daring dude
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2013
- Messages
- 836
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
What would our homes look like if designed around how we use them?
David Friedlander
Design / Green Architecture
September 2, 2014
Share on Facebook
© J. Arnold
It's probably no secret that the American home is a bit of a porker. In 2013, the median and average new, single family house was 2,478 and 2,662 square feet respectively--higher than previous, 2007 pre- bubble figures. Compare this to 1950, when the average new home was a mere 983 square feet. And that's not all. Fewer people are living in today's home; average household sizes have shrunk from about 3.37 in 1950 to 2.55 today. And we are all probably familiar with the environmental implications of these bigger, less occupied homes: they require more resources to build and maintain, they lead to sprawl, requiring more resources to get to and from, yada, yada, yada.
But somehow the McMansion pill would be a bit easier to swallow if these big homes were used. If every bedroom was slept in, every dining room dined in, every rumpus room rumped in. Unfortunately, if we are to believe a group of UCLA researchers, such is not the case.
A book released a couple years ago called "Life at Home in the 21st Century" tracked 32 middle class Los Angelino families as they went about their daily affairs, tracking their movements and habits to see how people actually lived nowadays. With one family (#11), the researchers tracked the location of each parent and child on the first floor of the house every 10 minutes over two weekday afternoons and evenings. In other words, primetime for the family's waking hours at home.
What did they find? Basically, that Family 11 used a small fraction of the available area, with almost all traffic centered in the dining, kitchen and family rooms; the latter room’s activity focused around the TV and computer. Based on the above diagram, I would guestimate that about 400 of the 1000 or so of the first floor's available square feet are used. The rest of the spaces--the dining room, living room, porch--are, for all intents and purposes, extraneous architecture.
So the question becomes, if Family 11 is representative of the average American family, and if their home is about average size (tag an upper floor on the 1000 square feet and you're about there) why does their home have so much more room than needed? Moreover, if we were to start fresh, if we removed the influence of developers, builders, architects, realtors and legislators--most of whom have a vested interested in building bigger homes with bigger infrastructural appetites--what would the ideal single-family home look like?
What would our homes look like if designed around how we use them? : TreeHugger
More Proof That We Should Change The Way We Design Bathrooms
Lloyd Alter (@lloydalter)
Design / Bathroom Design
December 30, 2011
Share on Facebook
Lloyd Alter/CC BY 2.0
Hospitals have a big problem, a bacterium known as Clostridium difficile. It has thrived in hospitals because it is resistant to many of the antibiotics we are so busy feeding to cows and pigs, let alone human beings who are sick and old in hospitals. It is often spread by medical staff who don't wash their hands, but a new study shows that it may be spread by flushing toilets.
Christopher Mims at Smart Planet writes that
It’s a process long known to hygiene experts, and it’s called aerosolization. Mythbusters did a segment on it and concluded that while toilets with lids up do spray water all over the bathroom, the risk associated with this process was negligible.
The study and Mythbusters don't exactly agree; the abstract describes the method used:
We performed in-situ testing, using faecal suspensions of C. difficile to simulate the bacterial burden found during disease, to measure C. difficile aerosolization. We also measured the extent of splashing occurring during flushing of two different toilet types commonly used in hospitals.
and the results.
Surface contamination with C. difficile occurred within 90 min after flushing, demonstrating that relatively large droplets are released which then contaminate the immediate environment. The mean numbers of droplets emitted upon flushing by the lidless toilets in clinical areas were 15-47, depending on design. C. difficile aerosolization and surrounding environmental contamination occur when a lidless toilet is flushed.
They recommend that toilet lids be closed when one flushes. I think we should go further than that and put the toilet in its own room, the water closet.
I have noted previously the work of Dr. Charles Gerba, who wrote that a toothbrush should not be in the same room as a toilet:
There have been found over 3.2 million microbes per square inch in the average toilet bowl. According to germ expert Chuck Gerba, PhD, a professor of environmental microbiology at University of Arizona the aerosolized toilet water is propelled as far as 6 feet, settling on your dental toothbrush inclusively.
Lloyd Alter/CC BY 2.0
As I noted in my post History and Design of the Bathroom Part 6: Learning from the Japanese, we shouldn't be putting the toilet in the same room as the sink, period. Closing the lid or keeping the toothbrush in the medicine cabinet isn't enough; they should be in separate rooms. The new study just confirms it.
