My parents taught me nothing is "free", and so far they have been right.
That said, IPD, sustainable building management / high performance building management are requirements from both environmental and financial perspectives.
Posted by Peter Cholakis

I am a conservative... I freely admit it. I'm also an entrepreneur. My company recognized the need to develop a solar energy product that was affordable without government subsidy. So being the good little engineers that we are, we are about to release a product that makes the conversion of solar energy to electrical power at a price point that compares equally with traditional power company pricing. We made national news (CBS)... www.snowpeakenergy.com (Name change is coming soon)
Posted by Richard Kelsey

I agree that the tract housing has contributed largely to both the energy crisis and financial crisis we are now experiencing. Both are linked to energy use, and the rise of energy prices and bad housing and planning decisions. It only makes sense that the consumer should adopt the most efficient Value - however common sense has been absence for years. Over 55% of our vehicles were SUVs in the early 2000's, everyone knew they were inefficient, but we made up excuses to own them. The same is true of the suburban sprawl, a lot of the tract housing sold because of marketing an image we wanted (as mentioned in that previous blog posting about home builder practices). We need bold developers who can merge good marketing sense with honest sustainability practices.

On the second half of the article, I have yet to see how BIM will make housing greener by it's self. Is BIM useful - yes. However since it is Information Management the practitioners - Architects, Engineers, Builders, Owners, and other stake holders need to have a common agreement on what information must be included for the life cycle of the building. It is a tool to use toward a goal, but not the only tool available.

If BIM is used just to produce CDs then it is kind of a waste - granted when used properly it can make drawing and coordination much easier across disciplines. However if it stops there, the potential is not being fully utilized.
Posted by Matthew McKee

Green building is for Conservatives and should be championed by Conservatives!!!

The very word, term Conservative means to Conserve

Green Buildings
• Conserve Energy
• Efficiently Reduce Operating Costs by greatly reducing. or eliminate our 24 x 7 carbon fuel dependencies,
• While Reducing our Carbon Foot Print,
• Return clean Oxygen to the Air in stead of carcogenic CO-2’s

Green Buildings

Are not some trendy flash in the pan, Socialist, Berken Stock Tree Hugging Exercise!!!

Green Alternative Energy Building Programs are the Growth Economy for the 21st-22nd Centuries

>From a core conservative philosophical perspective, of
"Independence Concept",
"Philosophical Self-Reliance"

Green Buildings, Green Data Centers, Green Supply Chains
Alternative Energy Market Baskets. Consisting of
Wind, Solar, Geo-Thermal, Tidal Ebb-Flows, Green Algae, Bio-Diesel, After Market Hydrogen Systems
Coal Liquefaction, Insitu-Coal,

Green Buildings make logical, operationally efficient, cost-reduction, business sense

Green Buildings are a profitable means of achieving true national economic independence, national self-reliance from a hostile fundamentalist Anti-West Middle East, Latin America South East Asia.

Conservatively speaking, Green Building(s) are a positive statement of strategic resource independence, fiscal responsibility, independence from the past century of slavish economic dependency upon Geo-Politically Unstable Middle Eastern, Latin American, South East Asian Carbon Based Suppliers of Oil, and Natural Gas.

Green Buildings are a strategic, geo-political, physical demonstration, financial means of “conservative conservation, self reliance, engineering, managing, and implementing our own national independence from our current economic dependencies upon a carbon based society economy.

As the strategic reserves of Carbon Based Resources in the Middle East, Latin America, South West Asia, South East Asia diminish

Green Buildings, Green Data Centers, Green Supply Chains over time will help the USA and the West to fiscally adjust our balance of payments, lower interest rates, rebuilds America’s Infrastructure,
While providing the USA with a vibrant array of shovel ready export products. Goods, Services for the next 200-300 years for over 200+ countries

Green Buildings are not a panacea.
Green Buildings are a positive alternative to our current addiction to a rapidly dwindling Carbon Based Energy Resources.

