Study 3


17’ - 2”

17’ - 6”

18’ - 5”

18’ - 9”


300156


345201


17’ - 4”

17’ - 8”

11’ - 10”

12’ - 2”


306162


1440 0%


Figure 51: Minimum Living Room Area


78 square feet

Figure 52: Dining Room Analysis

The minimum size of a formal dining area is entirely

dependent on the space surrounding the table that is

necessary for chairs to pull out and the circulation space

required for people to move around this chair boundary.

Therefore, the shape and size of the dining table is the

primary factor in determining the minimum area of such

spaces. As a result, a circle table is the most efficient layout

for six people in relation to square footage, in addition to

being the most prone to increased levels of conversation by

way of its seating arrangement.

DINING ROOM


1 2 3 4 5 6

DINING ROOM.123456


(6.4%)(6.1%)(6.7%)(5.6%)(5.1%)

(XX.X%)


1 2 3 4 5 6

DINING ROOM.123456


(6.4%)(6.1%)(6.7%)(5.6%)(5.1%)

(XX.X%)


Figure 53: Dining Room Area by Case Study


16’ - 2”

13’ - 0”

16’ - 0”

12’ - 10”

43% 41%Total square feet:Excess square feet:

21090


20585

CASE STUDY 3

Figure 54: Dining Room Area Case Study 3 Figure 55: Dining Room Area Case Study 4


16’ - 1” 12’ - 8”

9‘ - 6”12’ - 11”


20887


1200 0%

Figure 56: Dining Room Area Case Study 5

Figure 57: Minimum Dining Room Area


minimum bedroom size.

Figure 58: Entry Foyer Analysis

The back door of homes generally serves the purpose of the

primary entrance for the permanent residents of the house.

While a door can be viewed as a crucial transition and buffer

from exterior to interior, the front door of the modern day

home is rarely viewed as such. As it has swollen in size for

decades, concurrently with the home in its entirety, the entry

foyer has become an oversized space which simply stands as

an over the top, grandiose welcoming to visitors, all the while

serving no fundamental functional purpose to the permanent

residents of the home.

ENTRY FOYER


1 2 3 4 5 6

ENTRY FOYER.123456


(1.9%)(2.8%)(3.3%)(3.0%)(3.6%)

(XX.X%)


1 2 3 4 5 6

ENTRY FOYER.123456


(1.9%)(2.8%)(3.3%)(3.0%)(3.6%)

(XX.X%)


Figure 59: Entry Foyer Area by Case Study


10’ - 0”

10’ - 4”

10’ - 4”

10’ - 8”


10361


11068

Figure 60: Entry Foyer Area Case Study 3Figure 61: Entry Foyer Area Case Study 4


6’ - 8”

11’ - 10”

12’ - 3”

6’ - 4”


145103


420 0%71%

Figure 62: Entry Foyer Area Case Study 5

Figure 63: Minimum Entry Foyer Area


Figure 64: Breakfast Analysis

Informal dining areas are increasingly becoming the primary

space in which food is consumed the American household. As

a result, these spaces should be located in or near the kitchen,

a concept that coincides with the open plan environment

that the majority of modern day homebuyers desire.

Connecting this dining area to a portion of the kitchen island,

as depicted to the right, affords the opportunity to maintain an

open and functional atmosphere while capitalizing on kitchen

proximity and shared circulation.

BREAKFAST


1 2 3 4 5 6

BREAKFAST.123456


(4.7%)(4.3%)(3.9%)(3.9%)(3.5%)

(XX.X%)


1 2 3 4 5 6

BREAKFAST.123456


(4.7%)(4.3%)(3.9%)(3.9%)(3.5%)

(XX.X%)


Figure 65: Breakfast Area by Case Study


18’ - 6”

8’ - 1”

20’ - 0”

8’ - 10”


12373


14595

Figure 67: Breakfast Area Case Study 4Figure 66: Breakfast Area Case Study 3


19’ - 10”

8’ - 8”

12’ - 0”5’ - 0”


14090


500 0%

Figure 68: Breakfast Area Case Study 5

Figure 69: Minimum Breakfast Area


66 square feet

14 square feet

Figure 70: Laundry Room Analysis

In designing a laundry room it is important to reflect on the activities that

will actually take place within its confines. By engaging in thoughtful

conversations with a client, one can make discoveries such as where

laundry is folded, where ironing takes place, and how clean clothes are

transported back to individual’s closets, allowing realizations to occur

such as the laundry room not needing to be a room at all as a result of the

functions it hosts. In contrast, it could require fixtures such as a utility sink

and/or an ironing board, and therefore additional space to accommodate

such programmatic needs in order to best suit the client’s desires.

LAUNDRY ROOM


1 2 3 4 5 6

LAUNDRY ROOM.123456


(2.6%)(1.9%)(2.1%)(2.2%)(1.6%)

(XX.X%)


1 2 3 4 5 6

LAUNDRY ROOM.123456


(2.6%)(1.9%)(2.1%)(2.2%)(1.6%)

(XX.X%)


Figure 71: Laundry Room Area by Case Study


7’ - 8”

8’ - 8”

8’ - 5”

9’ - 6”


6641


805562% 69%

Figure 72: Laundry Room Area Case Study 3Figure 73: Laundry Room Area Case Study 4


7’ - 8”

8’ - 8”

5’ - 7”

4’ - 6”


6641


250 0%62%

Figure 74: Laundry Room Area Case Study 5

Figure 75: Minimum Laundry Room Area


minimum bedroom size. minimum bedroom size.


Figure 76: Master Bedroom Analysis

Of all of the spaces considered in this case study analysis,

it is very apparent that the master bedroom is often the

most significant waste of space in the common American

household. The area of the master bedroom rises

dramatically as the size of the home increases and is not a

reflection of the space required for the essential activities

that take place there. As a result, the master bedroom of the

home of today often comprises enough additional circulation

and wasted space within it to house the equivalent of several

additional bedrooms.

Note: The beds depicted in the following diagrams are king size.

MASTER BED


1 2 3 4 5 6

MASTER BEDROOM.123456


(10.8%)(8.8%)(9.1%)

(12.1%)(9.8%)

(XX.X%)


1 2 3 4 5 6

MASTER BEDROOM.123456


(10.8%)(8.8%)(9.1%)

(12.1%)(9.8%)

(XX.X%)


Figure 77: Master Bedroom Area by Case Study


16’ - 9”

17’ - 0”

21’ - 0”

21’ - 2”


285215


444374

Figure 78: Master Bedroom Area Case Study 3



19’ - 9”

20’ - 0”

8’ - 6”

8’ - 3”


395325


700 0%


Figure 81: Minimum Master Bedroom Area



Figure 82: Master Bathroom Analysis

Similarly to the master bedroom, the master bathroom

undergoes significant, and unnecessary, growth as the size

of the modern home increases. It is worth noting that as the

size of the case study bathrooms increased, no additional

fixtures were housed within their confines, therefore

acknowledging that this added square footage functions

simply as circulation space. As a result, the common size of

the master bathroom in American households has become

large enough for a small bedroom to be housed within it’s

boundaries.

MASTER BATH


1 2 3 4 5 6

MASTER BATHROOM.123456


(5.9%)(5.6%)(5.7%)(4.6%)(5.9%)

(XX.X%)


1 2 3 4 5 6

MASTER BATHROOM.123456


(5.9%)(5.6%)(5.7%)(4.6%)(5.9%)

(XX.X%)


Figure 83: Mastser Bathroom Area by Case Study


13’ - 1”

13’ - 9”

12’ - 8”

13’ - 5”


180114


170104

Figure 85: Master Bathroom Area Case Study 4Figure 84: Master Bathroom Area Case Study 3


15’ - 1”

15’ - 9”

7’ - 10”

8’ - 6”


238172


660 0%

Figure 86: Master Bathroom Area Case Study 5

Figure 87: Minimum Master Bathroom Area


+ 1’ in horizontaldimension results

in 1’ of addedrod space.

+ 2’ in verticaldimension results

in 1’ of added rod space.

Figure 88: Master Closet Analysis

When dealing with the design of a large walk-in closet

emphasis should, wherever possible, be given to the dimension

perpendicular to the door in order to maximize the amount of rod

space the closet permits, ultimately resulting in the need for less

square footage to achieve the desired amount of hanging space

within the closet. This is due to the fact that each time the closet

increases in dimension in the perpindicular direction, double

the amount of rod space is created than would have been if it

increased in the direction parallel to the door.

MASTER CLOSET


1 2 3 4 5 6

MASTER CLOSET.123456


(2.9%)(3.0%)(2.7%)(4.1%)(3.0%)

(XX.X%)


1 2 3 4 5 6

MASTER CLOSET.123456


(2.9%)(3.0%)(2.7%)(4.1%)(3.0%)

(XX.X%)


Figure 89: Master Closet Area by Case Study


19’ - 0”

8’ - 0”

7’ - 0”

12’ - 3”


8653


152119

Figure 90: Master Closet Area Case Study 3



5’ - 0”

6’ - 8”15’ - 0”

8’ - 0”


12087


330 0%


Figure 93: Minimum Master Closet Area


example 2

example 1

Figure 94: Bedroom Analysis

When considering the additional bedrooms in the design

of a home, it is important to take into account the number

of desired exterior walls, as this not only affects the amount

of natural daylight that permeates the structure, but also is

often the primary factor in determining where a bed, closet,

and bathroom can be placed. The placement and size of

the bed, more than any factor in the bedroom, frequently

determines the layout, and can be limited in placement

options should the room have a considerable number of

exterior walls.

Note: The beds depicted in the following diagrams are queen size.

BEDROOMS


BEDROOM. TYP. 1 of 3

123456


(21.7%)(16.4%)(17.0%)(14.5%)(14.4%)(XX.X%)


1 2 3 4 5 6

BEDROOM. TYP. 1 of 3

123456


(21.7%)(16.4%)(17.0%)(14.5%)(14.4%)(XX.X%)


1 2 3 4 5 6

Figure 95: Bedroom Area by Case Study


13 - 3”

13’ - 6”

13 - 3”

13’ - 6”


178108


178108

Figure 96: Bedroom Area Case Study 3 Figure 97: Bedroom Area Case Study 4


13 - 10”

14’ - 1”

8’ - 6”

8’ - 3”


195125


700 0%

Figure 98: Bedroom Area Case Study 5

Figure 99: Minimum Bedroom Area


18 square feet

9’4” of rod space.

4’ - 8”

31 square feet

9’4” of rod space

9’ - 4”

Figure 100: Reach-In Analysis

While a walk-in closet is often seen as luxurious, and

therefore desirable in the mind of a common client, it is

important to consider the ramifications of this design

decision. Walk-in closets inherently require more square

footage than reach-in closets as they demand adequate

circulation space to be contained entirely within their

boundaries. As a result, reach-in closets can, in fact, offer

residents the opportunity for more rod space with less

square footage while inherently providing more seamless

access to the bedroom and changing area.

