What would you pay to LIVE green??

[barry1021]

Well my classified for the townhomes my partner and I are building in MA lasted only a few hours. Fair enuf, this is a cycling board after all. We have found that even in the ocean of blueness that is Cambridge, there are surprisingly few green homes. In fact, most of the enviro friendly homes in the country have either been built by companies as tests/demonstrators, or by the owners for themselves. Spec building is nascent, as naturally builders are hesitant to build for a unknown market. According to recents stats, there are only 246 homes nationally that qualify for the LEED rating, the most accepted standard for enviromentally green building, and only SEVEN that qualify for the highest platinum level. We have had a wide divergence of opinion as to what our platinum rated townhomes should sell for. Getting beyond the movie star that drives his/her Prius from the 25k foot home to the private jet, is the market ready for this? (yes maybe I should have asked BEFORE we built them) Beyond the $2000 per year in annual utility savings, what is a home like this worth to you? 5% above market? 10%? 0%??

Thanks

b21

[Karin Kirk]

Interesting question.
With other green products, consumers have shown they'll pay much more than 10% above a comparable non-green item. I'm thinking of the 30-40% more that one pays for organic produce, fair trade coffee and humanely raised meat.

The same margin applies to the Prius, doesn't it? I don't know the prices offhand, but my guess is that it costs more than 10% more than a similar non-hybrid.

Anyway, I'm not sure that any of this applies to real estate, which is a whole different ballgame than organic spinach. But I think that 10% would be a decent starting point.

[cmg]

what level of LEED certification did you build to? Will you get the house certified or will the owner? What improvements beyond the building code for your area did you add? Might be important questions to answer for your marketing strategy.

"our platinum rated townhomes should sell for" You will need to get the house ceritified.

[CNY rider]

I would think it would be better strategy to present this differently to your buyers.

Show your customers all the POSITIVES of what you've built, emphasizing how much they will save over time, how comfortable they will be without drafts, and how the home represents a real advance over everything else that's out there.

Do all that, and I think the customers will tell you it's not an issue of costing more up front, but of making a smart purchase that will give them years of proud ownership and save them money in the long run. Get them to think about the total package, not just the up-front costs.

[93legendti]

$0.00.

As a guy who makes his post retirement earnings off of real estate, I wouldn't buy, recommend or invest in a "green home" because it was "green". Location, location; value; value. If the home is priced right for the size, rooms and location, etc. I'd buy. Paying extra 'cuz its green? Good luck. FWIW, the builder building the home across the street from us builds "green homes" for $125/sq. foot. Freakin' bargain.

House buyers that I know look at monthly mortgage payments and taxes. Savings in utility? Right, costs go up every year and how do you quantify/verify the savings over non-green homes?

Besides, the average person does not want to pay for anything "green", they just want OTHER people to go "green".

Price it like any other home and hope the savings in utilities will make it sell faster. The key in real estate, all things being equal, is to reduce your interest charges.

[Bittersweet]

Rent/Lease them inclusive of utilities. That way the utilities and other savings will be reaped all by you. You won't have to convince the buyer of the utilities cost savings and all the cash inflow can go to your debt instead of the buyers. Approaches like these are often needed to get new ideas into the mainstream, prove the technology, etc. On the next ones you will have a great example and can sell them direct to the customer in a traditional fashion.

[1centaur]

To Karin's point, buying organic food is, theoretically, about not poisoning (harming) yourself or your children. What's that worth? With food, a few cents or a few dollars more per item is pretty affordable once you have convinced yourself it's important.

For a Prius, you may pay more than that car (ugly as it is) would sell for without the enviro angle, but you're not paying a ton nominally. You are choosing to live down below your means, in many cases. You are giving up lifestyle rather than money.

When you get to housing, CNY is in the right ballpark. At that level of nominal cost, outside of the mega rich who just don't care and want to make a trendy statement (or even sincerely believe in the worth of what they are doing for society), you have to make the case that the buyer is being socially responsible AND fiscally smart, I think. Thus showing savings over time, a la the solar industry, is a key part of the story. Turn it around - if the cost savings from conserved energy do NOT justify the price in the end, is it really so socially responsible to buy the place at all? Just to make the point, if I paid $1MM extra for a house that saved an additional $10 worth of energy for the world to share, I'd have to question whether that level of beneficence could be bestowed on the world cheaper in other ways. If the dollars can be justified AND the buyer can feel self satisfied at reducing his carbon footprint, so to speak, then the sale will be much easier. Get close, and somebody will overpay for the self backpatting features. Don't get close, and you'll only have fools for a market. At that dollar level, fools are relatively hard to find (see Hollywood).

[Kirk007]

In addition to energy savings I'd also market health issues, assuming that you are using materials that don't off-gas glues etc. In hippy town Eugene I think you could get a decent uptick due to Green certification, particulalry a Leeds platinum. But then again, according to one of the leading green architects in town that I've spoken with, the material costs to go really green can be considerably more expensive so maybe its built in already in some cases. Plus you have a lot of builders saying their stuff is "green" when its really just greenwashed; to an unsophisticated buyer they may not discern the difference.

I'm betting that its an easier sell if the houses are custom as your customer, even the non hollywood, build me a 1200 square foot house types are self selecting by coming to a green builder.

Best of luck!!

Greg

[Louis]

Beyond the $2000 per year in annual utility savings

This has to be way overstated. Where do you get that number?

For example, my 1970's era house is all-electric and my highest bill this summer (for August, the hottest month by far, and believe me St Louis is hot and humid) was $70.

I don't think that the type of person who is going to buy a green home is going to be terribly wasteful to begin with, so I would think that one should not use average numbers for the "before" cost. (If that's what you did.)

Louis

[saab2000]

I don't think that the type of person who is going to buy a green home is going to be terribly wasteful to begin with

Louis


Bingo!