TRW-Energy Systems, NA was heavily invested in the Strategic Planning, Design, R&D for Alternative Green Energy Programs for the US Federal Government ERDA

Gerard J. C. La Tournerie
Wexford Systems, LLC.
wexford2001@aol.com
201-675-1290
Posted by GERARD LA TOURNERIE

Kudos to Mr. Michler for a well written concise piece ( and for undertaking the usually arduous process of tailor-fitting his abode ). What his article points out also is that it takes people ( consumers) with a certain level of understanding to appreciate the value of the materials, technologies (or lack thereof) and brainpower who can affect the outcome he advocates. There will be those for whom the value will be understood as intrinsic. There are others who really "want" to realize it, and with a little nudging will be able to. There are even those who are interested in making what they see as the fashon statement of the day. Many, however, will still simply fall into the " too much hassle to understand easily, therefore must be too expensive to incorporate."
The data will be too overwhelming to overlook in time, and I believe, skyrocketing energy costs coming with the impending tsunami of inflation driven by increased worldwide development/recovery/consumption will - if not silence - significantly diminish, the cries of the naysayers.
Mr. Michler's "dog will then hunt" for the general mass consumer, who has an emotional desire to 'do the right thing' today, but is still driven by short-term, and up-front costs and less prone to an investment mindset.

I think both personally and professionally, for the most part, Andrew is on the mark. I too feel it will not just be experts in the BIM and IPD process that will build recognition and respect for green homes. Nor will it just be USGBC's LEED. Most cities and states are creating green standards that are more in line with their climate as green building is a climate specific issue and needs to be looked upon in this light. This is especially important when educating real estate agents, government officials, home and building inspectors. They are in the middle of the consumer and effecting change in the housing markets. This will take the efforts of the many to educate consumers. There was a loss of $2 trillion in value as over 19 million homes sitting in 2008 in the United States. This is a critical issue that people must address and this is why current inventory must be updated from a green standpoint. New home markets are different in the consumer eye and a very very small part of the real estate market. In the residential real estate arena, re-sales are the bread and butter of the market, for jobs, for greening and for growth for all sectors. There are close to 130 million of these homes already up and being occupied. As a real estate professional who has completed close to 400 transactions in a 14 year career, I will share with you what will wake up the average Joe. Joe in my eyes, is every Tom, DIck and Harry who is employed, unemployed, or who holds an executive position in Fannie Mae or is a handy man coming to do repairs on your home.

My feeling is, we need to take most of the focus off of the new home builder to become green and put these issues back into reality that existing inventory needs to become green and it needs to do this NOW. When your handy man comes to fix a problem in your home, he needs to be educated to update you on alternative products,and systems to consider that will help you to achieve a higher degree of energy efficiency in your home. When you need a professional to install siding, or need a plumber, they need to be educated to recommend green products to save energy, conserve water and utilize renewable energy. These people need incentives to reap the benefits to market these products. This can come from the manufacturers not government please. There is money in becoming green and plenty for everyone. There are so many jobs that can be created, but not through government giveaways and being rope a doped into more debt for our children. I am a conservative and a proud republican and even I see this as a way to effect change. This effort of greening the future home and the current inventory will take education. Plain and simple. Realtors, Home inspectors and mortgage professionals need education. I am a tyrant on this. All the talk and yet years are going by with little change and the real estate market is not even close to a recovery. Now there are clear signs commercial real estate is suffering. This is a result of the average economist not connecting residential real estate woes and jobs in our country and feeling they are. We are listening but not hearing. What ever our problems, it is ALL ABOUT THE HOUSING MARKETS.

Andrew is so right. It is also about supply and demand. Consumers are smarter today and they are not even getting the credit for this. They dictate sales price, not a seller or agent. They don't want to spend even $200,000 for a home that is not efficient. Fair market value is so challenged and until we begin to renovate homes more efficiently, until people begin to install solar hot water heaters, geo thermal, green roofs, and utilize the many tax credits available, we will still move at a snail's pace.

Finally, Fannie Mae, FHA, VA and Freddie Mac could use a new VP in their marketing department. Consumers do not even know there are guidelines consumers can follow to borrow to renovate or build green. Green Real Estate Education is conducting the first presentation in the country to members of the Illinois Association of Mortgage Professionals in September 21, 2009 in Arlington Heights for the industry to hear about these programs. If you were sitting with a loan officer and your were talking with you spouse about renovation projects, doesn't it make sense your loan officer should suggest energy efficient upgrades and finance programs to help with this decision.

If we can begin to create win win situations for consumers to buy again, we all benefit. If not, we will stay on this merry go round of stocks up and down, news and economist professionals totally
misunderstanding what is really a simple solution. We all need to be renovating green, insisting land be developed for bio refineries to get farmers more involved, manufacturers immediately need to be getting tax breaks for marketing their products and most important they should all be educating consumers and making their products less costly.

Oh, speaking of marketing expertise in the world of green awareness, all renewable energy and green building manufacturers, their sales teams and their distribution chains should let this be done, for the most part by the younger generation who know if we do not effect change in the next 6-8 years, their quality of life and the quality of life of their children is at risk.

