Sat, 18 Apr 2026 10:53:06 +0100 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/ Lussumo Vanilla 1.0.3 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=283&Focus=3160#Comment_3160 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=283&Focus=3160#Comment_3160 Sun, 13 May 2007 16:33:30 +0100 GBP-Keith
large - perhaps over-large houses being called green buildings sticks in the throat a little. What do others think? Should a home have a maximum floor area to rightly call itself eco. Should the Code for Sustainable Homes (and other standards) address this issue?

http://www.mistral-pr.co.uk/library/ashtonclose.htm]]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=283&Focus=3161#Comment_3161 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=283&Focus=3161#Comment_3161 Sun, 13 May 2007 16:34:29 +0100 GBP-Keith
http://www.newbuilder.co.uk/news/newsFullStory.asp?ID=1931]]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=283&Focus=3164#Comment_3164 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=283&Focus=3164#Comment_3164 Sun, 13 May 2007 18:19:38 +0100 ecoworrier
For a home to be sustainable there should be a maximum floor area - number of people in the household ratio.
As one of the major problems with the lack of housing at the moment is due to the dramatic rise in households since the end of the first world war (single person occupancy a main culprit) , if we are to have sustainable housing this factor cannot be ignored.]]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=283&Focus=3166#Comment_3166 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=283&Focus=3166#Comment_3166 Sun, 13 May 2007 19:48:25 +0100 Chris Wardle https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=283&Focus=3185#Comment_3185 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=283&Focus=3185#Comment_3185 Mon, 14 May 2007 12:58:09 +0100 Guest
Someone help me out with the physics here.

"it will become the most energy efficient, cost-effective 'green' design in the UK."

Ah, I get it, it's a joke.]]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=283&Focus=3189#Comment_3189 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=283&Focus=3189#Comment_3189 Mon, 14 May 2007 14:20:56 +0100 LizM https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=283&Focus=3192#Comment_3192 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=283&Focus=3192#Comment_3192 Mon, 14 May 2007 15:18:24 +0100 Ads
Many (most?) "3 bedroom" houses are more like 2 bedroom houses with a small additional room which may be "ideal for use as an office". Inevitably, therefore, people buy houses that are theoretically bigger than they need, but actually meet their requirements.]]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=283&Focus=3195#Comment_3195 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=283&Focus=3195#Comment_3195 Mon, 14 May 2007 16:29:41 +0100 Guest What interests me is where do people building interesting houses like this get buildings insurance?]]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=283&Focus=3204#Comment_3204 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=283&Focus=3204#Comment_3204 Mon, 14 May 2007 18:11:42 +0100 Guest
For a more stringent definition of an 'eco-home' we need to move away from performance based targets to impact based assessments.

My view would be that new homes should have a design allowance of CO2, e.g. ? Kg per person. this would mean that a large home has to be more efficient (performance) than a small home; the council deciding on the total allowance and also rate-able value (linking the two, the latter being almost invevitable as it is an easy tax to justify). There could be some tweaking with upper limits; but fundamentaly the principle should be equality. If somebody wants a larger home then theuy can pay to reduce its impact...

This should also include the impact of the building itself - The average UK home is responsible for 50 tonnes of CO2 in its construction; So we have the situation now where Bedzed type constructions (700Kg Co2/m2 construction cost) will be favoured over straw bale homes (carbon storage walls!).

So, if you want a mansion build it out of straw bales and fill the estate with biomass and wind turbines.]]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=283&Focus=3410#Comment_3410 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=283&Focus=3410#Comment_3410 Wed, 23 May 2007 17:49:14 +0100 mybarnconversion Posted By: ecoworrier
For a home to be sustainable there should be a maximum floor area - number of people in the household ratio.


What happens when someone is born or dies ... do the residents extend or move?]]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=283&Focus=3414#Comment_3414 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=283&Focus=3414#Comment_3414 Wed, 23 May 2007 18:26:05 +0100 ecoworrier ]]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=283&Focus=3553#Comment_3553 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=283&Focus=3553#Comment_3553 Thu, 31 May 2007 11:08:46 +0100 paul johannsen While we all meander our way towards the concensus of the best way of benchmarking developments sustainably
I think....
All developments should include impact and contribution to area factors not just carbon footprints and areas. After all it is the community of the development area and the various parts played by its occupants aswell as the building and its occupants in the sustainable jigsaw that should take precedence.
If the various skill sets and sustainable services are not in the area it is a bit hard trying to achieve much.

In fact volumes rather than areas and materials and appliances rather then occupants are building performance sensitives.

Permitted development (and even temporary planning) rights should of been the way forward but most authorities are well out of synch.
must resist getting that subject going (again) oops sorry.

I think variety is a human requirement when it comes to prescriptive rules regarding buildings and their performance claims.

This building is not my sort of thing but worthy nevertheless and it does tackle a resource problem.
thamesrenewables.com]]>