For millennia people have built homes for
themselves out of the materials and resources at
hand. It is only in the past 100 or so years that we
have lost the knowledge and ability to build
beautiful, climate-appropriate buildings for
ourselves at little or no cost. The relationship
between home and owner was once a personal one; home
was a reflection of cultural heritage, values, and a
unique expression of self. The end of World War II
put an end to this and marked the beginning of the
housing industry as soldiers returned home and
families looked to the suburban monoculture to
fulfill the "American Dream."
Necessarily, housing and construction
were standardized and Americans were removed from the
intimacy of designing and building their own homes.
Since then, homeownership has devolved from an
intimate relationship between family, home and the
environment, to acquiring 30 years of debt to pay for
a home that is often empty because one must work all
day just to afford it. And these are the lucky few!
Only 31% of California families can afford a
median-priced single family home. In the San
Francisco Bay Area - ground zero for California's
hi-tech economy - the figure is 84%!
On the whole, homeownership rates have
been increasing across the nation, yet the disparity
between those with ownership opportunities and those
without grows larger. Local, state, and federal
government provides assistance to low-income
populations in the form of development subsidies,
rent-control programs and other low-income housing
programs. Some of these programs have been miserable
failures - as we’ve seen with public housing
until recently - and some have had remarkable
success. Yet, little of what is accomplished involves
restoring the dignity, pride, and traditions of
families and individuals in need.
A more intelligent and eco-logical
solution to affordable housing involves a systems
approach to solving multiple housing and
environmental problems. For example, we know the
following:
- There is an affordable
housing shortage;
- Families are economically
stressed by the increasing cost of housing;
- We are supporting logging,
mining, trans-national financial institutions
and the petro-chemical industry when we
purchase and/or build a conventional
stick-frame home;
- Forty percent of landfill
waste is attributed to construction;
- The housing industry is
dependent on cement - an industrial product
with high embodied energy that contributes up
to 10% of greenhouse gasses to the biosphere;
- Scientists have identified
1500 bacterial and chemical air pollutants
given off by paints, carpets, and
manufactured products; and
- Our forests continue to be
clear-cut; today only 4% of ancient forests
remain in the U.S.
Ecologically sustainable, economically
viable and socially just housing will address these
issues by marrying time-proven building technologies
with contemporary design and construction to achieve
affordability and to return sacredness to home.
Once upon a time, in a world not long
ago, all housing was affordable - if not free - and
buildings were inherently sustainable. Today, over
1/3 of the world’s population (count em: that's
2 billion people!) still lives in earthen homes.
Considered sub-standard by resource-consumptive
Western culture, native people and people of
developing nations have yet to abandon sustainable,
indigenous building techniques and materials. This is
not to say that they would choose their simple,
traditional structures over a modern home; however,
it is a good reminder that most of the world has
lived for most of history in buildings built from
natural materials using simple human- or
animal-powered technologies. These buildings are
inherently sustainable, utilizing local,
climate-appropriate materials, and labor. Throughout
history, these buildings have ranged from modest huts
in Africa to Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello, to
the contemporary and elegant rammed earth and straw
bale homes of North America and beyond.
Incorporating locally available
resources like rock, soil, straw, reclaimed or
recycled materials and on-site timber resources into
residential construction can lend itself to housing
that is more affordable because transportation,
processing, packaging, and profit are reduced. By
participating in design and construction and by using
sweat equity, expenses can be further reduced. By
refusing to participate in consumer culture and
focusing on simple living, many people find that
housing size can be reduced - sometimes dramatically
- furthering goals of affordability. Eco-designer and
architect David Arkin says that the first step in
building an environmentally responsible (and
affordable) home is to build one smaller than your
parent’s. Smaller homes are more intimate and
require less “stuff” to fill empty space.
The smaller home nourishes affordable, eco-local
living.
Natural and locally occurring materials
can create beautiful, affordable, non-toxic homes.
Cob construction, owner-built straw bale and rammed
earth, and super-adobe (sandbag construction) are
among the more popular materials and techniques that
are pointing the way toward more sustainable and
affordable housing. Building code officials are
slowly catching up to the growing interest in this
type of construction, and lending institutions -
notably Fannie Mae - are supporting green building
through resource-efficient and environmental housing
programs. In California, cob, straw bale, rammed
earth and light straw-clay homes are permitted.
Regulations can no longer be blamed as an
impenetrable barrier to affordable, natural living.
Rather, we must recondition ourselves to value an
affordable, healthy and beautiful home instead of the
4000-square-foot toxic starter-mansion and half a
lifetime of debt.
Alison Pernell thinks
everyone should have the opportunity to empower
themselves by building their own natural home. She
lives in Sacramento and works for the Local
Government Commission, promoting resource-efficient,
livable communities.
