Check out the interview on KUOW, comparing light green (Howland Homes) to dark green (Cascade Built). One critique of the analysis is the apples-to-oranges comparison of a single family home in Madison Valley versus a townhouse in Bitter Lake, price-wise, although I certainly concede the "sustainable may cost more than unsustainable" point, at least in first costs. I would however, like to meet the current occupant of that light green home to compare utility bills. :)
5 comments:
might be revealing to have howland build one standard, and one LEED platinum on the same block and then compare costs.
too bad we can't get on board with progressive countries, emphasizing quality, longevity and the environment instead of cheap, disposable and the belief in unlimited resources
did the dark green house sell?
That property was taken off the market when the credit crisis worsened, as it seemed that move-up buyers and jumbo loans were adversely affected. The first-time homebuyer market (which would include buyers of a $300K townhouse in Bitter Lake) is in good shape in Seattle currently, as record low interest rates couple with an $8,000 federal incentive.
If the previous anonymous comment posting is meant to suggest that light green sells better than dark green and that this home comparison bears that out, it's an apples to oranges comparison (2 BD, 1.5 BA attached townhouse, versus 3BD 3BA single family). These are two very different homes in different neighborhoods.
The interviewer's contrast is really one between two divergent development philosophies - one that builds to minimum energy code and then adds a few superficial green touches to get the Built Green certification and another where environmental impacts are mitigated, occupant health is preserved, and energy consumption is cut in half. I think the comparison also asks whether people will pay for sustainable design.
Next year Washington State energy codes get 30% more stringent, so the basic 3-star code home built today will be left behind in terms of performance. But it's reassuring to know that large scale tract-developers will all be upgrading energy performance in 2010, whether they like it or not.
I concede the point that higher quality does cost more, and housing affordability is an important issue. Ultimately, many green features do not make economic sense, even though they do benefit the environment or occupant. Builders, developers, and businesses in general externalize costs, which is to say, make someone else pay for it (government can clean up the water, toxics, etc). However, most of the money spent to make a house more energy efficient will pay dividends to the occupant from day 1.
How much would you pay to save a couple thousand a year on your utility bills? And how much will energy rates increase in the future? Last year's $4 gasoline comes to mind. If the future holds more expensive utility rates, you'd be glad to have an energy 'sipper' instead of a hog.
Post a Comment