REACH–IN


REACH-IN. TYP. 1 of 3

123456


(1.9%)(2.1%)(1.3%)(1.5%)(1.3%)

(XX.X%)

16.5 square feet average

1 2 3 4 5 6

REACH-IN. TYP. 1 of 3

123456


(1.9%)(2.1%)(1.3%)(1.5%)(1.3%)

(XX.X%)


1 2 3 4 5 6

Figure 101: Reach-In Area by Case Study


2’ - 0”

7’ - 1”

2’ - 0”

9’ - 0”


144 29% CASE STUDY 4

Total square feet:Excess square feet:

188 44%

Figure 102: Reach-In Area Case Study 3

Figure 103: Reach-In Area Case Study 4


2’ - 0”

9’ - 0”

2’ - 0”

5’ - 0”


100 0%CASE STUDY 5


188 44%

Figure 104: Reach-In Area Case Study 5 Figure 105: Minimum Reach-In Area


example 2

example 1

Figure 106: Walk-In Analysis

When a walk-in closet is desired, the type of door, as well

as direction of the door swing, becomes crucial in creating

closet space that can operate as effectively as possible in

the often small and confined amount of square footage a

modest walk-in closet encompasses. While a pocket door is

the most ideal when speaking in terms of conserving space,

there are also benefits worth noting from using a swinging

door such as the possibility of hanging shoes or a mirror on

the back of it.

WALK–IN


WALK-IN. TYP. 1 of 3

123456


(2.8%)(3.6%)(1.8%)(2.2%)(1.9%)

(XX.X%)


1 2 3 4 5 6

WALK-IN. TYP. 1 of 3

123456


(2.8%)(3.6%)(1.8%)(2.2%)(1.9%)

(XX.X%)


1 2 3 4 5 6

Figure 107: Walk-In Area by Case Study


5’ - 2”

5’ - 2”

4’ - 4”

4’ - 4”




2710 37%

Figure 108: Walk-In Area Case Study 3


158Evaluating Room by Room | Microscopic Analysis5’ - 2”

5’ - 2”

2’ - 6”

6’ - 8”


170 0%CASE STUDY 5


2710 37%


Figure 111: Minimum Walk-In Area


37 square feet

5’ handicap diameter

Figure 112: Powder Room Analysis

The increase in area of the powder rooms in the case studies

evaluated resulted in no additional fixtures in every instance,

therefore affirming that this added square footage exists solely

for the creation of additional circulation space. It is worth noting

that, throughout all of these case studies, this additional area did

not allow the powder room to reach a size in which handicap

accessibility is accommodated for. The powder room is likely

to be the restroom which guests use, and therefore has the

greatest potential to require handicap accessibility should this

be a desirable accommodation by homeowners.

POWDER ROOM


POWDER ROOM.123456


(0.9%)(1.0%)(0.8%)(1.4%)(0.9%)

(XX.X%)


1 2 3 4 5 6

POWDER ROOM.123456


(0.9%)(1.0%)(0.8%)(1.4%)(0.9%)

(XX.X%)


1 2 3 4 5 6

Figure 113: Powder Room Area by Case Study


7’ - 1”

3’ - 7”

9’ - 1”

5’ - 7”




5035 70%

Figure 114: Powder Room Area Case Study 3


162Evaluating Room by Room | Microscopic Analysis8’ - 1”

4’ - 7”

6’ - 0”

2’ - 6”


150 0%CASE STUDY 5


3722 59%


Figure 115: Minimum Powder Room Area


55 square feet

Figure 118: Full Bathroom Analysis

Not only does the size of individual bathrooms increase as

the case study homes get larger, the quantity of bathrooms

within the home increases as well. This can likely be

attributed to a growing desire for privacy by the general

public; a crucial consideration in the design of bathrooms.

Through the compartmentalization of a bathroom, very little

additional square footage is required and the opportunity

for privacy within the bathroom itself is made available,

allowing two users to occupy it concurrently. As a result, the

“necessity” for several individual bathrooms within the home

is decreased.

FULL BATH


FULL BATHROOM.123456

60 square feet64 square feet58 square feet x 281 square feet x 255 square feet x 340 square feet x 2

(2.7%)(2.5%)(3.7%)(4.4%)(4.1%)(X.X%)


1 2 3 4 5 6

FULL BATHROOM.123456

60 square feet64 square feet58 square feet x 281 square feet x 255 square feet x 340 square feet x 2

(2.7%)(2.5%)(3.7%)(4.4%)(4.1%)(X.X%)


1 2 3 4 5 6

Figure 119: Full Bathroom Area by Case Study


11’ - 0”

5’ - 3”

11’ - 0”

7’ - 5”




8141 51%

Figure 120: Full Bathroom Area Case Study 3 Figure 121: Full Bathroom Area Case Study 4


ESTCODE

11’ - 0”

5’ - 0” 5’ - 0”

8’ - 0”


400 0%CASE STUDY 5


5515 27%

Figure 122: Full Bathroom Area Case Study 5

Figure 123: Minimum Full Bathroom Area


1370’ 2

1370’ 2

1370’2

1370’ 2

4050’2 1370’ 2

case study 5

3675’2

case study 4

3150’2

case study 3

2550’2

case study 2

22250’

case study 1

minimum

880’“EXCESS”

1180’“EXCESS”

1780’“EXCESS”

2305’“EXCESS”

2680’“EXCESS”

2

minimum

minimum

minimum

minimum

2

2

2

2

Figure 124: Establishing Case Study Excess Square Footage


The assessment of these five case studies provides for a

determination as to the level of excess common American

households encompass when compared to the minimum

area required for each room of a home to host essential

furnishings and fixtures. By subtracting the minimum space

from the overall square footage the figure for area of excess

is obtained. These values are used on the next two pages to

determine the economic and environmental ramifications

associated with operating and maintaining this additional

square footage, and evaluates how much money would be

saved as a result should inefficient and grandiose designs be

avoided in desining the home of the future.


123456

ENERGY EXPENDITURES

United StatesMidwestRuralMixed-HumidSingle-Family Detached6 Persons

1.030.870.991.040.951.09

1.00per square foot

(US dollars)

123456

ENERGY EXPENDITURES

Case Study 1Case Study 2Case Study 3Case Study 4Case Study 5Minimum

225025503150367540501370

by housingcharacteristic( ) ( )by case

study

= ( )

per year(US dollars)

Case Study Expenditures- Minimum Expenditures ( # of years ) # of Years ( 1.03 )PROJECTED ENERGY SAVINGS

CONCLUSION: Accounts for inflation of US dollar.

Values refelected in chart below.

TOTAL AVERAGE:

Figure 125: Energy Expenditures by Housing Characteristic Figure 126: Energy Expenditures by Case Study


ENERGY SAVINGS: Projected values include a 3% inflation rate of the United States dollar based on historical inflation rates, but do not account for increasing energy costs, therefore would be higher in actuality.

CASE STUDY 5

CASE STUDY 4

CASE STUDY 3

CASE STUDY 2

CASE STUDY 1

$350,000

$325,000

$300,000

$275,000

$250,000

$225,000

$200,000

$175,000

$150,000

$125,000

$100,000

$75,000

$50,000

$25,000

$05 years 10 years 20 years 30 years 40 years

Figure 127: Energy Savings Based on Excess SF


Notes

1 US Census Bureau, M. C. D. “Characteristics of New Housing.” Accessed October 18, 2013. http://www.census.gov/construction/chars/high lights.html.

2 “American Households Are Getting Smaller – And Headed by Older Adults.” Marketing Charts. Accessed October 18, 2013. http://www. marketingcharts.com/wp/topics/demographics/american-house holds-are-getting-smaller-and-headed-by-older-adults-24981/.


4 Gauer, James, and Catherine Tighe. The New American Dream: Living Well in Small Homes. First Edition. (New York, New York: Monacelli Press, 2004), 231.

5 Susanka, Sarah. Home by Design: Transforming Your House Into Home. (Newtown, Connecticut: Taunton Press, 2004), 8.


7 Ibid., 113.

8 Nelson, George. Problems of Design. 2nd edition. (Whitney Library of Design, 1965), 154.

9 Ibid., 154.


Visiting Parkview Acres

SITE ANALYSIS

6

174Visiting Parkview Acres | Site Analysis

The site selected for this project is a lot located in Parkview Acres; a

development in the town of Minster, Ohio. Rooted in personal interest,

this development is where the foundations of this thesis began at a young

age as a result of growing up in an area where inefficient home design

concepts are commonplace, and rarely questioned.


It is important to remember that the suburban home is

not a self-contained world but rather a single element in

a much greater whole, thus it should always be designed

with its next larger context in mind. As a result, it is crucial

that the house of the future relates to the lot, the street,

and the neighborhood that surrounds it. If the role of

the increasingly privatized suburban home is somewhat

reversed through the incorporation of better public space

on site, several houses are afforded the opportunity to

come together to foster a much more lively and community

oriented whole. When viewed in this context, how large

does the individual home really need to be to contribute?1

“One of the greatest gifts architecture can give you is to go

beyond the experience of the single building... and see

what can happen when buildings come together to make

a place.”2 The failure to capitalize on this in residential

neighborhoods throughout America today can be attributed

1 Gauer and Tighe2 Goldberger

to several factors including the loss of front porches,

increased setbacks, larger lot sizes, and the automobile

taking precedence in design decisions allowing the “front

yard” to be consumed by a driveway. The confines of a

home must be expanded, extended back out into public

space in order for suburbia to facilitate a truly public realm. If

the single-family home of the future successfully connects

to its site, function, and the homes of the surrounding

neighborhood, it will develop its own individual strength

and its success will perpetuate allowing increasingly public

suburban life to flourish. It may be the case that this 21st

century evolution of the suburbs can prevent the city from

becoming a victim of its own success in regards to public

amenities in the future.3

Perhaps nowhere is it more apparent that the whole

of a neighborhood is essential to the experience of a

single-family home than through the eyes of a child. The

3 “Who cares about the ‘Burbs’?”


SITEPARKVIEW ACRESMINSTER, OHIO

N

Figure 128: Aerial View of Site Neighborhood


experience of architecture is rooted in childhood, often

“before we have even heard of the word.”4 Because of

this, the home finds dominance in understanding the

built environment. With time, the natural inclination

is to compare new architectural experiences to those

in memory, relating the new experiences back to a

worldview of architecture that developed subconsciously

in childhood. “The roots of architectural understanding lie

in our architectural experience: our room, our house, our

street, our village, our town, our landscape—we experience

them all early on, unconsciously, and we subsequently

compare them with the countryside, towns, and houses

that we experience later on.”5 It is daunting to believe that

today a generation of children is being raised with the

increasingly privatized suburban model of home design

and neighborhood development as the foundation of their

architectural understanding.

