New House Rules - Comments

Tedd Benson: What Matters

nospam@example.com (Tedd Benson) — Sat, 04 Sep 2010 09:15:15 -0700

Paul,
Thanks for the comment. No doubt we are experiencing a paradigm shift in both homeowner and homebuilder attitude that is likely to make things better, not worse, in the long run. The "Darwinian thinning" is a brutal thing to go through, but when we get to that retrospective perspective, I believe our prospects will somewhat brighter.

Tedd Benson: What Matters

nospam@example.com (Tedd Benson) — Sat, 04 Sep 2010 08:59:12 -0700

Lou,
The problem isn't capitalism; it's what a few capitalists are willing to do to game the system for narrow, personal gain. I agree there's plenty of blame to go around, but I think the weight of responsibility goes to those who mixed the toxic Kool-Aid, not those who drank it. For many less-informed homebuyers, it was hard not to jump at an opportunity that was endorsed as a sound investment by their Realtor and their Banker and all politicians.
I do think there is some good coming out of this as it is unlikely that homes will be misused in this manner for quite a few years. Homes will matter in the future for their fundamental life-quality value, not as a wealth creation vehicle.
It has never made sense to bury oneself in debt for a home; now that lesson is deeply carved in the national psyche.

Paul Freeman: What Matters

nospam@example.com (Paul Freeman) — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 20:38:30 -0700

Tedd, more than 80% of our business this year has been additions. People are adapting their current homes as their needs change rather than cashing in the ATM and "moving on up".

I think this is good, we can't just keep building forever, there is only so much land. If we improve what we have, replace poorly built boxes with sustainable quality homes we'll be growing still, but growing in quality not quantity.

I know you're familiar with Stewart Brand's "How Buildings Learn". In the acknowledgements he quotes an architect telling him "Porches fill in by stages, not all at once, you know." This is how we modify our buildings to fit our needs, I think our industry is undergoing a similar shift. Builders are modifying their services with new vocabulary such as "green", "sustainable", and "not so big".

I suspect new construction will never again be the V8 of the economy, but then neither will be Detroit. That doesn't mean that comfortable transportation is dead and neither is the creation of shelter that brings joy to families and creates the backdrop to their warm memories and snapshots of hearth and home.

Home construction is evolving, not dying. A little economic Darwinian thinning that will be survived by a new breed of both homeowner and builder.

Lou: What Matters

nospam@example.com (Lou) — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 14:15:13 -0700

I agree with much of the "What Matters" post, and I certainly recognize that it will be a long time before the economy can work its way back to a state of robust growth But I also think that some of the critics quoted were a little unfair in their assessment of the American Dream never having been more than a bit of a sham. Even though many homeowners are now under water in their mortgages, many millions of others are getting by just fine. Let's remember that sub-prime mortgages were also called "liar loans", because no documentation was required to back up claimed incomes and assets. There's a lot of blame to go around for the mess we're in, but the borrowers have to carry their fair portion of this. It wasn't all driven by greedy capitalists. Capitalism is full of faults, but it is still the best system in the world. We need to work tirelessly to make it better, but we shouldn't overlook how well we've done with it as a society. This crisis will fade in time, and focusing now on just a couple of years of history is a bad mistake. For example the NYT quote that "Home ownership will never again yield rewards like those enjoyed in the second half of the 20th century, when houses not only provided shelter but also a plump nest egg" is simply not true. In fact, having a mortgage now may be one of the best investments one can make. Let me preface this by emphasizing that I am not advocating that everyone load up on debt right now, but if what we get as a result of the massive stimulus we've seen in the past two years is inflation, then home values will rise while the principal on the mortgage will not. Yes, mortgage rates would also rise, but they'd also decline again after some time, leaving the house price and personal incomes inflated, with the burden of the mortgage decreasing proportionately. Millions of homeowners with mortgages did very well during the inflationary 70's. The key then, as now, and as always, was not to borrow more than one could manage, even with a few years of high interest rates. A moderately sized and well built timber frame sounds just right to me.

NinaRussell33: Home Value Reconsidered

nospam@example.com (NinaRussell33) — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 22:40:24 -0700

Do you recognize that it's high time to get the credit loans, which will realize your dreams.

Paul Freeman: Home Value Reconsidered

nospam@example.com (Paul Freeman) — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 14:30:00 -0700

Well Tedd you did it again, I find your topics and discussion compelling, and can't refrain from commenting. We too have many clients telling us that this is their last house, but it is primarily from couples nearing or entering retirement. Their needs are more modest, and their ambition for maintenance and cleaning greatly reduced. I think people are practicing greater austerity as well, especially as they are moving into retirment and limited income potential. That said, 1500 SF is still a generous amount of living space by world standards and that would appear to be today's acceptable minimum standard for most american couples.