It is not hard to live 'green' by doing some pretty common sense and painless things. Bike to the store. Bring your own cloth grocery bag. Use the sun shining in in the winter. Shade those windows in the summer. Ceiling fans use a lot less coal to turn than an air conditioner.

The list goes on and on.

I would not pay extra to live in a so-called 'green' house. Besides, what is marketed as 'green' often isn't.

[tch]

This has to be way overstated. Where do you get that number?

For example, my 1970's era house is all-electric and my highest bill this summer (for August, the hottest month by far, and believe me St Louis is hot and humid) was $70.

I don't think that the type of person who is going to buy a green home is going to be terribly wasteful to begin with, so I would think that one should not use average numbers for the "before" cost. (If that's what you did.)

Louis
You live in St. Louis? There must be a HUGE discrepancy in energy costs. I haven't seen an electric bill as low as $70 in a while -- and I do not have AC, electric stove, electric dryer, OR electric hot water. Simply lights and small appliances. Either you got cheap power, or one of us is on the wrong side of the fence.

[Louis]

You live in St. Louis? There must be a HUGE discrepancy in energy costs. I haven't seen an electric bill as low as $70 in a while -- and I do not have AC, electric stove, electric dryer, OR electric hot water. Simply lights and small appliances. Either you got cheap power, or one of us is on the wrong side of the fence.

I'm not sure how much this varies from location to location, but this is from my utility's web site (Ameren). I do know that many folks around are incredibly wasteful.

It's unfortunate that the true costs of power (carbon emission impact, for one) are not reflected in the cost to the consumer. I would gladly pay double if my power (gas for my car and electricity for my home) were carbon-neutral, and if everyone else had to to it...

[Bart001]

I'll be looking to move much closer to Boston this spring. I did look (briefly) at your website, but my initial impression was that the design of the units was not compelling.

I would factor in energy efficiency into my decision, certainly. How much of a dollar premium would I pay over the energy dollar savings? Probably zero, as Boston-area housing is very expensive as it is, and sacrifices have to be made from the get-go. Would I sacrifice design for the sake of efficiency and live in a shoebox-shaped home, for example? Definitely not.

Real estate, other than for those on the fringes (and of course Cambridge MA has plenty of "them"), is about location and price and liveability, and livability and price and location.

I guess I'm not in your target demographic . . . .

[Pete Serotta]

Barry, please use another FORUM for your Real Estate interest. The prior ad you placed on the FORUM was out of place for bicycle forum. While this thread's topic is of interest to myself and others - this is not the correct FORUM for it.

We try to keep a "loose" definition on topics that would fall under the "OK" but this one is really "pushing" it. While I understand your interest for getting opinions, there are trade groups that can provide much more focused info on this topic. Since you are in the business, you know far better than I what they are and which would be most suited for obtaining specific "green" info.

Thanks PETE

Well my classified for the townhomes my partner and I are building in MA lasted only a few hours. Fair enuf, this is a cycling board after all. We have found that even in the ocean of blueness that is Cambridge, there are surprisingly few green homes. In fact, most of the enviro friendly homes in the country have either been built by companies as tests/demonstrators, or by the owners for themselves. Spec building is nascent, as naturally builders are hesitant to build for a unknown market. According to recents stats, there are only 246 homes nationally that qualify for the LEED rating, the most accepted standard for enviromentally green building, and only SEVEN that qualify for the highest platinum level. We have had a wide divergence of opinion as to what our platinum rated townhomes should sell for. Getting beyond the movie star that drives his/her Prius from the 25k foot home to the private jet, is the market ready for this? (yes maybe I should have asked BEFORE we built them) Beyond the $2000 per year in annual utility savings, what is a home like this worth to you? 5% above market? 10%? 0%??

Thanks

b21

[Climb01742]

an interesting "green" tidbit: there are quite a few hybrid cars out now, but by far, the best selling is the prius. all the other hybrids are sparsely-labeled hybrid versions of various models but the prius only comes as a hybrid. so when the world sees a prius, the world "knows" it's a hybrid and it's driver is seen as such. for it's owners, the prius has much greater personal PR power.

my guess is, the most successful green products will have this kind of "personal PR power".

[Velociotis]

Current published statistics show anywhere from a 0% to 10% upcharge for 'green'. Bear in mind, that the LEED rating (which is good and needed) bring on a lot of cost because of the paperwork involved. Yes, the testing is needed to show the energy savings, but there are still a lot of bureaucratic fees involved too. (And the certificate is just that) When done at the onset of a project, the cost of implementing a green strategy can cost no additional money. I emphasize, at the onset (before even buying a building or land), many times people get in the middle of a project and then say, "make it green." Go green - early and often! (Yes, I am a LEED certified architect.)

[93legendti]

Here you go:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070912/ap_on_sc/eating_less_meat;_ylt=AgMbfKRjDvPNYddH8qV0mwes0NUE

Give them a year supply of tofu and garden burgers with the house and you'll sell them like hotcakes. Get Al Gore to be the spokesman for veggie burgers and you'll retire in 5 years.

[Onno]

I agree that part of the purpose of this thread is advertising, and thus wrong; on the other hand, he raises a very interesting question apart from the selling of his real estate. I'm a little surprised by the cynicism of some of the responses. Most of us on this forum are willing to pay extra for the aura of a good bike, and I certainly would pay extra for a green house. Completely beyond the utility savings, I would love to live in a home that could speak to me each day about its efficiency, functionality, health, connection with the world, etc. I've long dreamed of building a passive solar home, and probably will at some point. Part of the appeal is like the appeal of a sailboat, or a bike--that one is using, and is a part of, a machine (loosely defined) that is thoughtfully designed, suited to its environment, works perfectly, etc. Bikes and sailboats all more or less do this, so that differences between them are marginal. In the world of houses, though, the dominant mode is of excess, extravagance, superficial ornamentation, cheap materials, pretension. I imagine that a truly green house would be the opposite of all this, and that would be a pleasure in itself.