4 Zumthor5 Ibid.

The site selected for this project is rooted in this childhood

understanding of the home and neighborhood as a result of

personal discontentment with the architecture comprising

the single-family home environment of Parkview Acres.


TOP 3 PRIORITIES IN DECIDING WHERE TO LIVE1 PRIVACY FROM NEIGHBORS (86%)2 SIDEWALKS AND PLACES TO TAKE WALKS (80%)3 HIGH QUALITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS (74%

...all characteristics of Parkview Acres

United States

Minster, Ohio

Population per household

present

2.61

2.60

present

Median household income

$51,017

$69,417present

present

Cost of living

100

93.9present

present

UNITED STATES v. MINSTER, OHIO

Figure 130 Site Demographics

Figure 129 Priorities in Deciding Where to Live


60

79

95

Ohio

Auglaize County

Minster

MINSTER LOCAL SCHOOLS RATING COMPARED TOAVERAGE STATE AND COUNTY SCHOOL RATINGS USING WEIGHTED TEST AVERAGES FROM 2010

2

3

MINSTER

1

FANNING HOWEY ASSOCIATES INC.k-12higher educationlibrariesengineeringplanning

GARMAN MILLER & ASSOCIATEShigher educationk-12 educationcommunitycommercialindustrialhealthcare

FREYTAG & ASSOCIATES INC.educationcommunitygovernmenthealthcarecommercialindustrial

1

2

3

Figure 131 School Ratings

Figure 132 Local Architects do not Advertise Residential Services


LOCAL WEATHER AND CLIMATE52

102 -25

ANNUAL AVERAGE TEMPERATUREMAXIMUM TEMPERATUREMINIMUM TEMPERATURE

27.5”39.58”

AVERAGE ANNUAL SNOWFALLAVERAGE ANNUAL PRECIPITATION

Average high and low temperatures by month in Minster, Ohio

JAN. FEB. MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. NOV. DEC.

1720

27

37

48

5861

59

51

40

32

22

34

39

49

62

72

8184 83

77

65

52

38

Figure 133 Local Weather and Climate

Figure 134 Average Temperatures by Month


JAN. FEB. MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. NOV. DEC.

3.57” 4.19” 4.55” 4.21” 3.76” 2.81” 2.81” 3.37” 2.86”2.84”2.31”2.49”

Average monthly precipitation in Minster, Ohio

NORTH

SOUTH

EASTWEST

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

19h

18h

17h

16h

15h14h

13h 12h 11h10h

9h

8h

7h

6h

5h

Dec. 21

Jan. 21

Feb. 21

Mar. 21

Apr. 21

May 21

Jun. 21

Dec. 21

Jan. 21

Feb. 21

Mar. 21

Apr. 21

May. 21

Jun. 21

SITE

Site-specific sun path diagram

Figure 135 Average Precipitation by Month

Figure 136 Sun Path Diagram


1989 –1992 25 homes constructed2804 average square feet$254,790 average total value

$300,000 - $349,999

$350,000 - $399,999

$400,000 - $449,999

$450,000 - $499,999

$150,000 - $199,999

$200,000 - $249,999

$250,000 - $299,999

Figure 137 Neighborhood Growth Analysis Period 1


Parkview Acres in Minster, Ohio is the development

represented in the accompanying diagram. The first home

constructed in this development dates back to 1989.

Since then, it has undergone continuous growth in both

neighborhood size and the size and value of the housing

components which compose it. The size of the homes in the

following diagrams are proportional to their actual square

footage, while the key to the left represents the total value of

each home, which includes property value.


$300,000 - $349,999

$350,000 - $399,999

$400,000 - $449,999

$450,000 - $499,999

$150,000 - $199,999

$200,000 - $249,999

$250,000 - $299,999




In this diagram, the growth in the number of residences in

Parkview Acres is apparent, adding 17 new homes to the

existing neighborhood. In addition, the average size of a

home within the development has experienced a slight

increase: 16 square feet. The average total value of the

individual homes has increased by $17,810. These increasing

trends align with those of national averages, therefore

affirming Parkview Acres as an appropriate site selection.


1997–2000 5 homes constructed3200 average square feet$295,890 average total value

$300,000 - $349,999

$350,000 - $399,999

$400,000 - $449,999

$450,000 - $499,999

$150,000 - $199,999

$200,000 - $249,999

$250,000 - $299,999



In this diagram, the growth in the number of residences

in Parkview Acres is apparent, adding 5 new homes to the

existing neighborhood. In addition, the average size of a

home within the development increased in area by 380

square feet, and the average total value of a new home

in Parkview Acres increased by $23,380. These increasing

trends align with those of national averages, again affirming

Parkview Acres as an appropriate site selection.


$300,000 - $349,999

$350,000 - $399,999

$400,000 - $449,999

$450,000 - $499,999

$150,000 - $199,999

$200,000 - $249,999

$250,000 - $299,999

2001-2004 6 homes constructed3600 average square feet$302,220 average total value



In this diagram, the growth in the number of residences

in Parkview Acres is consistent with that of the last period,

adding 6 new homes to the existing neighborhood. During

this period, the average area of a new home in Parkview

Acres undergoes significant growth with an addition of

400 square feet per home. The average value of these

new homes increased by $6,330. These increasing trends

align with those of national averages, once more affirming

Parkview Acres as an appropriate site selection.


$300,000 - $349,999

$350,000 - $399,999

$400,000 - $449,999

$450,000 - $499,999

$150,000 - $199,999

$200,000 - $249,999

$250,000 - $299,999

2005-2009 8 homes constructed3520 average square feet$351,510 average total value



During this period, Parkview Acres again saw an increase in

the number of homes constructed, adding 8 new homes

to the existing neighborhood. While these new homes

decreased slightly in area compared to that of the previous

period, their average value increased significantly at nearly

$50,000 despite the economic recession in the United States

at this time. The numbers located on 8 of the lots to the right

correspond with the bar graphs on the next page, providing

further information on select homes constructed in this

development.


1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

current national average

1995

1998

1998

2003

2008

2006

2009

2008

SQUARE FOOTAGE:

year completed

current national average

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

TOTAL WORTH:

1995

1998

1998

2003

2008

2006

2009

2008

year completed

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Figure 142 Select Total Worth Figure 143 Select Square Footage


By comparing the deomgraphic data provided on the

previous pages to the size and worth of the homes in

Parkview Acres it can be concluded that the average income

of citizens in this geographic region is well above that of

national average while land and construction costs in the

surrounding site area are well below that of national average.

Despite this, home construction in this neighborhood

remains consistent with historical, national area and value

trends. Therefore, it is apparent that those dwelling in this

neighborhood are people who can, in fact, afford to do

better. They are not to blame, however. A fundamental

lack of knowledge and failure to question has allowed

this development to become what it is today; an absence

which can be directly attributed to lack of architectural

intervention. As stated previously, it is the architect’s task to

make apparent to the general public the reasons that design

can help. This neighborhood is just one of many examples

of single-family home environments where architects must

begin to involve themselves in order to maintain their

professional integrity while fulfilling their obligations to

society that come as a result of their chosen field.


Notes

1. Nelson, George. Problems of Design. 2nd edition. (Whitney Library of Design, 1965), 154.

2. Gauer, James, and Catherine Tighe. The New American Dream: Living Well in Small Homes. First Edition. (New York, New York: Monacelli Press, 2004), 14.

3. Zumthor, Peter. Thinking Architecture. 3rd edition. (Basel: Birkhäuser Architecture, 2010), 65.

4. Ibid., 65.

5. Goldberger, Paul. Why Architecture Matters. (Yale University Press, 2011), 233.


Exposing the Dream

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT

7

198Exposing the Dream | Design Development

The following design puts to practice the ideas and insights discovered

under the previous research and analysis. By facilitating the creation of

a more ethical home environment for a family of six who did not build

the “evaluated” house design as a result of its excessive size, this thesis

demonstrates that the American home of the future can undergo a

significant reduction in scale without compromising aesthetics or function,

all the while creating a win-win-win scenario for client, architect, and

developer both environmentally and economically.


Figure 144 Evaluated First Floor Plan

EVALUATED - first floor

–1115 SF3675 SF 2560 SF

3 4

8

11

9

147

15

1 2 5 6

13

12

16

E

S

W

N

DOWN

DO

WN

DO

WN

UP DOWN

UP

DETAILEDWALL

SECTIONDOWN

10

N

0’ 4’ 8’ 16’N

0’ 4’ 8’ 16’

30%

REDUCTION

123456789

10111213141516

Her closetHis closetHobby roomLiving roomKitchenKeeping roomMaster bedroomMaster bathroomStudyDining roomEntry foyerStairPowder roomMud roomLaundry roomGarage

Denotes trimmed area

1 & 2 8

4 56

31011

9 15

7

13

16

Labels correspond with “proposed” floor plan key for comparison purposes

PROPOSED - first floor


EVALUATED - first floor

–1115 SF3675 SF 2560 SF

3 4

8

11

9

147

15

1 2 5 6

13

12

16

E

S

W

N

DOWN

DO

WN

DO

WN

UP DOWN

UP

DETAILEDWALL

SECTIONDOWN

10

N

0’ 4’ 8’ 16’N

0’ 4’ 8’ 16’

30%

REDUCTION

123456789

10111213141516

Her closetHis closetHobby roomLiving roomKitchenKeeping roomMaster bedroomMaster bathroomStudyDining roomEntry foyerStairPowder roomMud roomLaundry roomGarage


1 & 2 8

4 56

31011

9 15

7

13

16

Labels correspond with “after” floor plan key for comparison purposes

PROPOSED - first floor

Figure 145 Proposed First Floor Plan


Open to below

Storage(unconditioned)

1

2

5

6

3 4

9

7

10

8EW

N

S

DOWN

DETAILEDWALL

SECTION

EVALUATED - second floor

–680 SF1815 SF 1135 SF

N

0’ 4’ 8’ 16’N

0’ 4’ 8’ 16’

37%

REDUCTION

Denotes trimmed areaLabels correspond with “proposed” floor plan key for comparison purposes

PROPOSED - second floor123456789

10

Closet 1BathroomBedroom 1Study loftCedar storageBedroom 2Closet 2Shared bathCloset 3Bedroom 3

5

3

6

7

108

9

4

2 1

Figure 146 Evaluated Second Floor Plan


Figure 147 Proposed Second Floor Plan

Open to below


1

2

5

6

3 4

9

7

10

8EW

N

S

DOWN

DETAILEDWALL

SECTION

EVALUATED - second floor

–680 SF1815 SF 1135 SF

N

0’ 4’ 8’ 16’N

0’ 4’ 8’ 16’

37%

REDUCTION

Denotes trimmed areaLabels correspond with “after” floor plan key for comparison purposes

PROPOSED - second floor123456789

10


5

3

6

7

108

9

4

2 1


ceiling

finished floorceiling

finished floorgrade

0’ 4’ 8’ 16’

EVALUATED - south PROPOSED - south0’ 4’ 8’ 16’

Figure 148 Evaluated South Elevation


Figure 149 Proposed South Elevation

ceiling


finished floorgrade

0’ 4’ 8’ 16’

EVALUATED - south PROPOSED - south0’ 4’ 8’ 16’


Figure 150 Evaluated East Elevation

ceiling


finished floorgrade

0’ 4’ 8’ 16’

EVALUATED - east PROPOSED - east0’ 4’ 8’ 16’


ceiling


finished floorgrade

0’ 4’ 8’ 16’

EVALUATED - east PROPOSED - east0’ 4’ 8’ 16’

Figure 151 Proposed East Elevation


Figure 152 Evaluated North Elevation

ceiling


finished floorgrade

0’ 4’ 8’ 16’

EVALUATED - north PROPOSED - north0’ 4’ 8’ 16’


ceiling


finished floorgrade

0’ 4’ 8’ 16’

EVALUATED - north PROPOSED - north0’ 4’ 8’ 16’

Figure 153 Proposed North Elevation


Figure 154 Evaluated West Elevation

ceiling


finished floorgrade

0’ 4’ 8’ 16’

EVALUATED - west PROPOSED - west0’ 4’ 8’ 16’


ceiling


finished floorgrade

0’ 4’ 8’ 16’

EVALUATED - west PROPOSED - west0’ 4’ 8’ 16’

Figure 155 Proposed West Elevation


CHIMNEY

CHIMNEY

MECHANICAL EQUIP.

