Whats driving that craze? For a time in the 70s I thought 7 ft ceilings were in, to save energy. These hi ceilings along with lots of yard lights will really cost when energy goes up
Discussion Forum
Discussion Forum
Up Next
Video Shorts
Featured Story
Learn how the pros keep their hand tools sharp without breaking the bank.
Featured Video
Highlights
"I have learned so much thanks to the searchable articles on the FHB website. I can confidently say that I expect to be a life-long subscriber." - M.K.
Fine Homebuilding Magazine
Fine Home Building
Follow
-
Fine Homebuilding
Dig into cutting-edge approaches and decades of proven solutions with total access to our experts and tradespeople.
Start Free Trial Now -
GBA Prime
Get instant access to the latest developments in green building, research, and reports from the field.
Start Free Trial Now
- Home Group
- Antique Trader
- Arts & Crafts Homes
- Bank Note Reporter
- Cabin Life
- Cuisine at Home
- Fine Gardening
- Fine Woodworking
- Green Building Advisor
- Garden Gate
- Horticulture
- Keep Craft Alive
- Log Home Living
- Military Trader/Vehicles
- Numismatic News
- Numismaster
- Old Cars Weekly
- Old House Journal
- Period Homes
- Popular Woodworking
- Script
- ShopNotes
- Sports Collectors Digest
- Threads
- Timber Home Living
- Traditional Building
- Woodsmith
- World Coin News
- Writer's Digest
Replies
Well, for some it's aesthetics. For some they feel lower ceilings are claustrophobic. Some places have hot weather and the higher ceilings allow more air circulation.
Many older homes had 9' or higher.
Don K.
EJG Homes Renovations - New Construction - Rentals
9- 10- and 12-foot ceilings have been around a long time. In my opinion, we're just getting back to what was. From that perspective, the "fad" was the ubiquitous 8-foot ceiling (perhaps initiated by the introduction and industry-wide acceptance of sheetrock).
There's a lot more room with higher ceilings to put in light fixtures and not worry about accidentally hitting them with your arms, etc. But mostly, I think a 9- or 10- foot ceiling just "feels" a lot better. Less claustrophobic. More scaled to a full-size human. ;)
As far as the heating goes, my guess is that a 9-foot ceiling won't make a huge difference. If it did make a difference (with 12-foot ceilings, for example), it'd be easy enough to put in ceiling fans to gently mix up the air. Eliminating the thermal stratification would fix that problem. For that matter, I suppose the location of forced air registers and returns could be intelligently laid out to eliminate stratification (and stagnation) as well.
Edited 5/3/2007 10:38 pm ET by Ragnar17
Ragnar, I bet you are correct about the cost of heating a 9 foot tall room vs an 8 foot ceiling not costing you much more. On the face of it you could figure that you are heating 12.5% more air which should cost you 12.5% more. However, what costs you is not the heating of the air but the heat loss. Since heat rises and most heat is lost through the ceiling and not the walls and since the sq ft of ceiling remains unchanged between the different heights the cost is pretty much the same. As far as wasting heat because "it" all sits up at the ceiling and does no one any good up there, I doubt the heat differential is all that great in a 9 foot ceiling. Perhaps you could get some dead air up there in a 12 foot ceiling, but with a little help it too get get moved around easily.
9, 10 and 12 foot getting back to once was? You have not been to New England have you? IT was the norm for "once was" to be 6' 6" or 7 foot if you were lucky.
You are right in that ceiling heights did go up from there and of course if you measure what once was by the palaces of Kings in Europe you would also be right. LOL!
I am in New England last time I checked and almost every old house I work in or have lived in here has ceilings at 9-10 feet downstairs and anywhere from 6'2" to 8'4" upstairs. The only ones I can think of that have less than 8' on the main floor are hovels and converted chicken coops
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
89464.40 in reply to 89464.37
I am in New England last time I checked and almost every old house I work in or have lived in here has ceilings at 9-10 feet downstairs and anywhere from 6'2" to 8'4" upstairs. The only ones I can think of that have less than 8' on the main floor are hovels and converted chicken coops
Really old capes, (i.e. 1750 ish) especially in Southern New England, often have ceilings well below 7 feet.