[Climb01742]

I agree that part of the purpose of this thread is advertising, and thus wrong; on the other hand, he raises a very interesting question apart from the selling of his real estate. I'm a little surprised by the cynicism of some of the responses. Most of us on this forum are willing to pay extra for the aura of a good bike, and I certainly would pay extra for a green house. Completely beyond the utility savings, I would love to live in a home that could speak to me each day about its efficiency, functionality, health, connection with the world, etc. I've long dreamed of building a passive solar home, and probably will at some point. Part of the appeal is like the appeal of a sailboat, or a bike--that one is using, and is a part of, a machine (loosely defined) that is thoughtfully designed, suited to its environment, works perfectly, etc. Bikes and sailboats all more or less do this, so that differences between them are marginal. In the world of houses, though, the dominant mode is of excess, extravagance, superficial ornamentation, cheap materials, pretension. I imagine that a truly green house would be the opposite of all this, and that would be a pleasure in itself.

i agree with everything you say, absolutely. here's the rub: there are the "internal" benefits, pleasures and satisfactions of doing the greeen thing. and then there is the external, marketing angles of green.

selling green is one thing. choosing green is another.

[Karin Kirk]

I agree that part of the purpose of this thread is advertising, and thus wrong; on the other hand, he raises a very interesting question apart from the selling of his real estate. I'm a little surprised by the cynicism of some of the responses. Most of us on this forum are willing to pay extra for the aura of a good bike, and I certainly would pay extra for a green house. Completely beyond the utility savings, I would love to live in a home that could speak to me each day about its efficiency, functionality, health, connection with the world, etc. I've long dreamed of building a passive solar home, and probably will at some point. Part of the appeal is like the appeal of a sailboat, or a bike--that one is using, and is a part of, a machine (loosely defined) that is thoughtfully designed, suited to its environment, works perfectly, etc. Bikes and sailboats all more or less do this, so that differences between them are marginal. In the world of houses, though, the dominant mode is of excess, extravagance, superficial ornamentation, cheap materials, pretension. I imagine that a truly green house would be the opposite of all this, and that would be a pleasure in itself.

Nicely put! I appreciate that you feel this way and took the time to articulate it so well. I agree 100% and no doubt there is some small contingent that falls into this camp. And we are the market for houses like this.

I would love a green house. But first I am shopping for a greenhouse to add onto our regular, non-green house. As Saab said, there's a lot you can do to make your regular house and lifestyle satisfyingly green.

[sspielman]

an interesting "green" tidbit: there are quite a few hybrid cars out now, but by far, the best selling is the prius. all the other hybrids are sparsely-labeled hybrid versions of various models but the prius only comes as a hybrid. so when the world sees a prius, the world "knows" it's a hybrid and it's driver is seen as such. for it's owners, the prius has much greater personal PR power.

my guess is, the most successful green products will have this kind of "personal PR power".

I'll tell you what a Prius means to me....Get the he11 out of the way!!!! The drivers of those cars have to be the worst on the road....I have to assume that their minds are on far more ethereal things than driving...saving the planet for example....

[sspielman]

Our house is 90 years old. It has its original windows (w/storm windows) and has insulation added over the years. My (practical) measure of energy use is our monthly fuel bills...which are comparable to the similarly sized house that was 10 years old that I lived in previously. I can't imagine that most houses built today will be around in 90 years. To me that is an INCREDIBLE waste of real resources...add to that the fact tht most new residential development occurs in clusters OUTSIDE of population (read that EMPLOYMENT) centers requiring longer commuting times and distances...none of these items are factored into a "green" house label...I am all for saving resources, and I think that my lifestyle conserves way more than most. There is much about alot of theis "green" marketing that strikes me as way too superficial...like another triumph of symbolism over substance....

[Fixed]

bro I 'm vegan and have veg garden ride a bike that is about it for me and green . oh yeah i recycle plastic . if eveybody who is able rode a bike one day a week (no car) think what our country could be ...imho
cheers

[Karin Kirk]

There is much about alot of theis "green" marketing that strikes me as way too superficial...like another triumph of symbolism over substance....

I don't want to be argumentative, but isn't your classification of Prius drivers as "the worst on the road" also symbolic rather than substantive?

I don't see why steps in the right direction, even if they are not perfect or do not solve the problem completely, are met with such criticism. As you point out, there are many ways to lower your environmental impact. And each of those steps helps. Sure, there is a lot of fanfare about carbon footprints and the like. But that is an amazing development for an issue that has been around for 20 years now and only now is it getting people's attention.

[Velociotis]

Our house is 90 years old. It has its original windows (w/storm windows) and has insulation added over the years. My (practical) measure of energy use is our monthly fuel bills...which are comparable to the similarly sized house that was 10 years old that I lived in previously. I can't imagine that most houses built today will be around in 90 years. To me that is an INCREDIBLE waste of real resources...add to that the fact tht most new residential development occurs in clusters OUTSIDE of population (read that EMPLOYMENT) centers requiring longer commuting times and distances...none of these items are factored into a "green" house label...I am all for saving resources, and I think that my lifestyle conserves way more than most. There is much about alot of theis "green" marketing that strikes me as way too superficial...like another triumph of symbolism over substance....

The most sustainable way to build is not to build new. Renovations to an existing building most likely will have far less environmental impact that a new 'green' house from scratch.

[J.Greene]

Being green is not about buying a house or driving a prius. It's about making conscious choices daily. I'm guilty as the next guy. I drive 300 miles per week alone in an Infiniti that makes about 300 HP. It's a total waste. For my commuting there are so many better altrnatives. My next car may not be "green", but I'll get 50% better fuel milage and I think that's doing pretty good.