SITE PLAN NTSN

53% REDUCTION

LOT PLAN NTSN

Figure 156 Site Plan


CHIMNEY

CHIMNEY

MECHANICAL EQUIP.

SITE PLAN NTSN

53% REDUCTION

LOT PLAN NTSN

As a direct result of the reduction in scale of the proposed solution,

coupled with a more compact building footprint, the required lot size

for such a project drastically decreases. By facilitating the creation of

reduced lot sizes within suburban environments by way of smaller homes,

a winning scenario for the developer becomes apparent in that more lots

will fit into the same acreage of development. In this comparatively small

neighborhood alone, the creation of 21 new lots, and therefore homes, is

made possible through this reduction.

Figure 157 Lot Plan


Figure 158 Square Footage Evaluated Figure 159 Square Footage Proposed Figure 160 Resulting Differences

EVALUATEDKITCHENDININGLIVINGLAUNDRYBEDROOM MBEDROOM 1BEDROOM 2BEDROOM 3

ENTRY/FOYERKEEPING

532 SF

HOBBYSTUDYPOWDER ROOM 1POWDER ROOM 2SUN ROOMBUTLER’S PANTRY

MASTER BATHMASTER CLOSETWALK-IN 1WALK-IN 2WALK-IN 3FULL BATHSHARED BATHCEDAR STORAGE

CIRCULATION

KITCHENDININGLIVINGLAUNDRYBEDROOM MBEDROOM 1BEDROOM 2BEDROOM 3

ENTRY/FOYERKEEPINGHOBBYSTUDYPOWDER ROOM 1POWDER ROOM 2SUN ROOMBUTLER’S PANTRY


CIRCULATION




CIRCULATION

220 SF

420 SF

92 SF

270 SF

245 SF

216 SF

256 SF

224 SF

232 SF

212 SF

206 SF

32 SF

44 SF

206 SF

45 SF

216 SF

130 SF

38 SF

50 SF

52 SF

55 SF

114 SF

114 SF

1268 SF

386 SF

162 SF

412 SF

58 SF

298 SF

204 SF

208 SF

230 SF

188 SF

168 SF

208 SF

92 SF

30 SF

0 SF

0 SF

0 SF

126 SF

115 SF

46 SF

36 SF

38 SF

38 SF

98 SF

28 SF

526 SF

146 SF

58 SF

8 SF

34 SF

+ 28 SF

41 SF

8 SF

26 SF

36 SF

64 SF

4 SF

114 SF

2 SF

44 SF

206 SF

45 SF

90 SF

15 SF

+ 8 SF

14 SF

14 SF

14 SF

16 SF

86 SF

742 SF

SQUARE FOOTAGE

PROPOSEDSQUARE FOOTAGE

DIFFERENCESQUARE FOOTAGE

8%

3%

0%

2%

0%

2%

0%

1%

1%

4%

0%

6%

0%

3%

11%

2%

5%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

5%

41%

% SITE NEIGHBORHOOD?HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO THE EXISTING

21 BUILT HOUSES ON SITEA REDUCTION EQUIVALENT TO THE FIRST

# OF HOUSES IN SITE NEIGHBORHOOD 61

YEARS BUILTTOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF BUILDING STOCK

1989 - PRESENT

183,800 SF

DESIGN REDUCTION PERCENTAGE 33%

ADJUSTED SQUARE FOOTAGE OF BUILDING STOCK 122,520 SF

DIFFERENCE OF ADJUSTED vs. ACTUAL 61,280 SF

ENERGY EFFICIENCY?HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO

TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF BUILDING STOCK 183,800 SF

AVERAGE ANNUAL NEIGHBORHOOD ENERGY COSTS $145,670



ADJUSTED ANNUAL NEIGHBORHOOD ENERGY COSTS $121,900

DIFFERENCE OF ADJUSTED vs. ACTUAL $23,770

BUILT IN1989

BUILT IN1989

BUILT IN1989

BUILT IN1989

BUILT IN1989

BUILT IN1989

BUILT IN1989

BUILT IN1989

BUILT IN1989

BUILT IN1990

BUILT IN1990

BUILT IN1990

BUILT IN1990

BUILT IN1990

BUILT IN1991

BUILT IN1991

BUILT IN1991

BUILT IN1991

BUILT IN1991

BUILT IN1992

BUILT IN1992

5 YEAR NEIGHBORHOOD SAVINGS $137,725



30 YEAR NEIGHBORHOOD SAVINGS40 YEAR NEIGHBORHOODSAVINGS

$1,730,196

= ( )Case Study Expenditures- Minimum Expenditures ( # of years ) # of Years ( 1.03 )PROJECTED ENERGY SAVINGS

$3,100,319


EVALUATEDKITCHENDININGLIVINGLAUNDRYBEDROOM MBEDROOM 1BEDROOM 2BEDROOM 3

ENTRY/FOYERKEEPING

532 SF

HOBBYSTUDYPOWDER ROOM 1POWDER ROOM 2SUN ROOMBUTLER’S PANTRY


CIRCULATION




CIRCULATION




CIRCULATION

220 SF

420 SF

92 SF

270 SF

245 SF

216 SF

256 SF

224 SF

232 SF

212 SF

206 SF

32 SF

44 SF

206 SF

45 SF

216 SF

130 SF

38 SF

50 SF

52 SF

55 SF

114 SF

114 SF

1268 SF

386 SF

162 SF

412 SF

58 SF

298 SF

204 SF

208 SF

230 SF

188 SF

168 SF

208 SF

92 SF

30 SF

0 SF

0 SF

0 SF

126 SF

115 SF

46 SF

36 SF

38 SF

38 SF

98 SF

28 SF

526 SF

146 SF

58 SF

8 SF

34 SF

+ 28 SF

41 SF

8 SF

26 SF

36 SF

64 SF

4 SF

114 SF

2 SF

44 SF

206 SF

45 SF

90 SF

15 SF

+ 8 SF

14 SF

14 SF

14 SF

16 SF

86 SF

742 SF

SQUARE FOOTAGE

PROPOSEDSQUARE FOOTAGE

DIFFERENCESQUARE FOOTAGE

8%

3%

0%

2%

0%

2%

0%

1%

1%

4%

0%

6%

0%

3%

11%

2%

5%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

5%

41%

% SITE NEIGHBORHOOD?HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO THE EXISTING

21 BUILT HOUSES ON SITEA REDUCTION EQUIVALENT TO THE FIRST

# OF HOUSES IN SITE NEIGHBORHOOD 61

YEARS BUILTTOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF BUILDING STOCK

1989 - PRESENT

183,800 SF



DIFFERENCE OF ADJUSTED vs. ACTUAL 61,280 SF


TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF BUILDING STOCK 183,800 SF

AVERAGE ANNUAL NEIGHBORHOOD ENERGY COSTS $145,670



ADJUSTED ANNUAL NEIGHBORHOOD ENERGY COSTS $121,900

DIFFERENCE OF ADJUSTED vs. ACTUAL $23,770

BUILT IN1989

BUILT IN1989

BUILT IN1989

BUILT IN1989

BUILT IN1989

BUILT IN1989

BUILT IN1989

BUILT IN1989

BUILT IN1989

BUILT IN1990

BUILT IN1990

BUILT IN1990

BUILT IN1990

BUILT IN1990

BUILT IN1991

BUILT IN1991

BUILT IN1991

BUILT IN1991

BUILT IN1991

BUILT IN1992

BUILT IN1992




30 YEAR NEIGHBORHOOD SAVINGS40 YEAR NEIGHBORHOODSAVINGS

$1,730,196

= ( )Case Study Expenditures- Minimum Expenditures ( # of years ) # of Years ( 1.03 )PROJECTED ENERGY SAVINGS

$3,100,319

Figure 161 Resulting Relationships Figure 162 Equivalent Houses by way of Area Reduction


VIGNETTE “A”:

ENTRY FOYERVIGNETTE “B”:

HALLWAYVIGNETTE “C”:

STUDY LOFTVIGNETTE “D”:

LAUNDRY ROOMVIGNETTE “E”:

BALCONYVIGNETTE “F”:

LIVING ROOM

INTERIOR VIGNETTES

Figure 163 Vignette A Figure 164 Vignette B Figure 165 Vignette C


VIGNETTE “A”:

ENTRY FOYERVIGNETTE “B”:

HALLWAYVIGNETTE “C”:

STUDY LOFTVIGNETTE “D”:

LAUNDRY ROOMVIGNETTE “E”:

BALCONYVIGNETTE “F”:

LIVING ROOM

INTERIOR VIGNETTES

Figure 166 Vignette D Figure 167 Vignette E Figure 168 Vignette F


The front view of the proposed solution demonstrates that a home such

as the one which was evaluated for this project can be reduced in scale

while maintaining the desired architectural language and features of the

client through the consideration of balance and proportion. This home is

now able to achieve prominence while “being a good neighbor” by way of

avoiding the overbearing effect that can result from grandiose designs.

Figure 169 Front View of Proposed House


The rear elevation of the proposed solution provides all of the primary

features that the evaluated house design provided. Despite the reduction

in scale of the interior of the proposed solution, exterior spaces remain

generous in size for several reasons, such as the fact that they do not

require extensive amounts of energy, and balance between hardscape

and landscape aids in both maintenance and environmental efficiency.