My more or less federal style two story hovel in mid-coast Maine has about 8' ceilings in the new section (about 1810) and about 7'4" in the old section (about 1780). Most of the houses around here are similar and I hardly ever see anything as tall as 9' in older houses. You must hang out in the fancier neighborhoods.
The chicken coop does have very low ceilings.
Edited 5/10/2007 11:32 am ET by smslaw
Remind those chickens to duck
;)
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
"You must hang out in the fancier neighborhoods."
I almost responded to Piffin with the same sentiment. When I think of "Old New England," I think of low-ceiling houses like you describe.
I'm 300 miles from New England, but, by comparison, my modest 1830s house has ceilings at 7'3", 7'11 and 8'2" downstairs, and 8'0" upstairs.
Allen
The one I grew up in - I think you saw it - had 8' downstairs and lower upstairs. Don't know that measurement but I could easily run my hand across it when I grew to adulthood - say 7'2"
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
"The one I grew up in - I think you saw it "
Yup, sure did. And the ceiling heights sound typical for a simple farmhouse from that period.
Allen
Around here tracts were built with 88 5/8 precut studs. Subfloors were 2X decking , layed on top of the PT sill. Using the short studs allowed an 8' sheet of siding (T-111 generally) to be nailed from sill plate to top top plate without a seam .
Homes ended up with a 7' 8" ceiling hgt.
Had nothing to do with energy efficiency and everything to do with cheaper to build.
"Poor is not the person who has too little, but the person who craves more."...Seneca
You have not been to New England have you? IT was the norm for "once was" to be 6' 6" or 7 foot if you were lucky.
You are correct -- I'm basing my experiences on west coast architecture from the Victorian age onwards.
My old house in the south has 11 and 9' ceilings, like all 2-story ones here. One-story houses typically had 12s.
It "feels" much better, and I think the "energy cost" of the higher ceilings is negligable. Summer heat goes up to where you're not, and it's easy enough to push the heat down in winter with ceiling fans.
Being used to my house, I can walk down the street to my parents, where I grew up, and feel like the 8' Ranch ceiling is riding on my back.
Forrest - designing a single-story house with 17' ceilings as we speak - two tiers of windows, so it looks like two stories from outside.
The guy I work with pointed one thing out that made sense--if you're going to have a higher ceiling, makes more sense to go all the way to 10', since materials come in 10' lengths, not 9'. If you go with 9', you'll have 1' cutoffs that are pretty much wasted. (Especially drywall.)
Drywall is available in 54" widths, for 9' ceilings
I can get 9' drywall from my supplier. It occurs to me as I write this that maybe they cut 10' sheets down!
Well, as Shoeman pointed out, most professionals put drywall up "sideways" anyway, but we always put it up vertically. Nonetheless, I don't think I've seen 2x4's in 9' lengths, although I suppose there are uses for the 1' offcuts.
9ft studs are pretty easy to get from my lumberyard.
I like the high ceilings, and can't imagine a whole house with 7ft ceilings and in fact I probably couldn't live in 8ft ceiling house again. They do make a room more comfortable to be in; not sure if it's from the perceived affect or actually being physically more comfortable.
They extrude it, and cut it to length when it is manufactured. So, they can make anything less than 12-foot, but would typically cut in 8, 10 and 12, unless they had a special order.
"makes more sense to go all the way to 10', since materials come in 10' lengths, not 9'."
9' studs are also readily available. So is 54" wide drywall.
So I think the guy you work with is wrong.
I'm the outdoor type.
As soon as a woman mentions commitment, I'm out the door.
I don't think there is anything wrong with 8' ceilings when properly sized to the room or appropriate to the home.
Taller is nice, but so is the effect of going from our smallish foyer with 8' ceiling into our greatroom with 17' ceiling.
For our MBR we went with a tray detail to get the area over the bed to 9' (to accomodate the fan better and provide for a future alcove lighting detail.
I know this thread is not all about economy; however, From an economy standpoint, yes, it's not much. Typically, though, none of the single decisions you make on a house saves you 10% on the whole deal. 8' ceilings are one of the small steps that add up to overall savings.
http://jhausch.blogspot.comAdventures in Home BuildingAn online journal covering the preparation and construction of our new home.
It wouldn't surprise me that he's wrong, but maybe because we're in a small town, I don't recall seeing 54" wide drywall or 9' studs (but, then, we no longer have any "real" lumberyards here--just Lowe's and HD). I'm sure we could pick the drywall up at a drywall supplier--we do have a good one in town.
