The average house out here in California is built to code. That is, the minimum requirement under the law. There are little or no features that take advantage of the sun like placement of the house, eves, no basements, etc. It is all about how many they can put into a specific area. PERIOD. Most of them are cold in the winter and hot in the summer. They have these little fake fireplaces that lose more energy than they could possibly produce with a fire. (no mass for heat storage) The problem is, now there are thousands of these houses everywhere! Most areas are not planned for transportation, schools, shopping, etc. Shall I go on?
Posted by Howard Kasper

Who cares about the sticks on the land? the REAL environmental issue is the subdivision of the land and public infrastructure delivering services to the new unit of property that is permanent and immovable and subsidized and scarring. The entire notion of land development from land assembly to right-of-way design to services installation to structure design, construction, marketing, sale, and guarantee needs to be examined for its role in the systematic destruction of the natural systems that support all life forms.
This criticism of the business model of delivering the toothpaste of modern mass produced homes is probably true, but a minor problem compared to what ails our natural environment and will haunt our grandchildren, from a health as well as financial standpoint (since single-family homes do not pay for themselves:local property tax revenue come nowhere near the costs associated with local government operations).

I generally mistrust opinions that put titles in quote marks so that they seem clever ("bean counters" in the blog). I think with better editing this would be a better column. However, I also don't think it says anything particularly relevatory, even though it takes a very long time to say it.
Furthermore, I don't see the connection between green construction and the profit incentive of large builders.
For this blog to make much sense, it would have to first of all, define the size and capacity of the builders it is talking about. The impression I have is that the topic is the large builder organization such as Pulte or some other group that builds upwards of 10,000 units a year. And then, there should be some discussion about whether the builder has actually committed to green design and construction. Its pretty hard to chastise someone for not meeting a goal they don't have. And then, the discussion of how the builder's profit incentives and scheduling works might be interesting, but still has nothing to do with sustainability.
It is possible that the blogger had a point or two to make, but the construction of the blog makes it impossible to determine what that point might be. I sense that what they are trying to say is:" Big residential builders are trying to make a profit. Homeowners don't know what green construction is. the two topics may or may not meet in the middle"
Again, if the homebuilder doesn't advertise themselves as sustainable, you can't really fault them for not being sustainable.
Posted by Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS

Grant,
Thanks for making the hard call. Your megabuilder clients won't like this and they'll ding you for it if they can.
However, as someone who has actually cut lunber and pounded nails, I'd have to agree with most of what Dorris says.

His arguement could be extended to most US mega-corps. Few in management actually know much about the goods/services they are supposed to be providing. When I do process redesign for enterprise IT projects, I often find I'm the only person in the room who has ever spent time working a (civil) construction site or walking the plant floor. When I ask the practical questions about how this "beancounter" driven process will actually work in the production world, I get the same blank stare he mentioned.
I'm forever amazed to find myself the only advocate for the actual production people in the process decision making group. No wonder the processes are so broken.
Posted by Barbara Brown

I concur with Anne's take on the blog, which is not a very effective piece of writing. An anecdote from a Pulte development visit will illustrate an underlying issue: They are building a large "over 55" community (Sun City/Del Webb) near us. We stopped to visit. Usual pluses and minuses, but quite a few pluses. However, in the 1500+ houses built, none were accessible at the front door, the garage, the screened porch, the kitchen, or the bathroom. We pointed out that if we bought a house, a mobility impaired neigbor couldn't come visit us, whether or not we were disabled. We were told this was "a community for active adults."

Lesson: Although 50 percent of the purchasers would be physically disabled within 10 years of their purchase, Pulte/Del Webb had made no commitment to creating an "aging in place" community. And it isn't. And there are enough consumers who do not have any insight into aging - their own or others - who will buy it and enjoy their purchase, for now. They'll have to move elsewhere or spend lots of money later to fix what would have been free if someone had cared.

Accessibility. Sustainability. They're both good ideas. So are walkable communities. But those who make the macro decisions in many communities - developers, lenders, public officials - have little incentive to actually make these positive things happen. Until we build a fire under them. Or quite buying their products.

But there are very very few alternatives.
Posted by Phil Kabza

I could make a long dissertation in or against this article (and his opinion), however I have one comment: very subjective.
Posted by Alex Alcala

Close to the truth probably. Leave alone the big builders, even small builders are the same unless the 'customer' asks for it
by specifics. Sometimes customers know more than builders do.

