Solar design’s chief appeal was aesthetic closeness to nature, not fuel economy

Evidence

Though the solar house promised economy – perhaps even the end of fuel bills, as one headline proclaimed – the monthly savings were only part of the appeal. For people with vivid memories of wartime rationing and postwar fuel crises, the dependability of the sun’s heat was comforting: The new way of building offered “freedom from concern over oil shortages and coal strikes.” But the principal argument for solar design was “aesthetic satisfaction.” The solar house united the indoors and the outdoors, and so brought people closer to the pleasures of nature. — Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside, 233

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Early solar advocates framed efficiency as saving resources, not reducing pollution — Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside:…, 215; Solar home design failed partly on aesthetic, not merely economic, grounds — Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside:…, 247; Energy efficiency conflicted with postwar taste for glass and open layouts — Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside:…, 248

Broader Connections

• Solar home design failed partly on aesthetic, not merely economic, grounds #corroborates (0.90) — Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside, 247
• Energy efficiency conflicted with postwar taste for glass and open layouts #qualifies (0.72) — Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside, 248