A very important subject - "Going and Being Green" whether it relates to the monetary cost savings in energy; the sustainability of nature resources; the affects on climate, the health & safety of humans, less dependency on foreign energy sources or compliance with regulatory guidelines, etc; the prudent use, reuse, conservation and recyling of energy, needs to be a concern from several perspectives. Fortunately there are initiatives underway within several paradymes. The most noted is the building of structures that are "green" as with the LEEDS construction certification program, the Green Seal for products, and the EPA's Energy Saver Program for appliances. However, not every building is being built or renovated, not everyone purchases green products, nor is everyone in the market for new appliances. As such, other systems to make America more green are underway. These include programs related to processes within buidlings affecting indoor air quality, the waste of energy sources, and the supplies being purchased and used. Consider the fact that even if a building is LEEDS certified, which most in America are not, the activities within the building can contribute to a waste of energy, health and safety problems, and pollution. Ideally, along with the exemplar actions of the LEEDS program, attention should be equally given to the greening of business processes and the material supply chain.

Ronald J Lott PA, MSed, MPH, Ph.D.
Certified Green Business Consultant
Posted by Ronald Lott PA, MSed, MPH, PhD

Finally. The case has always been relevant. As a consumer and homeowner, I've always noticed how resistant folks of all stripes are to spend a little more in the beginning to save in the long run. It takes some convincing to get people to prevent damage instead of repairing it later. car repair, home repair, insulation...I could go on about how the "green solution" is almost always going to save you money in the future.
Posted by Finally. The case has always been relevant. As a consumer and homeowner, I've always noticed how resistant folks of all stripes are to spend a little more in the beginning to save in the long run. It takes some convincing to get people to prevent damage instead of repairing it later. car repair, home repair, insulation...I could go on about how the "green solution" is almost always going to save you money in the future.
Posted by Dineen Serpa

I whole heartily agree that BIM and any modeling software is to be used only as an aid. The latest report in the NYT about how LEED buildings are not living up to their projected energy usage is a strong indicator of the variables involved outside of the scope of modeling. A lot of glass losses a lot of energy but you feel the radiant affect as well, duh? Glare means less natural lighting as the windows become covered, fewer controls means less ability to save energy. No commissioning can mean a lot of unresolved issues, hidden and taken for granted as the "cost of running a building."

Another issue is how do you design for future use. Roofs slopes for solar, pre-plumbed for grey water and rain water use, underfloor adaptive HVAC. These are design ideas that can keep a buildings potential from being lost. Any other ideas on what to think of for the future in a well conceived project?

The emphasis on the point that "Green Building" concept is not for skyscrapers is important and need to be taken up seriously. In a country like India at the moment emphasis is given to make only these big corporate buildings as green bytwicking policy measures with incentives - which is needed to make up the peak demand shortage but most any emphasis to bring the concept of Green Building/house for country's 33.9 million unelectrified households is unfortunately missing.

Energy is no doubt is cornerstone for development and clean energy is future so appreciated the effort to make the point clearly how a small house can also be green and the concept needed to be pushed to policymakers
Posted by Maitree Dasgupta

I agree - Greensburg, Kansas is a perfect example of conservatives galvanizing behind Green Building.
Posted by David Goldman

I think Andrew Michler make great points about buildings (and Mr. Dorris, MIGP makes good points about how development is usually about making money and not about seeking the best solutions for enironmental sustainability), but I think that the claim that "cookie cutter" design is always wrong does not hold. High density planning allows for plenty of "cookie cutter" plans in highrise developments. The difference is that, instead of obliterating the landscape to spread "cookies" where they are environmentally insensative and impractical; one stacks the "cookies" and they recieve the same exposure to sun, wind, etc. This also can reduce costs of infrastructure, travel, food, etc. (which is another blog item).
Mark
Ecotone Land Design
Posted by Mark Johnson

My invention the heat superconductor has never passed the "Proof of concept" stage. It is a bit of nanotechnology requiring developement. There is money for this in the UK but it is not available to me. It is unpatented so no royalties will be required from any developer. You will find it on my website http://www.freewebs.com/thtaylor Try it and see
Posted by Terence Taylor

I have studied the financial costs and benefits of LEED-certified buildings and have concluded for myself, based on my studies, that the claim that LEED-certified buildings have lower lifecycle costs (including initial construction and operating costs over the life of the building) is still unproven. The landmark study to which is most commonly referred (by Heschong-Mahoney) is full of unproven assumptions, including assumptions that carbon offsets can be sold to compensate for the addition cost of green construction.