JG

[sspielman]

I don't want to be argumentative, but isn't your classification of Prius drivers as "the worst on the road" also symbolic rather than substantive?

I don't see why steps in the right direction, even if they are not perfect or do not solve the problem completely, are met with such criticism. As you point out, there are many ways to lower your environmental impact. And each of those steps helps. Sure, there is a lot of fanfare about carbon footprints and the like. But that is an amazing development for an issue that has been around for 20 years now and only now is it getting people's attention.
The comment on the Prius drivers was a wisecrack....but it works because there is a huge element of truth in it....

Our environmental dilemma faces a HUGE challenge today. That is largely due to the fact that the entire issue has been co-opted by the "green" movement which is completely a product of the political left. People with good instincts detect when they are being sold a bill of goods....and much of what disguises itself as the "right thing to do" with respect to the environment is part and parcel of a political agenda...and they aren't buying.

[Karin Kirk]

The comment on the Prius drivers was a wisecrack....but it works because there is a huge element of truth in it....

Our environmental dilemma faces a HUGE challenge today. That is largely due to the fact that the entire issue has been co-opted by the "green" movement which is completely a product of the political left. People with good instincts detect when they are being sold a bill of goods....and much of what disguises itself as the "right thing to do" with respect to the environment is part and parcel of a political agenda...and they aren't buying.

Right... those Prius drivers are typically the ones running over cyclists while talking on the cell phone, and racking up DUIs and road rage incidents - somehow I must have forgotten that statistic. (Just a wisecrack! :rolleyes: )

Anyway, you make good points.
I personally think the environmental situation faces huge challenges on all fronts. I wouldn't put this 'greenwashing' concern at the top of my list compared to other factors, but if it's an obstacle to engaging people, then that is a problem. Just like with other issues, there's no replacement for educating people about the issues -- and hoping for some sensible environmental policy some day. Interesting that we made such strides, relatively easily, with environmental policies in the 70s, and now everything is so polarized.

[SadieKate]

sspielman, may I suggest you read Barbara Kingsolver's Animal, Vegetable, Miracle: A Year of Food Life to see what convervative folks in the Heartland and all over the world are doing as part of the so-called "green movement"?

http://www.kingsolver.com/home/index.asp

It's all about conscious daily choices. Yes, the whole concept can be seen as part of a political agenda but we, the citizens, allowed a political and corporate agenda to put us in the situation we are now.

Anyone want some high fructose corn syrup? :rolleyes:

[Len J]

Nicely put! I appreciate that you feel this way and took the time to articulate it so well. I agree 100% and no doubt there is some small contingent that falls into this camp. And we are the market for houses like this.

I would love a green house. But first I am shopping for a greenhouse to add onto our regular, non-green house. As Saab said, there's a lot you can do to make your regular house and lifestyle satisfyingly green.

many/most people have the majority of their net worth tied up in the equity of their house. In that case.........the decision changes.

The OP quotes $2,000/month savings......but he doesn't talk about the base value of the Sq ftage in the market he is in. So it's hard to say that you would pay X% more or X$'s more without knowing how much of a premium in real dollars and % of base value you are talking about.

Would I pay $230,000 for a $200,000 house if it was truly green with the savings he is talking about.....most likely I would if I intended to stay in the house for a while and was convinced the market would get stronger for these type of houses. Would I pay $300,000 for the same house......no way. Would I pay $1,150,000 for a $1,000,000 house with the same savings? Only if I was absolutly convinced that the market would give me my money back on resale. Same % but different savings payback calculation.

Going green is one thing, being financially prudent with your largest single source of wealth would trump it for most people.

Prove the savings.........calculate the discounted payback on the savings and use that to sell the premium. Not enough info from the OP to answer the original question.

Len

[justinf]

1. I agree, the intent behind the thread is questionable at best.
2. I would pay the 10%. I pay a far greater premium in many other areas in my life; housing is just a comparatively larger nut.

[Len J]

Interesting that we made such strides, relatively easily, with environmental policies in the 70s, and now everything is so polarized.

we made strides in the 70's and early 80's solely because of economics. When the 1972 oil embargo occured thru the Iran/Iraq war in 1982, gasoline prices went thru the roof. They then declined for several years.

Average Joe's started being affected by prices......and policy changed. In addition, the comparitive prices of oil alternatives became more economicially viable.

It's why I think the only way we will ever become energy indepdant is to raise gas prices via taxes to levels comperable with the rest of the world.........$4.00 to $6.00/gallon. Use the proceeds to help mitigate the daily economic impacts on the poor.

Yu want to drive conservation on a national scale....do it with economics.

Len

[csm]

how long til this thread locked?

[Karin Kirk]

we made strides in the 70's and early 80's solely because of economics. When the 1972 oil embargo occured thru the Iran/Iraq war in 1982, gasoline prices went thru the roof. They then declined for several years.

Average Joe's started being affected by prices......and policy changed. In addition, the comparitive prices of oil alternatives became more economicially viable.

It's why I think the only way we will ever become energy indepdant is to raise gas prices via taxes to levels comperable with the rest of the world.........$4.00 to $6.00/gallon. Use the proceeds to help mitigate the daily economic impacts on the poor.

Yu want to drive conservation on a national scale....do it with economics.

Len

Yes Len, I agree completely!
Dave and I had a long chat last week about what if gasoline were $6/gallon and exactly your idea of raising taxes and using the proceeds to offset some of the impacts to the transportation industry and the poor.
A pipe dream of an idea, but an interesting conversation.

But the 70s environmental policies went a lot further than oil consumption. The Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act have no obvious economic boon to the average Joe. And still this legislation passed. Can you imagine that happening today?