I too am in a small town and when I did my latest I had my local yard get me 22-12' boards of 54". The pricing was by square ft by the way. I can go get it from two or three different drywall/material wholesalers if I wanted to but they are about 38 miles away and hardly worth it for that # of boards.
The best reason for a ceiling at a certain height is to make thing proportional to feel comfortable and look nice. sizing a room to a material is a rediculous concept.
besides, nine feet of wall and a floor frame comes close to ten feet which is an efficient use of sheathing amterial.Keep that guy driving nails instead of designing
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
I've always assumed that the "energy savings" from the low-ceiling designs of the 1970s was just hype. Kind of like the aluminum windows of the same era; great idea to make a "thermal" window out of a highly conductive material. ;)
10ft ceilings generally mean 10 ft walls.that's 25% more surface area to bleed heat to the outdoors compared to the outside. 12ft ceilings... 50% more wall area.And I bet your window sizes scale up too. It's not a myth. Ignoring stratification, you have more cold area wicking heat out of your room.-------------------------------------
-=Northeast Radiant Technology=-
Radiant Design, Consultation, Parts Supply
http://www.NRTradiant.com
Rob,
I see your point: minimizing the area of the house's envelope will reduce heat transfer.
I'd argue that's not exactly the same concept as exclusively focusing on the sole parameter of ceiling height, but I'm probably splitting hairs. But I'm looking at the issue more from an architectural perspective.
For example, lots of houses from the low-ceiling era were designed to be one-story structures. This has the effect of maximizing the ratio of the area of the roof to the area of the floor plan, which of course maximizes heat transfer. So what I'm saying is that the "design objective" of minimizing heat transfer via shortened walls is a myth. I don't think it was a thought-out approach, but rather a fad driven by what designers thought looked "groovy" at the time. The argument from a heat transfer perspective was most likely an afterhought in my opinion.
Just my two cents.
Smaller is more efficient. This has been a known principle in building design for quite some time now. I don't think it's coincidence that houses were built like this primarily when energy got expensive. And it does have an effect. Ranches have been popular because they were cheap, and are becoming so again for mobility reasons as people get older and sick of stairs. All that means is that sometimes, factors beyond energy efficiency matter. Which is quite obviously the case, or we would have no windows and all of our walls would be 12" thick. It's a much larger effect to control your window sizes, but still, a lot of smaller choices can really add up quickly as well. even a 9' wall is 12.5% more surface area to lose heat with. If I can get a 10% reduction anywhere else and save money doing it, I'm certainly going to consider it.There is no myth to smaller spaces using less energy. If those other concerns win out when considering a specific measure, great, so be it. But you don't get to pretend it's not true. do a load calc on a geodesic dome sometime... it's impressive.Now, do a hip roof and a tray ceiling, lots of a R-value in the ceiling.. probably no practical difference. Higher than normal wall R-value... no real practical difference. Mild climate... not a big deal. This isn't a decree from above or anything. But it should be considered, that's all I'm saying. And certainly NOT called a "Myth".-------------------------------------
-=Northeast Radiant Technology=-
Radiant Design, Consultation, Parts Supply
http://www.NRTradiant.com
I don't think it's coincidence that houses were built like this primarily when energy got expensive.
Well, keep in mind that the architectural trend towards low, one-story structures occured much earlier than the energy crunch of the 70s (if that's what you're referencing).
Weren't "ranches" very popular in the 1950s? I'm sure there's regional variation, but out on the west coast, nearly every single house I see from the 1950s and 1960s is a one story, rambling house. Tons of roof area for tons of heat loss.
Sorry to argue, but I still don't see how one can logically state that low-slung architectural design was in response to high energy costs given this evidence.
And to be clear, the only "myth" I'm debating is what sparked the design of the 8-foot (or lower) ceiling. All the heat transfer observations you make are absolutely correct.
