Little Pot of Gold
THE CHALLENGE
Q.
Does the home satisfy the DMN competition brief for "True Net Zero Home" and meet the 2050 challenge?
A.
We believe so!
Q.
What year does the house break even?
A.
On average 10.4 years. The best was 7.02 years (Perth - Mid carbon) and the longest 20.87 years (Sydney - Chasing Rainbows).
Q.
If it doesn't meet the challenge, how close did the entry come? Are the numbers presented by the entrants realistic?
A.
They all romped it in! We could write an essay on the issues, assumptions and inaccuracies in embodied carbon calculations; actually we did here.
Sustainable Innovation
Q.
Is the solution a sustainable one?
A.
It depends on your definition of sustainable. We think its pretty darn good.
Q.
Have passive solar design principles for the climate zone been well used to maximise thermal performance?
A.
Of course.
Solar passive design principles are an essential starting point for an efficient and comfortable home.
Q.
How well is the design predicted to perform thermally?
Q.
What is its rating?
A.
It depends. NatHERS results varied from 7.2 to 10 stars for the 24 designs. All of the Low, Mid and High carbon versions meet the International Certified Passivhaus standard.
Q.
Does design and material selection work together for low carbon outcomes?
A.
It depends. NatHERS rewards thermal mass which, if concrete, can be unhelpful over a lifecycle. The aim of the 24 iterations is to illustrate these complexities.
Q.
Is durability and maintenance over life considered?
A.
Yes.
Durable and low maintenance materials are important considerations for the Australian climate and lifestyle.
Q.
Has the end of life and circular economy thinking been considered?
A.
Yes.
The design prioritises reusable, recyclable and bio-degradable materials.
Q.
Are broader sustainability initiatives
(beyond carbon) considered/included?
A.
Yes, many!
Through a range of sustainability initiatives the design aims to provide a point vitalisation for human, social, economic and environmental health and sustainability.
Q.
Spatial efficiency and adaptability
A.
Yes.
The design aims to provide enough, no more and no less, for anyone and everyone.
Q.
Is this a design that represents an exciting new direction in sustainability for our suburbs?
A.
If the definition is, do these buildings keep people healthy and comfortable while being efficient to run then yes!
Materials
Q.
Have entrants been able to justify material choices inserts?
A.
Yes.
Positive results from technical assessments of 24 design options provide our justification.
Q.
Has embodied carbon been considered?
A.
We did. See the interesting results in our matrix for each the capital city in each state.
Q.
Has durability been considered?
A.
It's airtight, weather-tight, she'll be right!
Q.
Has low maintenance/replacement & therefore lower embodied carbon potential during the use phase been considered?
A.
Yes. Durable and low maintenance materials are important considerations for the Australian climate and lifestyle.
Q.
Has the inclusion of recycled materials, or materials that are recyclable at end of life, or fit with broader circular economy goals been considered?
A.
Yes. All screwed not glued!
Q.
Has the minimisation of resource use been considered?
A.
Yes. Efficiency in all its meanings.
Prioritising quality over quantity - with a smaller footprint in terms of area and efficiency.
Q.
Has the minimisation of habitat loss been considered?
A.
Sustainably sourced materials have been prioritised to minimise habitat loss.
Indigenous native gardens create habitat in the suburbia to improve bio-diversity.
The next step is to reduce land use by increasing the density of the Australian suburbia with homes with smaller footprints.
Q.
Has the Minimisation of pollution issues beyond CO2 been considered?
A.
Yes. Doing our best by sticking with bio-based materials.
Liveability
Q.
Does the house allow families to evolve and thrive?
A.
Yes. Health, comfort and adaptability are key. Being able to trust the outcomes is also key. (Explore our data further to understand how)
Q.
Do the rooms and spaces interact well with each other?
A.
We believe so. Spaces are organised for easy and functional use.
Q.
Have space and resources been efficiently used?
A.
Yes. Efficiency in all its meanings.
Q.
Do spaces connect visually with the outdoors, and harmonise well with the yard?
A.
Yes. Liveable areas have been designed to maximise natural light, views and physical interactivity with outdoors.
Q.
Is ventilation considered practical?
A.
Good question! Natural cross-ventilation was a design consideration for window placement - and some days opening windows is practical, but often not. That's why we have an efficient MVHR (mechanical ventilation with heat recovery unit) to guarantee great indoor air quality regardless of heat wave, snow blizzard or bushfire outside.
Q.
Have low VOC and Indoor air quality been considered?
A.
Yep. Kept them out to start with. Ventilate reliably to exhaust what couldn't be avoided.
Q.
Has landscaping been considered, and integrated into the design, and have sustainable initiatives been employed?
A.
Yes. Indigenous native gardens create habitat in the suburbia. Water storage and growing food have been considered. Outdoor living areas encourage inhabitants to get out there!
Q.
Will the internal layout work well for family members as families age?
A.
Yes. The Livable Housing Guidelines have been incorporated in the design.
Q.
Has accessibility been considered?
A.
Yes. Ample space for the inclusion for both stairs and ramps where necessary has been provided.
​The Livable Housing Guidelines have been incorporated in the design.
Q.
The Livable Housing Guidelines have been incorporated in the design.
A.
It's healthy, comfortable and has great indoor air quality. It's a good start!
Q.
Does the design consider future resilience?
A.
Yes, the data suggest they will all perform well in heat waves.
Desirability
Q.
Will people want it?
A.
You'll have to ask them! The house has been designed to replace the standard volume built homes and appeal to a large market.
Q.
Is this a house to fall in love with?
A.
We did! A home that provides a healthy and comfortable environment (and future) will allow its lucky inhabitants to relax and enjoy.
Q.
Does it involve creativity and ingenuity?
A.
Probably the judges decision; we're biased
Q.
Does it capture the zeitgeist of a future where the built environment is in harmony with the natural environment?
A.
We think so. It certainly challenges the current trajectory which is why we invested hundreds of hours in this competition. We strongly believe we need a better pathway, this entry is intended to illustrate some of the follies of the current frameworks
Q.
Is it likely to be affordable (realistic to budget) and achievable?
Q.
How well do practical functionality and beauty of the home meld?
A.
In the eye of the beholder
Q.
Is the design likely to make a difference to our approach in the way we design, build and live in our homes going forward?
A.
We hope so. We entered for exactly that reason. Win or not, we'll pimp these ideas to try to address the shortcomings in our industry and create a better future.
We really are out of time.
It's called an emergency for a reason!