Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Maines and Mottram are two of the hosts and Kolbert is a regular guest on the "BS & Beer" podcast, which is a building science podcast. https://www.thebsandbeershow.com/
What is the concept? It's related to the concept of Net-Zero houses - energy efficient and environmentally responsible, but it acknowledges that many such houses are overkill. The Pretty Good House retains the goals of being energy efficient and environmentally responsible, but it also aims for simplicity, moderate scale, and affordability too. I like this.
Mind you, what is "affordable" is very much in the eye of the beholder, and these days, no custom house is likely to be considered affordable by the average American. But within this realm, I think the PGH has some good ideas, and as someone who is hoping to do my first (and last) custom build for a retirement cottage in Maine, I found it helpful to read their book - there's a lot of wisdom there. I think the book might be helpful to builders, architects or prospective homeowners.
Last edited by OutdoorLover; 02-04-2024 at 07:43 AM..
The PGH "concept" is not new! In fact, the ideas have been around for decades... but the science has really taken the front seat for the last two decades.
Then, when the individual (regional code) administrators started setting standards the science was involved. Unfortunately, there was no "standard" (like today's IRC); but the concept was there. Each Building Code Administration conformed their codes to meet what was deemed necessary for that particular region.
In my early career, residential building "science" was "better, faster, cheaper". However, as I became more in-tune to what was "minimum standard" and what was "best" for a particular design, particular region, it became quite clear that there will always be debate as to what is "the Pretty Good House".
The "concept" is unfortunately way too multi-faceted. Too many to come to any one conclusion. When I started designing, I found it rather comical when conversing with clients and assembling a "wish list", how that wish list would dwindle when starting to implement for better than "minimal standard", better environmental, better renewable, better...
So, finding that "happy medium" can be over-whelming, under-whelming, and down right frustrating to most that want that special "custom built home". An even more sobering fact- finding those people who can actually perform the tasks needed to build- regardless of it's impact on the wallet, environment, and the economy!
The PGH "concept" is not new! In fact, the ideas have been around for decades... but the science has really taken the front seat for the last two decades.
Then, when the individual (regional code) administrators started setting standards the science was involved. Unfortunately, there was no "standard" (like today's IRC); but the concept was there. Each Building Code Administration conformed their codes to meet what was deemed necessary for that particular region.
In my early career, residential building "science" was "better, faster, cheaper". However, as I became more in-tune to what was "minimum standard" and what was "best" for a particular design, particular region, it became quite clear that there will always be debate as to what is "the Pretty Good House".
The "concept" is unfortunately way too multi-faceted. Too many to come to any one conclusion. When I started designing, I found it rather comical when conversing with clients and assembling a "wish list", how that wish list would dwindle when starting to implement for better than "minimal standard", better environmental, better renewable, better...
So, finding that "happy medium" can be over-whelming, under-whelming, and down right frustrating to most that want that special "custom built home". An even more sobering fact- finding those people who can actually perform the tasks needed to build- regardless of it's impact on the wallet, environment, and the economy!
Yes, you're right. I still have a year or two until I retire and then I hope to build a comfortable, energy efficient, but modest sized 2-bedroom cottage in Maine's midcoast region. Over the past few years, I've been reading about building science and had a little seminar training too. In speaking with prospective builders, I was made aware that although certain construction techniques I'd read about might be advantageous for the building, the people who did the work might not be enthusiastic (and they didn't say it, but I could surmise not knowledgeable either) about executing them well. And so there is the concept of buildability - what knowledge level, skill level and effort level are required to use a given design or technique in building, say wall sections. I am not in the construction business, but I have experience with directing vendor engineers to build enterprise software systems, and I know it's a bad idea to try to get the team to do something they don't like or they're not good at... even if the system would be better if you could achieve it. You have to take into account the people you have on the team and work with what you have. A simpler design, that's executed well, will almost surely be more satisfactory than an ambitious design that's executed poorly.
In many ways, when it comes to pragmatic home construction, I think less is often more, and one needs, not to cut corners, but first to identify the ideal - the great, and then to thoughtfully identify and aim for what is good enough.
Last edited by OutdoorLover; 02-07-2024 at 06:04 AM..
In many ways, when it comes to pragmatic home construction, I think less is often more, and one needs, not to cut corners, but first to identify the ideal - the great, and then to thoughtfully identify and aim for what is good enough.
I found the PGH books a while back and like the ideas. Too bad for Americans (and contractors) that the idea of "pretty good" is not much embraced. It wasn't all that long ago that a "starter" house was that -- a place for a young couple or a family to start out. They were mostly affordable and had basic amenities. As time passed and the budget allowed, more things were added. Now it seems that these homes have to have everything added from the start -- pushing them out of the affordable range.
I "built" two homes. The first one came as modules on a truck. Wall sections were framed in a factory and craned into place on a prepared poured foundation. It was 3 bedrooms, 1 bath, 1 car garage, basic kitchen with a dishwasher. We made improvements over time, little by little. The environmental and efficiency concerns were not much considered back then. It cost $25,000 in 1976 and calculating inflation, that would be $133,867 today.
The second house (1986) was stick-built by a contractor. It had more -- a dining room, 2 baths, 2 car garage, a deck, bigger lot. It cost $79,000 ($219,630 now). Over 25 years we finished the walk-out basement, adding two bedrooms and a 3/4 bath, family room, storage. We replaced the deck, larger. We added oak hardwood floors in place of vinyl. Carpet was replaced. Front sunken patio was added. By then we were trying to pay attention to energy costs and environmental factors.
In 2013, I moved 1000 miles and planned to build house #3. I bought land, got house plans for an 1800 sq. ft. house (I was a single person by then) and a builder and the costs were going through the roof. I eventually scrapped the idea and bought a 20-year-old custom designed house on some acreage in a mostly undeveloped area outside of a major city. This was affordable. I added an office to this house. I will do some landscape changes. I will redo the master bath. There is a local push for solar and my house could be adapted to solar. I had an analysis done but it isn't cost effective for one person with low usage. Essentially, it is pretty good for one person.
My daughter lives locally and wants to buy a small house on one paycheck. It is nearly impossible both financially and based on what is on the market. New "starter" tract homes are priced too high with bells and whistles. Smaller, well-built homes from the 1950s and 1960s are priced too high for their condition.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
