Today, even among great innovative technology, wood remains one of the most widely used and sustainable ways of building. It is inexpensive, natural, recyclable, and if properly managed, sustainable. An architectural firm out of Wisconsin is taking advantage of this sustainable aspect and Green fad with construction that uses primarily whole, unmilled trees. The result is spirited and unique architecture built almost exclusively from tree branches.
One of the main concerns regarding the sustainability of wood as a building material is its role in forest depletion. And while most lumber companies strive to maintain sustainable practices, much of the wood is wasted and disposed of following milling. But as the article outlines very well, an unmilled tree has the strength potential 50 percent more than that of milled lumber. Whole Tree Architecture capitalizes on these factors, using local, unused, “weak” scraps that are in fact quite strong. This wasted wood is primarily “weed trees” , the trees that are cut early to ensure the strength of others during forest management. Although less than a foot in diameter, their strength is valuable: “We’re confident that the natural connection is stronger than any man-made connection,” Founder Roald Gundersun says. This can be quite revolutionary for the lumber market, as the development of this type of style can embrace and benefit forest management practices. Roald Gundersun has been developing this building technique of whole tree structures for over 16 years, and it is clear that the refinements have paid off. The portfolio that is presented showcases beautiful homes that have a direct visual relationship to their immediate surroundings.
It is clear that the market for this type of architecture now is quite small, but in my view, the potential is great. It not only introduces an interesting concept of being closer than ever to nature by bringing the natural environment into the built one, but has been developed and proven to be strong tectonically. Do you think that with time and further development, such initiatives will become more mainstream, or will these houses always fill a small and unique niche, appealing only to the outdoorsmen?
The whole tree houses are an intriguing niche of sustainable living. I think potential buyers would be attracted by aesthetics first, but there is an added “feel good” bonus that one is buying a house that is sustainable. The article doesn’t mention the cost, but I would imagine it is higher than conventional homes. Still, consumers will pay more for something that is marketed as good for the environment. Even if the cost of building the home is not much higher than a conventional home, middle and lower class homeowners would likely be more concerned about a low resale value than upper class buyers. I heard a story on NPR awhile ago about a trend of smaller homes. However, it was mainly upper class homeowners building these homes that didn’t have dining rooms or formal living rooms. Middle class consumers put those extra rooms in; regardless of if their family valued them because they wanted to add resale value to their home. In all, I think this type of architecture could gain support, but I don’t think it will radically alter the housing market. Ironically, if this movement did take off, it probably wouldn’t be as ecologically sustainable.
ReplyDeleteI. Want. One. However, I can see why this is a quite small niche. This would be a hard program to try to implement in big cities, and would still be hard to try to apply on a wide scale. I think it is refreshing to see endeavors that look at manipulating resources as little as possible. However, we also need to look at the ability to spread these methods as far as possible. Not only would transporting potentially twisty branches be complicated, but it may also encourage buyers to demand more, which, as Rafiki also states, decreases the ecological sustainability of it.
ReplyDeleteAnother point Rafiki mentions, too, is the cost. This is probably most costly for many reasons. Obviously building these types of houses requires more skill, which increases labor costs. It also is a "new" trend, which would increase the price as well. Paying for a specific wood style like this as well would also allow for an increased price. And as for resale value, that is a very good point that I'd never really thought about. Twenty years from now, will that wood still be any good? And will it still be desirable, or will it be just one of those trends that managed to fall through the cracks?
As cool as it would be to live in a house like this, I think that it will probably remain a sustainable housing method that will stay small scale. But as Rafiki states, that would probably maintain its ecological sustainability.
I could see this catching on in the eco-tourism sector. It could be very feasible for smaller and more remote destinations that draw serious eco-tourists. What would be a better marketing ploy than a sustainable vacation while staying in a sustainable "hotel"? Since these sorts of living quarters are made to be smaller, I feel that it would make a perfect eco-hotel. At first, these sorts of places to stay would be very costly, as Rafiki and Kelly Dawn have mentioned above. Prices can potentially decrease as builders learn faster and cheaper ways to construct the "houses". Depending on how these buildings hold up, it could be a very sustainable hotel destination. I really don't see this taking off in the housing market.
ReplyDelete