The canard that the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) uses to pooh-pooh the idea of upfront costs associated with improved efficiencies like high-performance windows, better insulation and properly designed HVAC systems is that the real up-front costs are not necessarily borne by the builders or contractors. Many of those costs are passed on to the consumer/buyer. They also claim sustainable design doesn't allow for affordable housing options but this is false. The primary reason is refusal to change how they do business. But with so many State and local jurisdictions revising their energy code requirements that are above what they used to be 5-10 years ago builders and owners are being forced to change. As they should be doing.  The District of Columbia, Maryland and Arlington, VA have all adopted the USGBC LEED program as their base building requirements which is a great start.

Many of the cost associated with sustainable and EE design aka 'Green building' is that they are marginal (2-3% of construction costs) unless you're getting into very high-tech solutions. Designing better homes requires little more than intellectual capital in specifying materials and finishes that are better for the environment. The low hanging fruits like low-VOC paints, recycle content carpets, cement-board siding, HE appliances, etc are standard market materials. The problem is that the NAHB doesn't offer options for high performance windows or HVAC upgrades because the profit margin on those is substantially lower than the ridiculous mark-ups they make on "custom" upgrades like granite vs. laminate counters, tile vs. vinyl floors, tile vs. fiberglass showers, etc. Don't even get me started on their beige-box mentality of building the exact same home in New Jersey as they do in LA. Regional climate be damned just put A/C in and all your worries go away.

As an architect, I have had to deal with both owner and contractor reluctance to do even common sense solutions for sustainable and energy efficient building practices. Much of that reluctance was associated with the initial investment costs or lack of knowledge but once they learned about the total life-cycle costs between systems the owners came on board pretty quickly. Contractors have been much slower to respond and now have figured out they can charge more for doing the same things just under the guise of 'green building.' Now many savvy developers are using Green Building as a marketing tool for higher rents and focused marketing in an ever tightening real estate market.

But the biggest issue isn't so much the costs of constructing new homes or building them more energy efficient. That will happen by default. The challenge is going through the whole building stock of constructed and aging building and retrofitting these buildings so that they meet today's energy standards. The market potential of retro-fitting and upgrading older building stock actually provides a near instant savings in energy use, carbon emissions, and creates a new job market for green construction jobs. Waiting for the recalcitrant to get on board only delays the inevitable change that needs to happen.

singlespeed,

I think what you're butting up against here is the natural, understandable American desire for free choice. People don't like being told how to do things, or how not to. Managing the balance between independance and societal good is difficult here.

From an environmental standard, you're right about the single-design construction across the country. But Americans do not want to be told that they can't have the house they want just because of where they live, and we're on dangerous ground attempting to regulate personal taste. A few miles from me, there's a very large, new mansion plopped into the middle of a formerly productive hay field, with a large swimming pool lined by fake palm trees. In rural Missouri. Now, I may scoff at that, but it's really not my place to tell that person they have to build an Ozark-style home to fit into the Missouri landscape.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but traditional building codes are aimed more at safety and competence than energy use, are they not? The fundamental point of a building code is to make sure the building is safe and functional, and beyond a real baseline that it's the person's choice if they want it to be efficient or not. Most people accept regulations for safety reasons, but that's less true of regulation for more airy reasons like environmentalism. When you advocate for adopting far more stringent codes specifically for environmental purposes, you're changing the fundamental way in which people are able to choose how to build things; you're adding a thick layer of societal responsibility onto something that formerly was a matter of individual concern.

It's a natural liberal instinct to consider societal value on par with individual choice, but I wonder how that balance is to be handled in a nation that feels more strongly about the latter?

literate...

Don't get me wrong when I say I have a problem with the one-size-fits all design that a builder offers. I'm not talking about any particular style per se but the idea that the exact same configuration works in New England as it does in California. There are basic issues when designing homes or any building for that matter, that respond to the local climate and conditions. This means selecting and choosing the proper location for windows and the right type of glazing that goes in them. Sizing the mechanical systems correctly and actually teaching people how they work beyond the limits of their thermostat. You'd be amazed how many people actually prefer to have windows that open. I wouldn't build a New England Salt Box style home in Arizona any more than I'd build a California Spanish Mission Style in DC. The issues of design context is a separate matter.

You are right that building codes are focused only with lifesafety, health and welfare of building users and provides a baseline of design. But in addition to basic building codes there are also energy codes that local building departments have adopted as minimum standards. Boulder, Colorado has had a prescriptive energy code for over 20 years and if you don't document the minimum of points on the checklist they won't issue a permit to build. Believe me, the requirements are not that stringent. Insulated glazing, a minimum R value for insulation, solar accessibility for neighbors, etc. Many cities are adopting stricter energy codes because they have come to realize that without forcing energy efficiency the lowest common denominator of construction becomes the norm. Rolling brown outs anyone? Just as they require you to update older buildings to current building code compliance if you renovate or remodel over a particular square footage, these same jurisdictions will start requiring EE upgrades to their current energy codes as well.

Private residences are given more leeway when it's you or I building them, but if housing is being built by a developer they have to meet additional rules and regulations both State and Federal.

I was trying to put forth the fact that regardless of your personal style choices for a home there are particular standard that should be put forth because in the end the impact of those regulations goes beyond the initial owner. Future owners / buyers are ensured a level of quality and efficiency in newer homes versus buying a 100yr old home where you know you'll be upgrading practically everything inside the house.

As energy gets more expensive people will and are starting to measure the operating efficiencies against the aesthetics of their homes and buildings. Like I said, much of the EE upgrades have no bearing on the aesthetics of a home unless you want them to. And if a house or building is oriented to its site to take advantage of the local climate you may discover that you don't need a huge HVAC system or even need A/C. But letting builders get away with what they've been doing for 45+ years because they've been doing it that way isn't going to change things. Especially if buildings are responsible for 70% of electrical usage, 40% of total energy usage and 40% of carbon emissions in the U.S. alone.

singlespeed,

Overall we agree. I just worry that this issue, like many similar issues, could spark a backlash if handled in the traditional top-down liberal way of requiring too many things without bringing public opinion along with it. Granted, conditions are rapidly changing such that public opinion will, more and more, support green building codes. But I suspect you have a long way to go in areas outside progressive enclaves.

literate...

Yeah we've got a way to go. The good news is that the cities that are adopting the USGBC LEED rating system as their baseline for energy efficient and sustainable design are adopting a program that was developed by the professionals in building industry, environmentally concerned folks, construction industry and product manufacturers and it's continuously peer reviewed. The main reason USGBC came about was to provide a sound and market-based approach to green building because the government(s) weren't taking the lead on the issues. As a result the opposite occurred with government agencies adopting the program as their baseline. Hell...the Navy and GSA (two of the biggest building owners in the US were early adopters).

I think the more people understand the issues and more products come to the market that are designed and made in a sustainable manner will only add to the movement of people revamping how they see their homes. It's not just a place to store your stuff but an actual place you want to live in and move from to the 'next best thing'.

singlespeed,

"The main reason USGBC came about was to provide a sound and market-based approach to green building because the government(s) weren't taking the lead on the issues. "

Personally, I find that approach more palatable, and I suspect that's true of many Americans. Nice to know it's happening. Far better than an unpopular mandate.

I agree as well. The good thing about the USGBC, aside from the growing pains it's gone through and the design and building profession's initially using it as just a "green-to-do" checklist, is that USGBC has listened to it's critics and supporters to be more flexible and proactive in making the guidelines better and more effective including jettisoning the "one-size-fits-all" approach and adopting regional solutions to the problems of designing and building better buildings.