[Len J]

Yes Len, I agree completely!
Dave and I had a long chat last week about what if gasoline were $6/gallon and exactly your idea of raising taxes and using the proceeds to offset some of the impacts to the transportation industry and the poor.
A pipe dream of an idea, but an interesting conversation.

But the 70s environmental policies went a lot further than oil consumption. The Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act have no obvious economic boon to the average Joe. And still this legislation passed. Can you imagine that happening today?

Those acts were a combination of a democratic congress coupled with the activism of the 60's being focused internally......it was a way for our generation to have an impact. I'm afraid that the pendulum has swung far in the opposite direction......but if history is any indication, some catalytic event will occur and swing the pendulum in the opposite direction.

BTW, those acts have been eroded significantly mainly, IMO because the movement got greedy and started to push for environmental protection at any cost (some of what the extremist on the environmental side advocated for was laughable and eroded the credibility of the entire movement for the average Joe & Janet), as opposed to the more mature balanced decision between environmental stewardship and the real needs of society.

Len

[sspielman]

Those acts were a combination of a democratic congress coupled with the activism of the 60's being focused internally......it was a way for our generation to have an impact. I'm afraid that the pendulum has swung far in the opposite direction......but if history is any indication, some catalytic event will occur and swing the pendulum in the opposite direction.

BTW, those acts have been eroded significantly mainly, IMO because the movement got greedy and started to push for environmental protection at any cost (some of what the extremist on the environmental side advocated for was laughable and eroded the credibility of the entire movement for the average Joe & Janet), as opposed to the more mature balanced decision between environmental stewardship and the real needs of society.

Len

The costs of meeting some of the requirements of some of those acts was a HUGE factor in the relocation of many industries in developing nations. So, to the average Joe & Janet it not only meant that they lost their good job, but they also do not receive the protection offered by the legislation...because the new factory in the third world nation is polluting with impunity...and-at last check- we are all breathing the same air and drinking the same water. It's a tough nut to crack...and loaded with unintended consequences....

[Len J]

The costs of meeting some of the requirements of some of those acts was a HUGE factor in the relocation of many industries in developing nations. So, to the average Joe & Janet it not only meant that they lost their good job, but they also do not receive the protection offered by the legislation...because the new factory in the third world nation is polluting with impunity...and-at last check- we are all breathing the same air and drinking the same water. It's a tough nut to crack...and loaded with unintended consequences....

it was certainly part of the conversation. The HUGH driver for the move was and still is Labor costs. $3,000,000 in Environmental costs is a drop in the bucket when you are talking about $50,000,000 annually in labor savings. It's icning on the cake.

Len

[sspielman]

it was certainly part of the conversation. The HUGH driver for the move was and still is Labor costs. $3,000,000 in Environmental costs is a drop in the bucket when you are talking about $50,000,000 annually in labor savings. It's icning on the cake.

Len
okay...so not a HUGE factor....my real point is that, along with our industry, we have exported a large portion of our ability to regulate the quality of our environment.....

[Len J]

okay...so not a HUGE factor....my real point is that, along with our industry, we have exported a large portion of our ability to regulate the quality of our environment.....

sorry if my response came off as harsh. I've just heard this argument from the far right too much.........and it's usually blown out of proportion.

The truth is though that wether or not we bought from the third world.....they would still be poluting and still be selling product. And many of their sub-assemblies would be consumed by other nations we compete with. The economic effect on the US would be the same in either case.....& the environmental impact would be similar.

I wish the solution was a simple one...but like most things it isn't.

As in most things we can either spend our energy fixing others or spend it fixing what we really have control over....ourselves.....and maybe demonstrate with action what we have been unable to convince people of with rhetoric.

Len

[Karin Kirk]

As in most things we can either spend our energy fixing others or spend it fixing what we really have control over....ourselves.....and maybe demonstrate with action what we have been unable to convince people of with rhetoric.


We need an icon that shows applause! Right on!
:banana:

[Louis]

As in most things we can either spend our energy fixing others or spend it fixing what we really have control over....ourselves.....and maybe demonstrate with action what we have been unable to convince people of with rhetoric.

Fine thoughts, but sometimes the passive approach is not sufficient. My driving my 35 mpg car and setting my thermostat to 82 deg during the summer are yet to have an effect on the Escalade driving, McMansion living, folks in my neighborhood...

Louis

[Len J]

Fine thoughts, but sometimes the passive approach is not sufficient. My driving my 35 mpg car and setting my thermostat to 82 deg during the summer are yet to have an effect on the Escalade driving, McMansion living, folks in my neighborhood...

Louis

but our words not backed up by our own action ring hollow.

And my point was more directed at how the US interacts with the rest of the world.

Len

[cadence90]

As an architect I find it interesting that this thread (that is, the posts relevant to the OP) demonstrates the fallacy of "green" design as it is currently seen by most developers, builders, and some clients: that it is an added-value component that necessarily comes at a cost premium. It has become a selling tool above all, as evidenced by the original question here.

Frankly, the way LEED certifications and point schedules are written now, "green" status is often just another marketing strategy to allow higher prices on new products (and projects), many of which demonstrate marginal actual improvement over similar, "standard" products, both of which are often produced by the same manufacturers. It is even possible to buy LEED points....When McDonald's touts "organic", the language becomes suspect, imo.

Even given that building technologies and products do evolve and improve (although the overall cost, down the chain, of some of these technologies is still not so efficient really), the far more cost-effective component of green design is still what it has always been and it is free: that is common sense and good, rational design.

[chuckroast]

I'll admit I'm sitting at a gate and skimmed this pretty quick so maybe someone else commented already. Doesn't the original question have some connection to what premium the market, and more importantly, lending institutions place on the green factor?

If the bank doesn't think it's worth more and won't lend at a premium, then the consumer would likely not.

