If you’ve raised teenaged children you are conditioned to fear pre-dawn phone calls — so when the early morning call rattled me awake, I was fretful that something had happened.  The alarm monitoring station operator reported that the fire department had been called to respond to an alarm signal from a spec. house owned by my company, Timberdale Homes.  “How could this be true — the house is new with top of the line mechanical and electrical systems — what happened?” The operator responded with a verbal shrug and hung up.

I finally arrived at the house after a long ride, where time was stretched by my imaginations of fiery destruction and by my anxieties over a year of craftsmanship going up in smoke.  So I was relieved to see that there were no lingering fire trucks, no smoldering building parts, no gaping charred holes in the roof, in fact nothing to suggest a fire had occurred at all except one broken window.  I entered the house and my senses immediately caught the unmistakable signs of fire, the smell of smoke and grungy, sooty walls and ceilings — I wasn’t so lucky after all.  I followed the darkening soot trail to the basement mechanical room, to the blackened source of the damage — the oil burner.

It’s called “puff back.”  An innocuous, almost child-like descriptor that is used to refer to an oil burner misfire that causes oily soot to be coughed into the house. The most likely cause of puff back is incomplete combustion of fuel oil as a result of the fuel not fully vaporizing when it enters the boiler’s combustion chamber. That can be the result of a partially clogged or worn nozzle — the fitting that sprays the fuel into the chamber.  The fuel feed line has a filter to prevent particles from fouling the burner system but it’s not foolproof.  The heavy soot clogs and overwhelms the boiler’s exhaust system and backs up into the house.  It can be either a sudden heavy flow of soot as in my situation or, more insidiously, a slow leakage that is discovered after it is too late.

A hot air distribution system is the perfect accomplice to the oil burner by helping to spread the damage.  When the heating system is running, the oil burner is producing the soot and the air handlers’ cold-air-return duct system is efficiently drawing the soot from the mechanical room throughout the house.  By the way, the duct system is also getting fouled with soot in this symbiotic cycle.  The efficiency of this process is remarkable.  Within a short period of time it can distribute a thin film of soot over all interior surfaces, including furnishings, and can infiltrate into closets and cabinetry. The heavy, oily makeup of the soot allows it to bind easily with any contacted surface.

The clean-up is extensive and expensive.  My house required basic clean-up, since it is vacant and unfurnished — but that process involved nearly 8 days of intensive work by a crew of 4 people.  In a more typical clean-up, with furnishings, carpet and clothing, the time requirement is longer. In my situation, the cost to clean the walls, ceilings, ducts, etc. approached $3.00 per square foot.  A homeowner with a fully furnished house would spend considerably more.  In fact, I’ve spoken to one hapless victim who spent over $15.00 per square foot.  Insurance covers the cost beyond the deductible but the inconvenience is tremendous.

I’d like to be able to offer a simple preventative solution — such as regular burner maintenance.  No doubt, that will lower the odds of puff back.  But my situation involved a relatively new oil burner and fuel filtering system — so it is clear that there is an element of chance at play.  Standing at the receiving end of this long-shot event is not a “lottery” worth winning.

There has certainly been a lot written about the greening of America, it seems that the notion has finally gone main stream…I hope.  I’m concerned that there is  a disturbing linkage between the popular commitment to the green agenda and very volatile economic forces.  These forces include the general economic health of  the country  which impacts both individual and governmental ability to afford green initiatives and incentives and fluctuating commodity energy prices which impacts individual’s incentive to change.  As a case on point, it is well documented that the public’s romance with alternative energy sources (a very important item on the “green” agenda) is critically dependent on high fossil fuel prices and government incentives.  The historical demand for photovoltaic panels, for example, has been whipsawed by changes in these underlying demand drivers.

The question of the public’s green commitment has never been more challenged than in the home building arena today.  With falling home prices and related declines in real personal wealth it has become more difficult for home owners to allocate investment dollars into green-related construction upgrades and retrofits.  In addition, fossil fuel prices have been declining removing a major incentive to invest in green energy efficiency upgrades and alternative energy heating and cooling systems.

Without question, home building decisions have enormous long-term environmental consequences that strike at the heart of the green idea.  There are over 120 million homes in the United States and according to the DOE the residential sector accounts for 22% of total energy consumed in the nation.  Residences consume 74% of the nation’s water resource.  Levels of indoor air pollutants can often be four to five times higher than outdoor levels and the residential sector contributes 21% of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. Further recognition of the importance of residential building decisions to the national green agenda is evident with the recent emergence of various state and national guidelines for residential green building standards, the most prominent being the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED for Homes Green Building Rating System.

