Your thoughts on Green Building
OK, we have estimated two homes to be built as “green” and each came in about 15-20% more than standard construction. When we showed this to the client they balked as they still wanted “a good price”.
So…and be honest here…does anyone else besides me think that alot of the green building stuff is just hype?
I mean, I have always built things to be energy efficient and well built but does using a certain kind of flooring or paint (that costs more!) just because someone “says” it benefits the enviornment justify the added cost? An extreme example would be why not just build to standard specs and donate that 15% to some environmental group?
And feel free to state your feelings as I know many of you will think I’m wrong, but I won’t argue back. I just feel (at least in my area) this Green trend is being marketed far too much and its being sold as a trend and not as a building practice. I think if a couple were to only live in a house 5-7 years (like many young folks do) they wouldn’t reap any benefits of their added costs? Maybe I’m wrong but I felt someone had to say it and bring it up.
And I will add the disclaimer I have several environmental science classes under my belt so I have looked at this from the scientific point of view as well and not just the contractor one.
Go ahead, flame away! 😉
Mike
Edited 7/17/2007 7:39 am ET by Oak River Mike
Replies
"does anyone else besides me think that alot of the green building stuff is just hype?"
Yup.
BTW - There's a "Green Building" section on BT.
Mike Hamar: Not the way I do it.
A very timely post, Mike. I'm just starting a major kitchen remodel for a customer who is extending her house and adding a two story addition. The existing kitchen will be completely blown out and replaced. I'm doing the kitchen design and will build and install all of the the cabinets.
When we were talking yesterday morning, she was telling me that she was very big on recycling. Part of the remodeling project included demolition of a family room and she was very proud of the fact that much of the family room material had been salvaged. She even salvaged the old insulation and plans to re-use it in the ceiling of the existing garage.
Since I will also be ripping out the old kitchen, I asked her if she wanted to salvage any of it - or just rip and dump it. She was surprised to find out that salvage and recycling can cost quite a bit more.
We're meeting at the house this morning to determine what she might want to salvage. This could get interesting. The kitchen was built it the 50's and I'm pretty sure that it was stick built on site. I'm sure that I can disassemble it if that's what she really wants, but that will definitely cost more than rip and haul. - lol
Edited 7/17/2007 10:26 am by Dave45
If we stop using the term "green" and simply say that using x instead of y will result in z benefit and cost $$ more, then we can better evaluate whether spending the money makes any sense, financial, environmental or otherwise. Some green technologies, like solar hot water, may make much more economic sense than others, like solar electricity, and most will depend on climate conditions and availability of experienced subs.
Stuff that may help save the planet, or be healthier for inhabitants, are harder to evaluate because they don't lend themselves to numerical comparisons. Bamboo floors may be made from renewable sources, but is bamboo more green than oak, when you consider that bamboo is made in China by exploited workers and then shipped 12000 miles to us, when oak grows in our backyard?
15-20% seems like a huge premium over standard, but if every material and process is
I don't think there is a good answer to the original poster's question.
My opinion is that many people are just in it for the "green"--as in profits. On old marketing trick is to create a problem, then offer a solution to the problem you created. Remember "ring around the collar?" or "morning breath?"
Toyota Prius drivers probably feel good about being a part of an environmentally friendly movement. However, the zinc smelters in Canada that provide the materials for the batteries create acid rain that is a problem throughout North America. Then the smelted zinc is trucked across Canada, put on a boat and shipped to Wales for the production of the batteries, then shipped to Japan for final assembly, then shipped to the U.S. so we can drive the "environmentally friendly" cars and feel good about ourselves. By the way--the life expectancy of a Toyota Prius--100,000 miles.
Oh, well.
"She wrote a long letter, on a short piece of paper." Traveling Wilburys
My definition of 'green' is to leave the maximum amount in my pocket.
To me, that usually means 90% recycled stuff - including wood, elec. panels, toilets, sinks, etc. etc. That is green.