[RPS]

Even given that building technologies and products do evolve and improve (although the overall cost, down the chain, of some of these technologies is still not so efficient really), the far more cost-effective component of green design is still what it has always been and it is free: that is common sense and good, rational design.Exactly. For me that's to reduce the size of my next house a considerable amount.

[RPS]

The truth is though that wether or not we bought from the third world.....they would still be poluting and still be selling product. And many of their sub-assemblies would be consumed by other nations we compete with. The economic effect on the US would be the same in either case.....& the environmental impact would be similar.Len, I'm not sure I agree. As an example, China's industry has expanded considerably because of trade with the US, and to power that growth, they are building a lot of coal powerplants. If those products had remained in the US, I doubt they would have created as much pollution.

The economic impact/reality is something else. We don't have enough workers to produce everything China makes for us.

[93legendti]

As an architect I find it interesting that this thread (that is, the posts relevant to the OP) demonstrates the fallacy of "green" design as it is currently seen by most developers, builders, and some clients: that it is an added-value component that necessarily comes at a cost premium. It has become a selling tool above all, as evidenced by the original question here.

Frankly, the way LEED certifications and point schedules are written now, "green" status is often just another marketing strategy to allow higher prices on new products (and projects), many of which demonstrate marginal actual improvement over similar, "standard" products, both of which are often produced by the same manufacturers. It is even possible to buy LEED points....When McDonald's touts "organic", the language becomes suspect, imo.

Even given that building technologies and products do evolve and improve (although the overall cost, down the chain, of some of these technologies is still not so efficient really), the far more cost-effective component of green design is still what it has always been and it is free: that is common sense and good, rational design.
Mies van der Rohe was right. :)

[mikki]

So, could there ever be a "green" bicycle? Recycled tires, handlebar wrap. Can carbon or titanium be recycled and used?

[RPS]

Beyond the $2000 per year in annual utility savings, what is a home like this worth to you? 5% above market? 10%? 0%??

Thanks

b21Barry, I would limit my premium more or less to that which supports the energy savings. For $2,000 per year, I'd pay in the order of $30,00 to $40,000 extra. However, as others have said, I doubt I could save $2,000 a year in utilities.

I would not look at it as a percent of initial cost -- that's just me.

[RPS]

So, could there ever be a "green" bicycle? Recycled tires, handlebar wrap. Can carbon or titanium be recycled and used?REDUCE, REUSE, RECYCLE?

If you buy a bike that last a long long time, that's about as good as it gets IMO.

[Len J]

Len, I'm not sure I agree. As an example, China's industry has expanded considerably because of trade with the US, and to power that growth, they are building a lot of coal powerplants. If those products had remained in the US, I doubt they would have created as much pollution.

The economic impact/reality is something else. We don't have enough workers to produce everything China makes for us.

It depends on what time horizon you look at.

-We don't buy from them, including subassemblies.
-Our final assemblies are not competitive cost wise with countries that do buy from them.
-we lose market share to other economies that do buy from them. Those markets buy more as their market share grows.
-You eventually end up in the same place.

Demand is demand.......and lowest cost supply will meet that demand.

Len

[cadence90]

Mies van der Rohe was right. :)
Frank "Prairie Style" Ll. Wright wasn't too far off the mark, either.

Neither was Hadrian, or the Anasazi.

[Louis]

or the Anasazi.

And look at how they ended up...

[Karin Kirk]

And look at how they ended up...

One researcher I met attributed that to... climate change! (in terms of water availability)
Interesting, I think.

[Tobias]

One researcher I met attributed that to... climate change! (in terms of water availability)
Interesting, I think.Were they not in the area of the Colorado? Are they saying the river ran dry or that they couldn't get to it?

Their later ruins suggest they were afraid of something beyond water shortage. It is quite a mystery.

[jamesau]

I've enrolled with my utility to buy renewable energy credits. This costs me the equivalent of one cheap lunch out per month. Collectively, this activity promotes the construction of renewable power sources. Such enrollment options are available in many states including CO, NY, NJ, PA , MN and others. PA especially has been very successful in bringing many MW of windpower online.

I also try to instill in my kids the virtues of turning off the lights and driving less, but that's a much harder sell.

[Karin Kirk]

Were they not in the area of the Colorado? Are they saying the river ran dry or that they couldn't get to it?

Their later ruins suggest they were afraid of something beyond water shortage. It is quite a mystery.

No, the river didn't run dry, but the rain did not provide enough moisture to grow crops or harvest from existing vegetation. I don't remember the details though - just that it had something to do with shifting climate patterns and drought.

The way their settlements moved closer to water sources vs. food sources during times of drought was one of the bits of evidence. Sorry that I don't have more details - it was awhile back that I heard this.

[cadence90]

.... ..
.

[Tobias]

Thanks Karin, that's good info. I'll have to follow up on it next time I visit Mesa Verde or have time to kill on the internet. As I recall the ruins there suggest that they moved from surface villages to the side of cliffs as if they were hiding for protection. Maybe it was paranoia.

[Kirk007]

This thread is way from where it starts and the topics raised worthy of more than the off the cuff remarks that can be made here, but the lawyer in me just can't let some pass without comment....

Having just returned from Montana, where I've been meeting with 2nd and 3rd generation ranchers, let me just say that not groups and persons labeled as "environmentalists" are radical liberals. The "extreme" groups that my "radical firm", (a not for profit environmental law firm) frequently gets labeled (we were forced off the U of O campus by the timber industry in the 1990s - best thing that could've happened to us!) we represent among others, County Commissioners in western Colorado (that would be a Red county); Counties and towns in New Mexico, and hunters and anglers groups that come to the table cursing that the GD current administration is ruining the West.