Figure 170 Back View of Proposed House


WEST-EAST NORTH-SOUTH

5 6 7 8 9 10

11

3 421

1

7

2

54 6

3

0’ 4’ 8’ 16’ 0’ 4’ 8’ 16’

1 Storage (unconditioned)2 Bedroom 23 Closet 24 Shared bathroom

5 Her closet6 His closet7 Hobby room8 Living room

9 Kitchen10 Keeping room11 Basement (unfinished)

1 Living room2 Hall3 Study loft4 Keeping room (beyond)

5 Kitchen (beyond)6 Entry foyer7 Basement (unfinished)

Figure 170 Building Section 1


5 6 7 8 9 10

11

3 421

1

7

2

54 6

3

0’ 4’ 8’ 16’ 0’ 4’ 8’ 16’






220Exposing the Dream | Design DevelopmentOPEN TO VIEW WALL SECTION DETAIL

Figure 172 Building Section 2


5 6 7 8 9 10

11

3 421

1

7

2

54 6

3

0’ 4’ 8’ 16’ 0’ 4’ 8’ 16’







5 6 7 8 9 10

11

3 421

1

7

2

54 6

3

0’ 4’ 8’ 16’ 0’ 4’ 8’ 16’







5 6 7 8 9 10

11

3 421

1

7

2

54 6

3

ceiling


finished floorgrade




CIRCULATION

- 146 SF

- 58 SF

- 8 SF

- 34 SF

+ 28 SF

- 41 SF

- 8 SF

- 26 SF

- 36 SF

- 64 SF

- 4 SF

- 114 SF

- 2 SF

- 44 SF

- 206 SF

- 45 SF

- 90 SF

- 15 SF

+ 8 SF

- 14 SF

- 14 SF

- 14 SF

- 16 SF

- 86 SF

- 742 SF

DIFFERENCERESULTING

8%

3%

0%

2%

0%

2%

0%

1%

1%

4%

0%

6%

0%

3%

11%

2%

5%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

5%

41%

%VIGNETTE “A”:

ENTRY FOYERVIGNETTE “D”:

LAUNDRY ROOM

VIGNETTE “B”:

HALLWAYVIGNETTE “E”:

BALCONY

VIGNETTE “C”:

STUDY LOFTVIGNETTE “F”:

LIVING ROOM

ceiling


finished floor

grade

WEST

EAST

SOUTH

ceiling


finished floor

grade

NORTH


EVALUATED PROPOSEDJodie Quinter

Graduate Architecture ThesisThesis chair: Professor Huy Ngo

Faculty advisor: Professor Daniel BrownTopic consultant: Ben Baumer

BY THE YEAR 2035, 75% OF THE BUILDING AREA IN THE UNITED STATES WILL EITHER BE RENEWED OR NEW CONSTRUCTION. THIS PRESENTS A HUGE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE AND FOR ARCHITECTS TO BE A PART OF THE SOLUTION.

CITY

SUBURB

RURAL AREA




58% 25% 17%

12%

10% 15% 75%

70% 18%

LIVING PREFERENCE:


$300,000 - $349,999

$350,000 - $399,999

$400,000 - $449,999

$450,000 - $499,999

$150,000 - $199,999

$200,000 - $249,999

$250,000 - $299,999

1993 –1996

1997–2000



$300,000 - $349,999

$350,000 - $399,999

$400,000 - $449,999

$450,000 - $499,999

$150,000 - $199,999

$200,000 - $249,999

$250,000 - $299,999

Six new homes were constructed during this period,all of which increased in both area and value whencompared to those of the previous period. These trends align with those of national averages, affirming Parkview Acres as an appropriate site selection.

Eight new homes were constructed during this period. While these homes actually decreased slightly in area compared to that of the previous period, their average value increased significantly despite the economic recession in the United States at this time.

CASE STUDY 5

CASE STUDY 4

CASE STUDY 3

CASE STUDY 2

CASE STUDY 1

$350,000

$325,000

$300,000

$275,000

$250,000

$225,000

$200,000

$175,000

$150,000

$125,000

$100,000

$75,000

$50,000

$25,000


123456

ENERGY EXPENDITURES


1.030.870.991.040.951.09

1.00per square foot

(US dollars)

by housingcharacteristic( )

123456

ENERGY EXPENDITURES


225025503150367540501370

( )by casestudy

= ( )




Values refelected in accompanying chart.

TOTAL AVERAGE:

0’ 4’ 8’ 16’

10’ - 4”

10’ - 8”


11068

11’ - 10”

12’ - 3”


145103

71%

6’ - 8”

6’ - 4”


420

0%

17’ - 4”

17’ - 8”


306162

18’ - 5”

18’ - 9”


345201

11’ - 10”

12’ - 2”


1440

0%

7’ - 10”

8’ - 6”


660

0%12’ - 8”

13’ - 5”


170104

15’ - 1”

15’ - 9”


238172

15’ - 5”

15’ - 7”


240142

20’ - 9”

20’ - 10”


432334

13’ - 0”

7’ - 11”


1030

0%

21’ - 0”

21’ - 2”


444374

KITCHEN

The layout of a kitchen should be determined by the triangle between the three primary work areas in the kitchen: the sink, range, and refrigerator. By introducing a second sink, a two-cook kitchen can be created with work triangles that do not intersect without adding a considerable amount of extra square footage.

128 square feet

103 square feet

1

1

2

ESTCODE

LIVING ROOM

Living room size is determined by the arrangement of furnishings, and the space required to move amongst them. In the creation of a six seat living room, it is important to remember that the maximum desirable conversation diameter in social settings is 12’-13’, and that conversation clusters tend to break off when reaching numbers greater than six people, thereforefurnishings should be arranged to cultivate such behavior.

MASTER BATHROOM

Similar to the master bedroom, the master bathroom, too, experiences significant, unnecessary, growth as the size of the modern home increases. In the case studies analyzed, no additional fixtures were placed in the bathrooms of larger size, therefore acknowledging this added square footage as simply circulation space. As a result, the size of the modern bathroom has become large enough for a small bedroom to be housed within it.

minimum bedroom size

ENTRY FOYER

The backdoor of homes generally serves as the primary entrance for homes today. While the door can be considered a crucial transition from exterior to interior, the front door of the home of today is rarely viewed as such. Despite this, thefoyer has become an oversized space which functions as an over the top and grandiose welcoming to visitors, while serving no fundamental functional purpose.


19’ - 9”

20’ - 0”


395325

8’ - 6”

8’ - 3”


700

0%

1370’ 2

1370’ 2

1370’2

1370’ 2

4050’2 1370’ 2

3675’2

3150’2

2550’2

22250’

case study 5

case study 4

case study 3

case study 2

case study 1

minimum

minimum

minimum

minimum

minimum

880’“EXCESS”

1180’“EXCESS”

1780’“EXCESS”

2305’“EXCESS”

2680’“EXCESS”

2

2

2

2

2

CASE STUDY ANALYSISIn order to discern the inefficiencies associated with the increasing size of the modern home, a case study investigation is necessary to establish the flaws associated with this development, ultimately resulting in an understanding as to what level of “excess” these homes encompass, in addition to how this excess directly affects energy consumption and costs.The following information analyzes five case study homes whose programs feature the same number of bedrooms and bathrooms as the project program requires, despite the drastic variation in their square footages.


N PROJECTED ENERGY SAVINGSProjected values include a 3% inflation rate of the United States dollar based on historical inflation rates. These values are based on present day construction standards, and do not account for inevitably increasing energy costs, and, therefore, would be even greater in actuality.

NO

NO.

2.94 2.76 2.69 2.63 2.65 2.62 2.57 2.58

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

1645’2 1740’2 1785’2 2080’2 2095’2 2266’2 2434’2 2392’2

IN ORDER TO SUSTAIN HUMANSOCIETY INTO THE NEXT CENTURY,RESOURCE EFFICIENCY WILL HAVETO INCREASE BY A FACTOR OF 10.

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100 2110

NAIVE DREAMEXPOSING A

This thesis addresses the diminishing capacity of the architect in today’s homebuilding industry by exposing their economic, environmental, and psychological significance, resulting in a reevaluation of the traditional paradigms of residential design, and the revelation of the architect’s role in this process.

The initial cost of a building project, traditionally viewed as the primary economic concern, can become rather insignificant when the building’s entire life cycle is assessed. Long-term expenditures must be considered in order to effectively evaluate the best design solutions for a client, a notion affirmed by a study conducted by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.

While contemporary homes serve the fundamental purpose of providing shelter, it is difficult to comprehend how the often inefficient, grandiose, and expansive modern home evolved out of this primitive notion. The composition of single-family homes in the United States has been rising in square footage for decades, despite the fact that the size of the single family is decreasing.

Architects are generally uninvolved in home construction despite its substantiality as an economic activity. Assuredly, this is due to a lack of understanding by the public of the benefits the tasks of an architect can provide. Therefore, itis the architect’s job to make apparent the reasons that design can help in order to capitalize on wasted opportunity.

Despite projected urbanization in the United States, a 2013 survey conducted by the National Association of Realtors proved that the public’s desire to live in suburban neighborhoods is not fading. In fact, more people prefer this type of dwelling condition than live there now, indicating a prevailing system composed of a flawed housing model.

The apparent decline in the relevance of the architecture profession is no secret. Architects seem to be losing grip on their purpose in the building industry and, thus, their significance to society. How can the relevance of the architect be regained? It’s simple. Build better buildings. Nowhere is there a greater or more spread opportunity to capitalize on this than in building better homes. The potential for new and renewed construction in the United States makes clear a vast amount ofopportunity for architects to regain public esteem while working to address the issues posed by suburbia.

Homes are built because of a belief in the future; the future of existence and the future of families, and building well demonstrates a belief in a better future. In order to sustain human society, the problems posed regarding the efficiency and consumption of single-family homes must be addressed.

Few will argue that one of the ways architects remain relevant is related to the consumption of the built environment, particularly in relation to dwindling natural resources and the issue of global warming. The efficiency of the residential sector must be evaluated as it accounts for nearly one-half of the energy consumption by the built environment.