Edit PS: Recycled is typically free, some added labor that is tax free if owner sweat equity or DIY. Propably the only way for recycled to be really lower cost.
Paying a premium for "political correctness" according to somebody who has never felled or planted a tree is so much BS.
BTW, the most recent shed is actually from trees I planted myself 35 years ago - how many PC greenies can say they built with trees they originally planted??
Edited 7/17/2007 11:34 am ET by junkhound
How are YOU defining green building in this case.
Green building can safe a TON of money if it relates to building a smaller house with less wasted spaces.
What different products/proceedures are you talking about on this project.
.
A-holes. Hey every group has to have one. And I have been elected to be the one. I should make that my tagline.
The term 'green building' is still too vague at present to maintain validity. It's an umbrella term that can mean solar power, insulation that doesn't use formaldehyde, or cabinets made from compressed wheatgrass. So when one aspect smacks of charlatanism or pseudo-environmental snobbery, unfortunately everything else gets painted the same way.
It seems that 'true' green building practices should require some kind of an effort on the part of the consumer. A home that's built small but efficiently, taking advantage of natural light and site considerations, is far more 'green' than a McMansion with acres of flooring whose manufacturer claims it's slightly less invasive to the habitat of an endangered field mouse somewhere in Uzbekistan.
IMHO, 'green' is sometimes used as a justification for building. Folks who feel guilty having money and nice things can justify building a new house (when an existing one would do) if it's 'green'. We all know the real 'green' approach is not to build a new house, but stay put.
A more specific concept than "Green building" is LEED or Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. The LEED program seems to have caught on in large commercial develops, at least in Portland, OR. It can also be applied to houses, although I haven't seen all that many that indicate a LEED rating. Info is available at:http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CategoryID=19
The good thing about LEED is that at least there are specific criteria on which a rating is based. Some people may dispute the criteria, but at least someone has put some thought into the process and someone buying a property with a LEED rating can make some reasonable assumptions, whereas, someone buying a "green" house can't assume anything. I would think that a building with a LEED rating might command a premium upon resale.
The recent Austin project on This Old House got a LEED rating, I believe.
Edited 7/17/2007 4:25 pm ET by smslaw
Mike,
As has already been said, the best way to be "green" (silly term, damn marketers) is to build smaller, smarter, tighter, and to last. What specific strategies you use depends largely on where you are. What is appropriate in one area isn't neccessarily so in another. But if you do your research, once, you will find that it will hold over the breadth of your customers, so the payback can be quicker for you and them.
Some of my "off the top of my head" strategies are (based on the midwest/plains, where I am and where I studied):
First off, the buyers need to "buy in" to smaller, better design. If you don't have a thorough understanding of how to make smaller better, it isn't hard to learn: just common sense, building and (gasp, horror - architectural) history, and practice. Lots of good sources out there.
Second is Enlightened Regionalism! Understand the climactic influences on regional design. I'm sorry, colonials don't belong in the hot, humid, windy midwest!!! Nor do norman castles! Salt boxes are miserable in the south. Mexican haciendas are lousy in New Hampshire. Don't go underground in Florida. You get it. Look at old rural buildings to get a good idea of where you need to head. (they didn't have the luxury of for-show design)
Try not buy a cleared lot. I can't say how often I see the add for wooded this or forest that and all the trees have been cleared to the lot lines! Argh! Faye Jones built Thorncrown chapel (and many of his residences) to be assembled litteraly in between the trees.
Location, location, location! Infill is often better than just-ex-cornfield. This often takes both a special customer and a special builder/developer. Brownfield development is better still but if often better done by specialists. (Perhaps a direction you would like to develop? Or not.)
Given a lot, orientation is paramount. Don't face all your windows north just cause that is where the street is (or isn't)! (No northern hemisphere prejudice intended!) Also don't make blank side walls just because you have neighbors! (how are the kids supposed to chat back and forth all night:) Also don't forget designing the whole lot - not just the just the house. How do you deal with storm runoff, can you (sensibly) use rainbarrels, catchement basins, greywater irregation? How are you going to tackle light pollution (From the environs and from the house). Is there fire or draught or flood hazzard? Giant mutant raccoons that like to live in attics? You get the idea.
