House: The Windows

Here's a phrase you will hear often from me now ... the industry is corrupt.

So let's start off with the window industry ... the window industry is corrupt.

But first some background ...

Obviously if we're spending some extra cash on some insulated walls, the idea of buying windows with a single pane of glass and no insulating value doesn't make much sense. Since windows have a totally different function than walls - one you can actually open, close, and see through - I'm not expecting the equivalent of the R40 walls - but you want something decent.

Really tight homes seem to be gravitating towards fiberglass windows ... they don't lose as much heat, and they have less air infiltration over time because the window and fiberglass (being made of essentially the same material ... ummm, glass) is expanding and contracting at the same rate. Well, at least that's what the experts are telling us. Their energy performance is also generally better, and they'll even put a sticker on your windows that shows how good the window is at insulating and allowing solar gain into the house.

So why do I think this industry is corrupt?

Well first, like most products that consumers buy only once or twice in their lifetime (as opposed to something like toothpaste or gasoline) - the price range on similar products is huge. Four quotes on the same windows ranged from $16K to $28K (that's a 75% spread) - and not surprisingly, the $28K didn't itemize. And the quality was extremely similar. Where I think you have quality issues in windows is when you try to buy a common brand (think Pella, Anderson, Marvin), because you have to pay for their marketing budgets. And when you try to buy from a big box store like Lowe's - the price might cheap, but the quality is so low, you won't be happy with the windows. Remember, a lot of the things that are important on windows are kind of invisible to you and may not be obvious initially - like how much will the window deforms over time and leak air into your house.

This is also a favorite area for general contractors to recoup some of their margins. The name brand manufacturers have builder quality lines that are just barely above code - so the GC can say you are getting, say, Pella, windows, but they aren't very good quality.

So who did we go with - well, no one in the US - the few manufacturers in the US either had crappy quality or were out of sight price wise - and we just couldn't justify it. Keep in mind, the highest performing windows are at an equivalent of, say, R6 - where the next step down which is half the price is going to be R4 or R5. And they are all using the same glass, and they are all using the same fiberglass frames.

So we went with a Canadian fiberglass manufacturer.  There was definitely drama, so I'll just give you the high points ... we got quote from all 4 Canadian fiberglass window manufacturers, picked the cheapest, spent (I shit you not) 3 months trying to finalize an order (we didn't change ANYTHING on our side), and finally looked at the other 3 ... one had a fire at their plant, but didn't tell us that for 3 months, one was super expensive, and the last was just right ... took 48 hours to finalize the order and 6 weeks to ship.  Yes, there was some frustration with them actually shipping the windows after the 5 month ordeal - but they were solid windows.

Bottom line:  Order as early as you can to avoid this crap - and give them a couple weeks to put it together otherwise move on.

Oh, other design issues on windows ...

We didn't go with the traditional double hung windows - instead we went with casement and awning windows - they are the norm in Europe, and we always preferred them to the leaky double hung windows. I mean, if I was living in the old part of Boston, Massachusetts, I could see using traditional double hung windows - but there's no need for today's houses to be like that. I'm not opposed to a traditional design choice, it's just that sometimes it's good to think why you are making that decision.

The other design decision that went into windows was basically turning our windows into sails ... Since we were mostly using casement windows that would swing out ... we placed them and hinged them in such a way that they could capture as much air flow as possible.  So basically if the cooling winds are coming from the northwest, we have windows on the north and west side of the house that tries to capture the wind.  Sounds like it wouldn't make a huge difference, but let me tell you ... you would be amazed at how well it works.

On the solar gain thing, the US is a bit behind on that one than the rest of the World. Basically windows are measured by how much solar heat makes it through the glass - and in order to be considered an energy efficient window in the US, it has to be very low - as in only 20% of the solar heat can actually enter the house. But sometimes you want a window with a high solar gain - especially on the south side of the house. Considering it's easy to block the sun in the summer from the outside with an awning (we used to do that a lot 100 years ago) or some plants, having the heat stream in in winter is a pretty good idea - it's called free heat. So the windows on our house are kind of a mixture ... windows on the north and second floor try to block as much sun as possible, windows on the south side try to bring in as much heat as possible. There's still a debate on what to do with east and west windows, but I think if you have a plan where you can reliable block the solar gain from the outside, then I would sign up for the free heating in winter.
Windows turned out to be one of the top three most frustrating areas of the house for us ... from starting the final order process to having them installed took 6 months ... and again, the window requirements from our side NEVER changed.  Ahhhh !!!  Still brings a little chill to me months later.

House: The Walls

I know, not the most exciting subject - probably only interesting to people building an energy efficient house. But hey, a lot of thought went into this one.

Most US houses are built with stick framing - think 2X4's with fiberglass insulation between. Research indicated that the insulation value is about R9. It also suffers from not being the most solid construction relative to other methods.

Another option was an enhanced stick framing - basically make the walls thicker (like 12 inches) and then throw in a bunch more insulation. It's the cheapest way to make an insulated wall, but we weren't fans.

Since we were already doing a timber frame house - a structural insulated panel (SIP) seemed to be the most logical option. It's basically some type of rigid foam insulation sandwiched between two pressed particle boards of OSB. You basically have two choices in the insulation material - EPS (think cheap styrofoam cooler you buy in the grocery store) and polyurethane (think the yellow insulation you find in your refrigerator. The latter allows for higher insulation values with the same thickness. The other advantage with the company we went with (Thermocore) was that they'll take you building plans, have their computer cut the panels precisely (including window openings), and also run the electrical conduits on the exterior walls at no additional cost.

The guys at Thermocore love their 4" product, since that is the standard wall thickness and makes installing doors and windows easier. But we went with the thicker walls - 6.5" - it was only a little more cash and the r-value was 40 - (I'll skip the debate I had with my HVAC guy on the degradation of polyiso over its lifetime)

A note on cost ... with the budget and design pretty much set, I can now speak with some authority on the topic of whether SIPs (specifically polyurethane) is more expensive than stick framing. If I'm comparing the simple cost of materials - then stick framing is cheaper - no doubt. SIPs cost us $46K, whereas we'd probably get by with $28K on materials for exterior framing - $18K difference. SIP labor is probably half at $5K vs $10K because the SIP factory has done all the cutting and the structure goes up in a week - the difference is now down to $13K. The walls are R40 instead of R9, and the house is much tighter, which means you save on the size of a traditional HVAC system - we didn't go traditional HVAC, but I'd guess we'd save about $5K with a smaller HVAC system - so we're down to $8K difference. So for a 2400 sqft house, I'm paying an extra $3/sqft for R40 walls as opposed to R9 - depending on heating and cooling costs in your area, you can get that money back pretty quickly. So if you're planning on building a house that is going to be around longer than you are - I'd say it's worth it.

At the very least when you're at this stage of building a house, and you hear the "Oh, SIPs cost more than traditional framing" - make sure you ask them "How much?" and "Do I save in other places in the house that help make up for the premium?"