I wonder though, if our appetite for more space is not in some ways a sympton of what some would call the deterioration of the american family. As a rule I think our families are not as close as they were at one time. For example, with both parents working, mealtimes are frequently hastily prepared or bought and may be consumed in different rooms or at best in front of the television. What had become a ritualistic gathering of the family and sharing of their day has practically disappeared for many. The inevitable loss of intimacy probably creates a desire for more physical distance and isolation of family members. There may be less tolerance for one family member's need for quiet time for sleep, study or relaxation. The bigger and better partitioned house would facilitate a growing need for isolation.

It also may be narrow minded to believe that all of us have fond memories of hearth and home (I do, thanks Mum & Dad!). As more and more families suffer the stress and anxiety of divorce and blended families they may not have fond recollection of intimately shared space and look more for privacy and independent entertainment. Certainly a TV, computer, and video game in every bedroom will create a need for acoustic privacy at best, and is so much easier than having to tolerate sharing and playing with a sibling (perhaps this is where our growing sense of entitlement is coming from?).

If austerity forces our families into tighter living spaces and Churchill proves right then this could be a good thing for the american family. On the other hand if we take a more pessimistic view of the "integrity of the home" in these spacious isolated cubicles then Confucious would have us very concerned for the strength of our nation.

This is a great dialog and carries a thread from our last exchange; a deep discussion of home and its relationship to the physcial and mental health of our population. A chicken or the egg type of question. I prefer not to think in black and white and find truth floats somewhere in ambivalence. The size and layout of our homes can play a part in the psyche of the family, but it is really the way we live in them more than the how. Going back to our last conversation, perhaps it has more to do with our awareness of self and family, rather than slipping into the television room with our chinese take-out, let's intentionally plan on living as families. Sharing the preparation and dining time, making time in our schedules for same, and redefining what really is important. Maybe this will increase our desire for family intimacy and decrease our energy devouring need for space? Churchill also said “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else.”

Tedd Benson: Welcome to your Debt

nospam@example.com (Tedd Benson) — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 22:03:07 -0700

Paul,
Thank you! This is an important topic, one that's worthy of national attention and deep, ongoing conversation. What is the essence of our American society? What do we want it to be? Will it be steered by the worst or the best of who we are? Our nation's identity is seen from within from the spectrum of our heroic periods and accomplishments, but it is seen by others in a different way.

For our sake, for the sake of future generations and a better world, we desperately need a better foundation of our own identity. You just did a good job of describing some of the important concepts and words that need to get better play in our national psyche: "the deeper values of moderation, self-respect, and acceptance of our present condition." These are simple things..pretty much what our mothers taught us, but it's so easy to get caught up in the culture of excess.
Thanks for your wise words.
Tedd

Paul Freeman: Welcome to your Debt

nospam@example.com (Paul Freeman) — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 07:02:54 -0700

Technology and easy money have granted greater access to a “better life”. I use quotes because we define a “better life” by the size of our flat screen TV, SUV, and Great Room. Corporations promising instant gratification and bankers handing out easy money would not go there if we weren’t demanding it, lest we start pointing fingers too quickly.

We have lost sight of the benefits of hard work, patience, and self discipline. We have come to feel entitled to home ownership, comfort, and instantly available delicious food. Why not? We’re human; it’s our instinct to strive for shelter and food for ourselves and those we care about. We also know that instinct run riot is self destructive. But it’s not so much a matter of lack of discipline; I think we’re lacking something deeper, a moral compass.

We “should” pay more attention to that little voice we all have that tells us to stop eating, exercise, buy local, recycle, and buy only what we can afford. But its human nature to resist the “should’s”, we need to “want” it. So how do we learn to value what is really better for us as a whole rather than on the surface?

It’s all about education, teaching ourselves and each other the deeper values of moderation, self-respect, and acceptance of our present condition, a little Zen could go a long way. If we learn this lesson maybe we’ll experience fewer unintended consequences such as financial Armageddon, Gulf oil spills, national obesity, overpopulation, loss of the family farm, global warming, and player’s faking egregious fouls by their opponents in the World Cup.

More importantly we’ll find a satisfied happiness within ourselves rather than a temporary high through instant gratification. Like you, I recognize that it might not do much for the bottom line of my little post and beam company. But it will help me and my customers find greater satisfaction in building their modest home, customized to their needs, using sustainable materials, and with a minimal carbon footprint and low life cycle costs.

Thank you for being a compass over the decades in our industry and for your leadership and sharing of what you have learned.