As to materials - it is a balancing act. That is why your research now pays off for all your clients. The idea is to use stuff that meets multiple criteria for YOUR area. Local recycled material is better than imported material. I wouldn't use recycled beams from northeast mills but I might use wheatgrass panels or recycled gym floors. Limestone or slate instead of imported marble or granite. Is wind a better alternative than solar? Heat pump or Swamp Cooler? Geothermal or Water? On grid, off grid, something in between? What are the specific local tax breaks, utility rebates, and ease of use? Some materials are worth the "environmental" expense of importing from afar. I would rather "import" cement (from the pacific northwest) than ipe or honduras mahogany. In the northwest don't bring in bald cypress or long leaf pine (even though it is recycled)
The thing to get across to your customers is that a house needs to be a home first, an investment second. It needs to meet THEIR needs, then consider resale, and to be comfortable, efficient, maintainable, and responsible in its materials. Being "green" is a state of mind, not a product.
One last thought. There is also a social or community aspect of "green". It is more than not using materials from some far away dictatorship with exploited workers. It is using and reviving local skills and craftmenship. Stone workers, log builders, adobe makers, tile roofers, etc in addition to the usual cabinetmakers and carps.
I expect I ranted a bit, sorry. Hope this give some grist for the mill.
Lisa
You don't have to be a raving greeny to implement thoughtful,sensitive and sustainable building practices.
Green building can be simple or complex just like everything in life, 'green' is a simple terminology with an adaptable set of principles.The first principle has to be orientation of the house to maximize the weather you live in,then insulation, sustainable building materials sourced from regrowth forest (from your own country) or recycled materials, from that simple start add the water saving devices, water tanks to flush toilets,grey water recycling then solar electricity, natural gas, low energy lighting etc.It can be as cheap or as dear as your budget or conscience allows, the critics of 'green' building really are being passed by and calling it hype or marketing will not make it go away .
cheers,
Johnhttp://www.johnwalkerbuilders.com
just checked out your website . . . some way cool projects on the other side of the world
nice work :)
Edited 7/17/2007 6:10 pm ET by draftguy
Thank you.Cheers,
Johnhttp://www.johnwalkerbuilders.com
I think the thing to do in such a situation is to identify 5-10 "green" ideas and put a price tag on each. (Yeah, I know this isn't easy, but contractors still do it for the fancy cabs vs cheapies, vinyl vs ceramic, etc.)
Not everything in the structure must be at the absolute maximum "greenness" for the project to be an improvement (in terms of environmental impact) over standard building practices. Just as everyone doesn't have to buy a hybrid in order to get better than average gas mileage.
"An extreme example would be why not just build to standard specs and donate that 15% to some environmental group?"
Because environmental groups are just trying to repair the damage. Why not be part of the solution by not doing the damage in the first place?
You're talking about the motivations behind building green. Some of the people, including those selling a product--or assembling a structure--are far more interested in "green" as a marketing tool. Or as a means of adding profit.
Some consumers are far more interested in: (1)gettin' themselves one of them newfangled green structures; (2)assauging their conscience over building something they want but don't need in the first place; (3) using the green label as a means of enhancing future resale.
How many consumers have done thorough research, then carefully thought through the entire situation? (Toyota Prius as prime example of superficial research.)
Around here green is being hugely marketed. Builders I know are choosing the green-certifying program that's most flexible, easiest to meet the requirements. And the consumers are jumping in on the bandwagon. So, it's eventually gonna get watered down to be meaningless, but you're gonna have to have the designer label for future resale.
Already thorough explanations above as to what really constitutes building green (starting with NOT building at all) and what the proper motivation oughtta be. The rest is hype.