The essence of green building is to construct a home with low environmental impact.  Virtually all elements of home construction have environmental consequences, some lasting for decades or longer.  In some cases construction decisions impact the global environment, such as decisions about using sustainable materials and energy efficient building components.  In other cases the decisions are more locally oriented; such as decisions concerning low-impact site development, the selection of durable construction components and the choice to build a healthy living space. In all cases, the decisions require the homeowner to make conscious budget trade-offs concerning the shade of green to be incorporated into the house design and construction.

Residential green budget decision making is not always concerned with hard-dollar trade-offs.  At times the cost involved is the time required of the homeowner to become informed about the options.  As pointed out in my previous blog post on quality trade-off levers, some green decisions, such as lighter framing, can actually be lower cost than the alternative conventional construction method, but they require the builder and homeowner to be sufficiently informed to identify and commit to the green alternative.  At other times, well-heeled homeowners will opt for the green alternatives irregardless of cost with the rationale that it is “simply the right thing to do.”

The most difficult green decisions are the initiatives that involve lifestyle and real hard-dollar trade-offs.  With respect to lifestyle, excessively large homes are generally viewed as contrary to green principles.  Obviously, a very large home consumes significantly more resources and energy than a smaller home with the same number of bedrooms.  For example, the LEED for Homes Reference Guide points out that a 100% increase in home size yields an increase in annual energy usage of 15% to 50%, and an increase in materials usage of 40% to 90% depending on the design, location and occupants of the home. The LEED guidelines target the square footage for a three bedroom home at 1,900 square feet.  In 2007 the average household size in the U.S. was approximately 2.6 people. In that same year the average new construction single-family home was approximately 2,500 square feet, which is over 30% larger than the LEED target for three bedroom homes.  The last time the average new construction home in the U.S. was 1,900 square feet was 1987 with approximately the same average household size as today.  Arguably, a sizable shift in life-style preferences is required by the American public in order to embrace certain aspects of the green building initiative.

More complex green-building budget decisions occur around hard-dollar trade-offs for building assemblies.  Foremost among these are building assemblies that impact energy consumption and costs.  These assemblies are usually large-ticket budget items with very different efficiency, investment and payback equations across the available options.  The budget dilemma arises over the fact that if you spend more today on a high quality, better performing alternative energy system (such as a ground-source heat pump system) you will save money over time in reduced fossil fuel consumption while making a significant contribution to a greener environment.

At the margin, when confronted with the relatively high initial cost of an alternative energy system, homeowners regularly opt out of the green alternative and select a less efficient, environmentally unfriendly conventional system with its much lower initial investment cost.  This decision is understandable given the complexity of the problem, where most homeowners must decide with insufficient information on the costs, benefits and economics of the alternatives.  Also, most residential designers and builders do not take a comprehensive approach to designing home energy systems (including both active and passive systems,) resulting in over sized, inefficient and more costly systems.  Timberdale Homes’ affiliate company, Green Energy Systems, is focused on helping homeowners and small businesses deal with the complexities of alternative energy system trade-off decisions and investment.

Incorporating green building into new home construction and major renovation project budgets is an important, environmentally responsible objective.  It involves active homeowner participation and knowledge  of the numerous green-related inputs, methods and guidelines that can impact building assembly choices.  These factors impact all three of the major elements of the Trade-off Triangle (Budget, Size & Shape and Quality.)  Effective homeowner decision making is dependent on access to a design/build team that is knowledgeable and experienced in green construction and capable of accurately advising the homeowner on the costs/benefits of the various alternatives.

Like most builders these days I own more real estate inventory than I would like.  Some of it is rented, some of it is for sale, and all of it needs maintenance including snow removal.  Also my company, Timberdale Homes, is involved in two large whole-house renovations which require winter snow removal to provide safe job site access.  When we were hit with a big snow storm on December 20th of last year, I decided to buy a snow blower to lighten the work load.