BUILT IN1998

$90,000ENERGY COSTS



20%


Average lifetme costs.

space heating

space cooling

water heating

lighting

refrigeration

electronics

wet cleaningcookingcomputers

others

22%

RES

IDEN

TIA

L

19% COMMERCIAL

ENERGY CONSUMPTION

BY SECTOR

29% TRANSPORTATION

30% INDUSTRIAL

40% BUILDINGS

26.6%

15.8%

13.2%

10.0%

6.3%

4.8%

4.6%2.6%2.5%

13.5%

33%

2%OF NEW HOME-BUYERSWORK DIRECTLY WITH

AN ARCHITECTTO DESIGN THEIR HOME

LOST OPPORTU

NITY



CONSTRUCTIONSECTOR

LIVING ROOM123456

241 SF224 SF300 SF345 SF306 SF144 SF

(10.7%)(8.80%)(9.50%)(9.40%)(7.60%)(0.00%)

2 3 4 5 6

2 3 4 5 6

ENTRY FOYER123456

42 SF72 SF103 SF110 SF145 SF42 SF

(1.90%)(2.80%)(3.30%)(3.00%)(3.60%)(0.00%)

1 2 3 4 5 6

MASTER BED123456

244 SF225 SF285 SF444 SF395 SF70 SF

(10.8%)(8.80%)(9.10%)(12.1%)(9.80%)(0.00%)

1 2 3 4 5 6

MASTER BATH123456

132 SF144 SF180 SF170 SF238 SF66 SF

(5.90%)(5.60%)(5.70%)(4.60%)(5.90%)(0.00%)

KITCHEN123456

103 SF170 SF187 SF240 SF432 SF103 SF

(4.60%)(6.70%)(5.90%)(6.50%)(10.7%)(0.00%)

1 2 3 4 5 6

17 homes constructed2820 average square feet$272,600 average total value

$300,000 - $349,999

$350,000 - $399,999

$400,000 - $449,999

$450,000 - $499,999

$150,000 - $199,999

$200,000 - $249,999

$250,000 - $299,999

$300,000 - $349,999

$350,000 - $399,999

$400,000 - $449,999

$450,000 - $499,999

$150,000 - $199,999

$200,000 - $249,999

$250,000 - $299,999

$300,000 - $349,999

$350,000 - $399,999

$400,000 - $449,999

$450,000 - $499,999

$150,000 - $199,999

$200,000 - $249,999

$250,000 - $299,999


Five new homes were constructed during this period,all of which increased in both area and value whencompared to those of the previous period. These trends align with those of national averages, affirming Parkview Acres as an appropriate site selection.

Seventeen new homes were constructed during this period, all of which increased in both area and value when compared to those of the previous period. These trends align with those of national averages, affirming Parkview Acres as an appropriate site selection.

Parkview Acres in Minster, Ohio has experiencedconsistent growth since it’s inception as a development in 1989. The size of the homes in the accompanying diagrams are scaled proportionally to their actual square footage, and the key to the left represents the total value of each home, which includes property.

1

1

MASTER BEDROOM

The master bedroom is perhapsthe most significant waste of space in these households. The size of the master bedroom rises dramatically as the size of the home increases, and is not a reflection of the space required for the essential activities which take place there. As a result, the master bedroom of the home of today often comprises enough wasted space to place several additional bedrooms within it.

minimum bedroom size x 4

0’ 4’ 8’ 16’

0’ 4’ 8’ 16’

0’ 4’ 8’ 16’

0’ 4’ 8’ 16’

EVALUATED PROPOSED

–1115 SF

–680 SF

Open to below


1815 SF 1135 SFN

3675 SF 2560 SF

3 4

8

11

9

147

15

1 2 5 6

13

12

16

E

S

W

N

DOWN

DO

WN

DO

WN

UP DOWN

UP

DETAILEDWALL

SECTIONDOWN

10

1

2

5

6

3 4

9

7

10

8EW

N

S

DOWN

DETAILEDWALL

SECTION

N

0’ 4’ 8’ 16’

N

0’ 4’ 8’ 16’

N0’ 4’ 8’ 16’

0’ 4’ 8’ 16’

The following design puts to practice the ideas and insights discovered under the previous research and analysis. By facilitating the creation of a more ethical home environment for a family of six who were unable to build the “original” house design because of its excessive size, this thesis demonstrates that the American home can undergo a reducation in scale without compromising aesthetics or function, all the while creating a win-win-win scenario for client, architect, and developer.


Total square footage of building stock 183,800 SF

Average annual neighborhood energy costs $145,670

Design reduction percentage 33%

Adjusted square footage of building stock 122,520 SF

Adjusted annual neighborhood energy costs $121,900

Difference of adjusted vs. Actual $23,770

5 year neighborhood savings $137,725



30 year neighborhood savings


$1,730,196

=( )Case Study Expenditures

- Minimum Expenditures ( # of years ) # of Years ( 1.03 )PROJECTED ENERGY SAVINGS

$3,100,319

CHIMNEY

CHIMNEY

MECHANICAL EQUIP.

SITE PLAN NTSN

LOT PLAN NTSN

53% REDUCTION

20 BUILT HOUSES ON SITEA REDUCTION GREATER THAN THE FIRST

BUILT IN1989

BUILT IN1989

BUILT IN1989

BUILT IN1989

BUILT IN1989

BUILT IN1989

BUILT IN1989

BUILT IN1990

BUILT IN1990

BUILT IN1990

BUILT IN1990

BUILT IN1991

BUILT IN1991

BUILT IN1991

BUILT IN1991

BUILT IN1989

BUILT IN1989

BUILT IN1990

BUILT IN1991

BUILT IN1992

SITE NEIGHBORHOOD?HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO THE EXISTING

# of houses in site neighborhood 61

Years built

Total square footage of building stock

1989 - PRESENT

183,800 SF



Difference of adjusted vs. Actual 61,280 SF

30%

REDUCTION

37%

REDUCTION

123456789

10


123456789

10111213141516

Her closetHis closetHobby roomLiving roomKitchenKeeping roomMasterbedroomMaster bathroomStudyDining roomEntry foyerStairPowder roomMud roomLaundry roomGarage



Evaluating the inefficiences of the American single-family home.

We are entering an epical period of change in this world. We’re

going to have to downscale, rescale, and resize virtually everything

we do in this country, and we can’t start soon enough to do it.

3/8” = 1’ 0”

ceiling


finished floorgrade

1/2” gypsum board wall liningMoisture barrier

Checkrail

Perforated drain pipe

Crushed gravel

Poured in place concrete footing

Steel reinforcing

Poured in place concrete foundation wall

Earth

Rigid insulation

Backer rod and sealant

1/2” anchor bolt

Crushed gravel10# welded wire fabricConcrete slabMoisture barrierVapor barrier2” x 3” wood strapping @ 24” o.c.Insulation1/2” gypsum board wall lining

Grade sloped away from foundation

FlashingStone veneer2” x 6” treated sill with 1/2” anchor bolt2” x 10” rim joist @ 24” o.c.Weep hole

4” face brick veneer wall

Galvanized metal brick tiesWood baseboard

Vapor barrier5/8” plywood sheathingTongue and groove wood strip flooring2” x 6” double sill plate5/8” plywood subfloor2” x 10” floor joist1/2” gypsum board ceiling lining

Wood window casingShelf angle

2” x 6” wall studs @ 24” o.c.

Pillow insluation

Supply air duct2” x 4” blockingFloor register

Carpet floor finishSillGlazing

Roof line beyond

HeadWood dormer detailing1 1/2” foam baordVapor retarder1/2” gypsum board

2” x 10” raftersAir cavity1/2” plywood roof sheathingReturn air duct15# feltAsphalt shingles

20' - 0"ceiling height

finished floor

ceiling height

finished floor

ceiling height- 1’ - 0”

0' - 0"

11' - 0"

10' - 0"

finished floor- 9’ - 10”

WALL SECTION DETAILINTERIOR VIGNETTES

0’ 4’ 8’ 16’

— James Howard Kunstler

1 & 2 8

4 56

31011

9 15

7

13

16

5

3

6

7

108

9

4

2 1



SF

Technology cannot simply be applied, it must be integrated into the design. This level of efficiency can be achieved without the home having to resemble something out of a science fiction film or a technology experiment.






Figure 174 Final Presentation Boards


5 6 7 8 9 10

11

3 421

1

7

2

54 6

3

ceiling


finished floorgrade




CIRCULATION

- 146 SF

- 58 SF

- 8 SF

- 34 SF

+ 28 SF

- 41 SF

- 8 SF

- 26 SF

- 36 SF

- 64 SF

- 4 SF

- 114 SF

- 2 SF

- 44 SF

- 206 SF

- 45 SF

- 90 SF

- 15 SF

+ 8 SF

- 14 SF

- 14 SF

- 14 SF

- 16 SF

- 86 SF

- 742 SF

DIFFERENCERESULTING

8%

3%

0%

2%

0%

2%

0%

1%

1%

4%

0%

6%

0%

3%

11%

2%

5%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

5%

41%

%VIGNETTE “A”:

ENTRY FOYERVIGNETTE “D”:

LAUNDRY ROOM

VIGNETTE “B”:

HALLWAYVIGNETTE “E”:

BALCONY

VIGNETTE “C”:

STUDY LOFTVIGNETTE “F”:

LIVING ROOM

ceiling


finished floor

grade

WEST

EAST

SOUTH

ceiling


finished floor

grade

NORTH


EVALUATED PROPOSEDJodie Quinter

Graduate Architecture ThesisThesis chair: Professor Huy Ngo

Faculty advisor: Professor Daniel BrownTopic consultant: Ben Baumer

BY THE YEAR 2035, 75% OF THE BUILDING AREA IN THE UNITED STATES WILL EITHER BE RENEWED OR NEW CONSTRUCTION. THIS PRESENTS A HUGE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE AND FOR ARCHITECTS TO BE A PART OF THE SOLUTION.

CITY

SUBURB

RURAL AREA




58% 25% 17%

12%

10% 15% 75%

70% 18%

LIVING PREFERENCE:


$300,000 - $349,999

$350,000 - $399,999

$400,000 - $449,999

$450,000 - $499,999

$150,000 - $199,999

$200,000 - $249,999

$250,000 - $299,999

1993 –1996

1997–2000



$300,000 - $349,999

$350,000 - $399,999

$400,000 - $449,999

$450,000 - $499,999

$150,000 - $199,999

$200,000 - $249,999

$250,000 - $299,999

Six new homes were constructed during this period,all of which increased in both area and value whencompared to those of the previous period. These trends align with those of national averages, affirming Parkview Acres as an appropriate site selection.

Eight new homes were constructed during this period. While these homes actually decreased slightly in area compared to that of the previous period, their average value increased significantly despite the economic recession in the United States at this time.

CASE STUDY 5

CASE STUDY 4

CASE STUDY 3

CASE STUDY 2

CASE STUDY 1

$350,000

$325,000

$300,000

$275,000

$250,000

$225,000

$200,000

$175,000

$150,000

$125,000

$100,000

$75,000

$50,000

$25,000


123456

ENERGY EXPENDITURES


1.030.870.991.040.951.09

1.00per square foot

(US dollars)

by housingcharacteristic( )

123456

ENERGY EXPENDITURES


225025503150367540501370

( )by casestudy

= ( )




Values refelected in accompanying chart.

TOTAL AVERAGE:

0’ 4’ 8’ 16’

10’ - 4”

10’ - 8”


11068

11’ - 10”

12’ - 3”


145103

71%

6’ - 8”

6’ - 4”


420

0%

17’ - 4”

17’ - 8”


306162

18’ - 5”

18’ - 9”


345201

11’ - 10”

12’ - 2”


1440

0%

7’ - 10”

8’ - 6”


660

0%12’ - 8”

13’ - 5”


170104

15’ - 1”

15’ - 9”


238172

15’ - 5”

15’ - 7”


240142

20’ - 9”

20’ - 10”


432334

13’ - 0”

7’ - 11”


1030

0%

21’ - 0”

21’ - 2”


444374

KITCHEN

The layout of a kitchen should be determined by the triangle between the three primary work areas in the kitchen: the sink, range, and refrigerator. By introducing a second sink, a two-cook kitchen can be created with work triangles that do not intersect without adding a considerable amount of extra square footage.