"The Environment" isn't so much a scientific thing, as a religious precept. Like most other religions, the field is filled with plenty of attitudes that are pretty hard to define, but sound nice. Included in these terms are 'green,' 'sensitive,' 'sustainable,' and 'recycled.'
The 'movement' is chock full of other features that make it diametrically opposed to our way of life. Among these are central planning, the elimination of private property, and the elimination of free enterprise.
Whoever first described them as "watermelons" (green outside, red inside) was quite perceptive. perhaps it's no accident that the places considering "LEEDS" criteria - Boston and San Francisco- are also very far to the political 'left' in other areas as well.
Moreover, there exists absolutely no scientific method to do a 'cost/benefit' type of analysis on these feel-good precepts. For example, using compact fluorescent bulbs might promise massive energy savings - but requiring them ignores both the severe quality control problems in that business, as well as the disposal issue for the mercury they use. Also completely ignored is that nearly all light fixtures were not designed for use with them - meaning that many such bulbs just won't fit in the fixture.
Many of the precepts of this movement are flawed, as well. Preserving the jungle may let the tribal folk continue in their mildew-age bliss .... but almost guarantees the extinction of the trees we want to use (as none will have any reason to save them), and consigns the tribes to early death from preventable disease, as well as utter poverty.
There is no place for this ideology in the legal system. Good design, in and of itself, cannot help but be 'green.' If we're going to do anything, we need to remove what barriers that already exist for good design.
So your solution is to wait until it's all perfect to do anything??
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
No, my solution is to identify this pseudo-scientific religious dogma for the leap of faith that it is. My solution is to point out where this approach leads ... and the abysmal results that it has produced. My solution is to point out that you can't 'fix' what isn't broke ... especially if we don't know something is broke, or, if so, just what is broke. The very idea that we can / should alter the course of the world is far from established ... and the debate over how we ought to affect it -IF we can - has yet begun. A wee bit premature to be writing laws, I should think.
"Pseudo-scientific religious dogma"?? Seems to me that's your problem, not mine.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
Well, let's see .... There is not a single element of "green building" that is supported by science, or that lends itself to anaylsis in scientific, economic, or logical means. At the very least, we know no where near enough to even define the issues. And, even if we could, we have no way to know if any change would be for the better - or the worse. Science? There are plenty who dispute every point. So, we can't say there's anything established. Consensus? Sorry, that's opinion - not science. Science is about facts, established by repeatable, controlled experiments. Nothing in "green" building has met that test. Therefore, whatever it is, it isn't based upon science. Cost-Benefit analysis? Where is it? Just what is the value to 'green building?" - and how is that determined? Is it any more 'green' to use pine in place of teak ... when the pine will perform poorly, and need replacement regularly .... where teak will last a lifetime? Yet, some will say cutting down several pine trees is somehow 'greener' than cutting one teak tree? One can look at the USGBC site -whoever they might be- in vain for anything specific. Just a lot of platitudes about 'caring' ... and not a single specific rule. So ... it's presented as science, without the backing ... that pretty well covers both 'pseudo' and 'science.' No logical or verifiable framework to the ideas presented ... pretty much defines "dogma." Passionate defense / advocacy by true believers ... based upon that dogma? Sounds religious as well. If that's my problem, I share it with Webster. As I said ... I intend to 'solve' this 'problem' by preventing the scare-mongers from imposing their will upon me, through the artificial creation of a state of fear. It's not about building 'green.'