That is not good for scale-up of sustainable building practices
that will yield lower costs and better ROI as time goes by.
Posted by Badhri Uppiliappan

The author suggests that nobody at the top of this totem pole understands construction, nobody at the bottom understands construction and nobody in the middle understands construction. I can't help wondering what the people who DO understand construction are doing? Are they pulling cappucinos at Starbucks?

In short, I find this a very narrow and jaundiced view of what makes up our construction industry. Though I agree entirely that construction quality on average needs improvement (as well as design quality and permitting agencies that are more responsive to positive experiment), I don't think we're going to get there by berating and mischaracterizing entire industries.

I surfed across this site yesterday - www.costamesagreen.com the greenest home in Orange County. Forget that it's over priced for the average person, the checklist, the approach and the inspiration is worth the look.

I have seen those type of operations, yes they do exist, but most non-production builders and many production builders truly want to build a good home. Remember what is really scary, some sub-contractors learned from the oldest guy on the jobsite 20 years ago, and sometimes they were taught wrong. I recently watched a guy install Fiber Cement siding, been doing it for years... WRONG. No flashing, no caulk, no end cut sealing....so what I am saying is this. As an industry, we have to step it up a notch all the way around. The blog was tough, but sometimes tough is good.
Posted by Bob Swartz

Very interesting, yet subjective, look at the process. It does stop short though, as the blame would continue to trickle down through the subs. Who is supposed to take responsibility to change the situation for the better though? Short of the answer - everyone...it has to start somewhere.

Wow, about as subjective as you can get. The argument seems to be "builder wants to make a profit, so builder is bad.” Having worked with builders at the local management level, I agree that most have not been hammer swingers. In my experience most came up through the ranks on the land development side of their business and are quiet expert on land planning. That said I am no more impressed by the working knowledge of housing construction evidenced by those in the sustainable development lobby.

Home builders are a business and as such exist to provide a product and make a profit, an article that criticizes them for this his hardly useful or helpful. To have been worth while I would have expected to see constructive criticism, with actual ideas presented on how the homebuilder could continue to make a profit while building more efficiently.

I checked on Mr. Dorris’ own web page and was not surprised to find a business that derives its profit from criticizing the construction of existing homes, while failing to acknowledge that a significant amount of the failures he attacks are the result of active government intervention in the homebuilding process to achieve certain policy goals without looking at the systemic impacts these changes might create. (One example is the move to more energy efficient homes created significant problems with the “breathability” of a home resulting in a greater risk of mold and other air quality issues.)

I usually find that the next part of the argument is homebuilders need to make changes to the way they build homes no matter the cost. I live in California where this argument has resulted in homes averaging nearly $500,000 or more in some areas. Where sustainable building practices provide reduced cost to the consumer I have found that homebuilders are quite willing to consider changes to their building process. By reduced cost I mean a net benefit to the consumer in a less expensive home to purchase and operate. The commercial development community is already moving this direction where it has found certain sustainable practices result in buildings that are more economically efficient to operate.
Posted by Jerry Livingston

We're a fourth generation small builder. I've worked in every capacity for over 30 years. I agree, especially about the superintendents not knowing how to build a house. I see it every day, even in other "cell phone" builders who know nothing about what they are doing. As far as Green and Energy efficiency go its a tough battle. We are an ENERGY STAR Partner and have built several Green Certified homes now. The first is KY to build a home certified National Green Build Standard.

Now that we have a unified standard to build under, perhaps things will get easier. There are a lot of "Green" programs leaving one to question "what is Green"? The National program is the only one ANSI approved. Hopefully this will help streamline the process. I'm working on a commitee with the local HBA to educate other builders, associates and the consumer. Its tough to sell what people don't see. Most buyers are only interested in the bottom line. I build homes that have utility bills of $30 to $40 and people don't believe the savings and how this can make Green affordable. These homes are healthier and more durable as well. You would think it was a "no brainer" but as he said, people don't research the biggest purchase they make.

I'm open for suggestion on how to make the point to the consumer. I'm making headway with my trade contractors and suppliers. Its the buyers who say they are interested but will buy next door because its $1000 cheaper. How do I get people to understand they will save $1000 every year on utilities alone? Its in black and white in front of them with the Energy report.

We all have to want this for it to work. Yes, there are a lot of really bad builders out there who are only in it for the money. My name goes on my homes, I demand a better home. Builders like us are few but at least we know we are giving our customers the best.
Posted by Tom Spille

continuation of previous post...