More Proof That We Should Change The Way We Design Bathrooms : TreeHugger
David Friedlander
Design / Green Architecture
September 2, 2014
Share on Facebook
© J. Arnold
It's probably no secret that the American home is a bit of a porker. In 2013, the median and average new, single family house was 2,478 and 2,662 square feet respectively--higher than previous, 2007 pre- bubble figures. Compare this to 1950, when the average new home was a mere 983 square feet. And that's not all. Fewer people are living in today's home; average household sizes have shrunk from about 3.37 in 1950 to 2.55 today. And we are all probably familiar with the environmental implications of these bigger, less occupied homes: they require more resources to build and maintain, they lead to sprawl, requiring more resources to get to and from, yada, yada, yada.
But somehow the McMansion pill would be a bit easier to swallow if these big homes were used. If every bedroom was slept in, every dining room dined in, every rumpus room rumped in. Unfortunately, if we are to believe a group of UCLA researchers, such is not the case.
A book released a couple years ago called "Life at Home in the 21st Century" tracked 32 middle class Los Angelino families as they went about their daily affairs, tracking their movements and habits to see how people actually lived nowadays. With one family (#11), the researchers tracked the location of each parent and child on the first floor of the house every 10 minutes over two weekday afternoons and evenings. In other words, primetime for the family's waking hours at home.
What did they find? Basically, that Family 11 used a small fraction of the available area, with almost all traffic centered in the dining, kitchen and family rooms; the latter room’s activity focused around the TV and computer. Based on the above diagram, I would guestimate that about 400 of the 1000 or so of the first floor's available square feet are used. The rest of the spaces--the dining room, living room, porch--are, for all intents and purposes, extraneous architecture.
So the question becomes, if Family 11 is representative of the average American family, and if their home is about average size (tag an upper floor on the 1000 square feet and you're about there) why does their home have so much more room than needed? Moreover, if we were to start fresh, if we removed the influence of developers, builders, architects, realtors and legislators--most of whom have a vested interested in building bigger homes with bigger infrastructural appetites--what would the ideal single-family home look like?
What would our homes look like if designed around how we use them? : TreeHugger
More Proof That We Should Change The Way We Design Bathrooms
Lloyd Alter (@lloydalter)
Design / Bathroom Design
December 30, 2011
Share on Facebook
Hospitals have a big problem, a bacterium known as Clostridium difficile. It has thrived in hospitals because it is resistant to many of the antibiotics we are so busy feeding to cows and pigs, let alone human beings who are sick and old in hospitals. It is often spread by medical staff who don't wash their hands, but a new study shows that it may be spread by flushing toilets.
Christopher Mims at Smart Planet writes that
It’s a process long known to hygiene experts, and it’s called aerosolization. Mythbusters did a segment on it and concluded that while toilets with lids up do spray water all over the bathroom, the risk associated with this process was negligible.
The study and Mythbusters don't exactly agree; the abstract describes the method used:
We performed in-situ testing, using faecal suspensions of C. difficile to simulate the bacterial burden found during disease, to measure C. difficile aerosolization. We also measured the extent of splashing occurring during flushing of two different toilet types commonly used in hospitals.
and the results.
Surface contamination with C. difficile occurred within 90 min after flushing, demonstrating that relatively large droplets are released which then contaminate the immediate environment. The mean numbers of droplets emitted upon flushing by the lidless toilets in clinical areas were 15-47, depending on design. C. difficile aerosolization and surrounding environmental contamination occur when a lidless toilet is flushed.
They recommend that toilet lids be closed when one flushes. I think we should go further than that and put the toilet in its own room, the water closet.
I have noted previously the work of Dr. Charles Gerba, who wrote that a toothbrush should not be in the same room as a toilet:
There have been found over 3.2 million microbes per square inch in the average toilet bowl. According to germ expert Chuck Gerba, PhD, a professor of environmental microbiology at University of Arizona the aerosolized toilet water is propelled as far as 6 feet, settling on your dental toothbrush inclusively.
As I noted in my post History and Design of the Bathroom Part 6: Learning from the Japanese, we shouldn't be putting the toilet in the same room as the sink, period. Closing the lid or keeping the toothbrush in the medicine cabinet isn't enough; they should be in separate rooms. The new study just confirms it.
More Proof That We Should Change The Way We Design Bathrooms : TreeHugger