Straw Bale, Solar Home in the City
(Page 3 of 4)
June/July 2005
By Catherine Wanek
Inside, the 1,460-square-foot home feels spacious, in large part due to the expanse of south- and east-facing windows that extend the view. Built-in design features such as arched doorways, a vaulted ceiling, nichos (recessed niches) and wall “see-throughs” add elegance without clutter. Everywhere there is a consciously efficient use of space.
RELATED CONTENT
UN food agency says 1 billion people hungry, poor paying more for food despite recession...
Buying or building a small home is a great way to significantly reduce your energy use, and you don...
There are thousands upon thousands of abandoned farmhouses scattered throughout the U.S., at bargai...
I'm renting an old Finnish homestead near Nolalu, Ontario....
A community canning center is the answer....
Luscious earthen plasters adorn the interior bale walls, hand applied with natural clay from New Mexico. Ferrous sulfate, a benign and inexpensive agricultural fertilizer, was used to stain the exterior lime/cement stucco and cement floors. Other handcrafted details include built-in window seats, a recycled tile mosaic and the requisite “truth window” — a small, decorated hole in a wall that reveals a straw bale.
The 10-month construction process involved more than 200 friends, family members and subcontractors who joined the Sullivans’ straw bale and plastering parties. All the wood used in construction was salvaged or sustainably harvested.
The Sullivans’ landscape incorporates fruit trees and vegetables among other native California plants. Rainwater is collected off the roof and used to sustain the landscape. The front yard is a mix of native flowers, bunch grasses and low bushes that are drought-tolerant.
The Sullivans’ biggest challenge was balancing their ecological ideals with budgetary concerns. “We knew the result that we wanted, but the most challenging part was determining the best sustainable materials at each step along the way,” Mark says. “When building a house, you have to make a hundred decisions a day — it’s not cut and dried which choice is the best.”
At $200 per square foot, the Sullivans’ home was more expensive than conventionally built stick-frame houses. “The slightly higher price per square foot reflects the extra-careful design and small engineering details — we squeezed a lot of features onto a small urban lot,” Landegger says. “The PV and solar hot-water systems were reasonably priced, and the FSC-certified [Forest Stewardship Council] wood only added about 10 percent more to the wood cost. But when you build a smaller house, it will generally cost more per square foot than a larger home, with larger rooms. There is less material cost, but more labor cost relative to the finishing details.”
But the Sullivans regard their home as an investment rather than an expense. “It’s not just about the cost up front, but overall life-cycle costs, of which energy is the biggest piece in the average home,” Kristin says. “We couldn’t be happier with how the house turned out.” Mark concurs, “One of the first mornings I woke up in the house, I watched the different tones and shades of the wall as the sun moved across the sky. I’m still amazed and in awe of all that.”