1. Energy efficient envelop, better windows, more insulation, tighter construction. 40 years ago building codes didn't even address energy issues. You could build a house with no insulation if you wanted to. So the code bodies have already taken big steps (which of course they must continue to do). Every reputable builder I've worked with understands the value in this kind of energy efficient work and sees it not as a risk, but as a reduction in risk because it represents a higher level of skill in their work. As for UNreputable builders, there is very little we can do about them except try to expose them. But those types exist in every industry. As an aside, most energy efficiency measures result in long term cost savings, which is another reason why this incremental change should be first. If the additional upfront costs are amortized into a 30 year loan, from the standpoint of monthly cash flow the cost savings can begin right away.

2. Better design to take full advantage of passive energy savings, such as better orientation for natural lighting, natural ventilation, and solar exposure... This is a DESIGN issue and it is unfair to lay it at the feet of builders. Most builders who are not building something that was custom designed by an architect are building something that was a 'stock' design from a design service. Very few builders build their own designs. But even including those few, it is still a design issue. So if there is a failure on this front, the blame falls at the feet of designers (not exclusively). And there again, it is more often a failure of education. I got a Bachelor's Degree and a Master's Degree in Architecture from one of the premiere architecture programs in the USA and I needed to learn very little about that to earn my stripes. In fact, I chose to learn a great deal more, on my own. But the educational system did not require it. Better design should be #2 on our list because, much of the time, it adds NO additional cost to a building. Choosing which direction to orient windows and where to put mass, does not necessarily have a construction budget impact. So it is high on the list because it represents free savings... Here's one other major hitch though. Local planning and permitting agencies can and do create a lot of rules that prevent designers from optimizing their designs from an environmental standpoint. So, even the best intentioned designer can be stymied by a Planning Department.

3. Improvements in energy efficiency of building systems, ie LED lights, low flow plumbing fixtures, etc. It seems to me that every year the building codes get more stringent and demanding. So the trend is in the right direction, maybe not fast enough, but in the right direction. This stuff starts in Building Codes, enters into designers' specifications and finally ends up on the builders' plan tables on the job site. I don't see how builders are to blame for not doing enough, when they're building to code and in conformance with the designer's construction documents.

After the above 3 incremental changes, the first two of which can be relatively cost neutral and risk free, its hard to find other easy, incremental changes. We enter the realm of the more visionary and risky ideas.

It seems to me we can still do a lot to maximize the 3 items above and those should be the main focus of our efforts, while continuing to encourage radical experiment from those individuals who are prepared to take on the cost and risk. Unfortunately, at this point, the biggest hurdle to most experiments are the permitting agencies, NOT the builders. If a homeowner/developer is willing to put up fair money to relieve builders of added risk and ensure their normal profit, finding a builder to do the job won't be the hurdle.

Please excuse the length of my response but I couldn't find a way to say all this any more succinctly.
Posted by Antonio Bettencourt

Mr. Dorris was accurate in his assessment of the 20% of builders that produce 80% of U.S. housing stock. They are the mass producers of housing that work on a quantity, not quality, basis.

He stopped short of exposing many other contributing factors of status quo development, including the countless costs added to home construction by county and municipal buraucracies that continue to collect fees and approve environmentally, culturally, and socially disastorous projects.

So where is the paradigm shift? Who is the change agent in this process? Being that the U.S. is still primarily a free market society (with the exception of our government's recently acquired interest in several mega-corporations; i.e., bailouts), the market is the catalyst for change. However, markets are influenced by innovators.

As Lee Iococa stated, a mom did not come to Chrysler and request that they create a boxy vehicle that would accommodate her family, cargo, and pets; rather their engineers and designers developed the concept and a market was created for mini-vans. Likewise, a frusturated teenager did not ask Apple to create a miniature device that could store and playback a thousand of their favorite songs, but the innovation of the IPod created a market.

Having personal experience in both the building business and the hotel industry, I tend to draw comparisons of the greening of each. I believe that the hotel industry is relatively advanced in its' interest in, if not outright accomplishment of, adopting sustainable practices. This is due to the fact that it is profitable, and popular, for hotels to implement sustainability programs. What started with several exclusive eco-lodges has evolved to LEED certified Days Inns. Hotels with sustainability programs are fast becoming the standard, not the exception, and the market is demanding it.

Hotels have the advantage of selling a short lifecycle product, usually one to seveveral nights lodging, with the opportunity of generating repeat business if they deliver a quality product. Homebuilders, on the otherhand, are selling a long lifecycle product, with the possibility of maybe 2 or 3 repeat sales to the same buyer, but only if they are extremely satisfied with the product. In otherwords, high volume homebuilders do not have much to loose, in the short term, by delivering a mediocre product. So the onous is on the innovators and consumers to cause change.