128 square feet

103 square feet

1

1

2

ESTCODE

LIVING ROOM

Living room size is determined by the arrangement of furnishings, and the space required to move amongst them. In the creation of a six seat living room, it is important to remember that the maximum desirable conversation diameter in social settings is 12’-13’, and that conversation clusters tend to break off when reaching numbers greater than six people, thereforefurnishings should be arranged to cultivate such behavior.

MASTER BATHROOM

Similar to the master bedroom, the master bathroom, too, experiences significant, unnecessary, growth as the size of the modern home increases. In the case studies analyzed, no additional fixtures were placed in the bathrooms of larger size, therefore acknowledging this added square footage as simply circulation space. As a result, the size of the modern bathroom has become large enough for a small bedroom to be housed within it.


ENTRY FOYER

The backdoor of homes generally serves as the primary entrance for homes today. While the door can be considered a crucial transition from exterior to interior, the front door of the home of today is rarely viewed as such. Despite this, thefoyer has become an oversized space which functions as an over the top and grandiose welcoming to visitors, while serving no fundamental functional purpose.


19’ - 9”

20’ - 0”


395325

8’ - 6”

8’ - 3”


700

0%

1370’ 2

1370’ 2

1370’2

1370’ 2

4050’2 1370’ 2

3675’2

3150’2

2550’2

22250’

case study 5

case study 4

case study 3

case study 2

case study 1

minimum

minimum

minimum

minimum

minimum

880’“EXCESS”

1180’“EXCESS”

1780’“EXCESS”

2305’“EXCESS”

2680’“EXCESS”

2

2

2

2

2

CASE STUDY ANALYSISIn order to discern the inefficiencies associated with the increasing size of the modern home, a case study investigation is necessary to establish the flaws associated with this development, ultimately resulting in an understanding as to what level of “excess” these homes encompass, in addition to how this excess directly affects energy consumption and costs.The following information analyzes five case study homes whose programs feature the same number of bedrooms and bathrooms as the project program requires, despite the drastic variation in their square footages.


N PROJECTED ENERGY SAVINGSProjected values include a 3% inflation rate of the United States dollar based on historical inflation rates. These values are based on present day construction standards, and do not account for inevitably increasing energy costs, and, therefore, would be even greater in actuality.

NO

NO.

2.94 2.76 2.69 2.63 2.65 2.62 2.57 2.58

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

1645’2 1740’2 1785’2 2080’2 2095’2 2266’2 2434’2 2392’2

IN ORDER TO SUSTAIN HUMANSOCIETY INTO THE NEXT CENTURY,RESOURCE EFFICIENCY WILL HAVETO INCREASE BY A FACTOR OF 10.

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100 2110

NAIVE DREAMEXPOSING A

This thesis addresses the diminishing capacity of the architect in today’s homebuilding industry by exposing their economic, environmental, and psychological significance, resulting in a reevaluation of the traditional paradigms of residential design, and the revelation of the architect’s role in this process.

The initial cost of a building project, traditionally viewed as the primary economic concern, can become rather insignificant when the building’s entire life cycle is assessed. Long-term expenditures must be considered in order to effectively evaluate the best design solutions for a client, a notion affirmed by a study conducted by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.

While contemporary homes serve the fundamental purpose of providing shelter, it is difficult to comprehend how the often inefficient, grandiose, and expansive modern home evolved out of this primitive notion. The composition of single-family homes in the United States has been rising in square footage for decades, despite the fact that the size of the single family is decreasing.

Architects are generally uninvolved in home construction despite its substantiality as an economic activity. Assuredly, this is due to a lack of understanding by the public of the benefits the tasks of an architect can provide. Therefore, itis the architect’s job to make apparent the reasons that design can help in order to capitalize on wasted opportunity.

Despite projected urbanization in the United States, a 2013 survey conducted by the National Association of Realtors proved that the public’s desire to live in suburban neighborhoods is not fading. In fact, more people prefer this type of dwelling condition than live there now, indicating a prevailing system composed of a flawed housing model.

The apparent decline in the relevance of the architecture profession is no secret. Architects seem to be losing grip on their purpose in the building industry and, thus, their significance to society. How can the relevance of the architect be regained? It’s simple. Build better buildings. Nowhere is there a greater or more spread opportunity to capitalize on this than in building better homes. The potential for new and renewed construction in the United States makes clear a vast amount ofopportunity for architects to regain public esteem while working to address the issues posed by suburbia.

Homes are built because of a belief in the future; the future of existence and the future of families, and building well demonstrates a belief in a better future. In order to sustain human society, the problems posed regarding the efficiency and consumption of single-family homes must be addressed.

Few will argue that one of the ways architects remain relevant is related to the consumption of the built environment, particularly in relation to dwindling natural resources and the issue of global warming. The efficiency of the residential sector must be evaluated as it accounts for nearly one-half of the energy consumption by the built environment.

BUILT IN1998

$90,000ENERGY COSTS



20%


Average lifetme costs.

space heating

space cooling

water heating

lighting

refrigeration

electronics

wet cleaningcookingcomputers

others

22%

RES

IDEN

TIA

L

19% COMMERCIAL

ENERGY CONSUMPTION

BY SECTOR

29% TRANSPORTATION

30% INDUSTRIAL

40% BUILDINGS

26.6%

15.8%

13.2%

10.0%

6.3%

4.8%

4.6%2.6%2.5%

13.5%

33%

2%OF NEW HOME-BUYERSWORK DIRECTLY WITH

AN ARCHITECTTO DESIGN THEIR HOME

LOST OPPORTU

NITY



CONSTRUCTIONSECTOR

LIVING ROOM123456

241 SF224 SF300 SF345 SF306 SF144 SF

(10.7%)(8.80%)(9.50%)(9.40%)(7.60%)(0.00%)

2 3 4 5 6

2 3 4 5 6

ENTRY FOYER123456

42 SF72 SF103 SF110 SF145 SF42 SF

(1.90%)(2.80%)(3.30%)(3.00%)(3.60%)(0.00%)

1 2 3 4 5 6

MASTER BED123456

244 SF225 SF285 SF444 SF395 SF70 SF

(10.8%)(8.80%)(9.10%)(12.1%)(9.80%)(0.00%)

1 2 3 4 5 6

MASTER BATH123456

132 SF144 SF180 SF170 SF238 SF66 SF

(5.90%)(5.60%)(5.70%)(4.60%)(5.90%)(0.00%)

KITCHEN123456

103 SF170 SF187 SF240 SF432 SF103 SF

(4.60%)(6.70%)(5.90%)(6.50%)(10.7%)(0.00%)

1 2 3 4 5 6


$300,000 - $349,999

$350,000 - $399,999

$400,000 - $449,999

$450,000 - $499,999

$150,000 - $199,999

$200,000 - $249,999

$250,000 - $299,999

$300,000 - $349,999

$350,000 - $399,999

$400,000 - $449,999

$450,000 - $499,999

$150,000 - $199,999

$200,000 - $249,999

$250,000 - $299,999

$300,000 - $349,999

$350,000 - $399,999

$400,000 - $449,999

$450,000 - $499,999

$150,000 - $199,999

$200,000 - $249,999

$250,000 - $299,999


Five new homes were constructed during this period,all of which increased in both area and value whencompared to those of the previous period. These trends align with those of national averages, affirming Parkview Acres as an appropriate site selection.

Seventeen new homes were constructed during this period, all of which increased in both area and value when compared to those of the previous period. These trends align with those of national averages, affirming Parkview Acres as an appropriate site selection.

Parkview Acres in Minster, Ohio has experiencedconsistent growth since it’s inception as a development in 1989. The size of the homes in the accompanying diagrams are scaled proportionally to their actual square footage, and the key to the left represents the total value of each home, which includes property.

1

1

MASTER BEDROOM

The master bedroom is perhapsthe most significant waste of space in these households. The size of the master bedroom rises dramatically as the size of the home increases, and is not a reflection of the space required for the essential activities which take place there. As a result, the master bedroom of the home of today often comprises enough wasted space to place several additional bedrooms within it.

minimum bedroom size x 4

0’ 4’ 8’ 16’

0’ 4’ 8’ 16’

0’ 4’ 8’ 16’

0’ 4’ 8’ 16’

EVALUATED PROPOSED

–1115 SF

–680 SF

Open to below


1815 SF 1135 SFN

3675 SF 2560 SF

3 4

8

11

9

147

15

1 2 5 6

13

12

16

E

S

W

N

DOWN

DO

WN

DO

WN

UP DOWN

UP

DETAILEDWALL

SECTIONDOWN

10

1

2

5

6

3 4

9

7

10

8EW

N

S

DOWN

DETAILEDWALL

SECTION

N

0’ 4’ 8’ 16’

N

0’ 4’ 8’ 16’

N0’ 4’ 8’ 16’

0’ 4’ 8’ 16’

The following design puts to practice the ideas and insights discovered under the previous research and analysis. By facilitating the creation of a more ethical home environment for a family of six who were unable to build the “original” house design because of its excessive size, this thesis demonstrates that the American home can undergo a reducation in scale without compromising aesthetics or function, all the while creating a win-win-win scenario for client, architect, and developer.


Total square footage of building stock 183,800 SF

Average annual neighborhood energy costs $145,670



Adjusted annual neighborhood energy costs $121,900

Difference of adjusted vs. Actual $23,770






$1,730,196

=( )Case Study Expenditures

- Minimum Expenditures ( # of years ) # of Years ( 1.03 )PROJECTED ENERGY SAVINGS

$3,100,319

CHIMNEY

CHIMNEY

MECHANICAL EQUIP.

SITE PLAN NTSN

LOT PLAN NTSN

53% REDUCTION

20 BUILT HOUSES ON SITEA REDUCTION GREATER THAN THE FIRST

BUILT IN1989

BUILT IN1989

BUILT IN1989

BUILT IN1989

BUILT IN1989

BUILT IN1989

BUILT IN1989

BUILT IN1990

BUILT IN1990

BUILT IN1990

BUILT IN1990

BUILT IN1991

BUILT IN1991

BUILT IN1991

BUILT IN1991

BUILT IN1989

BUILT IN1989

BUILT IN1990

BUILT IN1991

BUILT IN1992

SITE NEIGHBORHOOD?HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO THE EXISTING

# of houses in site neighborhood 61

Years built

Total square footage of building stock

1989 - PRESENT

183,800 SF



Difference of adjusted vs. Actual 61,280 SF

30%

REDUCTION

37%

REDUCTION

123456789

10


123456789

10111213141516

Her closetHis closetHobby roomLiving roomKitchenKeeping roomMasterbedroomMaster bathroomStudyDining roomEntry foyerStairPowder roomMud roomLaundry roomGarage



Evaluating the inefficiences of the American single-family home.

