Published by Paula Baker-Laporte under Green Building, Healthy Living

“We shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us”–Winston Churchill.

The creation of a home is by no means a simple act. Thousands of decisions will go into that process, based on cultural values that may be stated or unstated. A home that is constructed to be the largest space for the least amount of money will look, feel and act very differently than one whose driving design force is stated as authenticity, the health of the occupant and concern for our ecology. It costs a little more per square foot to build a home that won’t harm our health; and still more to build one that will deeply nurture us.

No one expects a superbly engineered Mercedes to cost the same as a compact economy car, because we understand the quality factor. But when it comes to assessment of real estate the situation often raises a disproportionate emphasis on initial cost per square foot — a stumbling block for home owners who would choose quality over quantity. Our homes are our greatest investment not just financially but also in terms of health: ours, the environment’s and that of our children’s future potential.

Becoming informed home buyers and occupants are the surest ways to find and maintain a good home. Once upon a time the act of dwelling, with all its associated systems, was considered innate cultural knowledge. It was passed on from generation to generation in homes that were also passed on from generation to generation.

Today, understanding the intricacies that surround owning and maintaining a home is considered to be specialized knowledge. In fact most home energy rating systems presume occupant ignorance. For example: mechanized occupant sensors to turn lights on and off and operate mechanical ventilation systems are awarded a green rating. But mechanical systems inevitably break long before the life of a home is played out; so wouldn’t it be smarter to reward built-in opportunities for occupants to operate their homes wisely over the expected life of the building?

In my high desert climate of New Mexico, where large daily temperature swings are the norm, a combination of shading, cross-ventilation and interior mass walls works well to cool a home without the need for mechanical intervention -– so long as occupants open their windows at night. These same mass walls, if heated by a radiant heat source, help to keep a home comfortably warm in the winter.

We know that reduced need for mechanical intervention means less energy use but it can also mean a healthier living environment. The ideal indoor climate would emulate the feel of the outdoor climate on a fine day. Heating air and blowing it around through ductwork changes the nature of that air. The indoor air is depleted of health-enhancing negative ions, because those ions cling to metal and synthetic ductwork.

Circulating heat via forced air tends to create stratified temperature differentials and makes us uncomfortable. Forced air systems are noisy. Baseboard heaters trap and fry dust and create pollution. Electric baseboard heaters emit high magnetic fields. Radiant floor heating, perhaps one of the more comfortable options, has long response times and creates temperature monotony.

Does it not make ultimate sense to first design a home with the least need for mechanical intervention and then to choose the manner and nature of our intervention wisely?

Paula Baker-Laporte FAIA (paula@econest.com) is an architect and a certified building biology practitioner. She is the principal of Baker-Laporte and Associates and EcoNest Design. She is primary author of “Prescriptions for a Healthy House” and co-author with husband Robert Laporte of “Econest —Creating Sustainable Sanctuaries of Clay, Straw and Timber.”

(Reprinted courtesy of Santa Fe Real Estate Guide.)