LEED Blog by Green Street

Lennar Homes recorded fourth quarter 2009 profits of 35 million.

Ryland Homes recorded fourth quarter profits of 60 million in 2008, and 30 million in 2009.

KB recorded fourth quarter profits of 919 million in 2008.

One of the most common objections to green building and remodeling is that green is too expensive.

In order to address this common objection to green, we must first define what it means to build green. Referencing a previous blog post, the definition of green remodeling and building is energy efficiency, water efficiency, improved indoor air quality, good design, location near the workplace and local amenities and community services, and a preference to materials that are reused, recycled, or reclaimed.

All of the above have low and high budget construction strategies. With this in mind, this blog post will focus on the practical, low-budget, high impact items.

LEED and NAHB encourage Manual J modeling for the HVAC, waste reducing framing strategies, and the covering of ducts during construction. These simple strategies cost little or no money, and often result in financial savings and improved air quality.

As guided by LEED and NAHB, replacing traditional paint with paints and coatings that meet Green Seal Standard 11 and 43, costs little or no extra money, and dramatically improves indoor air quality.

Native landscaping, and limiting turf significantly reduces water use, as does using fixtures that are Water Sense labeled.

The use of cfl’s in place of incandescent lighting, can often reduce homes energy consumption by 20%, and costs no extra money.

In Arizona, after rebates and incentives, a solar hot water system is reduced from approximately $6500 to $1300.

Green does not have to be more expensive.

In most cases green is improving traditional building practice, resulting in energy and water efficiency, and healthier homes.

Higher SEER HVAC units, solar systems, and foam insulation are higher budget green improvements. But, will payback your investment over the life of your home.

Objecting to green because it is too expensive is not acceptable.
Even during current market challenges, big builders are profitable.
What if we accept green construction strategies, and also accept that the expense does not have to be passed on to the consumer, rather it should become a way of doing business. Green is the right thing to do even if it slightly reduces profits.

Building and remodeling homes should not only about making a profit, but it should also reduce the impact on our environment, and make homes healthier for the occupants.

Green building is simply the responsible thing to do, socially, environmentally, and financially.

The importance of LEED and NAHB and green home standards

Adding to the confusion of defining a green home, is the number of green building programs and standards.

When defining a commercial green building, we accept the LEED standard or Green Globes.

For homes, often municipalities and states have a unique green rating system. Usually, the green rating system is orchestrated by the recognized experts. The issue being, what makes an expert? And, who is qualified to write a green rating system for homes?

If green rated homes are going to be successful, they must share a common language. The two most recognized green rating systems are LEED and the National Green Building Standard, verified by the NAHB.

Sometimes, when an agency or homebuilder cannot meet the demands of LEED or the NAHB, they will create their own standard.

For example, Meritage Homes has labeled their version of green homes, stating the homes are Energy Star or better.
Shea Homes at Trilogy, calls their “green” homes Superiorology; they are located 45 miles from downtown Phoenix, yet Shea Homes claim they help reduce the carbon footprint. KB Home has created their version of a green home called, My Home My Earth,
Beazer’s version of a green home is called eSmart, and focuses on energy and water use.

Another Top 10 home builder Ryland, makes no claim of a green home. Kudos to Ryland.

As “green” continues to gain interest, many are jumping on the bandwagon, including big home builders. But, until a builder adopts LEED or NAHB green building standards and certification, then they are only adding to confusion for the consumer.

Ultimately, if we are going to see green be successful in home building policy must set the standards with one or two common rating systems. Most practical, would be the National Green Building Standard which is currently adopted by American National Standards Institute (ANSI). This is a big step toward a common language and a single green rating system for homes.

We should commend builders or organizations that create their own green standard for homes, as an effort in building a better home. But, we should also caution against those who are using green as a tool to further sales or jump on the green bandwagon. In other words, a builder who is carving out sub-divisions in locations far from the city center should not be using the word green. Building new homes in areas that require miles to commute, is not green.

The most important step a builder or municipality could make in greening homes would be to adopt a recognized standard such as LEED or the NGBS.

The definition of green is different depending on who you ask.

A green home must address energy efficiency, water efficiency, indoor air quality, design, and material use. Energy efficiency alone, does not make a home green.

When asking someone what a green home means, the most common response is energy efficiency or solar. Energy efficiency is important, but one must not overlook the importance of water efficiency, especially in regions such as Arizona.

If we accept healthy living is a key component to green, then indoor air quality must not be improved. Eliminating toxic materials from the living environment will improve the health of the home. Simple measures such as replacing bleach and Windex with safer cleaning solutions, or eliminating air fresheners, are easy steps to improve indoor air quality.

If a home’s occupant must commute great distances to and from work, then the location of the house results in greater carbon emissions. A non-energy efficient home near one’s workplace, is more green than a very efficient home located far from the workplace or area amenities. The cost to operate a vehicle is approximately .55 cents a mile, and each mile driven creates carbon emissions.

How much does it cost to heat and cool a home? How much material was used to build the home? These two questions direct us to smaller and well designed spaces are more green than large homes or mini-mansions.

When building or remodeling a home, materials that are recycled, reclaimed, or reused are best. Materials that do not contain formaldehyde or harmful chemicals are best.

Some final thoughts. An energy efficient home is not a green home if it does not fit the above criteria. If an energy efficient home is missing the key elements of water efficiency, design, location, and air quality, then it is simply an energy efficient home.

If a home has solar, it does not necessarily make it green.

Reducing is much easier and costs less than renewing. Installing measures such as solar, should only be done after making improvements to the homes structural envelope.
Often times, an electrical bill can be cut in half by tightening ducts, shading exterior windows, HVAC maintenance, energy efficient lighting, and caulking openings.

By: Jean Dimeo

Harvard Joint Center survey found that green remodelers’ green projects are outperforming traditional projects.

Read full article

Even though prospective home buyers want the benefits of new, more efficient homes, they are unwilling to pay much more for a “green” home, according to a recent member survey from the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB).

Read full article

By Peter Y. Hong
October 4, 2009

As spec mansions lie unsold across Southern California, stressed sellers may deflate the housing market’s high end by lowering their prices.

Read full article