Drafty old Ann Arbor house finds new life as green, energy-efficient home
The fact that they live within walking distance to shopping and downtown and that they ride their bikes to work gave them enough points to turn their late 19th Century house into the first LEED Platinum remodel in the Great Lakes region, said Michael Klement, principal of Architectural Resource, which worked on the house. Also, it's only the fifth remodel in the national to win the platinum award
LEED is a rating system by the U.S. Green Building Council that promotes the design and construction of green homes that use less energy, water and natural resources and create less waste.
The three-bedroom house has come a long way from the day in 2001 when Beranek, then a bachelor, purchased the property from a couple who had raised their family and lived there for 50 years.
Beranek had confined his years-long search for a house to a three-block radius of the neighborhood just north of downtown Ann Arbor.
With shag carpeting and wallpaper at every turn, Beranek knew the house needed work. He slowly improved it, such as removing the old floor and replacing it with American cherry.
Slideshow: Photos courtesy of Architectural Resource, LLC
It was a house of partially completed projects when Beranek and Park married in 2007. The house's only bathroom, for example, had exposed two-by-fours and unfinished drywall. And it was drafty, not a good climate for Park's Steinway grand piano.
They had to decide to methodically remodel the house one project at a time over the years. Or take the plunge, move into Park's apartment during a major remodel and have the work behind them.
The list of what the house needed was long: New windows, a second-floor bathroom, a new efficient furnace, insulation to stop the wind. At one point, Beranek said, they even wondered if the house was worth keeping.
But their sense of history won.
"People still knew it as the Dixon House, from the family that lived here," Beranek said. "It was part of the neighborhood. It made sense to keep the house and preserve what we could."
Over the year that followed, the house was gutted to its skeleton and rebuilt green from the foundation up:
The insulated concrete form foundation keeps the basement warm and dry and cuts down on energy use by 30 percent. A geothermal heating and cooling system was added, along with a tankless hot water system. Paper stone counter tops avoids using plastics. Advanced framing techniques reduced the amount of wood used in rebuilding the walls, leaving more space for insulation. And ultra-low flow bathroom fixtures, outdoor rain barrels and a rain garden cut down on water use.It went from one of the draftiest houses that builders Meadowlark Builders had seen to a high-efficiency structure, Beranek said. While winter heating bills used to run upwards of $300 a month, the average monthly heating and air conditioning bills runs about $45.
Some of the other improvements:
• The house's rear addition from the1920s was removed and a new addition made more room for the kitchen and new living space. The remodel added 380 square-feet to the 1,200-square-foot house. It's in keeping with the not-so-big trend of keeping houses and additions modest in size, connecting spaces and keeping what space there is flexible. A moveable stainless steel kitchen island, for example, opens up the area for a party.
• A mudroom - the couple calls if their biking staging area - was also added to the back of the house, giving the avid bikers a straight shot down the stairs to the basement for easy bike handling.
• The four tiny upstairs bedrooms became three bedrooms, including a master suite, and two bathrooms. The suite bathroom includes a stainless steel Japanese soaking tub. And instead of having the laundry room a floor away from the dirty clothes, the laundry room is nestled in the roomy walk-in closet in the bedroom suite.
• The staircase upstairs was removed and replaced with a sleekly modern banister. The pine stairs were recovered from wood that had been discarded in another building project on Fourth Avenue. • The front porch was extended around one side of the house where the driveway once stood, making it a wrap-around. The driveway was moved to behind the house. And a garden with native plants was installed.
• Pieces of the old house found new uses: The old pine windowsills became handrails, banisters and shelf tops. The old wooden beams, replaced by steel ones, became the legs of a glass-topped dining table. Pieces of the old cement floor became garden stepping stones.
Comments
SWard
Sun, Oct 4, 2009 : 7 p.m.
