RainShine House: A First in the Southeast
Decatur Metro | May 1, 2009 | 2:07 pmJetson Green profiles the RainShine House on Wilton Drive and notes that it has received the coveted LEED Platinum certification, “the first modernist residence in the Southeastern U.S. to achieve such a lofty green certification.”
Also according to Green, the house will be on the Modern Atlanta Home Tour (May 16th & 17th) this year, if you’d like to take a first-hand peak inside. Or just pop over to the Jetson Green article for a few interior pics of Decatur’s newest “green” marvel.
Personally, I like this house by itself (and especially in photos!) but take some issue with its lack of sympathy to its surroundings. But hey, that’s modernism for you.
Oh modern architecture, why do you hate the gable so?
Related Posts:
-
February 5, 2010 601 Third Avenue “Green Home” Wins Renewal a Regional Award (3)
-
July 23, 2009 Green-catur (1)
-
November 18, 2008 Vote for Oakhurst's Clay Chapman in Architectural Digest Competition! (0)
DM, I agree that this house, for all it’s “coolness” and all, really does not fit into the surrounding neighborhood at all. It stands out like a sore thumb, and for as long as it took to build, the poor neighbors are now stuck with this modernist aberration in their 1920’s bungalow neighborhood. It’s not as bad as a “McMansion” because it doesn’t take up every single square inch of the property, but it definitely doesn’t fit in. Don’t know why they couldn’t have just renovated the existing house that was originally on the property. How green is it to completely tear down and discard a perfectly good house?
Awesome house. Green with envy over here.
Renovations produce waste. A lot of it. Every home renovation is accompanied by one or more dumpsters. And to make the kinds of massive renovations to a 1920s era house that would make it comparable (in terms of conservation) to this house would require very extensive renovations.
In other words, stuff was going to be thrown away whether these owners renovated or demolished and built a new house. The choice they made — bulldoze and create more landfull fodder in the short term while producing a long-term benefit to conservation efforts — does not seem unreasonable. That’s especially so when you consider that extenive renovations usually cost a lot more than starting from scratch.
True, it almost always requires at least one step back in the short term to make steps forward in the long term.
Have to disagree about how it fits in. Then again, I’ve always liked the architectural diversity in Decatur, and think this home makes Wilton even better. I’ve walked by this home a few times and think it fits in beautifully.
The home’s context becomes a lot more clear when you are standing in front of it. The location is relatively unique. I think this lot may also be on a flood zone, which demands certain design/build considerations. The only thing I don’t like about it is that I don’t live in it.
I think we’ve reached the tipping point where ‘green’ [Insert choice word here] is just another marketing term. The same thing happened a couple of years ago with ‘smart growth’ before the economic downturn put the brakes on new development. I agree with the above comments that tearing down an existing house does create a lot of decidedly non-green construction waste.
You guys can disagree all day on whether the Rainshine house is truly “green” or not, but here’s some info as I understand it.
1. The owners lived in one modest, “used”, aka recycled, house for MANY years despite their own personal prosperity.
2. When they finally took the plunge and built this house, they did so with sensitivity toward the plot of land built upon and the materials and methods they employed.
Just looking around town, I think that’s more than many of us have demonstrated in our home buying/building habits.
Plus: its just darn cool.
I think it’s cool. It’s now on my “visitors sightseeing around Decatur” agenda. To me, this isn’t another builder doing a tear down and putting up a McMansion, but rather a dream home for someone. That’s why I like the huge new house on Clarion too.
For a city that prides itself on its tolerance, diversity and progressive nature, I will never understand the lack of tolerance towards architecture. Most of this city has a mixed bag of housing stock. Mixed in with all the “pretty” houses are quite few not-so-pretty houses, post WWII crap, 70s ranch houses, etc. Can’t we all just get along? Houses have useful life spans. Construction methods improve. Technology improves. Quality of materials improve. Energy efficiency improves. There is all kind of innovation going on in the building industry. This city is not Savannah, Charleston, or any other of the truly historic areas of the country. If you want to live in an older house, that’s great, you can do that here. Others want to live in more modern or energy efficient homes, which, incidentally, you can also do here. We have choices. Tolerance is key, same as it is with people. If you prefer homogeny and strict architectural restrictions, please move to a planned community where you and all the others have chosen to buy there knowing of the restrictions before purchase. Others of us do not want appearance restrictions forcefully applied to them after they have already purchased their property and without their consent. Also: “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”, “don’t judge a book by its cover”, “opinions are like a$$holes, we all have them” and all that jazz. Please be tolerant of your neighbors and their building taste, just as you would their sexuality, race, color or creed. Not only do I find it offensive, but so do many other of your neighbors.