Edited 5/4/2007 12:32 pm ET by Ragnar17
I don't think anything in those 50's and 60's ranches was built intentionally for any purpose other than speed of construction and cost. But in the 70's, they started pushing for efficient building around the energy crunch. They forgot real fast in the 80's though....-------------------------------------
-=Northeast Radiant Technology=-
Radiant Design, Consultation, Parts Supply
http://www.NRTradiant.com
"Sorry to argue, but I still don't see how one can logically state that low-slung architectural design was in response to high energy costs given this evidence."You're right about that. Most of those 60's West Coast houses have no insulation in the walls either, because heat loss in a mediterranean climate is not much and back then gas was cheap anyway.
BruceT
Okay. What happens to a ranch house when you have hydronic in-floor radiant heat, slab foundation, and Icynene in walls and under roof (in an unvented cathedralized attic application)? And you're in Atlanta, GA, where A/C and heat are considerations.
I give up, what?-------------------------------------
-=Northeast Radiant Technology=-
Radiant Design, Consultation, Parts Supply
http://www.NRTradiant.com
I'm asking your opinion. Particularly, does it make any difference with radiant heat versus, say, forced air? And, when you've moved that ceiling insulation up to the roof?
I don't think heating is a big concern in atlanta. you'll need to control the mass intelligently (floor sensors, at least, in addition to tstats). maybe a water heater system...moving the insulation does have an effect. More surface area is less efficient than less. But with very thick insulation as we normally have in a ceiling/roof... not such a big deal.-------------------------------------
-=Northeast Radiant Technology=-
Radiant Design, Consultation, Parts Supply
http://www.NRTradiant.com
Got it on the floor sensors. Thanks!
I thought it was a fad driven by "lofts" in comercial spaces being in, and people wanting the low feeling that gave.
And, a cube is the most effiecient form if you want to maximize volume to surface area using horizontal and vertical planes as boundaries.
And, a cube is the most effiecient form if you want to maximize volume to surface area using horizontal and vertical planes as boundaries.
Exactly.
It's interesting that the American Foursquare (circa 1900) offers a highly efficient use of space (not a lot of wasted area in floor plan) as well as good massing to conserve energy.
Agian, most of your heat loss is through the ceiling which remains unchanged regardless of ceiling height.
That's not even close to true. you have a slightly elevated temperature at the ceiling, and generally 50-100% more insulation, which more than offsets that loss. In fact, in modern homes the ceiling accounts for very little of the overall heat loss. Windows, walls and infiltration are the big 3.-------------------------------------
-=Northeast Radiant Technology=-
Radiant Design, Consultation, Parts Supply
http://www.NRTradiant.com
Rob,
It sounds like you're pretty up to date on heat loss in modern structures.
You say the "big three" areas of heat loss are: windows, walls, and infiltration. For an "average" house, what percentage of ALL losses are in each of those three areas? I'm just curious and am looking for approximate numbers.
Thanks.
obviously the big disclaimer is "it depends".roughly though, I'd say something like Window 35%
Infiltration 25%
Wall 20%
Ceiling 10%
Floor 10%But, that's a WAG as it relates to any particular house or even area of the house. Obviously this would be different for a 2 story great room w/masonry fireplace and window wall, vs a back bathroom with one outside wall and a 2x3 window. But in general, that's close to the regular hit list of bad boys.-------------------------------------
-=Northeast Radiant Technology=-
Radiant Design, Consultation, Parts Supply
http://www.NRTradiant.com
It depends is right!I am guessing that to answer accurately you wopuld have to break it down to three answers for heat loss according to radiant, convective, and conductive, and again according to type of insulation. For instance, a well done house insulated with spray foam or SIPs probably has only 5-10% of the infiltration loss of a house insulated with FG batts.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
well, I think that's probably overstating the savings.. remember, you do need infiltration, either one way or another. But yes, YMMV indeed. In modern construction though, it's safe to say that glass will be the number one single greatest heat loss item, and ceiling/floor losses will be near the bottom.-------------------------------------
-=Northeast Radiant Technology=-
Radiant Design, Consultation, Parts Supply
http://www.NRTradiant.com
Glass definitely!
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Thanks for the response, Rob.
In your opinion, why isn't it easier to cut the heat loss through the walls down more? I can't remember off the top of my head what the R-value per inch is for spray foam, but it seems with a 2x6 wall there'd be plenty of depth to kick the R-value up pretty high. Is it a thermal bridging issue? I guess at some point one will hit the law of diminishing returns, too, of course (the extra cost in superinsulating the walls might just not be the best long-term use of that money).
Thanks again for your input.