So you're saying that, eg, VOCs don't contribute to photochemical haze?> Consensus? Sorry, that's opinion - not science. Science is about facts, established by repeatable, controlled experiments. Nothing in "green" building has met that test. Therefore, whatever it is, it isn't based upon science.If you knew the slightest thing about science you'd know that it's ALL about consensus. There's no such thing as proof, except in the negative sense."Each member of the scientific community recognizes that the eventual goal is to establish consensus." -- Lee Smolin, theoretical physicist
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
I think we've got off track, and some comments are beginning to sound personal. "Science" is defined as using the "Scientific method," which in turns relies upon repeatable, controlled experiments. The definition has nothing to say about consensus. At one time, "consensus" held that the world was flat. That did not make it so. There are countless similar examples. One of the more recent such was the "consensus" that repealing the 55 mph speed limit would result in an immediate bloodbath on the highways - which never happened. Consensus is little more than mob rule. Even so, as noted above, every element of the issue has plenty of contrary evidence- including the VOC rules. That discussion, however, goes way beyond this forum, let alone this thread. Those desiring to read farther, might I suggest "Gallileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom," by Peter Huber.
Once again you don't have the slightest idea of what science is.For those desiring to read further, might I suggest "The Trouble with Physics" by Lee Smolin (who, by the way, doesn't have a polticial axe to grind).
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
Hey Mike
I do a lot of preaching on the gospel of green as education co-chair of my local green building council promoting the Green Building Initiative and the NAHB-ICC National Green Building Standard so my input is apt to be biased, but here's my take on this discussion.
We have a lot of old school solar builders here in NC who are building arguably green houses that cost a lot more than they would if they were not green. I've been building solar for thirty years and my houses are undoubtedly more expensive than other homes of comparable size, largely because they are not so big. So yes, you can say that the kind of "green homes" I build are 20 percent more expensive than they would be if I wasn't into the environment and saving energy.
But part of my unpaid job as an educator is to walk into a room and pick a builder out of the crowd and analyize one of his or her homes and see what it would cost to get them to meet the NAHB-ICC National Green Building Standard and to Energy Star. In EVERY CASE so far in homes ranging from $153,000 to $2.5 million we were able to recommend changes that would get the home to energy star and NAHB-ICC green for approximately $8,000 over the current market driven design cost for a house in that price range and in every case the increase in perceived value in the market place of those green certifications justified the increased cost.
I just finished a house that scored gold in the NAHB-ICC standard as well as the LEED-H standard and took second place at the National Green Building Awards for custom home of the year. The added costs to go greener on that house than I could have easily justified on pure market (pay-back) value was approximately $21,000. We started with a plan for a good house that I would be glad to put my name on and added features that made it "greener." Those items were spray foam insulation, radiant heat, a rain garden, and solar hot water. At my standard level it would have been a green house but we chose to take it to the gold level and the homeowners traded off a smaller garage and a broom finish concrete front porch (instead of slate) to make the jump. it pushed the total project cost to $450,000 (not including land) so it was less than a five percent jump in price. A 15% jump would have been a $67,000 increase depending on how you want to do the math. No way is green that expensive unless you include luxury as a green feature.
Many guys are doing just that though. They are loading up homes with lots of esoteric materials like 3-form and bamboo and geothermal heat pumps and solar PV and then whining about how green is so expensive. Yes green luxury is expensive and green is a way to justify the expense of luxury but green by itself is not expensive. We have a guy in Durham NC who is selling NAHB-ICC Green and Energy Star certified homes at $153,000 including the land. His added costs to reach those levels is $8,000 so in that case it is 19%, but only because the base cost is so low. If you are building a quality home you are probably not very far at all from green as you are. Learn a little about the various scoring systems; Earth Craft, NAHB-ICC National Green Building Standard, GBI, LEED-H, etc. and you will discover that it's just not that big a deal.
If you go into it blind and let the magazines sell you a load of bamboo and 3-form and shredded blue jean insulation and that kind of hooey then yes you will be shocked at how expensive this stuff can be. But that is just not an accurate read on the reality of green and high performance building.
In my experience green building can be more profitable, but clearly luxury building and tract building can also be profitable. In the end being serious about the business of being in business is what determines profitability much more than the product category.
My business gets better every time the price of gas goes up and from the looks of things gas is going to continue to go up and I will be positioned to take advantage of the situation in a way I won't be loosing sleep about.
------------------
"You cannot work hard enough to make up for a sloppy estimate."