This house will be on tour from 1 to 6 this afternoon as part of the Decatur Cool City Coalition (DC3): http://www.decaturga.com/cgs_citysvcs_ced_events_greenfest.aspx. Unlike the Modern Atlanta tour, today’s tour (an offshoot of the Decatur Green Fest) is free.
I agree with John Doe.
We can be a little snobby in our own way here in Decatur, IMO.
How about this for our slogan: “Decatur: The city where everybody has an opinion on everything and is compelled to express it all the time on every issue”?
I live on wilton drive and although the style is different and does not fit with the other houses I enjoy looking at something different every now and then. i can’t wait to tour the house…..i’m just happy people are taking care of their properties and creating curb appeal. I don’t care what style you choose if you at least respect the neighbors and keep your property in good shape come on over and live on my street.
I’ve got no problems with that particular house, but wanted to point out another factor in the “green” equation that rarely gets included – durability. And I don’t just mean structural durability, I mean cultural/aesthetic durability.
The craftsman/foursquare homes that are prevelant throughout Decatur are approaching 100 years of age. They have arrived at, or are approaching, the threshold of “timeless”. As such their expected useful life is hugely “green”.
This particular house may or may not achieve a similarly long useful life. We don’t know. But Modernism doesn’t have a great track record for aesthetic durability so far.
In other words, green isn’t just about materials or efficiency, it should also include longevity.
We toured the house today on the DC3 tour. While recognizing all the misgivings voiced above, all I can say is the house is “way cool”! I love the 2500+ gallon rainwater filtration and collection system and the geothermal cooling/heating. The natural lighting of the house is inspiring.
Decatur Metro, I would point out that in this case the inverted roof helps facilitate the rain water collection that fills the basement tanks. It’s not just a feature designed to show that their house is cooler than yours.
Why is it so important to fit in? One of the things I like most about Decatur is the quantity and quality of the individuals and institutions that “don’t fit in”. Can we not embrace that distinction in architecture, too?
Furthermore, about all I expect from my neighbors is that they keep their home and yard relatively clean and that we have respectful relations… about the only architectural considerations of theirs that I should have a say in is drainage that affects me and roof height, and surely that is already covered in Decatur’s building codes…
I’m looking forward to seeing it on the Modern Home tour in more detail, as I missed last weekend’s open house.
Agreed tree hugger. I asked the same thing about the green home in Oakhurst that got all that press.
Like so many things in the modern world, for all the talk of being “green”, we find it difficult to ebb our consumerist tendencies. Instead of we just buy “green” things and ignore all basic underlying environmental problems with discarding stuff that’s still functioning.
And I’m not up on an ivory tower here. I’m one of those sinners too.
Who said they discarded the old house? They may have salvaged most of it.
Frankly, I’d prefer something like this next to our 1920s bungalow to a 60s/70s-era ranch or split-level, but that’s just me. Thankfully, that’s not an issue on our street.
Similar story with the other house on the tour (on Ponce de Leon Place): former home went to the landfill.
Why “fit in”?
Just because you see Dumpsters doesn’t mean the stuff is being thrown away. Construction and demolition (C&D) debris recycling is a lucrative revenue stream for many waste handlers (and they’re desperate for any material they can get their hands on with so little construction going on). And I know for a fact that if these folks got Platinum LEED certification, they recycled at least 50% and possibly as much as 75% of their construction waste.
DEM: Tearing down an entire house and tearing down half a house produces the same amount of waste?
lump: Glad to hear it! Too bad no one wants to buy recycling materials right now…but we’ve had that discussion before.
No, not what I said. I said that both produce waste, tearing down produces more short term landfill waste, which may be made up for by the long-term benefits of superior conservation of the new, ultra-green house.
That said, lump makes a good point about C&D waste. A lot of it does get recycled.
Gotcha.
Here’s a good article from Preservation mag about embodied energy with this quote…
“The figures are less eye-popping for new residential construction. It takes about 13 years to recoup lost energy, assuming that a new, environmentally efficient home is similarly sized to an older one. But it’s probably not, given the ballooning of the average American house. Double the size of a house, and the time needed to recoup lost energy grows to 28 years.”
Not so bad I guess, though I don’t know what the comparison would be if you just did a renovation of the current structure and weatherized and added solar panels.
I would LOVE to see some stats regarding the “recycling” benefits of all the waste referred to previously here.
What are the benefits? Who is processing all of this stuff?
In other words…who is monitoring the recycling companies?
Left Wing: It’s a complicated question, too complicated to be answered here, but there are a range of organizations that oversee the handling of C&D material (the National Demolition Association springs to mind: http://www.demolitionassociation.com).