>> why isn't it easier to cut the heat loss through the walls down more? Because most walls have windows, and it doesn't matter too much how good the insulation is in the wall cavity when the window is R-3, the header and all the studs are R-6, and then add the infiltration losses around the window.Eric
Eric,
I might be wrong, but I think Rob is treating the walls independently of the windows.
Eric is right, in that generally you're best off loading as much money into windows as you can stand first. That's the low hanging fruit. At an R3 for a standard good quality window these days, every square foot of window is like having 6 square feet or so of regular R19 wall. The lower the R value, the bigger the difference each bit of R you can get makes. consider that going from R2 to R4 cuts your heat loss in half.. but R19 to R21 makes nearly no difference at all. Even better.. thermodynamically speaking... is eliminating window area as well as its associated bridging area. But obviously you can only go so far there ;)
Secondly, addressing infiltration is generally a bigger deal than raw R value increase in the walls. Of course, addressing infiltration usually also gives you an R-value benefit. But these days, most people seem fairly savvy as to the importance of a tight envelope and it's possible to get pretty tight even with FG.
third, there is significant cost in using high density R value products to full 2x6 thicknesses.. multiple layers of spray foam, for example, get pricey real quick. so the diminishing return generally caps people off at more reasonable layers... unless they have different priorities than most people...-------------------------------------
-=Northeast Radiant Technology=-
Radiant Design, Consultation, Parts Supply
http://www.NRTradiant.com
I'm betting my money on Icynene insulation and the most energy efficient window glazing; NO windows on the west exposure (here in the south our biggest energy cost is air conditioning); and the best-rated window frames I can find, which are solid pultruded fiberglass. In-floor radiant heat over a monolitic slab with ceramic tile floors throughout.Given that unconventional set of priorities, there's no budget left for the current sacred trinity of "stainless steel appliances/granite countertops/hardwood floors." And I hope I'm doing the best thing because this is my retirement home and every cent I've got, or will ever have, is going into it.If it works, I'll become a spokesman for putting your priorities in the right place!Oh, and if I can afford it I'm doing 10 foot ceilings to make this small house feel a bit more spacious. If not, then 9 foot ceilings and 10 foot treys in some of the rooms.
Edited 5/10/2007 4:21 am ET by bjAtlanta
bj, the trays will take as much, if not more material, and more labor. If you want high, do it.
Thanks for telling me that. Builders have been telling me I could save overall by doing 9 feet--lower exterior walls cost less and that if I went to 10 feet all round then I'd need to do taller (more $$) windows to make the exterior look right. That was where I got the notion I should do 9 ft. and just raise the most important rooms with the treys.Does that logic make sense? House will be brick and windows are fiberglass frames, both pricey items to need more of.
It will cost more for the exterior walls.
But, I think it will be more than offset by the increased complication of building the tubs. I can't believe that you can do what you need to the roof structure, make the framing for the tubs, put on the dry wall and finish it less expensively than just raising the walls.
Every instance I've seen where there were tubs, the trusses had been raised, and then the framing for the built beneath it.
Never made sense to me. Say you have nine foot ceilings, and want a ten foot tub, 1.5-ft from the walls. You have nine feet of dry wall, then 1.5 ft plus 1 more foot, for a total of 11.5 ft. So to get the 10 foot ceiling you just installed and extra foot and a half of drywall, added the framing to support it, and added two joints to tape in the drywall.
Thanks for the follow-up. It makes sense to me and I don't know why builders keep recommending the 9 foot walls. I think maybe they all got a bargain and loaded up on studs that size. Maybe somebody told them this was cheaper. I'm printing out your reply so I have something intelligent to say the next time I'm giving the 9 foot wall routine.
I would go with 10' walls and if ceiling treatments are desired, then furr down from there to create pop-ups.
As a framer, it's much more work to build beams forming a perimeter and joist them out and also put finger joists to the beams than to build a soffit underneath. It also make different options available.
With the brick, to offset the costs of , just use a larger frieze board, say a 1x12 instead of a 1x4. A steeper roof also has a lower soffit for a given overhang size. Put a 16" hardisoffit overhang on a 10 pitch as compared to a 5 pitch, it's double the drop.
