California Architect Thinks About White Roofs
If every building had a white roof, we would be able to cool the surrounding areas. That is the reasoning behind a California law about to go into effect next month requiring light reflective roofs on all new buildings. It is already the law for new flat roofs here.
Here, architect Richard Meier and his partner Michael Palladino have apparently created a design to go one further. It’s entirely white; roofs, walls, and interiors.
So this luxury design of a cool and airy Southern California beach house is glamorous and climate friendly.
Well, no. The McMansion-sized size of the thing at 4,280-sq.-ft is not so planet friendly; because it takes more energy to heat and cool a larger space. But this house would be well suited for a ground heat exchange to passively heat and cool itself with 55 degree air cooled from 10 feet under the ground.
As architects in California get closer to 2020, they will need to think more about passive cooling and heating and zero energy houses, as that will be the law by 2020. All new building must be zero energy by then.
Incorporate solar roofing on the white roof, and this could be a zero energy house.
The blue of a solar roof would visually extend right out to the ocean. (And conceal that horrible mess of mechanical contraptions on that roof.) White elastomeric cool roof paint under the solar panels would help cool the modules making them more efficient on hot days.
But are architects thinking about these things?
With 2020 almost upon us: “The beams at the roof, located above the horizontal framing, express the structural rhythm and layering of components,” explains the architect. “This cadence is repeated with the joinery of the painted aluminum exterior wall panels and modular windows. The mass of the exterior plaster walls are juxtaposed to the transparent glazed facades, creating a mosaic of layered materials.”
Blah, blah, blah.
Via Digs Digs
Images: Scott Frances/Esto
[...] Read the rest of this entry at GreenbuildingElements… [...]
“But are architects thinking about these things?”
It’s hard to make wide, general statements about all architects, but yes, we are. The much better question is “are developers and owners willing to pay for these things?” And of course the over-general answer is no. The architect can only do so much prodding and urging when the owner/developer is essentially your employer and is covering all costs.
“Cool Roofs” as they called, are good for urban locations where the heat island effect is an issue, but often aren’t so useful in rural areas.
That mass of mechanical contraptions on the roof require very specific distances with no obstructions for ventilation. PV would be great, but couldn’t cover the ventilation and exhaust equipment and shouldn’t be flat on the roof anyway. They should be angled as necessary for the location. Also, I like PV as much as anyone else, but it’s important to remember it’s not the end-all-be-all of environmental design. It has a huge environmental impact itself, from the panels themselves, to the batteries and transformers, to transportation and manufacturing. The same is true of geo-exchange. There is still no “good” solution, only less-bad ones, and even those vary and depend on so many site and project related variables that it is very dangerous to sit back and back-seat design a project we know nothing about.
And finally, “Blah, blah, blah”…
A project that merely fulfills the program and engineering requirements is the ultimate in un-sustainable design. It will last only a few years before it’s owner or new owner grow tired of it and tears it down in favor of something new. Design, at it’s best, meets the program in a way that excites the user and gratifies the senses. A GOOD building will be around a long time because it continues to inspire the users.
[...] greenbuildingelements RSS Feed Subscribe by Email [...]
[...] via - greenbuildingelements [...]
Lots of glass & high ceilings = lots of heating & cooling – climate friendly? I would not think so. Zero energy? What are you smoking?
The 55 deg F ground temperature you talk about is a common misconception – CA typically ranges between 62 & 72 degrees – only some of the northeastern part of the state is below that. Ten feet under the ground? You would have to use a well and recirculating water or ground source heat pump.
The ‘horrible mess of mechanical contraptions’ on the roof are a screwup of the architect – all that could be hidden with some forethought.
That last paragraph from the architect is no more than fancy double talk meant to impress! It has no meaning in the real world.
These guys should take up a different profession where they might be better.
White paint ‘under’ the panels will help cools the panels making them more efficient. I understand what you are trying to say but it is quite wrong.
Instead of white roofs that just waste space, the law should require combined heat and power roofs, http://www.dawnsolar.com/downloads/DSSI_Combined_Heat_and_Power_System_Spec_Sheet.pdf , to reduce the fossil fuels needed to power and heat the building. The cost of a CHP roof beyond that of a standard roof should be assumed by the local utility and costs recovered from the building owner at the rate of the energy saved.
Russ, actually per UC Davis
“In California, for example, at a depth of approximately six feet, underground temperatures remain stable between 52° F (11°C) and 74°F (23°C).”
So, in summer, the water pumped through the pipes would come up at, at most 74 degrees, taking less energy to cool. And in winter 52 degrees is a good start on warming a house to 65 degrees.
@ cmaceachen; “It’s hard to make wide, general statements about all architects, but yes, we are.”
I’m glad to hear it. But, your dismissal of solar is so typical of architects. And wrong.
Solar doesn’t take more energy to make than other things that you will use anyway. Unlike all the glass, all the concrete, all the metal in this house – making solar generates many times its return on investment over the years.
Why don’t you get a solar estimate for your next project and see. You might be astounded at just the money that solar saves over 40 years.
The sort of people who commission houses of this size can save tremendous amounts of money with zero energy homes – ie someone with a $500 electricity bill will spend half a million dollars over 25 years for electricity at California electric inflation-rates (6.7%).
Half a million dollars spent on electricity if they don’t put in solar equates to a humungous carbon footprint using utility energy. Are you goiung to tell me that making solar panels (with a 25 year warranty) has an equivalent carbon cost????
(And actually, I should cost it out to 40 years, because that’s how long panels actually are supplying power in the real world)
If we are going to build houses, lets think about making solar part of the design.
(And I know the panels are ideally angled at 21 degrees true South, (I do solar estimates for a living) but this roof could have been designed to incorporate solar at 21 degrees, concealing the “mess” at the required distances and still look great!)
@ cmaceachen:
Sorry, meant to say $700 bill – for $500,000 spent over 25 years.
A $500 bill will wind up being $363,540 spent over 25 years.
The sort of people who commission these types of houses (don’t confuse the typical spec mcmansion bought by people who can barely afford the overpriced piece of crap with a house by richard meier which is a one-off work by a well-known architect) are hardly swayed by monthly energy bill savings. I know, you’re supposed to sell it to the clients with talk of lower energy bills and to the environmentalists with talk of the carbon-footprint, but the carbon footprint argument would be the better approach for someone looking to build a house like this. And yes, I’ve done solar calcs before; it rarely pays off. Though, admittedly, never in so-cal.
Regardless, your defensive response is typical of those who think environmentalism = PV panels. A truly sustainable project in this location would use completely passive systems. I’m not dismissing solar. It can often be a great asset to a project. But it also does not make a project “green”, and it has a long way to go before its efficiency is acceptable. I’m not just concerned with a project’s carbon footprint, but also it’s lifetime, the origin of the materials and their toxicity, the heavy metals and chemicals necessary for PV and wind power, water runoff, site protection, etc.
However, I hardly think this project, completed in 2001, and rather unique, is where the argument needs to take place. There are major wastes in the industry, in construction practices, in energy efficiency, and especially in building life expectancies. Developers have come to see their projects as short-term investments and wish to minimize up-front cost and quickly turn around and sell or lease their properties. This lack of real ownership and investment in a project is the major difference in American and European development, and the major reason why things like double skin facades, rain screens, efficient mechanical systems, and green roofs aren’t seen more often in this country. This lack of fore-sight, I think, is where the problem lies, and sticking arguably green PV on everything does little but lower your electric bill by 100 bucks a month. There are bigger fights to fight.