In the case of recycling material for LEED certification (a certain amount of points is awarded for recycling 50%, more points for 75% or more), the recycled material is documented and submitted to the U.S. Green Building Council.
As for what is done with all of this material, it’s like asking what is done with recycled paper or plastic. It’s a lot of different stuff. Aggregates often get broken up and reused in paving, concrete, roof tiles, etc. Wood can be chipped and turned into pressboard, or pulped. Metal scrap goes through the usual channels. On and on. There are even some organizations that facilitate the collection of excess or remaindered construction material (extra lumber, windows produced at the wrong size, etc.) and provides it to charitable organizations or other projects that can make use of it.
And DM is correct that a lot of these markets are currently pretty weak. But there is still motivation for waste companies to keep this material out of landfills, as it takes up valuable space.
Hold on there, Paddy. For something to become a “marketing term” with any value whatsoever, it must first have proven to provide value outside of marketing.
Neither “green” nor “smart growth” arose out of nowhere. They were ideologies that gained traction on their own and proved themselves to the point that people were willing to pay for them. That’s marketability.
Does “construction” waste include “demolition” waste?
John, there’s no dispute that the folks in that house are making a fairly bold architectural and environmental statement and bold statements generate opinions and debate. Are you suggesting that having a discussion in response — especially one as civil and substantive as the one going on here (where some, maybe even the majority, are in support) — constitutes “intolerance”?
Everyone likes or sees merit in different things. Personally, I believe in being tolerant of people’s right to hold an opinion and to discuss that opinion with others.
Let me clarify my intolerant position a bit.
For a new construction home, the RainShine house is pretty sympathetic to its surroundings. At first I questioned its massing, but then realized that some of the older homes with second floor additions around it also have a similar form. Also, its helped by the fact that its on a lot next to open space, so it can do what modern architecture loves best, blend into the landscape (if not the neighborhood). Materials: I could give a flip…cover it in Skittles if you want.
My real issue is the roof line. Like all modern architecture, it declares its independence from the past with an inverted roof and refuses to fit in. That’s why any picture you’ll ever see of this house will block or omit the rest of the neighborhood. Its done intentionally.
Though technology, materials and construction may improve, practical design has not. The gabled roof has been removed for no other reason than to make a statement. How do we know that? Because flat (and I assume inverted roofs) inevitably don’t work. They leak. Regardless, modernist architects threw the gable out because it represented the old and turned to the much less efficient flat or inverted roof.
Today, green and modernism have created an odd partnership. Inefficient roof lines grace many an ecofriendly home. But like any modern or post-modern home, these particular structures sit apart from the neighborhood. This is pretty undeniable. But does an eco-conscious home need to look so out of place?
Make no mistake. Modernists and post-modernists made these changes to houses intentionally so they didn’t fit in, so its not like I started this conversation. They did.
There is a definite line neighborhoods walk in terms of diversity and similarity that makes them truly beautiful. Neither extreme works. But no one has solved that equation yet, so instead I’d say the best way to work it out is through discussion. To exclaim any discussion of style and form is “intolerant” to me is intolerant in itself. Through this discussion already, I’ve learned things about the building that I never would have known without it. Runswithdogs comments for instance. Does that influence my opinion? Certainly.
Without civil discourse we drift to the extremes.
Good point, E. And nice opportunity for me to give a plug to my friend Steve Mouzon, who was featured this week in a Wall St. Journal green home piece and is one of the leading voices in the “traditional green” movement.
You may already be familiar but, if not, check out http://www.originalgreen.org
Related to E’s comment (and Scott’s), here’s a link to an opinion piece in the NYT in early April: This Old Wasteful House By Richard Moe, April 6, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/06/opinion/06moe.html
I have to disagree with your assessment of Modernism’s “track record”. Both Modernism and American Craftsman styles of architecture have been around for over a hundred years. In fact both styles are direct results of Frank Lloyd Wright’s influence!
Both styles have gone in and out of vogue over time but both are equally “timeless”… unless by “aesthetic durability” you mean your personal taste.
Very cool. Thanks for the info Carl!
Interesting clarification/explanation. I like what you said about “Modernists and post-modernists made these changes to houses intentionally so they didn’t fit in…”
Aesthetically (color palette), this house may be as conspicuous as a Gator fan hanging around anywhere in Athens on any given autumn Saturday, but it hopefully won’t incite too many neighborhood jeers.
Yes.
Not to be glib, but what’s wrong with a traditional gutter system?
Again, I’m not arguing for uniformity by any means, just a middle-ground. We all have our own interpretations of that.
Personally, I just don’t think many elements of modernism deserve the tolerance we often give it. As I’ve said, this house does a lot of things right (small front stoop, good setback, “corner” lot), but that roof line irks me.