Bunnyabbot, meaning no disrespect, but I can't figure out what your point is. I have been contributing to this commentary to have a meaningful discussion about green technology and economics. Can you clarify your last comment, please?
bunnyabbot
Sun, Oct 4, 2009 : 12:15 a.m.
nuclear energy, more of it... "organic", "green" these are neo-liberal terms hijacked corporate. What was once a way of life for monks became some communal living mantra of the 60s to the over micromanagment of the masses by a mass marketed machine of kumbaya big brother who knows what is best for EVERYBODY on the planet...funny no one thinks that the Beast might be at work. as for wanting to greenify your home as the economic results of the above homeowners actions will take years to pay back economically doing so and sharing it serve only seem to show me one thing.
The Picker
Sat, Oct 3, 2009 : 5:34 p.m.
I want to nominate Braggslaw for governor! You go Braggs
SWard
Sat, Oct 3, 2009 : 9:24 a.m.
It feels like you are making my point for me. I believe entirely what you say about China. I'm not saying that China is an innovator or that they necessarily embrace green technology, merely that they will dominate the world because of their economic advantages of low wages and no controls, if we allow it. The market may be the market, but once a country has the dominant share of an industry, it will be very difficult to displace them. The US will indeed be dragged own by the ignorant, as you say. But that's my point. A significant part, if not the majority, of people buy things based largely on price. China offers cheap products. We are handing the world economy over to a country whose policies we abhor, with every purchase we make. It doesn't seem to matter if that what we buy breaks next week, we'll just buy another because it's so cheap. As I said before, we need to think about the big picture and consider all of the factors, not just price, and maybe make choices that may not be as cost effective in the short run. Maybe it's not about the environment, but about economics. You said yourself that you wouldn't buy solar panels until they're cost competitive. They won't be cost competitive until we start buying them. Nothing is stopping the US from innovating, but we don't do it, or don't imbace it, until the economics are right. If we want to change the "China Syndrome" we have to first look to ourselves to help make that change. I advocate for free choice, but rational choice. If nobody buys China's cheap stuff, they lose the advantage. Who is the market? We are the market. We make the market with our choices. As to the solar cells, it may not be as cost effective to use them in Michigan, but they do provide some amount of electricity that would otherwise be generated by coal. Something is better than nothing. I choose to do something. We can choose to shape the market on our terms and be leaders, or we can react to it and become marginal players. The US does not move towards new technology unless it is forced to economically. By the time we do so, China will be the dominant force. This is the attitude I seek to change. Take positive action now, even if it costs more. We can put a dent in China's economy, but we must choose to do so.
braggslaw
Fri, Oct 2, 2009 : 10:39 p.m.
China has neither the time nor the inclination to address what is "green". They will of course market themselves to the world in the best "green" light but that is merely a way to try to fool people of their intentions. - Global domination of the world economy. They intend to outcheap everyone(and they will)and basically steal the technology they need.. They can since they are a totalitarian state and they ignore the WTO. The stuff they make is junk right now, based upon decades old western technology. Their culture is to copy. I imagine in a few decades with some poltical freedome some innovation may result. I am not worried about China out-innovating the US (or for that matter Western Europe or Japan). I am worried about US companies being dragged down by the well intentioned but ignorant. Corner the green market? What does that mean? The market is the market. People in the west have the luxury of making emotive and sometimes irrational consumer choices such as "organic food" or compulsory recycling of paper or plastic (I will leave steel and aluminum out of the discussion). If you truly want to do something great for this country, call the Governor,tell her to cut business taxes, force the teachers union to commonize their health care and allow people in the US do what they do best... innovate and create. Remember when the govt. gives something to someone as an entitlement or subsidy, they have taken that something from someone else that earned it. There are thousands of activists who became virtually unemployed when the iron curtain fell, they found a new job, pushing "green". I will get a solar panel when the cost of solar electricity is competitive with traditional electricity. In Michigan it makes no sense because of the overcast skies.
SWard
Fri, Oct 2, 2009 : 9:40 p.m.
