As an architect, I have previously been taught that creating a sustainable home is about designing it so that living in it lowers energy and water use. This is achieved through designing for orientation, using thermal mass and specifying fixtures and finishes that are low impact, reuse water on site, etc. However, the latest research is showing that this is not enough to impact the rate of climate change. And that what we build from needs to be considered in order to make a dent. This is because the timeframe required to see the benefits of sustainable living in a home, is a longer play than the upfront construction from low tox, low energy, minimal footprint materials and methodologies. It has to be a two-pronged approach. Choose materials and products, and constructing efficiently with low energy and low waste. Having carbon neutral homes. And designing homes that over the long term, are low in energy and water consumption, and support the health and well-being of the occupants. A project was established in mid 2017, called “The Building Code Energy Performance Trajectory Project”. It involved the Sustainable Built Environment Council and ClimateWorks Australia, and is described as an industry-led initiative seeking improvements to energy requirements in the National Construction Code. The report was released recently, and what was amazing in this report was to read that 58% of Australia’s buildings in 2050, will be built after 2019 … which means that there’s huge potential to impact their performance and the environment through better energy requirements. And these energy requirements have not been rigorously updated since 2010, despite electricity prices having doubled over that time. Detached housing will comprise 64% of the new construction between 2019 and 2050. So every homeowner has the opportunity to seriously change the landscape of energy use and efficiency in our country. There’s some sectors of the industry really pushing back against this … largely because they believe it will dramatically dent their profit margins to have to build houses with higher star ratings. Australian homes, on average, perform very poorly, and our expectations are super low. Steve Baczek, an American architect, said something about American houses that I think sums it up for Australia as well ... “It’s not that High-Performance Houses cost too much; it’s that our idea of a fairly priced home is based on a history of building houses to meet embarrassingly low performance benchmarks. Clients don’t realise the difference between built to code vs built to last”.

My house is also built at the top of a hill, the summit and is cut into a cliff. We bought it, it was built in the 90s and the orientation is entirely wrong. The living areas face west and all bedrooms are in the east. The master is exposed to the western and the northern sunshine. It’s nice in the winter and entirely unbearable in the summer. The same goes for my living room. We take extra long holidays in the summer to avoid being at home. The home had no insulation in ceilings, and raked ceilings. So the first thing we did was remove the roof sheeting install battens to create a cavity and installed R3.5 insulation. We are also upgrading installing new windows to upgrade the glazing on the western windows and looking to put insulation in all the walls It also gets really windy, so windy. So I understand your concerns. When it gets windy the entire house shakes. So the next thing will be to improve the bracing. There is a 3-4metre clearance under our home for storage. We could do a build in under. Even with the positioning of our shed and close proximity to the home it does little to shelter from the wind. We are considered the building an “outdoor room” which would act as an alfresco with skylights, lounge, pool and kitchenette that could act as an outdoor entertainment area when weather permits. I just did a sustainable design for a client nearby. I am so jealous of her amazing home. Her land is smaller then my land and her land cost the same price as my house and land. So I am grateful for what I have.

Things are ticking along . We have a whole lot of long skinny flush-mounted LED taillights -- they won't be fitted until we take Frankie off the road to re-paint , as the existing lights come off , and these ones will need holes cut , the exterior repainted , then these lights bonded ( glued ) in . The Mercedes seats have had new certified mounts made ( being a safety item , we spent about $150 getting them certified -- keeps it legal , although there are literally thousands of vehicles out there that have had seats changed , and no certs ) and we made little 'boxes' that have walnut tops , and all the controls for the electric seats are in these ( on Merc cars , they are on the doors , but our auto sparky has made new mini wiring looms ) . We dropped the seats to the upholsterer last week , so in the next month or so they will be recovered -- a sort of bone/cream leather for the surrounds , and red leather with diamond stitching up the middles . This is almost what my cab looks like , mine has 1980's Falcon or similar bucket seats in a grey vinyl . I assume that was done so that there is only the 2 seats , and you can get through to the back , whereas in the pic with 3 seats , you can't . My interior is the same colours -- 3 different charcoal/grey tones on the dash , then a black on the doors ( why , I have no idea -- I would have thought charcoal would have been better ? ) . Once the seats are back and fitted , I am tempted to get the door cards redone -- do a padded charcoal vinyl that matches one of the dash colours , but do a 'scallop' from the rear of each door in the lighter leather , then a red maybe 150mm wide scallop in the middle . I feel that will tie in the doors , the dash and the seats better . The booth seating ( table and chairs basically ) in the rear will get done the same cream/bone and red leather , to tie it in a bit more . Which then brings up 1 problem . You may have noticed I have used a downloaded pic , and I was going to post a few 'before' pics of the cab and the rear , so you can see it in its 90's wooden and tacky lino glory , but that turns out to be a problem . All the 'before' pics I have are ones that the last owner e-mailed to me . I downloaded them all , they are still on my computer , I can look at them no problem . BUT for some reason , they aren't JPG's -- they show as 'Google Chrome Files' , and I can't work out if I can post them here -- I've tried but nothing happens . Are there any experts that know how to post these 'files' ( pictures ) ?

Haha -- I had a mobile home that I use to tow my race car to meetings , but after 18 months of pointing out to the NZ authorities that they are idiots , I've officially de-registered it and re-registered it as a mobile office ! A 6 berth mobile home needs 6 certified seat belts , for example . A 6 berth caravan can be towed by a 2 seater ute though , and in fact it is 'illegal' to add more seats to a ute . A 10 seater van can be used to tow a 2 berth , or 6 berth , caravan . But a 6 berth mobile home has to have 6 certified seats and belts . You cannot even legally take 1 or 4 seats out , and put in say bunk beds and fold up seats , and only have a driver and 1 passenger ! Here's where it gets weird though -- a mobile office only needs 1 certified seatbelt for each person onboard when it is moving . So you can have 1 seat , or 1 certified seat and a 56 seater theatre , or office wheelie chairs ( as long as you don't have people in them when on the road ) . Hell , an office can have a kitchen , a shower , a toilet , a bedroom or two , basically whatever you want ! There's even things like a Mobile Home cannot be legally parked overnight ( 'freedom camping' ) in some streets or parking areas , but a mobile office can ! So to me , working remotely will now take on a whole new meaning haha -- great views , beers and food in the fridge , fuel tanks topped up , take my shower and TV and a few changes of clothes , maybe even the laptop and tablet !