We are entering an epical period of change in this world. We’re

going to have to downscale, rescale, and resize virtually everything

we do in this country, and we can’t start soon enough to do it.

3/8” = 1’ 0”

ceiling


finished floorgrade

1/2” gypsum board wall liningMoisture barrier

Checkrail

Perforated drain pipe

Crushed gravel

Poured in place concrete footing

Steel reinforcing

Poured in place concrete foundation wall

Earth

Rigid insulation

Backer rod and sealant

1/2” anchor bolt

Crushed gravel10# welded wire fabricConcrete slabMoisture barrierVapor barrier2” x 3” wood strapping @ 24” o.c.Insulation1/2” gypsum board wall lining

Grade sloped away from foundation

FlashingStone veneer2” x 6” treated sill with 1/2” anchor bolt2” x 10” rim joist @ 24” o.c.Weep hole

4” face brick veneer wall

Galvanized metal brick tiesWood baseboard

Vapor barrier5/8” plywood sheathingTongue and groove wood strip flooring2” x 6” double sill plate5/8” plywood subfloor2” x 10” floor joist1/2” gypsum board ceiling lining

Wood window casingShelf angle

2” x 6” wall studs @ 24” o.c.

Pillow insluation

Supply air duct2” x 4” blockingFloor register

Carpet floor finishSillGlazing

Roof line beyond

HeadWood dormer detailing1 1/2” foam baordVapor retarder1/2” gypsum board

2” x 10” raftersAir cavity1/2” plywood roof sheathingReturn air duct15# feltAsphalt shingles

20' - 0"ceiling height

finished floor

ceiling height

finished floor

ceiling height- 1’ - 0”

0' - 0"

11' - 0"

10' - 0"

finished floor- 9’ - 10”

WALL SECTION DETAILINTERIOR VIGNETTES

0’ 4’ 8’ 16’

— James Howard Kunstler

1 & 2 8

4 56

31011

9 15

7

13

16

5

3

6

7

108

9

4

2 1



SF

Technology cannot simply be applied, it must be integrated into the design. This level of efficiency can be achieved without the home having to resemble something out of a science fiction film or a technology experiment.







In conclusion, this thesis was selfish. It was entirely self-

indulgent and rooted in personal interest that was formed

by my own practical experience. This selfishness should

not be perceived in a negative way. It incited an incredible

amount of personal passion towards this thesis topic,

ultimately fostering an exceptional dedication to evaluating

its possibilities over the past three quarters.

I grew up in a family of ten in the site area: Minster, Ohio. My

parents had the opportunity to build our home and naturally

with eight children, the home evolved on the larger end

of the spectrum for a residential dwelling. This nearly six

thousand square feet, seven bedroom, four bathroom home,

or dormitory if you will, was built in 1989, the year I was born.

As the youngest of eight, my oldest sibling is only ten years

older than I. Because of this, the functionality of such a house

was quite limited in its ability to serve our family’s needs for

an extended period of time. In 1995, my siblings and I all

existed under one roof, ranging in age from kindergartener to

a sophomore in high school. By 2005, just ten years later, only

two of us remained under that same roof. Today, none of my

parent’s children use this home as their permanent residence,

and as a result, there is a rare need for the six bedrooms

and two bathrooms upstairs, or the finished basement,

accounting for nearly one-third of the overall square footage

of the home. My parents simply shut the doors, turn off the

utilities and wait for the holidays, when that need is once

again fulfilled. Not only does the house lack functionality

now, as my parents live near retirement in a small portion of

a huge home, but also, I have always questioned the purpose

of this home after their demise and how such a large, tailored

program would fare on the real-estate market in an attempt

for resale. It would be a rare buyer that would find this home

perfectly suitable to their needs and likewise, it is not easily

adaptable to the needs of a different type of family. On

the other hand, it would be a tragedy to demolish such a

construction. Therein lies the conundrum that motivated me

to investigate this topic further.


The experience of growing up in my childhood home in

Ohio has opened my eyes to several fundamental failures

in the composition of the typical single-family home in the

United States. Because of this, I chose to pursue this thesis as

a personal endeavor to evaluate the possibilities of the home

of the future’s ability to account for a variety of present day

design flaws.

As a result of my evaluation, this thesis has affirmed all of

my original thoughts, putting to rest the notion that “bigger

is always better” and demonstrating how a more ethical

single-family home environment in the future can create

an ideal scenario for client, developer, and architect, both

economically and environmentally. Suburbia is not going

away, and it’s time for architects to get involved. It is not “just

a house,” there is a much greater issue at hand.

Thank you.

227

Bibliography

“AIA Sustainability 2030 Toolkit.” The American Institute of Architects. http://info.aia org/toolkit2030/index.html. Alcorn, Michael. “Catalog Castles.” Journal of American Culture 20, no. 3 (Autumn 1997): 1–11.

“American Households Are Getting Smaller – And Headed by Older Adults.” Marketing Charts. Accessed October 18, 2013. http://www. marketingcharts.com/wp/topics/demographics/american- households-are-getting-smaller-and-headed-by-older-adults-24981/.

American Institute of Architects. The Architecture Student’s Handbook of Professional Practice. 14th edition. Wiley, 2008.

“Analysis of the Life Cycle Impacts and Potential for Avoided Impacts Associated with Single-Family Homes.” United States Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/imr/cdm/pdfs/sfhomes.pdf.

Archer, John. Architecture and Suburbia: From English Villa to American Dream House, 1690-2000. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2005.

Bayer, Dr. Charlene, Michael Gamble, Dr. Russell Gentry, and Surabhi Joshi. “AIA Guide to Building Life Cycle Assessment in Practice.” The American Institute of Architects, 2010.

Bell, Bryan. Good Deeds, Good Design: Community Service through Architecture. 1 edition. Princeton Architectural Press, 2003.

Dickinson, Duo. House on a Budget. Newtown, Connecticut: Taunton Press, 2007.

Dictionary, Merriam-Webster. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Massachusetts: Merriam-Webster, Inc., 2006.

Gauer, James, and Catherine Tighe. The New American Dream: Living Well in Small Homes. First Edition. New York, New York: Monacelli Press, 2004.

Goldberger, Paul. Why Architecture Matters. Yale University Press, 2011.

Exposing a Naive Dream

Bibliography

Guy, Bradley, M. E. Rinker, and Eleanor M. Gibeau. “A Guide to Deconstruction.” Deconstruction Institute, January 2003. http://www.deconstructioninstitute.com/files/learn_center/45762865_guidebook.pdf.

Ireton, Kevin. “Is Green Building Too Expensive?” Fine Homebuilding, April 16, 2008. http://www.finehomebuilding.com/how-to/departments/taking-issue/is-the-cost-of-green-building-too-expensive.aspx.

James Howard Kunstler: The Ghastly Tragedy of the Suburbs. TED Talks, 2004. http:// www.ted.com/talks/james_howard_kunstler_dissects_suburbia.html.

Joseph Pine: What Consumers Want. TED Talks, 2004. http://www.ted.com/talks/ joseph_pine_on_what_consumers_want.html.

Mann, Thorbjoern. Building Economics for Architects. John Wiley & Sons, 1992.

McGuigan, Cathleen. “House Proud.” Architectural Record, April 2012. http:// archrecord.construction.com/community/editorial/2012/1204.asp.

“Median and Average Sales Prices of New Homes Sold in United States.” United States Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/construction/nrs/ historical_data/.

Mitton, Maureen, and Courtney Nystuen. Residential Interior Design: A Guide to Planning Spaces. Second Edition. Wiley, 2011.

“National Community Preference Survey.” National Association of Realtors, October 2013. http://www.realtor.org/sites/default/files/reports/2013/2013-community-preference-analysis-slides.pdf.

Nelson, George. Problems of Design. 2nd edition. Whitney Library of Design, 1965.

“New Perspective on Light.” WordPress. Architecture in Transformation, November 20, 2012. http://arch3150.wordpress.com/2012/11/20/new- perspective-on-light/.

228

Bibliography (continued)

Pine, B. Joseph, and James H. Gilmore. “Welcome to the Experience Economy.” Harvard Business Review, July 1998. http://hbr.org/1998/07/welcome- to-the-experience-economy/.

Pivo, Gary. “Promising Economics.” GreenTech. http://www.u.arizona.edu/~gpivo/ULI%20article.pdf.

Rampell, Catherine. “Want a Job? Go to College, and Don’t Major in Architecture.” The New York Times, January 5, 2012. http://economix.blogs. nytimes.com/2012/01/05/want-a-job-go-to-college-and-dont-major- in-architecture/.

Sallette, Marc A. “Design Values.” Urban Land. http://www.wbdg.org/pdfs/urbanland_1105.pdf.

Smith, Lisa. “McMansion: A Closer Look at the Big House Trend.” Investopedia, February 26, 2009. http://www.investopedia.com/articles/pf/07/ mcmansion.asp.

Solomon, Christopher. “Don’t Demolish That Old House; Recycle It.” MSN Real Estate. http://realestate.msn.com/dont-demolish-that-old-house-recycle-it.

Susanka, Sarah. Home by Design: Transforming Your House Into Home. Newtown, Connecticut: Taunton Press, 2004.

Susanka, Sarah. The Not So Big House: A Blueprint for the Way We Really Live. Newtown, CT; [Emeryville, CA]: Taunton Press ; Distributed by Publishers Group West, 1998.

Timberg, Scott. “The Architecture Meltdown.” Salon, February 4, 2012. http://www. salon.com/2012/02/04/the_architecture_meltdown/.

US Census Bureau, M. C. D. “Characteristics of New Housing.” Accessed October 18, 2013. http://www.census.gov/construction/chars/highlights.html.

Wallack, Catherine. “Dream Home: Remodeling American Expectations with Model Houses.” Journal of American Culture 32, no. 4 (December 2009): 332–342.

Bibliography (continued)

Wentling, James. Designing a Place Called Home: Reordering the Suburbs. 1 edition. Springer, 1994.

“Who Cares About the ‘Burbs’?” Blog. OpenCity Projects, October 28, 2013. http:// opencityprojects.com/blog/diversity/who-cares-about-the-burbs/.

Zumthor, Peter. Thinking Architecture. 3rd edition. Basel: Birkhäuser Architecture, 2010.

Bibliography

229

Jodie R. QuinterGraduate Architecture Thesis SCAD | Savannah, Georgia

Thesis chair: Professor Huy NgoFaculty advisor: Professor Daniel BrownTopic consultant: Ben Baumer

© May 2014

exposing a naive dream

Documents

american dream

naive dream iiidedicationto

building life cycle

building sector

green house

thesis chair

thesis abstract

endless support