Setting aside the whole environmental discussion for the moment, does this now become an economic issue? China may itself not be "going green", but they will use their economic advantage to corner the green market for the rest of the world. Would it not behoove us to be a leader in green technology for no other reason than to not be marginalized economically in yet another industry?
braggslaw
Fri, Oct 2, 2009 : 9:08 p.m.
We will run out of fossil fuel, and then we will use something else. It is that simple. When fossil fuel becomes rare and expensive other technologies will supplant it. China is a coal and oil fired economy. I spend a month there every year. They pretend to be green. There is no way they are going to endanger their cost competitiveness with expensive energy, otherwise the manufacturing moves to Sub-saharan Africa.
SWard
Fri, Oct 2, 2009 : 8:42 p.m.
Ouch. The uneducated liberal arts major has one clarifying point. I won't debate you vastly superior technical knowledge; I'm sure you're correct. I never claimed that burning coal was a better alternative than natural gas, merely that the energy used, is less with a geothermal unit than conventional systems. If we do not agree that global warming is a threat, we'll never agree on the rest of this. I for one, would like to see additional investments in the US in rational renewable energy resources. I think CO2 is dangerous. I think eventually, we're going to run out of natural gas and other fossil fuels. We will not have put any investment into alternative fuels, and China will corner that market as well (as indicated by recent news articles which have reported China's interest in getting into solar cell technology.) We either lose environmentally, or we lose economically, or both, the way we are going. As soon as we can afford it, we will be installing solar arrays on our house, and then our heat pump will not be using coal fueled electricity either. Just because China chooses to be irresponsible, doesn't mean I shouldn't do what I can to change my own and others behaviors.
braggslaw
Fri, Oct 2, 2009 : 7:56 p.m.
No your message did not get lost. You believe CO2 is a pollutant, I do not. Coal emits sulfur and mercury, therefore the pollutants from the coal fired electricity powering that heat pump are more toxic than the CO2 emitted by burning natural gas. Your analogy between China and the US is not accurate. China is run by party officials who have decided that polluting their country and world to enrich themselves is more important than anything else. China has no feedback loop like a democracy. They will burn all the fossil fuel in the world. I for one do not want American resources chasing the Quixotic green windmills. Your analogy on good and bad is of course silly. We want clean air and water. What clean air is defined as is a completely different issue. Low NOX, CO, particulates etc. mean clean air to me. CO2 is a benign gas and I do not consider it a pollutant. Other people do. Europeans in fact using diesels (no diesel is clean because of lean combustion) are polluting their air with NOX in exchange for lower CO2. A silly trade if you ask me since NOX is the number one smog contributor. My main point is that the definition of environmental good is different if you ask an educated technical person or a liberal arts major. An understanding of science is required for an educated answer.
SWard
Fri, Oct 2, 2009 : 7:32 p.m.
Apparently, my point got lost along the way. I don't believe I suggested "forcing" anyone to do anything. I did suggest that we need to recognize that there is a big picture and that we can have an impact, even if it is small. I would point out that in addition to China and India, even the United States for a very long time refused to submit itself to any regulation of its use of fossil fuels until recently. Things change. They change through individual action. We owe it to our world to try to do something to make things better than they are. I can't imagine anyone disagreeing with the idea that fewer pollutants are better that more. If you agree with that statement then you should do *something* to move in that direction: buy a geothermal unit, add some insulation, change your furnace filter, whatever you can afford. None of this is mutually exclusive. Another part of my point was that there are universal truths, whether you are a hippy, corporate lawyer, naturist, maoist, etc: murder is bad; clean air and water is good; anyone should be able to see that dumping toxic materials into our water and air is a bad thing. Make your own decisions, but use all the information, not just what feels good in the short run. The third point I was trying to make is that, yes folks, a better world is going to cost more money. We need to get used to it. We can no longer afford to say it's someone else's problem (eg our children's) we need to take the long road and do something now. Oh yeah, and yes the geothermal heat pump is run by coal-fired electricity, but the energy it uses (from whatever source) is considerably less that is used by other conventional methods. A net positive I'd say.
braggslaw
Fri, Oct 2, 2009 : 2:35 p.m.