Nor have our fundamental laws been as eviscerated as suggested here; my colleagues and I enforce them every day. Nor are such lawsuits pursuing extreme ideals; rather for most of them it's pretty simple: OBEY the law. Courts rule in our favor roughly 85% of the time because neither our government in particular, nor many of our industries, care to abide by them. Simple point: if they weren't violating the law we wouldn't be kicking their a**** on a regular basis. And my view is not just from one side of the fence - I spent 16 years representing industries of all types. Some are responsible and try to do the right thing; some aren't.

Yes some folks bring stupid lawsuits; I wish they didn't; there has been backlash in the court of public opinion although not much impact on the laws themselves. But this is the inevitable result of a Congress that recognized the need to give any affected person the right to enforce many of our environmental laws. Why? Because it knew the government itself was subject to too much political interference to be counted on to do the right thing for the greater good.

In any event, global warming is swinging the pendulum back towards recognizing the need for environmental responsibliity across many social strata. Say bye bye polar bears in your children's lifetimes, and this is just the tip of the iceberg - bad pun intended.

It's a complex issue; inexplicably tied to among other factors, economics, religion and history. I just hope our humility and intelligence can overcome our arrogance before its too late.

Greg

[cadence90]

No, the river didn't run dry, but the rain did not provide enough moisture to grow crops or harvest from existing vegetation. I don't remember the details though - just that it had something to do with shifting climate patterns and drought.

The way their settlements moved closer to water sources vs. food sources during times of drought was one of the bits of evidence. Sorry that I don't have more details - it was awhile back that I heard this.
That's what I have read; that rather than mysteriously vanishing or being exterminated in battles they migrated to areas with more consistent rainfall/rivers and merged with other pueblo populations over time.

[Tobias]

It depends on what time horizon you look at.

-We don't buy from them, including subassemblies.What does that mean? Please educate me. Don't we buy a lot more stuff from teh Chinese than they buy from us which is why we have such a trade deficit with them? Where does all the Walmart stuff made in China fall in this classification? Like bikes made in China?

[gdw]

Those who weren't turned into the ancient version of Soylent Green. :banana:

[Len J]

What does that mean? Please educate me. Don't we buy a lot more stuff from teh Chinese than they buy from us which is why we have such a trade deficit with them? Where does all the Walmart stuff made in China fall in this classification? Like bikes made in China?

Now we do...but if we "decided" not to buy from China.....how would this demand for low priced goods be met? It would be met by lower cost goods imported from other countries using parts or subassemblies manufactured in China.

The root issue is that we have spoken with our wallets......we being the US consumer.......as long as lowest price rules, the lowest cost manufacturer will gt the business.

len

[barry1021]

what level of LEED certification did you build to? Will you get the house certified or will the owner? What improvements beyond the building code for your area did you add? Might be important questions to answer for your marketing strategy.

"our platinum rated townhomes should sell for" You will need to get the house ceritified.

they are being certified

[barry1021]

This has to be way overstated. Where do you get that number?

For example, my 1970's era house is all-electric and my highest bill this summer (for August, the hottest month by far, and believe me St Louis is hot and humid) was $70.

I don't think that the type of person who is going to buy a green home is going to be terribly wasteful to begin with, so I would think that one should not use average numbers for the "before" cost. (If that's what you did.)

Louis

based on analysis of cambridge. that number sounds AMazingly low by MA standards

[barry1021]

Barry, please use another FORUM for your Real Estate interest. The prior ad you placed on the FORUM was out of place for bicycle forum. While this thread's topic is of interest to myself and others - this is not the correct FORUM for it.

We try to keep a "loose" definition on topics that would fall under the "OK" but this one is really "pushing" it. While I understand your interest for getting opinions, there are trade groups that can provide much more focused info on this topic. Since you are in the business, you know far better than I what they are and which would be most suited for obtaining specific "green" info.

Thanks PETE

geez pete there are plenty of OT subjects here. i understand why the classified was taken down. I said that in my original note. I asked question abouy real estate, I wasnt trying to sell them here. I think your comment is unreasonable. There are plenty of topics that are not about cycling

[barry1021]

1. I agree, the intent behind the thread is questionable at best.
2. I would pay the 10%. I pay a far greater premium in many other areas in my life; housing is just a comparatively larger nut.

what does that mean, the intent is questionable? I was not looking to sell my units to you or ask you what they are worth. I just asked what premium you would pay for certified green homes. Yes its a general question, I thought it would be interesting and give me some insight. Yikes!!!

[barry1021]

Barry, I would limit my premium more or less to that which supports the energy savings. For $2,000 per year, I'd pay in the order of $30,00 to $40,000 extra. However, as others have said, I doubt I could save $2,000 a year in utilities.

I would not look at it as a percent of initial cost -- that's just me.

thanks, that was what I was looking for

[justinf]

ok cool. no harm meant.

[barry1021]

sorry if there was a misunderstanding-my thesis is that people are willing to "pay" for doing what they consider to be something that is part of a solution, whether it is going to the recycle center once a week or driving a Prius. That means there is some value to "doing good" beyond an economic return. I would like to see how far that extends. I recognize that as an appreciating asset and one that can be an important part of net worth as a house, different forces may apply. My question simply was beyond economic (PV of future cost savings), what is it worth. THat is all. thx for the time

b21

[Fixed]

“Give me the luxuries of life and I will willingly do without the necessities.”


cheers bro

[Pete Serotta]

Barry, we can agree to disagree.... This thread tied to your SALE one will leave us (you and I) in disagreement (BUT we can have a glass of red or go for a ride and discuss more. :D )

As it turns out the thread took a far broader view than your original question and folks had some very good discussions. Yes they were not cycling related and they were "green" in general. (just as other non cycling ones are general, most of the time and not related to a hyping of one's business).

As it is. everything turned out ok and we all were able to voice our view in a mannerly way. Disagreement is not bad


what does that mean, the intent is questionable? I was not looking to sell my units to you or ask you what they are worth. I just asked what premium you would pay for certified green homes. Yes its a general question, I thought it would be interesting and give me some insight. Yikes!!!