Architects, engineers, and designers need to continue to push the envelope and develop sustainable products that create markets. Consumers need to seek out responsible builders and demand quality products. Entitlements need to be conditioned on sustainable components, and those of us who care about future generations' quality of life need to continue to work diligently, as innovators and agents of change.
Posted by Erik Tilkemeier

I'm 100% with Shelly. I've been involved in house design/construction industry since 1990, both as a designer and working for a builder.

Try making a living (I'm not talking about a profit) building houses on spec, and you'll have a much deeper understanding of the day to day challenges builders face.

By nature it is a conservative industry, slow to change. The perceived risks of changing appear too great for the rewards. The last thing builders want is to build what seem to be experiments. Liability issues are much too large. One lawsuit can bankrupt a small speculative builder. Why should he take on the "risk" of doing something different like using a green/living roof, when, if he uses standard asphalt shingle he'll have a much better chance defending himself in court?

Liability risk is just one reason the industry is slow to change.

These days builders are lucky to make a 5-7% profit on a job, using systems they've already used many times. There is no way they'll be willing to take on the learning curve of a system that, to them, looks unfamiliar and risky.

At this point I'll add that I am 100% behind the belief that we need to see radical change in the way we build. We need to make the change as fast as we can. As a designer I am always lobbying clients, permitting agencies and builders, to find ways to incorporate better ways to build.

We aren't going to get there by berating the people who are in the best position to carry out these changes, the builders. We need to understand their concerns and address them. We need to provide them with the benefit of our understanding, of the solutions we are proposing, AND we need to listen to them when they express doubts. Very often they have valuable insight to offer.

Having spent many years in the academic world of architecture I can't begin to count the number of "amazing solutions" I've heard supposedly knowledgeable architects and designers propose, "solutions" that are practically unbuildable, and therefore not solutions at all.

At the same time, I've encountered so many craftsmen on job sites unwilling to do anything different than the way their grandfathers did it. And they totally scoff at the designers with their unbuildable solutions.

But what I have found is that a designer with a well thought out solution to a real problem, sitting across the table from a builder with years of field experience ... the 2 of them, working together, can make really wonderful things happen.

When the good idea gets built its because the designer and the builder both talked and both listened.

I have tremendous admiration for those rare designers and builders who do the amazing, groundbreaking green projects we see on the magazine covers. They are paving the way for the future.

But let's be realistic about the rest of the huge mass of buildings that are being built. These building owners, builders and designers are not in a position to take the risks required to do something radical. Any change that comes about on a mass scale is going to be incremental. So let's look at what incremental changes can make the most difference the fastest, with the least perceived risk and cost.
Posted by Antonio Bettencourt

There are many out there that fit this category and many who don't. But the bad ones reflect bad for all. Many developers are clueless when it comes to building let alone sustainable projects.

Ken Foust
Posted by Ken Foust fousto@me.com

Having worked in the building industry and now providing software to builders, I can say that "yes" some of what the author wrote was true. That said, I have worked with numerous builders for whom the author's blanket statements are way off base. I have worked with upper management with whom I walked the sites. I have worked with some fantastic superintendents who can talk well with buyers and verbally beat the daylights out of a sub who made an error and caused a slip in the schedule. I have also worked with people on the other end of the spectrum.

Homebuilders are no different than any other business...they are in it to make money. No surprise here as everyone has bills to pay. And with the current housing bust, there have been many good and bad builders go out of business. Right now most builders are doing what they can just to stay in business. Unfortunately, going green is expensive and is something most buyers aren't willing to pay for during the recession.

Buying a home is the biggest purchase most people will ever make and yet they usually spend less time researching the builder and talking with other people who have purchased from that builder then they do researching a car. So at the end of the day shame on the buyer for not taking the time to learn more about the biggest purchase they will ever make. And by the way, I bought my last new house prior to being in the building industry, and shame on me for learning more about all of the options I could put in my house then I did in researching my builder (zero research).