Even besides that, using 10' walls w/8' header height gives you a chance to use 6'8 doors w/transoms. Can't do that as easily w/9's
My point is, I think it's more effecient and economical to go with 10' walls as opposed to 9' walls in the long run. Any mechanicals that need a soffit to hide them, that soffit will be at 9' instead of 8'.
Maybe there is a porch with a lower pitch roof than the main (or bastard) ? If you want to match overhangs, you have an extra foot considering dropping from 9' to 8'.
Just from a framing standpoint, I prefer 10' wall to 9's. Some other guys mentioned crown, and I know it's easier to rock because of the tapered edges.
That's all, sorry for being long winded.
JK
More good thinking. Thanks; I printed your reply for future reference. I do think the extra height for a transom at the front door would improve the looks of that area, so that's a help. And I also need to match up roof overhangs in a place on the front, so that's good to know.I never wanted the darn trey ceilings; I prefer flat ceilings. I just keep getting steered in that direction by GCs, who I'm interviewing for the job.
There was a guy here who did a plastered dome tray by using one of those old time giant satellite dishes as pre-fabricated lath -- the kind that were 10 or 12 ft. in diameter, made of steel mesh. Very impressive, and inexpensive, too.
-- J.S.
Don't you like to see creativity at work? Very interesting.
that the "energy savings" from the low-ceiling designs of the 1970s was just hype.
Well, it was and it wasn't. If you were in a 7 or more month heating climate, a lower ceiling brings the sensibly warm air closer to the occupants--so they "feel" more comfortable. You also reduce the volume of air to be heated by a good chunk, 12% from an 8' ceiling, 25% from a 9' ceiling--that's a lot less air to heat and reheat.
Where the problem comes in is in the great middle, where heating and cooling are about equal amounts of time during the year.
Had a classmate, in a materials class, who researched a Goodyear product that rapidily inflated & deflated to known volumes actually write up a paper on making an "adjustable" ceiling for heating & cooling. Only problem with the idea was in fixtures on the ceiling--ah, the heady optimism of college . . . <wistful sigh>
(I suddenly have a hankering for cheap pizza and cold beer--wunnerwhy <g>)Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Warm pizza and beer, both left over from the night before, and pretty close to whatever the temperature in the room is. It really would cure a hangover.
"the "energy savings" from the low-ceiling designs of the 1970s was just hype."True in large part.The energy losss is determined by exterior surface area, not by total volumne. A two story house with nine foot ceilings down and 8' up will barely register more heat loss than 8' walls on both floors.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
A two story house with nine foot ceilings down and 8' up will barely register more heat loss than 8' walls on both floors.
And, like I said to Rob, a one-story rambler will have much higher heat loss than a two story house of equal square footage and similar construction methods.
I just don't think that heat transfer was on the minds of designers when they started pushing low ceilings. I think it was just the style, simple as that.
actually there was an assumption that volumn heated was the determining factor. I recall sitting in a class on solar heating - passive - where this was discussed and refuted back in '77
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Can you elaborate on that a little? I'm not following.
You had said, "I just don't think that heat transfer was on the minds of designers when they started pushing low ceilings. I think it was just the style, simple as that."my statement was intended to refute that. I knew of a conscious attempt to design in recognition of the assumption that heated volumn was an important consideration which it is not. The amt of surface area exposed the exterior is the important consideration
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
I knew of a conscious attempt to design in recognition of the assumption that heated volumn was an important consideration which it is not.
Sounds like you're saying the designers got the right answer for the wrong reason. ;)
In hot southern climates, a 14' ceiling was once useful for saving energy before AC. Heat rises so the tall rooms were more comfortable.
Welcome to the
Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime.
where ...
Excellence is its own reward!
No one has mentioned the use of larger windows. With the taller wall you can use a taller window. We have 5ft tall windows and can bring in the outside in.
Edited 5/4/2007 8:36 am ET by curley
One of the family-heirloom antiques in my home is a corner cupboard. Built around 1850, it stands about 104" tall.
So, 96" ceilings are out of the question for me.
Support our Troops. Bring them home. Now. And pray that at least some of the buildings in the green zone have flat roofs, with a stairway.
So are you and the Demos going to own the million dead as a result? Just curious.
So are you and the Demos going to own the million dead as a result? Just curious.
I truly have absolutely no clue what your asking about.