I believe the author is trying to say that the ultimate value of a project (the highest price the market will bear at the time of resale) is positively affected by green design. This idea is no less speculative than the ideas that led to the bursting of the real estate bubble for which we are all currently suffering. While energy efficiency is an intrinsic value, the other principles of sustainability (as currently defined) add only perceived value. Contributing less carbon emissions and reducing the supply of hard-to-renew materials are feel-good values that will someday be assumed or entirely lacking and therefore give a building no greater value than any other. Re-purposing and re-use of existing buildings is, on its own, a principle of sustainability that could create greater market value under all theories and yet it fails to achieve any such increase.

This is not to say that other positive benefits don’t accrue from green design. But the current opposition to the higher costs of building green and the attempts to prove that green is cost-neutral or otherwise financially beneficial have nothing to do with those benefits. One of the primary reasons so many entities are implementing green building programs without convincing evidence of cost savings is that they expect to reap a financially beneficial positive public image or at least to avoid a costly negative public image. Others engage in green design and construction for purely ideological reasons.

The drive to produce better-integrated, better-quality, more energy efficient, less-expensive buildings is the goal of many design professionals and building owners who have no interest in reducing carbon emissions or in using more easily-renewed materials and always has been since before carbon emissions and renewability began enjoying their current attention. The current trend toward accepting additional costs and making sacrifices in design decisions is now motivated, to a large extent, by the desire to enhance perceptions or at least avoid worsening perceptions and, to some extent, to reap the monetary and non-monetary rewards of that enhanced perception. That motivation will weaken as the “buzz” about sustainability quiets. In short, the current trend toward sustainability is unsustainable, as currently defined. What will remain are the energy-saving techniques and technologies and other methods of helping buildings achieve their primary purposes which have been by-products of the green building movement.
Posted by Sean Catherall

Thank you for posting this article> I have expressed my belief that all responsible development has to make economic sense as well as fulfilling the goal of improving the environment and habilability of commercial buildings. Our company has made a committment to building only sustainable buildings as we have seen the value in the operational efficiencies that come along with LEED products.
Posted by Doug Webster

Green is great, but money still rules. There are a lot of lawsuits pending from building owners about proving the "green" technology was worth the money. There is going to have to be a lot more monitoring in place to prove the building ha accomplished the LEED achievement in order to collect the incentives.
Our company has ideas to help accomplish some of the "green" and LEED goals for existing buildings, during construction, and after construction of retrofit or new construction. From what I have been reading and hearing though the main concern is R.O.I. in energy savings. I have some ideas in that area as well.
Blog www.otherways60.wordpress.com
Posted by Bill Silva

Regardless of how you lean politically or even how you think on 'green' (global warming/climate change, green building and/or alternative energy production, etc.), ultimately it is always an economic decision.

Basically EVERY decision you make in life can be boiled down into some level of economics (opportunity cost of doing one thing VS using that same time to do another thing.) Regardless of the time being spent sleeping, working, playing, meditating, etc. you are an economic being at all times, making economic decisions - actively aware of those decisions or not.

With that said, the fiscally conservative CAN and DOES purchase 'green' when it makes economic sense. Lower cost of ownership over time VS current increased acquisition cost is a pretty straight forward decision process. The 'green' aspects may not be a part of the decision steps, but the economics always are. And, when it makes sense, the fiscally conservative will probably pay cash.
Posted by Greg Buechler

Sean, I strongly agree with you. ANY design decision should be made based on the science, objective data, logic and owner's budget. Those are our parameters we respond to. The byproducts of the green movement may prove beneficial, but each decision has to be weighed on the wholistic scales of best practices.
Posted by Michael Turner, AIA, NCARB

What is there to disagree with? It's a great account of one man's highly profitable journey investing in the most important item most of us ever buy, namly our home.

However it begs an important question, which is that in most countries, most new homes are built on speculation by builders, with no contact or consultation with the future owners. They see their costs going up when they go for 'green', and until the 'market' is willing to pay the premium to acquire homes that are cheaper to operate, they will continue business as usual. It may only be a matter of communication, but it's an obstacle nonetheless - or a threshold to be crossed.

Another factor is that builders have often huge amounts of capital locked into machinery (and indeed worker training) specifically designed to build conventional housing. This is a tricky one. Ideas, anyone?
Posted by Marilyn Mehlmann