As a society who gets to determine the right thing to do? A hippy, corporate lawyer, naturist, maoist, etc.? As an individual, I would like to make my own decisions based on all factors, including financial matters. For some reason people think burning natural gas is bad. Personally I see it as a clean energy source. An energy source widely available in Canada and the U.S. That heat pump is run by coal-fired electricity. Whatever
bunnyabbot
Fri, Oct 2, 2009 : 1:49 p.m.
but as a society, we have got to start looking beyond just the out-of-pocket price of things....whatever
braggslaw
Fri, Oct 2, 2009 : 9:37 a.m.
Sward, With the migration of people out of Michigan, any investment in you home is a bad investment. What makes this country great is that people can choose to spend their money the way they want. If I want a high efficiency furnace in my home because the initial capital investment is small, I am allowed to do that. If somebody with strong roots in the a certain area is willing to wait a decade to recoup their investment, then more power to them. Just because somebody defines something as "green" does not make it the right thing to do. Personally, I don't think anybody in the US (short of war) can stop India and China from burning every shred of fossil fuel in the world. Those countries have made it abundantly clear that they will not be subject to any growth restricting energy treaties. I am not going to debate whether there is a greenhouse effec., But if there is, we cannot force change in the billion of people/countries who need cheap energy to swing their populations out of poverty.
JimG
Fri, Oct 2, 2009 : 9:15 a.m.
Great remodel. I am curious about the art print over the piano, any info on title, artist, and where to get it? thanks.
SWard
Thu, Oct 1, 2009 : 9:22 p.m.
Yes, geothermal is an expensive way to go, but as a society, we have got to start looking beyond just the out-of-pocket price of things and think about all the ways we need to change our behaviors in recognition of the true cost of our current actions. If we were to factor in the externalities of added resource use and by-products of the greater level of burning of fossil fuels, the gap between conventional forms of heating/cooling and geothermal would start to get a little smaller. The current out-of-pocket cost of a geothermal system may be in the $20K-$30K range (ours was barely $20K), but with current tax credits, we will be getting 30% of that back, so now the cost to us is $14K, and the payoff is 7 years. Furthermore, as a point of economic behavior, the more people who start putting these systems in, the faster prices will start coming down. I'm not sure about how true it is that "people don't live in homes for a decade", or if true, whether we shouldn't think about being a little more conservative in our choices and invest in our community rather than solely in our immediate pocketbock. Afterall, wasn't it partly due to the national orgy of real estate speculation that got us into our current financial mess? Anyway, my hat off to the owners of the 4th Street house for their investment in both the community and the environment!
braggslaw
Thu, Oct 1, 2009 : 3:18 p.m.
The cost for a geothermal system is between 20,000 and 30,000 dollars. If they are saving 200 dollars a month in heating/cooling then you are looking at over a decade for your payback. Most people do not want to make that kind of investment because people don't live in homes for over a decade.
Janet Miller
Thu, Oct 1, 2009 : 1:37 p.m.
The owners of the house did not wish to have the cost of the project published.
braggslaw
Thu, Oct 1, 2009 : 12:53 p.m.
The geothermal system is the main reason why the heating and cooling costs were decreased, not the new windows etc. The payback on a geothermal syste is in the decades. Most of us cannot afford a geothermal system.
DonW
Thu, Oct 1, 2009 : 12:08 p.m.
What a great house! I especially love the bike staging room. Aside from the pretty cosmetics, I hope the green-building basics of insulation, reuse, heating systems, etc. become mainstream so the costs come down, and all remodels are "green" remodels.
Jim Knight
Thu, Oct 1, 2009 : 8:48 a.m.
A comment was removed because it was off topic.
uawisok
Thu, Oct 1, 2009 : 7:53 a.m.
That was an extremely deep pockets remodel!!
vdp
Thu, Oct 1, 2009 : 7:11 a.m.
How much?