Green Homes Part 2: The Falls Church Erdhaus (Earth House)
As Falls Church homes go, it is small and long. More significantly, it is extremely green.
The “Falls Church Erdhaus” (German for “Earth House”) is one of the first homes to be built as part of the City’s new “Residential Green Home Award Program,” which recognizes homes achieving advanced energy efficiency and environmental friendliness.
The name “Erdhaus” is apt: The exterior walls of the house are made of earthen “Terrabricks” from dirt excavated from the property.
The Erdhaus’ owners, Mike Nichols and Andreas Bentz, currently reside in Arlington, but are building in Falls Church, they say, because of the small town feel. They recently participated in the green construction program at the Spring Meeting of the Village Preservation and Improvement Society, passing around one of their 22-lb bricks.
Going green will save them $50,000-$75,000 in construction costs, according to their contractor. One example: using the excavated dirt instead of hauling it away avoids $17,000 in trucking fees.
The Erdhaus, located on Grove Avenue, has gained national attention and will be featured on the TV! Planet Green Channel show, “Renovation Nation” in the next few months.
For those wanting a day-by-day account of green construction, the project is chronicled in a blog documenting its progress from hole-in-the-ground to roof-overhead. To visit the blog, click here.
Artist rendering of Erdhaus interior when finished
See also: Green Homes Don’t Have to Cost Arm & Leg, Can Even Save
By Stan Fendley, Falls Church City
May 22, 2009
I drove by this house and noticed how far back it is from the street. I’m wondering why it is so far back and if there are city laws that permit this, since all of the other houses on the street are pretty much even. It just looks strange. Did the owners get an exception?
They explained in the VPIS meeting that they sited the house back so they could take advantage of the exposure to the sun to heat the house in the winter, which heats the earth blocks and they retain the heat for night.
I don’t believe they needed any special exceptions, as long as they met the minimum setbacks from the property line. In other neighborhoods, houses are placed at various depths. I think it helps eliminate the “cookie cutter” look of the street.
Gary’s correct – siting the house towards the back of the lot was essential for the passive solar design. If we placed the house at the front of the lot, the house next door would have blocked all of the sun. No variances were required as we are well within the zoning limits.
Mike: Sounds like good reasoning. What are the setbacks for your home and what are the zoning limits?
Here’s another important piece of information. Mike told me today their contractor estimates they will save $50,000-$75,000 by going green. One innovation alone, Using the excavated dirt as brick instead of trucking it away, has saved them $17,000.
Charlie, the zoning code limits the MINIMUM setback to the average of the adjoining houses (not less than 25 or more than 50 feet), but does not limit the MAXIMUM setback except indirectly by requiring a 30′ rear yard. There are slight differences between R-1A and R-1B, and also bonuses for building on substandard lots (OK, let’s get started on that!).
OK Mr. Maller, start on substandard lots. But if the entire code is being rewritten, someone needs to make a note to self – need to address maximum setbacks in addition to minimum. And since you are responding, please explain “average of the adjoining houses.”
I am not sure what to say about substandards except that I would like to abolish them and provide for clear and simple rules to enforce zoning, which we are making progress towards, and I certainly look forward to Deliberation Day soon.
As to front setbacks, the specific description of the R districts provides only a MINIMUM front yard, and this is in 38-28(b) [which does not say anything about a MAXIMUM either]:
(3) Front yards. In any “R” district, the minimum front yard … shall be the average of the nearest front yards on either side thereof, or if there be a building on one (1) side only, then it shall be the same as the front yard for that building; provided, that no front yard shall be less than thirty (30) feet in an R-1A district and twenty-five (25) feet in an R-1B district, and that no front yard need be more than fifty (50) feet.
BTW, the clearest example of the utter neglect of this requirement is the “home” next to Tallwood on Broad Street, which is over 100′ back from the street meaning that the MINIMUM front yard should have been 50′. I guess if they followed the law they would have been able to park several more cars on their lawn, but of course the construction could not have happened then. Too bad.
Should there be a maximum? What would it mean? Should the maximum front yard be a percentage of the lot depth? Good questions, which we should look forward to resolving in the rewrite.
Hi Mr. Maller, thank you for commenting on the zoning requirements. That’s a clear explanation. You asked for whether there should be a maximum set back requirement. I would suggest that the City Council be very cautious if this is considered. As I stated above, siting the house at the rear of the lot allows for the passive solar design, which will significantly reduce our dependence on fossil fuels to heat our home. I would encourage flexibility in the code to allow for environmentally-friendly construction such as this. I also would offer that our house, which is small by many standards today, with less than 1,500 sq. ft. of living space and on only one level (plus a full basement), would look strange if it were sitting between two tall (2 1/2 story homes) sited at the front of the lot. Eventually, when the house is complete, and the landscaping and fencing is installed, the house will be barely visible from the street. (It would not be visible from the street at all had we not encountered an underground stream, thus forcing the house to be 18″ higher to avoid water and ensure stable soil for the foundation.)
In my opinion, one of the many wonderful aspects of the City of Falls Church is the diversity throughout the community, and that includes the diversity in housing styles. From West Street to Birch Street, on and off of Grove Avenue, one can find colonials, contemporaries, cape cods, ranches, craftsman, and townhouses. That’s very appealing to us and one reason we chose to live in the City. A small, passive solar house sited at the back of a lot just adds a bit more to the diversity.
Too much diversity can make a street look choppy, visually disconcerting and unappealing. That’s simply my opinion. On the other hand, I’d never want to live in a cookie cutter subdivision!
Diversity of housing stock is a good thing. Lack of uniformity in front yard appearance from the street is a different thing – makes things look choppy and disconcerting as kathleen says. Looking at Mr. Maller’s code citation shows an interesting finding – “average” of the nearest front yards. Driving around the city, especially on Lincoln Ave and new houses on Grove it appears that this law was not applied (otherwise how does a new house sit in front of the neighbor houses).
Since Mr. Maller mentions the houses next to Tallwood. Exactly how is it legal to have those round driveways and have the side driveway as well? Sure looks funny with those SUV’s parked looming over Broad St.!
It seems that one of the largest barriers to changing ideas about environmental efficiency are entrenched aesthetic beliefs. These fellows are operating within the limits of the law, and are being responsible regarding their building materials. A house like this is. It is this innovative spirit which drives future advances that allow Americans to move in a more sustainable direction .
You want to talk about aesthetics? Lets talk about the overgrown mansions of northern Virginia . Big does not mean beautiful … this home constitutes a return to tact, refinement, and taste.
Rethink your methods. Evolve.