[barry1021]

Barry, we can agree to disagree.... This thread tied to your SALE one will leave us (you and I) in disagreement (BUT we can have a glass of red or go for a ride and discuss more. :D )

As it turns out the thread took a far broader view than your original question and folks had some very good discussions. Yes they were not cycling related and they were "green" in general. (just as other non cycling ones are general, most of the time and not related to a hyping of one's business).

As it is. everything turned out ok and we all were able to voice our view in a mannerly way. Disagreement is not bad

whatever.

[sspielman]

One researcher I met attributed that to... climate change! (in terms of water availability)
Interesting, I think.

..and we can't blame that climate change on greenhouse gas emissions!

[Karin Kirk]

..and we can't blame that climate change on greenhouse gas emissions!
Right. The climate has changed plenty before we started messing with it. Don't let that lead you to think that the current climate change is 'natural' and therefore nothing to worry about. It isn't.

[shoe]

interesting discussion...going greeene....here we are... here we go....i hope it can just make more thoughtful people out of us....for whatever reason ...perceiveved cool factor or compassion for the world we live in....i am looking into purchasing a home and it will be interesting to see how the finances will affect the decisions made in the fixing up process...just less money spent on bikes i suppose...off to go ride some trails in some woods they set aside for us....dave

[Birddog]

I pay $24 a year for the "privilege" of curbside recycling (glass, newspaper, plastic). Don't get me started on the economics of this.

Birddog

[sspielman]

I pay $24 a year for the "privilege" of curbside recycling (glass, newspaper, plastic). Don't get me started on the economics of this.

Birddog

I'm with you..Recycling is supposed to *PAY* not cost (and I believe that it really does pay in most cases)...so *SOMEBODY* is profiteering. If we are really going to clean things up, we have to start by cleaning up the large and growing Green industry.

[Tobias]

I'm with you..Recycling is supposed to *PAY* not cost (and I believe that it really does pay in most cases)...so *SOMEBODY* is profiteering. If we are really going to clean things up, we have to start by cleaning up the large and growing Green industry.It would be cheaper for all of us to dump or burn our waste in the back yard, but it is not a viable solution for many reasons (like health issues). The fact that some people make a living from running and operating waste management systems does not necessarily mean there is profiteering. Couldn’t the same be said about the green industry? There is potential abuse in every industry or business. I wouldn’t single out the greenies.

[Pete Serotta]

;) Very true


It would be cheaper for all of us to dump or burn our waste in the back yard, but it is not a viable solution for many reasons (like health issues). The fact that some people make a living from running and operating waste management systems does not necessarily mean there is profiteering. Couldn’t the same be said about the green industry? There is potential abuse in every industry or business. I wouldn’t single out the greenies.

[Kirk007]

I used to represent one of the largest recyclers in Puget Sound. They were profitable but not by much. Tremendous amounts of recycled raw product drives down the price they could get for reselling it. They eventually sold out to a larger national waste company. There has been tremendous consolidation in the waste management industry in general - its a tough competitive business and for the most part the recyling programs are not really run by companies that we associate with "green." I'm sure Waste Management and BFI would be chuckling about that association.

I just don't get the anomosity here directed at "green" things. Are "green" companies racking it in hand over foot and gouging consumers? What "green" CEO is making the mega-millions of the overcompensated leaders of our economic giants? Sure there's a lot of folks jumping on the green bandwagon purely for marketing purposes without contributing a d*** thing to the solution, but since when is that a new phenomena? It doesn't change the fact that there are companies that are trying to do the right thing environmentally, pay liveable wages, and be profitable. Where's the problem with that? If economics are, and they are, a major part of the solution to the very real environmental and energy issues we have and will continue to confront for decades, lets hope that companies that can contibute products/services to society can do so profitably and "green" at the same time, otherwise we're going spiralling downward even faster. Although even then, if we continue our consumptive lifestyle, and China, India etc. continue to aspire to our lifestyle, we're all screwed anyway.


Greg

[barry1021]

newsprint for instance. There are times that it may be profitable but other times it is not. THis is one of those cost/benefit issues that it isnt easy to resolve.

b21

[Richard]

While the economics of waste disposal in tornado alley are not clear to me, I suspect that if your recycleables were landfilled with the rest of your waste, the cost to you would be significantly more than $24 a year.

Barry, as you can read, for some $24 per year is too much of a premium for "green."

[barry1021]

While the economics of waste disposal in tornado alley are not clear to me, I suspect that if your recycleables were landfilled with the rest of your waste, the cost to you would be significantly more than $24 a year.

Barry, as you can read, for some $24 per year is too much of a premium for "green."

that our target market is small, but hopefully passionate about owning a green home...

b21

[RPS]

It’s interesting that in some unrelated industries people sometimes pay a price premium that is beyond what the energy savings should justify. An example that comes to mind is the Hi-Lo type of collapsible camping trailers (picture below for those who may not be familiar with them). Although the manufacturers also point out that they are easier to tow, the main advantage is lower fuel consumption due to reduced aerodynamic drag. And when the added weight for a given size is factored in, fuel savings alone can not justify the cost premium unless you drive one of these far more than most RVers.

I think a few people will pay a higher premium beyond what is cost justified, but IMO it is limited to a small niche market. Most people will buy a trailer that is the same size for about half the price and deal with the higher fuel costs.

[gary135r]

ask him.

[blu-haus]

(Yes, I am a LEED certified architect.)

Oh really??? I thought buildings were "LEED Certified" and people were "LEED Accredited".


- a LEED Accredited Professional

[blu-haus]

Gone, but not forgotten. And their architecture remains. Take that, Pruitt-Igoe! :)

Ha! That was one of my favorite classes in architecture school... when we watched the video of Pruitt-Igoe being demolished. :D