I wanted a machine that was very light and portable for quickly clearing walkways/patios, driveway areas missed by the snow plow and wooden decks.  One of our properties is a lakeside home with extensive, multi-level decks and keeping the decks clear of snow is important to provide access and to lighten the snow loads.  My local power equipment supplier (West End Power Equipment Co. in New Milford, CT) recommended the Toro Powerlite.  After a quick inspection I dismissed the recommended equipment as being too light duty for my commercial needs, essentially a homeowner tool.  I went to 3-or-4 other power equipment retailers, hit the big box retailers and then returned to West End to buy the Powerlite.  All of the other options were just too big and lacked the easy handling and portability that I was looking for.  The equipment supplier assured me that the Powerlite would stand-up to my use:  he claimed that he has sold many to snow plow contractors for clearing walkways and has received few, if any, complaints.

Toro CCR Powerlite Snowthrower

The Town of Sherman, located in upper Fairfield County, received over 10 inches of snow in the December 20th storm.  I was convinced that the heavy load of snow would overwhelm the Powerlite’s 98cc two-cycle engine and other scaled-down features.  So I was completely blown away when the machine turned out to be a real work horse, easily handling every snow clearing situation demanded of it.  It was even able to cut a path slowly though the heavy snow bank left by the town snow plow at the end of the driveway.

The Powerlite weighs less than 40 pounds and can be carried easily from one location to another.  It can be carried one-handed up stairs to clear multi-level decks and patios.  It can be thrown in the back of a pick-up truck and transported from one site to another.  The rubber auger does not harm wooden surfaces so it is ideal for clearing decks and wooden walkways.  On one job we are framing an addition and we used the Powerlite to clear the open floor deck.

This is probably not the tool for clearing either an entire driveway or excessively heavy/deep snows.  However, it appears to do a good job on the limited applications described earlier.

Time will tell on the machine’s durability.  So far it has endured use by multiple crew members through two snow storms and seems to be holding up well.  I’ll provide an update on this aspect of the machine as use continues.

I paid about $400 for the machine.  Remember I bought it in the middle of a snow storm at a specialty power equipment supplier.  I’m sure a careful buyer can get the equipment for a  lower price.  My model has an electric start feature.  I bought the optional feature thinking: “since the machine is so small, Karen (my mate) might want to crank it up and give it a whirl, the electric start would make it really easy for her….”

The next piece of equipment I get will have a pull-cord start only.

My first encounter with the notion of “bespoke” happened early in my business career when some associates visiting from England engaged in a conversation about their clothing. I had never heard the word before but its suggestive sound and usage made me understand what it meant. At the time custom-tailored clothing seemed like a lot of trouble for getting duds that I could easily buy off the rack for a lot less money. I guess I still think that’s the case, at least for clothing. Chalk up that attitude to my “Yankee” upbringing or, more to the point, to the fact that I was never very fashionable and can be seen these days wearing mostly plaid shirts and jeans.

Years later the company I was working for at the time moved into new office space and each of the Partners was given a budget to purchase office furniture. I decided to get a custom-made desk by David Margonelli, a furniture maker working out of Edgecomb, Maine. I didn’t realize that I was about to undertake my first experience with a bespoke personal object.

Initially, it seemed like a very straight forward task: pick a desk design, tweak it a bit, wait a while, sign a check, and get to work! Fortunately David didn’t share my perspective on the task at hand (except for the sign the check part.) His idea was to create a unique piece of furniture that would embody my design tastes and, importantly, my personal work style. So he began to ask questions about my design preferences and work habits and how I wanted them reflected in the desk. Needless to say, I did not have any ready answers. To properly respond, I needed to step back, observe, reflect and codify my personal work habits and to think about how something as prosaic as a desk could become a tool for making my work life better.

The trivial organizational and work flow details that occurred in and around my desk had always been taken for granted. I was never burdened by a clean desk mentality, although I must admit that at times I admired the not so subtle message it conveyed that the clown behind the desk was in control. At other times the clean desk only confirmed that the occupant had either a serious case of lint-picking OCD or inconsequential duties fit for a bobble head. Since I suffered from none of these afflictions, my deskscape was somewhat chaotic receiving an occasional reordering reminiscent of an autumnal yard clean-up. The prospect of designing a desk that would facilitate more orderly work habits was intriguing.

I decided to borrow a design from an antique desk that my grandmother had used for many years. It was a tilt top, where the desk top is folded down from the cabinet to reveal storage drawers and compartments and then folded up when work was finished to hide the clutter. For a month or more I thought about how those drawers and compartments should be configured to absorb and organize my clutter. Since I liked to organize my project work in piles, I created 12 compartments located in front of me that would each take a small stack of project files. I had a compartment made for my lap top computer so it could be stored and retrieved easily. I had drawers sized for specific desk items like the tape dispenser and stapler, to get them off the desk top. Meanwhile David came up with a simple but elegant design that suited my taste perfectly.

