Comments on: Why a New Standard for Passive House?

By: Bill LaBine

Bill LaBine — Sun, 31 Jul 2016 01:04:15 +0000

I’m sure this discussion will
I’m sure this discussion will continue for, well, as long as the two standards exist. My first general points have to be that 1) the PHIUS standard has as many flaws as the German, and 2) having two standards with the same name adds a whole new level of confusion to the primary goal of getting the N American Public to understand that much more comfortable, efficient, healthy… homes are possible and affordable.
Let me digress. As a Building Science Nerd of many years, I’ve come to believe that the term “Energy efficient single family home” is an oxymoron. In that same line of thought, I find it very telling that the first European PH was a four family building, while the first N American PH was a single family home.
As long as the American Dream remains a single family home, especially in extreme climates, not only will the PHI standard be prohibitively expensive to meet, but homes will continue to be a growing contribution to climate change and rapid fossil fuel depletion.
If we are going to learn to live sustainably, we need a paradigm shift in the way we think of “homes” rather than “making the program fit the reality of North American buildings”. Thankfully, many young people are embracing urban living and indeed even the PHIUS folks are now focusing lots of attention on multi-family projects.
I hope all the N Americans reading this discussion will pause a moment and consider how your bias towards single family homes affects your view of the broader PH discussion. And then note that the large majority of folks promoting the PHIUS standard are N Americans. Perhaps it’s not only time to embrace the Passive House Approach, but to reconsider the single family home as the heart of the American Dream.

By: Kris

Kris — Fri, 29 Jul 2016 00:21:26 +0000

Glad to know I’m not the only
Glad to know I’m not the only building science nerd. I definitely missed my calling.

To your point, I understand where you’re coming from but as we all know location drives the cost of real estate. Gut rehabs happen but the value of the land must make up a disproportionate % of the value of the property as a whole. Ex: 1920’s 2Bdrm dumpy bungalow in LA selling for $700k. Also with upwards of 20% of housing located inside a HOA controlled neighborhood I don’t see how the gut rehab is going to occur on a substantial scale.

my 2 cents

By: John Nicholas

John Nicholas — Thu, 28 Jul 2016 02:31:42 +0000

Not this year. This is my
Not this year. This is my off year for conferences. Perhaps next year. RESNET will almost be required with the changes in QA. ACI and/or Passive House would be great.

By: Allison Bailes

Allison Bailes — Wed, 27 Jul 2016 19:31:07 +0000

David, gut-rehabs every 50
David, gut-rehabs every 50 years would be great. I don't see that happening, though. But you just reminded me of Stewart Brand's wonderful book, How Buildings Learn. He describes the evolution of buildings as they age and talks about a lot of factors that affect what happens to them, including the insane way real estate values trump many other factors.

By: Allison Bailes

Allison Bailes — Wed, 27 Jul 2016 19:21:04 +0000

RJ, come to the Affordable
RJ, come to the Affordable Comfort (ACI) conference sometime and you'll find plenty of building scientists who are immersed in the world of existing buildings. Good suggestion about illustrating how passive house works in existing homes. I'll do that sometime before the end of this year.

By: Allison Bailes

Allison Bailes — Wed, 27 Jul 2016 19:16:46 +0000

Great points, John. I
Great points, John. I especially like your statement: "Mostly I keep learning what the next question is." Will you be at the conference in Philly?

By: RJ

RJ — Wed, 27 Jul 2016 19:00:59 +0000

The PBS TOH guys lost touch
The PBS TOH guys lost touch with reality twenty years ago. Even Norm does not show up very often anymore.

By: David Eakin

David Eakin — Wed, 27 Jul 2016 18:29:14 +0000

RJ – I’ve been watching those
RJ – I’ve been watching those same shows forever, and I continually see sub-optimized solutions foisted on the unknowing public. In most of those cases, the best option would be a gut/rehab because the actual comfort/cost improvements will not be realized by the quick/cheap “Bandaid” fix illustrated. I just saw a new episode of those guys in Mass. (you know who) talking with their HVAC sub who was going to run flex duct around the entire knee wall area in the third floor to provide conditioned air supplies (see Allison’s previous articles on duct work). This is a gut/rehab project and this is the industry best practice? Or recommending extremely costly geo-thermal HVAC systems for a gut/rehab of an 1800’s multi-story house whose walls have 70% windows and only cavity insulation – in New England. Buyer beware on all these shows.

By: David Eakin

David Eakin — Wed, 27 Jul 2016 18:17:07 +0000

I am a building science nerd
I am a building science nerd – I admit it. I am in the minority when it comes to home buyers. There are 2 huge issues facing any advanced building standard or program – existing building stock and the perception (for some reason only applying to residential buildings) that residential buildings appreciate in monetary value without needing any continual investment; second – builders have their customers’ best interests in mind. The truth of the matter is that all residential buildings have an engineered life span of about 50 years (with sub-assemblies (like HVAC systems, kitchens, bathrooms, etc.) even less), so every residential building that hits that age should be gut/rehabbed to meet the current building codes, or razed so a new structure can take its place. This will provide all home buyers (who are not building science nerds) with the best possible living conditions – but runs completely contrary to the real estate and mortgage lending communities who are very powerful lobbyists. And home builders are in business to make money just like every other business. If the building codes say “do this”, they will. And if the customer wants a certain – additional – level of technology/attention/complexity/certification, they will do it. At significant additional cost because it is not their normal, optimized, code-compliant method. But increase building codes to match best industry practices and then all the builders will figure out how to make profit margins using new products/methods and all non-nerds who are having houses built will benefit. If these 2 areas are not addressed, then all these programs in this article will remain the boutique programs they are today. [It would be informative to see how many conventional building starts were performed in the past 5 years compared to the building starts for the programs mentioned.]

By: RJ

RJ — Wed, 27 Jul 2016 17:25:02 +0000

I believe the retrofit issue
I believe the retrofit issue is the biggest problem that is usually completely overlooked by the building scientists and trade magazines. Sometimes the HGTV "reality" home shows do a better job at suggesting practical retrofit solutions, especially those that don't require gut jobs that can cost more than new construction. In the same vein, authors describing passive home standards to the public should illustrate the "typical" existing home and the typical costs versus the improved design.