We live in Melbourne and had our house placed with large windows to the
north. We have insulation in the ceiling and walls, also had brown ceramic
tiles on most of the floors. In winter the sun shines most of the way across
the room, heating the floor which keeps the room warm for hours after
sunset. (provided there is sunshine). In summer the eaves block most of
the sun, we have trees which cast shadows as well. The next thing is to
make exterior blinds of shade cloth for the in between times ( autumn).
This system works quite well.
Marie









"0tterbot" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
oups.com...
0tterbot wrote:
no. not like that either.

What is your objection to these houses? Three bedrooms, one bathroom,
open plan living/dining/kitchen. Looks modest and functional to me.

so? they're not what i'd pick if i was getting a house built from scratch.
what was your point? that such things exist? i already know that.

Your complaint was that kit builders only offered mcmansions with
rumpus rooms.

I DIDN'T. for the third time, and with different wording yet again in an
effort to get the concept clear - there are not _enough_ modest houses on
offer, comparitively. in the modest-house range, there is _very little_
choice compared to the mcmansion-like market (in particular). this is
simply a _fact_. you can keep supplying plans for 2-3 bedroom kit houses
until the cows come home, but they are well outnumbered, by my
calculations, by the ostentatious-****** houses, and even by the
granny-flat models. where they do exist, there is the further problem that
most of them (regardless of size) don't offer as standard things which
should be standard in 2006.

Actually I know plenty about these things, but you were talking about
kit homes, which generally means light, framed construction.

sigh. think about why a person would be researching kit homes. it's either
because a: they're a kit home freak & they're amassing a collection, or b:
because they are inclining towards buying property with no house already
in place. in the latter case (much more common ime) such a person (for
example, me) has to think about, and research, their options. ONE option
of several is to buy a kit home. i did not state i was keen on getting a
kit home in & of itself. i merely remarked that i had been researching
them for reasons now irrelevent (i.e. the property we bought has houses
already - so the kit thing became a non-issue overnight). therefore, at
that time, i had to consider _everything_ from living in a caravan, to
buying a kit home, to buying a big shed, several converted containers,
building a house from scratch ourselves (while living in shed/caravan/what
have you) and so on. the kit idea was one of many, but it was also one
where i could look at LOTS of different stuff being offered.

Strawbale is much hyped, but the economic benefits are questionable:
(snip)
Stone masonry has it own problems, as do your other suggestions.

everything has problems. nothing is perfect. everything is done on
balance. one has to decide what's best for the particular situation.

you're not, of course, claiming that _ceramic_ tile is helpful in terms
of
saving energy, are you.

The issue wasn't just energy. You said environmentally sound.
To me that means eliminating outgass materials like laminex
and synthetic carpets. Carpets are particularly nasty for
people with allergies, even wool carpets. Alternatives include
oiled timber, ceramic tile and oiled concrete. Oiled concrete
is cheap but not very attractive (I know, because that is what
we have, pending the money to install timber). The other options
all cost more than cheap carpet.

ceramic tile for living areas is an abysmal idea from every imaginable
angle & like you, i KNOW the hard way & cannot imagine anyone suggesting
it tbh. laminex & synthetic carpets are irrelevent. other flooring types
include slate, earth, seagrass and similar, and so on. and again,
nothing's perfect & everything has it's problems, but that's no reason to
suggest ceramic tile, quite frankly.

I can't imagine that builders are going to start installing 2nd
hand timber windows. The cost of reconditioning and installation
would be prohibitive. Of course, if you are owner building this
is an option, but then you are comparing apples with watermelons.

i'm not. i'm talking about my own situation, if you would stop & read what
is there. i have every intention of installing 2nd hand timber windows in
the house i have. making blithe statements about this & that may be
pertinent to _you_, but since you've evidently misunderstood not only what
i originally said but also why i said it, i don't think there's any need
to lecture anyone on what is prohibitively expensive. the circumstance is
totally different.

I realise this, I was just giving examples. My point was simply that
these things cost money. Making your house more environmentally
friendly increases the sticker price of the house. In some cases
this may be offset by long term savings elsewhere.

no doubt, but i assure you i'm doing a makeover on this house that's as
cheap as chips, so frankly, i'm not wrong. you are not considering all the
possibilities, but i am. shrug so i say, and i know, that making one's
house more environmentally friendly is NOT more expensive. rather, less.

a similar, yet different, issue to making horrendous kit homes more
environmentally friendly and for a better price, but there you have it.
what you lose on the swings you save on the roundabouts, as we all know.
if 90% of kit home manufacturers don't want to rethink what they are
doing, i can't do anything about that. but they will rethink eventually,
because "cost" can be many things, & anyway, they'll have to.

(snip)
No doubt there is a lot more that can be done, but
it is happening.

quite frankly, it's going to have to happen a whole lot faster, as this is
an explosive issue. everything has changed. you are thinking about the
status quo of a year ago (it seems) but you're going to have to think
ahead.

Try not to be obnoxious.

under the circumstances, it's somewhat of a struggle. it is not
unreasonable to be frustrated when someone won't just read what you said
for what it is.

I am studying building design and
expect to make a career change in the next year or two. I
have taken an active interest in alternative house construction
for decades. I love this stuff.

i'm really not getting the impression that you are understanding what i am
saying. somehting for you to take on board for your future career,
perhaps.

I suspect that you didn't find a plan to suit you,

i didn't, although i may have found one eventually had it been needed
after all, or (more to the point) i would have eventually had this segment
of the kit market been bigger, don't you think? if i get to choose a house
from scratch, i'm going to want things which i'm happy without in a house
which already exists. i'm sure that makes sense. if i get to pick my
layout, it's going to have to be a great layout for us. if i don't get to
pick after all, big deal - i'll live.

and you
are making the assumption that there is a huge hidden
market consisting of people with exactly the same wants.

don't know where you got that from. i was bitching from my own perspective
only. i suspect (but don't assume) there's an unfulfilled market of some
kind, for modest & more responsible & less ugly kits that isn't being
broadly fulfilled atm - those people make other arrangements that don't
involve unimaginative kit manufacturers, don't they, just like i would
have.

I am not convinced. You say that the kit homes only sell
mcmansions, so I show you some counter examples. You
say my examples are too small, so I show you something
between the two extremes. Then you start talking about
strawbale and earth-sheltered housing.

i hope you understand now that you missed the initial point. land with no
house = looking at all possibilities in order to supply a suitable house
at a suitable price. i was looking for a house or what to do about a
house, not for a kit in particular.

I think you just
made an off-the-cuff statement and I read too much into it.

do you think so?

There is more to it than that.

and yet, in many ways, there's less to it than that. since kits come in
variable standards, it's my opinion that the initial standard should be
lifted (and yes, this is a different issue to price/size) in order to
allow for any variations that need to be applied for the site. but there's
a basic standard and range of things if a house is to be solar passive.
the rest is stuff that you cheerfully inform me can all be changed anyway,
which i knew, while allowing that it is hardly the job of the _buyer_ to
be _improving_ the seller's product. the buyer should only be choosing
from options which work better for them personally, and their property and
location. and there you have it!

The eave overhangs need to be
adjusted based on your latitude, for instance. And a house
designed for winter solar gain won't work in tropical areas.
And existing trees and new planting should be considered.
You might have other needs that are in conflict with solar
design principles which need to be considered.