On a positive note, my company attends the largest builders convention in the U.S. and there has been a very large growth in the number of environmental products shown at the show, as well as a larger number of builders looking to incorporate these products into their homes.
Posted by Shelly Stinchcomb

I agree with the posting of these comments - not necessarily for the value of the comments themselves, but because I believe, as a society, we are becoming far too quick to censure our own speech in the name of political correctness, etc. I'm all for decency and intelligent communication but I'd still rather open my mouth and be thought a fool . . .
Frankly, the business model Mr. Dorris appears to take issue with could be applied ( with a minor amount of re-labeling ) to a number of major corporate entities in any number of industries for much the same reason the Dilbert comic strip became so universally popular.
I've not been directly involved in mass-produced housing projects but I could apply the same caricatures to individuals I have worked with - on the construction side - on the design side - on the jurisdictional municipality side.
Perhaps the scale of poor decisions and errors in judgment played out over 1,500 single family homes worth of resources is what raises Mr. Doris' hackles. The same level of presumed incompetence played out over one single home or small scale commercial building has less of an overall and lasting impact on the natural environment.
Bad design/execution at any scale is unfortunate, but at a larger scale the waste becomes more contrary to the common good.
Terms I use here like "incompetence," "waste," and "the common good," I suppose, could also be construed as subjective depending one one's point of view.
Posted by Paul S. Anderson, AIA-LEED AP

The tone is a little insulting but there are some important realities underlying what he says. In the West, real estate developers and their bankers rule and it's all about the money of course. It's high time to stop making "housing starts" and "construction jobs" indicators of economic health. Homebuilder-speculators plunk inferior tract housing developments in the middle of nowhere - these are always the first to foreclose. (Anybody remember Silverado? A $200 taxpayer bailout?) They take serious short-cuts with these houses, many of which are apparently meant to last only 30 years without falling apart.(I live in a condo like that).

A more important sustainability issue other than the house itself is that we need to re-examine massive highway construction and sprawling low-density developments that destroy habitats and cause Vehicle Miles Traveled to balloon. This is not sustainable. In Colorado studies have shown that regardless of what kinds of vehicle efficiency measures we implement, greenhouse gasses will continue to grow because of these growth patterns. It's time to protect agricultural land, conserve water, and plan much denser (and more thoughtful) developments around public transit hubs and retail services that are within walking or biking distance.
Posted by Lili Francklyn

Thanks for the post!

Based on what I've seen done in the last several years, there is no exaggeration in the article, but the writing style does convey the sense of frustration when doing the right thing is frowned upon, but the writer is casting the blame upward. We could have used this article in 2005 when the bubble was accelerating.

However in fairness the lenders had given up on screening applicants and property for value and stability by then - they didn't care, all of the loans were going to be sold off in a derivative security-package anyway.
Posted by Matthew McKee

Many would argue that the 20% of builders in the business of making money are actually building sustainably. If they don't build what the market wants, they go out of business.
Posted by Anthony Stephenson

Until buyers quit buying shoddy homes over quality, builders will keep building junk and making the money that way. It is the same with cars, sub-standard goods from Asia and most other things that we buy as consumers. Sellers sell what the majority of customers will buy. Most buyers tend to buy on price alone, hence suppliers sell cheap stuff. It's as simple as that.
Posted by Mike Osborne

Hard call...
His points are well-taken; and personally, I agree with him.
However, (a) I think his writing style did he, himself, more harm than good. I think he could have expressed the brutality and objectivity better. The way it is written it seems to be more of a vendetta.
On the flip side, though I'm sure the author has not worked for a majority of builders across the country, I personally have experienced many of his frustrations regarding a house I had built not too many years ago. In talking with subcontractors on a number of occasions, it appeared to me that the priorities were more slanted toward profitability than doing the best job possible. In my case, it was obvious shortcuts were taken, and overall performance was acceptable to the contractor or builder in a range that for me the minimum standards were far too low.
Is there a solution? One would be that consumers or buyers stop shopping for the cheapest price. Most times, if you pick your builder wisely, you get what you pay for. If you choose your builder prudently, and you blatantly state to your builder that you want quality, and are willing to pay for it, I believe you will many times get a better building.
But let's be honest, how often is that going to happen for a family whose focus is to get "as much" home for the dollar, as compared to "as much quality" for the dollar. I don't think that ever happens for the vast majority of buyers. "And, ..." most home buyers wouldn't know a good framing job from a mess, or a good roof from a cover, or properly laid electrical and plumbing from sub-standard. Talk to some city or municipal building inspectors or local trades people about some of the work they come across. Take a house that's had two or three owners, each of which fancy themselves quite the DIY master, and you are bound to find just as many, if not more, owner-installed messes all waiting for the unsuspecting next buyer.
Posted by Richard Carter

I think it makes all homebuilders out to be the enemy. Whether we like the management structure, or not, it is what we have to learn to work with. One thing the writer does not mention is that one of the reasons that this business structure has developed is because of the demands of some consumers. Most consumers do not want to hear that it is going to take an extra week to finish a house because of weather, or many are building large homes that they can not afford, and pressure the builder to cut the cost without sacrificing the final size. Why are homes getting larger, but families smaller?
Posted by Marc Kovach