Last week, we had an Advisory Committee of experts in a variety of areas community development, affordable housing and green building come to Atlanta to assess the finalist for our 2010 Awards of Excellence for Affordable Housing, Built Responsibly. (Sorry - I can’t tell you who the winners are yet, but check out the case studies of recipients from prior years if you want to get a taste of the outstanding and inspirational work being done by dedicated, talented, passionate professionals across the country.) The conversations turned into mini-debates on some of the issues practitioners building healthy homes for families of modest means every day. Most of the time, there’s not a “right” answer, but rather an attempt to find the best balance of competing needs and limited resources. I wanted to toss several of these issues out to get input from a larger group. So, let me know what you think about these issues.
Affordability vs. Responsibility: This one is really at the crux of everything we do at The Home Depot Foundation: how do you build the best home possible at a price that remains affordable. (One question we won’t address here is “Affordable for whom?” We’ll have to save that one for another day.) We actually started this Awards of Excellence program because we kept hearing people say that it wasn’t possible. We knew that not only is it possible, but that people are doing it amazingly well. Obviously, though, a home that incorporates every new technology that enhances its efficiency and health would be cost prohibitive. So what’s the right balance? When does a product become “green bling” rather than a practical upgrade. Take for instance photovoltaics. PVs are a great way to keep energy costs low for residents by tapping into the free energy of sunlight, but they are very expensive. If there are no subsidies to pay for them, does it make sense to invest in a technology that won’t pay for itself for 20 years? Maybe it does if you are planning for someone to live in the home for 50 years, but that’s a big upfront expense to absorb. On the other hand, siting a building to take advantage of the sun’s heat in a cold climate or to reduce the heat build up in a warm climate is one way to control the impact of the sun’s heat on a building through thoughtful design rather than expensive technology.
Now vs. Later: There are trade-offs in every decision. Among the hardest are those that pit current impacts of our choices against the long term implications. Here’s an example that seems at first blush to be fairly simple, but gets very complicated very quickly. You are selecting windows for your new apartment complex, but you are limited in what you can spend for each one (just like everything else). You can choose wood or composite windows that are more efficient than what the local code requires. For the same money, you can use vinyl windows that are even more energy efficient. The wood windows are more environmentally friendly to make and at the end of their useful life as the wood will decompose. The vinyl windows use less energy, which means more money in the residents’ pockets each month, but raise environmental issues related to how the vinyl is manufactured and the fact that it will be with us essentially forever. This one, to me, has no “better” answer. What would you do?
Developer vs. Resident: Unfortunately, there is still some incremental cost to building a more efficient, healthier home. Depending upon who you ask, that can be next to nothing up to 15-20% more than traditional building. (Keep in mind, that it is very difficult to define what a “traditional” building is: Is it one that merely meets code? - And by the way, which code? California’s stringent energy efficiency code or a state that has no statewide standard?) - One that includes Energy Star appliances? Or one that is already built to a minimum green building standard?) At any rate, it is a fact today that the developer is going to spend some extra amount to build a green home, but will not realize a huge financial incentive. If it’s a home that will be purchased, the homeowner will receive the benefits in lower monthly utilities and less maintenance. Even in the case of apartments, financial institutions don’t consider the cost savings that will come over time when they are calculating reserves and the amount that can be borrowed. Affordable housing has been ahead of the game because grants and subsidies have been available to cover the incremental costs and because the developers are mission-driven nonprofits, but the financial and insurance industries must start to factor in both the costs and benefits if we are going to achieve real market transformation.
As I said to start, I don’t think these are easy issues, and this certainly isn’t an exhaustive list, just a few examples of the kinds of thoughts the Advisory Committee grappled with. Every building development is unique in terms of location, residents and finances and each one has to find it’s own “right” balance. One thing I do know, however, is that we are fortunate as a country to have people who are working at getting to the best housing outcomes for families, neighborhoods and the environment. Just wait ’til you see out winners!
Follow me on Twitter