Support our Troops. Bring them home. Now. And pray that at least some of the buildings in the green zone have flat roofs, with a stairway.
He's probably commenting on your signature.
I thought 7 ft ceilings were in, to save energy
Depends on what energy is being "saved." Down here in central Texas, where some folk are already a month into a/c season, a 10' or 12' celing allows warmer air to "pool" higher than a person's "head height," making it less sensible. That also gets it out of the range where it affects the t-stat quite so often.
Now, that generally only "works" with floor fans, rather than ceiling fans, otherwise you are mixing rather warm air with cooler conditioned air, to the benefit of neither.
Now, with good lighting design, a tall ceiling is neither less nor more expensive. Of course, good lighting design can be as hard to come by as well-designed tract housing, too. With bad lamping, fixture, & trim specs, that 10' ceiling can be horrible.
But, to my thinking, horrible design is horrible design. I've seen too many track houses with arbitrary plate heights, and no thought to the spaces within those spaces. That's where you find the "toilet room" which is 3x5x10'--a useless and uncomfortable space. Or hallways that could have had drop ceilings (which would have helped not swiss-cheese the second floor TJI for mechanicals).
But, that's just my observation, others' differ.
One answer is that in large rooms, say 30 feet long or more, even an eight foot ceiling seems low. I think that in smaller rooms, like bedrooms, you can enter the room and not really be aware of the ceiling at 8 foot high. But a long room, which are not just limited to hugh houses but could be a dinning room livingroom como or even a great room concept, as you look across the room you can not avoid seeing the ceiling and feeling pushed in upon. Just my observation.
Heat and air loads are done off cubic feet . The taller the ceiling the bigger motors running and so on.
It costs more to build higher . Quite a bit more labor with obvious material costs.
Its how you can get an expensive home . Lots of people want it .
Tim
High ceilings make it possible to have nice built up crown and base instead of the skinny little stuff on lots of modern homes.
People are taller. My cousins, 6'3", 6'5" and 6'7" (even my 6' mother and father) look like giants in an 8' room. Higher ceilings are better scaled for taller people - they just need to make taller doors to go with them rather than having to custom build them.
Ceiling fans work better if they are dropped a bit from the ceiling, which can't be done on a 8' ceiling.
A lifesize copy of Monet's WaterLilies would just look plain silly with the ceiling looming over it, not to mention the inability to properly light it.
Those of us raised in older houses feel some comfort when in homes similar to our youths, which often had higher ceilings.
There are many things driving the trend - I wish I had higher ceilings in my home. If I were ever to build my own it would have 10' high ceilings in at least a portion of the house. Not sure about the cost. We put an addition on our house facing east and south with scissor truss ceiling - probably about 10' in the middle. In the summer without AC on that is the most comfortable room in the house. Just open the skylights and the hot air escapes.
edwardh1
Take a infrared thermometer and shine it on the peak of my ceiling 28 feet above my great room. it will read say 69 degrees in the dead of the winter.. shine it on my floor and it too will read 69 degrees.
My old house with barely 8 foot ceilings would read 74 degrees and the floor would read 66.
The differance is the insulation technique between the two houses..
so the idea of high ceilings costing more in energy can be debunked,... in some cases... No doubt there are many homes that use old fashioned insulation and loose a lot of heat because of high ceilings,, but it's not the height of the ceiling rather the way it's insulated.
No doubt there are many homes that use old fashioned insulation and loose a lot of heat because of high ceilings,, but it's not the height of the ceiling rather the way it's insulated.
Your point about the insulation in the ceilings still stands, but NRTRob made an excellent point earlier about high ceilings -- they need high walls. And all that wall area increases heat transfer, since heat transfer is directly proportional to area.
For me, I still think the inherent beauty and grace of high ceilings is worth a few extra percentage points on the heating bill, but it's obviously a matter of personal choice.
Edited 5/10/2007 9:35 pm ET by Ragnar17
Ragnar 17
Again it really depends on a load of factors such as the size of windows (everyone seems to agree they are the biggest heat loser) walls and insulation.
My older smaller house with the same furnace cost me $500 a month to heat in december and january.. this much bigger house not fully sealed yet is $125 for the same periods..
However your point is valid.. If I used these same techniques to build a smaller house say 2500 sq.ft. My heating bill would be say $50 to $75 a month.. in dec.&Jan.