When the desk finally arrived it performed its function admirably; but I soon discovered that it was something more than a convenient piece of furniture. For me, the desk possessed a soul and spirit with roots connecting back to my grandmother and features that reflected my own personality and idiosyncrasies. It was a selfless personal steward that anticipated my needs perfectly and never asked for anything in return. It was a work of art that reminded me daily of the value of craftsmanship, elegant design and vision. It was nature subdued, reminding me of the transformational power of human excellence and dedication, where David was able to take rough, gnarly wood and make it into a graceful object of true beauty and function. It was an honest, very personal object standing tall in an impersonal office filled with steel, glass and shiny reproduction office furniture all trying to convey a quality work-place image that was something more than the objects deserved or could ever hope to become.

That is the nature of “bespoke.” It’s also why building a custom home is so rewarding.

When I see a home that exudes quality I feel an instinctual sense of grace in its presence.  I don’t think people need a lot of education on quality, when they see it they know it.  I’m not sure why that is the case.  It may be that we all naturally share an inherent sense of order and harmony that when properly translated in the physical world evokes immediate recognition and appreciation.  I think the ability to pull that off successfully is one of the greatest rewards of home building for both the builder and the homeowner.

Obviously, quality doesn’t just happen.  It’s the result of many hours of thoughtful reflection and the investment of significant energy in design, materials selection and execution.  It is also the result of a homeowner’s willingness to invest financial and emotional capital in the endeavor.  The most challenging home construction budget trade-off task for most homeowners is to come to terms with the level and type of quality they want to build into their house given available financial resources.

New home construction and renovations are essentially a group of building sub-assemblies married together to produce the whole structure.  For each sub-assembly, decisions are made concerning the quality level of its construction. At times the decision is made by the homeowner but often it is made by another player in the value chain.  A very important role of your General Contractor is to be aware of all of these decisions and to oversee them on your behalf, so the overall quality level desired is achieved.  Perhaps one of the most common problems homeowners confront in major home construction projects is the discovery that the builder cut corners or compromised quality to save a few dollars in construction costs.

Even the most basic sub-assembly components are subject to a quality-budget trade-off examination.  For example, wall assembly costs can be reduced by using new framing techniques that have the benefit of reducing the quantity of framing material and the labor to assemble it, since fewer parts are being assembled.  Depending on your point of view, the lighter framing may or may not be a significant quality trade-off issue.  According to industry research the lighter framing does not sacrifice structural integrity (quality) and it has the added bonus of being consistent with the LEED for Homes Materials & Resources Guidelines, so it’s green compatible (a quality plus.)  For many people the quality neutral-to-plus trade-off for lower framing costs would be a convincing quality/budget trade-off argument.  However, the building trades are very conservative when it comes to adopting new methods.  There have been some notable disasters such as urea-formaledhyde insulation, polybutelene pipe, among others, that have made builders slow adopters.  Hence, in this case the justifiable (and possibly ill-informed) builder quality concern with structural integrity may cause him to employ a traditional framing approach, thereby trumping the other benefits of light framing, leaving the homeowner to pick up the tab, often without his/her knowledge.

The ability to deliver cost-effective quality requires the builder to possess a range of demanding capabilities that lead to a quality mindset.  These capabilities include: a craftsman’s sensibility and appreciation of quality, an up-to-date knowledge of the inputs that create quality, a disciplined process to oversee its execution and, finally, a sense of integrity to deliver it, even at the risk of some financial sacrifice.  It’s understandable why quality is difficult to deliver consistently in the building trades, which tend to be production-oriented and cost conscious to a fault.

There are four quality trade-off levers: architecture, materials selection, detailing and fit & finish.

The architecture lever refers to the form and structure of the various building components.  While form deals with aesthetics and complexity, structure addresses how the form is translated into a building component. The wall assembly discussion above is a good example of the architecture-structure trade-off.

The materials lever addresses trade-offs that are made around material aesthetics, performance and availability.

The detailing and fit & finish quality levers deal with trade-offs around the level of finish detail included in the building assembly and the level of craftsmanship that is employed to execute it.

Green building is an important dimension of quality that was alluded to above but not explicitly included in the trade-off levers.  My next blog post will discuss how this aspect of building is incorporated into our trade-off thinking.  I will also discuss some of the quality levers in more detail.