Ross Family Residence
The winner of NESEA’s annual Zero Net Energy Building Award offers not only energy efficiency, but ideally also comfort, affordability, reliability, and elegance. Congratulations to everyone involved in this project. You are leading the charge on making sustainable energy practices the norm in the built environment.
Location: Amherst, MA
Architect: Coldham & Hartman Architects, Andrew Webster
Construction Management: FCM Smart Build
Construction Services: Holden Builders
Our first deep energy retrofit winner: A home for real people based on real needs
Read what the judges have to say
After intense deliberation, the judges chose to award the 2012 Net Zero Energy Award to the Ross family residence in Amherst, Massachusetts. The panel was deeply divided but ultimately selected this project for several reasons. First, this project was a Deep Energy Retrofit, the first such project to receive the NESEA award. As such, it provides an excellent example of how the construction industry should be upgrading our existing building stock to be more efficient and livable.
The Ross residence also elegantly integrated building systems that addressed the envelope, air-tightness (about 1.0ACH50 for a retrofit), passive heating opportunities, LED lighting and mechanical strategies that reduced the energy requirements to excellent levels. Based on these factors, this project eked its way past a group of other excellent, well-deserving candidates. Because of their attention to a whole-building approach, the Ross family’s PV system was not only able to meet the remaining building load but provided an additional 30% of renewable energy back to the grid.
Although some may argue that this project featured an overabundance of PV, the judges wanted to stress the importance of being a net provider if the owner has the means to do so. Moreover, because the renewable solutions are well-integrated and the home is attractive, it serves as a good example to help promote net zero energy buildings. And although the price tag and size may seem high, the designers dealt quite effectively with what they were given, choosing to save instead of tear down, and doing so for a relatively modest $141/sf.
Maybe most importantly, the design represents a home for real people, based on real needs. As a society, we need to modify the way we live for the sake of the planet. This home serves as an important mode, suggesting an incremental alternative to the way we currently live, and does so with beauty and grace.
It should be mentioned that while not all entries could be awarded first place, all had elements that were truly first-place quality. It speaks well of NESEA that the quality of the entries has increased year after year since the inception of the award.
In the Ross’ own words . . .
Our home is a 120-year-old farmhouse in downtown Amherst, MA. At the time of purchase, it had no insulation in the walls or attic, was heated by an oil furnace from the early 20th century, and was clad in mint-green asbestos shingles. Although walking distance to downtown, all of the public schools, and in a wonderful neighborhood, it gave us pause. On the plus side, the foundation was a quarter inch off of square, the framing was sound and the orientation produced a long south face. We seriously considered knocking it down but philosophically decided that we had stumbled on a perfect candidate for a deep energy retrofit. In short, we decided to keep as much of the structure of possible while attempting to address our needs now and into the future.
At no point was our goal to create a net zero house; Rather, we sought to make the best once-in-a-lifetime decisions. This approach led us to focus on creating a highly efficient building envelope. Our guiding principles for the functional design were few: (1) insist that every square foot be usable space (2) accommodate our young family with two children and a cat (3) establish spaces to accommodate the reality of our lives (mud room for kids boots, guest room for family and friends, and office for parents who work late), (4) allocate capital to core projects and leave long-term desires for a later date (garage and screened-in porch).
The result of our efforts is a highly efficient home with uncompromising aesthetics and comfort. The original footprint of the house is unchanged and yet we were able to massively upgrade the functional and energy efficiency of the site through smart design. For example, by removing and redesigning the roof, we were able to achieve three things: increase headroom in order to create a third-floor guest suite and office, remove a gable interrupting the south roof face to maximize space for PV, and create deep rafter bays for increased insulation. By clustering the auxiliary spaces in our home (office and guest suite) on the third floor and through our multi-zone heat pump system, we are able to “power down” those areas when not in use.
We have been in the house for a year and a half. It is a joy to live in. First, we relish living in a house designed to our needs and aesthetics. Our floor plan places living spaces on the south side and puts transition spaces on the north side so our primary living spaces and every bedroom is sun-splashed. Second, we are extremely proud to be a net clean energy producer. Despite running only electric appliances (including a lawn mower) we generate 30% more energy than we consume. We achieved these great heights by using a limited set of well-proven and accessible technologies and design elements. Our house is living proof that the existing housing stock of this country can be transformed to provide beauty, comfort, and sustainability.
Occupancy statement
During the 12 month period for which data is collected, the building was occupied for 360 days of the year. This is our full time residence, and we were away for only one vacation during the observation period.
In addition, the house supported 1,710 person days. In addition to our family of 4, we also housed my sister’s family of 3 for a 3-month period (April – June 2011).
Cost of building construction
Our construction costs totaled $708,782. Excluding the design costs of $48,256 and site preparation and landscaping costs of ($32,500), leads to an adjusted project cost of $628,026. This includes costs for insulating our basement and construction management services.
Major energy-related items
1. Building envelope
a. Sub slab – Existing slab was retained; no sub-slab insulation installed.
b. Slab edge – Exisiting slab was retained; no slab-edge insulation added.
c. Foundation wall – R-30. Brick and Fieldstone foundation wall insulated to the inside with closed cell spray foam to R-30 (5 inches)
d. Above grade wall – R-33+. Existing Above Grade Walls – 4” studs with existing board sheathing – retained. New Walls with 2×6 framing.
All walls insulated to the outside with (2) 1.5” layers of foil-faced polyiso, staggered and taped at all seams as air barrier.
Walls insulated to the inside with 4” (or 5.5”) Open Cell Spray Foam. Here, the use of open cell foam avoids a double vapor barrier at the above grade framing and sheathing, and provides further air barrier adhered to the existing board sheathing.
e. Flat attic – Small portions of the third floor have flat ceilings, with lighting and refrigerant piping concealed above.
f. Cathedral Ceiling – Entire roof re-framed with 2×12 rafters to provide deep cavity for cellulose. Insulated to the outside with the same 3” of polyiso for an R-54 roof assembly.
2. Doors/windows
Windows: 49 windows from Fibertec, Casement 300 series. U-values range from 0.13 – 0.18 for fixed, awning, and casements.
