Manufacturers paid builders to delete climate-adaptive architectural features

Evidence

At the same time, the air-conditioning manufacturers encouraged builders to cut costs by eliminating a number of traditional ways of minimizing summer heat and humidity. Why include breezeways? And why bother with basements, or attics, or porches? Why include expensive, oddly shaped corners just to improve ventilation? And why install screens for doors and windows? According to the Carrier Corporation, the equipment in a climate-controlled house almost paid for itself. Eliminate the screened-in sleeping porch, and save 350. Eliminate the attic fan, and save 250 more. Since air conditioning eliminated the need for cross-ventilation, builders did not have to put windows in every wall, and windows cost 25 apiece. The windows also could be fixed in place, with no sashes or screens, at a savings of 20 a window. Eliminate ventilation louvers, and save another $125. To demonstrate the practicality of the advice, the company even sponsored inexpensive model homes with central cooling. — Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside, 262

Categorization

  • SEED: The per-feature dollar values (350 porch, 250 attic fan) make a vivid quantified case for how markets priced out passive infrastructure — usable in the Eco-Justice development thread.
  • XREF: connects to: The housing industry adopted planned obsolescence to maintain a replacement market — Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside:…, 251; Affordable air conditioning required builders to remove shade and ventilation features — Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside:…, 289; Mass-produced tract housing erased regional climate-adapted design by 1950 — Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside:…, 240 (+2 more)

Broader Connections