Sustainability, it turns out, means different things to different people. My view is clear: to be sustainable something has to work effectively for as long as possible without creating damage. The news is full of sustainable this and that, yet all seem to be created in test conditions and revolve in a vision of the future.
I read with interest how some scientists have built a zero carbon house that will change the way we live, yet this doesn’t always work in reality and can overlook these critical points:
- Good attractive design is essential
- Cost to the consumer
- Buildings are built by builders in fields, not scientists in labs
When we build a house, the building has to pass a test to see if it is air tight in addition to being adequately insulated. Common practice is to cheat the test by retrospectively filling all the gaps and holes with silicone or foam on the few houses actually tested. I understand why the gaps and holes are there – because when the builders are building in the wind and rain, little details are missed and perhaps the enthusiasm of the builder isn’t as great as the scientists… My concept was to build a house using techniques that by default have to pass the test 100% of the time! We have a truly amazing design and now know how to build them. Our next task was to look at cost, because what’s the point if people can’t afford one! This turned out to be simple and sustainable, use the natural landscape. Why dig up and re-sculpt when the natural form is perfect. We have chosen to use local natural materials and trades to reduce transportation, we recycle practically everything into the build, we generate minimal wastage and we love the new technologies available for heating, glazing and power, all combined benefit the budget both in construction but also in use.
We think the EGG house looks amazing, performs above the expected, is economical and suggest that it should last well in excess of 100 years!.. I think thats sustainable.