Documenting a personal quest for non-toxic housing.
Wednesday, August 6, 2003Site and Project Update
Finally starting to recover from a very persistent bought of bronchitis and trying to get back up to speed. I've abandoned work on the article Camping from Home which was listed in the Gallery section as a future article. This article was to be about the use of fabric structures such as yurts and, at the more sophisticated level, tension roof systems. The hope of studying this type of architecture was to find a kind of economical permanent housing whose construction could be as 'easy as putting up a tent', thereby overcoming the many logistical problems associated with on-site labor. I've given up this angle of research because it proved to offer no effective cost benefits and an extremely limited range of non-toxic materials.
There appear to be only two available non-toxic 'fabrics' with sufficient durability for use as permanent housing enclosures; canvas double-coated with non-toxic elastomeric paint and Sheerfil, a teflon encapsulated fiberglass fabric commonly used in large tension structures such as the famous Denver airport. Technically, these materials only qualify as 'low-toxic' and of the two only Sheerfill has the long term durability that a permanent home calls for. It has a potentially indefinitely duty life. The former painted canvas only lasts for about 5 years - a big drawback for what represents the most expensive component of any such structure.
Another potential low-toxic material is Tefzel, a highly transparent membrane material related to teflon which has featured as the basis of pillow-dome systems such as the famous pillow dome built at Buckminster Fuller's New Alchemy Institute and, more recently, in the Eden Project Dome in the UK. This material combines an indefinite duty life with high insulation value in pillow-panel form and full spectrum transparency. But no off-the-shelf systems exist for the use of this material and since the space frame makers only serve the corporate giants now there is no place to go for a low cost custom structure.
Altogether, I could find no particular advantages, economically, functionally, or logistically, to the use of these for permanent non-toxic housing. Only one of the many current off-the-shelf fabric housing products (yurts, tent-cabins, tipis, fabric domes, etc.) actually used one of these low-toxic materials and was far too expensive when a necessary wooden flooring system was factored in. The only place where this concept would have a potential advantage is in the use of tension roofs as a shelter system for Ken Isaacs style 'microhousing' structures which, because of their simple unfinished wooden demountable construction, could not effectively provide adequate waterproofing by themselves but which could otherwise provide adequate insulation -at least in a mild climate. But there does not appear to be any great cost advantage to this over such things as steel framed and roofed pavilions since the one type of fabric needs too frequent replacement and the other is just too expensive up-front.
Overall, my housing research seems to be narrowing down to three most-likely technologies for my own use; pueblo style housing made of earthen construction or pumice-crete, Modernist minimalist style pavilion housing using some prefabricated steel or aluminum framing system, and transportable housing based either on adapted or custom-built trailer homes or transportable modules made from ISO shipping containers. Each of these has its own logistics problems which keep them unattainable.
Pueblo style housing is clearly the leader in terms of economy. Using compressed earth block and ferro-cement roofing panels, this is an approach I could afford right out of pocket even with my marginal income. But this only works if the labor is free -and this labor overhead is very high. I estimate that a single person home will require at least a dozen volunteer workers for at least one month. The use of pumice-crete could effectively halve this labor overhead but also about double the cost. At present, obtaining these volunteers seems impossible. If this labor has to be hired, the cost of this housing becomes untenable. A one-person cottage would easily balloon into the half a million dollar range. Like the adage goes; earthen construction is the preferred construction for the idle rich and the idle poor.
Modernist pavilion housing offers the lowest labor overhead approach to non-toxic housing and is generally more economical and practical than conventional stick frame housing, but only when it can take advantage of prefabricated frame structures. At present the most likely prefab frame structure for this would be the clear-span galvanized steel park shelter structures commonly sold for parks, schools, and the like. These would be used for a pavilion style home by the addition of a finished floor slab with radiant heat and utilities, a storefront glazing system creating a window-wall enclosure, added insulation with a suspended ceiling system, and a self-contained bathroom unit. There would be no interior walls other than the bathroom enclosure, just free-standing furnishings. The end result is a home that looks rather like a cross between an Australian ranch house and Phillip Johnson's Glass House. This approach would reduce labor overhead to about four people working for one week but requires heavy lifting equipment and some skilled labor. Cost would be in the area of $25 per square foot but the need for wide roof overhangs to moderate the low thermal performance of window wall systems and the lack of walls to mount shelving and closets calls for a somewhat larger structure area. Based on the available pre-fab park shelter units, I've studied the use of a 40'x 64' shelter housing a 1400sf interior. In a tree-sheltered area a smaller 36'x 52' unit could be employed. This approach seems logistically easier and is aesthetically very appealing but is too expensive -at least for me.
Transportable housing eliminates virtually all logistical problems associated with on-site labor. The condition of the land is less important, the need for volunteers on-site eliminated, and deployment time reduced to a mere day or two. The problem is that there is only one off-the-shelf non-toxic solution -adapted Airstream trailers- and these are impossibly expensive; several thousand dollars per line foot. And the largest of them offers inadequate space for working and may not meet the minimum housing size requirements imposed in many rural communities in the US -assuming trailers aren't banned outright. Custom made trailers derived from the plans for early 20th century travel trailers offers a potentially cheaper alternative but requires fabrication facilities I don't have access to. Adapted ISO shipping containers offer much less cost, easier adaptation, and the flexibility to support expandable buildings of unlimited size. But they suffer from the same problem of lack of facilities for me to do this work myself. I have found places that will adapt these containers to my non-toxic specifications, but they won't do it at a reasonable price and there remains wildly varying opinions on the costs of their transport.
Even though none of these approaches seems to be immediately possible, they remain the three most practical. Clearly, I need help to make any of these happen and we see here three different forms for this help. In the first instance it's purely labor. A dozen people donating labor for a month (or many more in rotation over the same period) and this becomes possible. In the second instance we have something where a mix of labor, professional services, goods, and money would make it happen. And in the last instance we have something where a couple of very skilled helpers with good facilities or a flat-out financial sponsorship would make it happen. Alas, at the moment none of these types of aid seem very likely.