Tedd Benson: Welcome to your Debt

nospam@example.com (Tedd Benson) — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 17:26:43 -0700

Walter,
Like you, I've been reading the whole "Living Rooms" series with interest. Either synchronicity is in action or they're reading my blog. Mostly, it's just good, old fashioned rational thinking...getting back to some basics.
Thanks for thinking of me.
Tedd

walterlott: Welcome to your Debt

nospam@example.com (walterlott) — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 21:23:13 -0700

Tedd,

You should take a look at Allison Arieff's column in the NYTimes.com, in fact the whole "home" series. I'm sure you'll find a lot you agree with.

Walter

Geoff Matthews: Humanity's Worst

nospam@example.com (Geoff Matthews) — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 11:52:44 -0700

Tedd, hello again (you may recall we met in July this year). While I aplaud your comments re need for training, especially coming from a member of your profession, I fear that it is but one albeit important part of what turns out to be a vicious circle. I would suggest that the average home buyer who is about to make the largest capital expenditure in their life knows less about what goes into building a house, let alone a good quality one, than they do about the car they are considering! Both are highly complex systems subject to continueing technology improvements and can be costly to repair. Of course life span expectations are very different but my point is that the public's abiltiy and/or willingness to understand has a direct impact on product manufactureres willingness to improve. As you know, much of what goes into a house is "hidden" behind cosmectics so unless one is on site daily and/or has educated themselve there seems to be little education available to the average person, outside of coffee table books or highly technical manuals I have no answers but I do believe it is incumbent upon your industry at large, if it really wants to be accountable and held to professional standards (this does not include Bensonwood!), to lead the way in educating the public.

Kyle Rearick: Welcome to your Debt

nospam@example.com (Kyle Rearick) — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 11:38:47 -0700

Dear Ted,

Sorry this doesn’t directly deal with this post, though it is a nice one.

I wanted to say that I am very impressed with your new wall systems. I have for a while now been a fan of I-joists for wall assemblies. I had a couple of questions for you that I was hoping you might be willing to address in a future blog post.

Can you please discuss your decision with going with your current passive house wall assembly as opposed to other assemblies? Can you discuss it in terms of costs of wall assembly options for passive house for the North East? I have yet to see someone really talk in-depth about the ins and outs of costs of passive house wall assemblies for northern climates in North America. I think this would be a really important post for many builders and enthusiasts of passive house in the US and Canada.

Specific questions:
Why have you and your team choose to use a 9inch I-joist and then foam and still stud the wall? Is this cheaper than using a 12 inch and 3 inches of foam? Isn’t the additional 2x4 framing adding substantially to labor costs? Or even using a double studded assembly? Is there a building science concern about putting foam on the outside of your wall that is insufficient to move the condensation point outside the wall cavity (I assume the answer is good air tightness).

Thanks so much,

Kyle Rearick

Tedd Benson: The Greenest Home in America?

nospam@example.com (Tedd Benson) — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 17:45:09 -0700

Scott:

The "extreme green" aspect of Unity is no doubt more expensive. Making Net-Zero affordable with initial costs will be difficult.
However, smart and simple energy efficient homes should considered affordable by your calculation now. Our problem is that people still seem to want big as well as energy efficient construction and that gets more difficult to make affordable.
We just built a complete 1100 s.f. home for $150K and I think we could hit your benchmark for total construction if the home was in the 1500 s.f. range.
So, stop insulating and sealing and build home where those issues are taken care of.
Tedd

scott h: The Greenest Home in America?

nospam@example.com (scott h) — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 16:34:31 -0700

Tedd,

I appreciate your commitment to "green" and sustainable building and your pre-fab houses-I think this is the way of the future. But where is the affordability aspect?

I have read about and love your "Unity" houses but I read they range from the high 300's-500's, who can afford that? I understand that volume should help and deleting some of the options can bring them down but still.

I agree with you just because you can does not mean you should, I have seen lots of great "green" projects where the costs outweighs the benefits.

What I want to see is someone design an energy efficient house ranging from 99k-199k, that is where most people can afford to buy. Using technology to make a tight envelope with good insulation and a properly sized mechanical system would go a long way to reduce energy costs. We don't always have to go for all the bells and whistles, the meat is really in the non-exciting aspects.

Thanks for your continued efforts and I hope maybe someday I can afford a "Unity" house until then I guess I will keep insulating and air sealing my house.

Scott

Tedd Benson: Humanity's Worst

nospam@example.com (Tedd Benson) — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 09:57:06 -0700

Those are good points Tim. Thanks. I've become accustomed to the European education, training and licensing programs, which are quite good, as evidenced by my experience with our frequent interns. It's a very good model, but it also requires years of training, not hours. We have a long way to go.