Green Scene March 2008, by Rich Michal

With growing uncertainty in the real estate market, a fundamental question many builders and developers are faced with is whether to jump on the “green bandwagon” by incorporating sustainable planning and building practices into their projects. We are barraged daily by reports of global warming, receding glaciers, and rising sea levels. Even popular culture has embraced green building as the cause célèbre with the Oscar ceremonies going “carbon neutral” and Al Gore being awarded both the Nobel Peace Prize and an Oscar for his documentary and related efforts to combat global warming. It appears that at least for now green is “sexy.”

Builders and developers are currently struggling with two fundamental issues in determining whether to incorporate ‘green’ into their projects and products—the shelf-life of the green movement (is it another fad? Will green go the way of avocado appliances and shag carpeting?) And, more importantly, the cost of ‘green building’.

I believe that ‘green’ is here to stay. The first underlying fundamental reason is our customers. Unlike during the oil crisis of the 70’s, “green” consumers aren’t just hippies looking for earthships.

“Green” consumers today represent a wider and more diverse demographic-aging baby boomers looking to downsize and reduce their energy bills, individuals with allergies, chemical sensitivity and parents with asthmatic children needing a healthier indoor home environment, soccer moms hoping to reduce their carbon footprint and the quantity of landfill waste, techno geeks looking for the latest in energy efficient appliances and solar PV systems, families moving to communities that preserve open space and parks, and young urban professionals wanting to avoid long commutes and gasoline bills associated with sprawl and suburban living. Studies have shown that the majority of the general public is now not only aware of these environmental issues but also that they are willing to pay a small premium to help overcome them.

The second and most important underlying fundamental reason is resource scarcity and the regulatory environment. Unlike the oil embargo of the 70s artificially created due to temporary supply constraints by OPEC, today we are faced with overwhelming scientific evidence of human-caused environmental degradation and resource depletion. In the southwest, for example, one of the most critical issues facing our community and the home building industry is that of water. Pima County currently has a population of approximately 1 million and depending upon which study you cite, only enough water available to serve a population of between 1.6 and 2.2 million. As home builders and developers we are faced with a choice. We can either elect to pro actively work to address this long term issue and work cooperatively with local jurisdictions to address the issue of water resource scarcity, or we can ignore it and try to maximize our profits as much as possible in the short term until these jurisdictions are forced to tighten regulatory constraints on water usage and growth. The effects of this scarcity are already evident. The Town of Oro Valley, for example, will increase its water impact fees over the next five years from $300.00 per 5/8 inch residential meter to $5,182 by 2012. While some may discount this as an isolated anomaly, I argue that this is the future in Southern Arizona unless we as an industry choose another path.

The second concern about “green building” facing home builders and developers is that it “costs too much.” I believe this concern is misplaced for two reasons. First, we should focus our attention on value, not cost. Green building isn’t just about incorporating expensive technologies such as photo-voltaics. At its core, green building is about building higher quality, energy efficient, durable, and healthy homes. Done right, the increased value built into a green home should more than offset additional costs of building the home.

Second, not only does the quality or value more than offset any additional cost, but often building green can reduce the overall cost compared to a conventional home. This is because, in my opinion, 90% of green building is about efficiency or “doing more with less.” If done right, builders can be green and save money. Many of the practices already incorporated into builders’ operations in the name of efficiency and quality are green. Builders aren’t aware of it and therefore aren’t capitalizing on it.

The reduction of the use of exterior plywood sheathing for example has for years been a common cost saving building practice in production home building. In many cases this lack of exterior wood sheathing has been perceived by consumers as inferior quality that must be overcome by the builder’s sales staff in their efforts to sell the product. In terms of green building however, the elimination of exterior sheathing represents the reduction of the use of a finite resource and therefore a marketing opportunity as opposed to a liability. Other examples of existing practices that represent green and efficiency include: prefabricated wood trusses which eliminate time and waste, engineered wood beams or TJIs which reduce the use of old growth lumber, finger jointed studs at none load baring walls to reduce waste, and the use of finished concrete floors in lieu of carpeting enhancing thermal performance and reducing the amount of indoor environmental contaminates.

Through the construction of more energy efficient homes, builders can lower initial costs by reducing the size of the required mechanical systems, and can also increase their customers’ satisfaction and reduce costly warranty call backs. Richard Barna, a Project Manager with Pepper Viner Homes sums up the advantages of green building as follows: “From this simple change in approach, a snowball effect of positive things starts to happen in the home. A tighter home envelope keeps out unwanted allergens, pollutants, and temperature extremes. A properly sized mechanical system saves money by running more efficiently, and saves in construction costs. A mechanical system sized to supply a home which is properly insulated and sealed will run longer at its intended efficiency providing the needed fresh air ventilation to improve the indoor air quality. Comfort level also increases due to the consistency of temperature throughout the home. The risk of mold problems decreases dramatically when the building envelope is designed to keep water out while allowing the home to breathe.”

I believe that green building is not a fad-that it is indeed the future. The building and development community is at a cross roads. We can either choose to embrace green building and reap the financial, PR, and marketing benefits or we can choose to ignore it and simply wait for green building to be forced upon us in the form of increased regulation. Choosing to ignore green building not only ignores the inevitability of increased costly regulation but, more importantly, ignores the fundamental shift in consumer perception linking green building
and quality.

Rich Michal is a licensed civil engineer and a LEED accredited design professional with a Master’s degree in Architecture from University of Arizona. He is the principal of Richard J. Michal, LLC, a sustainable development and consulting company. Along with local consulting projects, he is working on the master planning of a new University Campus in Lagos, Nigeria and a proposed 1,500 acre mixed use sustainable development in Nigeria, Africa. He can be reached at 520.940.6708 or via email at rjmichal@cox.net