9Reader Recommendations


The Green Housing Boom

By: Linda Tischler
Eco-Rebels: New York architects Matthew Berman, left, and Andrew Kotchen won a competition to design "zero energy" housing for New Orleans. | Photograph by Dean Kaufman
Forward-thinking architects and real-estate developers are already envisioning the post-bust cycle of home building. And smaller is better.

EnlargeThe Cellophane house | Photograph by Kieran Timberlake Associates
http://images.fastcompany.com/magazine/127/greenhouse.gif

Related Content


"How do you inspire a revolution?" It's a question that obsesses Matthew Berman. A 36-year-old New York architect with short hair and a starched blue shirt, he doesn't, frankly, look like much of a rebel. "There's this grumbling," he continues. "It grows, it brings things to the center, and then you get this explosion."

Berman and his partner, Andrew Kotchen, 35, boast high-profile clients such as CNN's Anderson Cooper, but they think of themselves as guerrilla fighters in a global cause: reducing the impact of housing on the environment. When it comes to trashing the planet, gas-guzzling automobiles and belching factories get most of the blame. Yet the primary offenders are actually closer to home. Here are the shocking numbers: The construction and operation of buildings generate half of all greenhouse-gas emissions in the country, according to estimates based on data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Residential buildings alone account for 21% of national energy consumption -- nearly as much as transportation (27%).

Read the morning papers, and it's hard not to feel that the American housing industry is on the brink of the apocalypse. Home prices are plummeting, in some areas as much as 40%. However, it's exactly the gravity of the situation that some housing analysts see as the opportunity of a lifetime -- the chance to jolt us into embracing green housing.

The eco-revolutionary grumbling that Berman hears is spreading from communities such as California's Marin County, which now insists that all large houses meet the energy budget of a 3,500-square-foot home, to Aspen, Colorado, and surrounding Pitkin County, where any new home larger than 5,000 square feet faces special renewable-energy requirements. The latest report from McGraw-Hill Construction, cosponsored by the National Association of Home Builders, predicts that the market for green housing will grow to from as little as $12 billion this year to between $40 billion and $70 billion by 2012.

Even some large commercial home builders -- forced into hibernation by the real-estate bust -- have begun sketching plans for a decidedly different generation of American houses. "Until recently, the publicly traded home builders saw green building as a niche market best taken up by smaller players," says David Wood, director of the Boston College Institute for Responsible Investing. "But with the down market, this could be a good time for them to differentiate themselves from competitors."

Jeffrey Mezger, president and CEO of Los Angeles -- based KB Home, which built 23,743 houses last year, is among those considering the green implications -- largely for economic reasons. Two years ago, he says, the average KB Home in Southern California for a couple with two kids was 3,000 to 3,200 square feet. Today, it's 2,200 to 2,500 square feet. "Heating and cooling bills in a 3,000-square-foot home are more painful in tougher economic times," Mezger explains. In May, when Wood's BC group and Calvert Investments ranked the 13 major home builders on their environmental practices, KB ended up in the top spot.

Not everyone has gotten with the program. "When people walk into Toll Brothers, they want the luxury that Toll Brothers offers," says Matt Wilkinson, senior project manager for the high-end builder in Bucks County, near the company's Horsham, Pennsylvania, headquarters. "If people want a smaller house, they can purchase in a different community." (Toll Brothers ranked ninth on the BC/Calvert list.)

From Issue 127 | July 2008

Comment

Recent Comments | 4 Total

July 7, 2008 at 12:53pm

Carel Two-Eagle

I'm ordinarily opposed to blanket statements on the premise that one size never did fit all; at best, it fit 'some'. But - Smaller has ALWAYS been better, and it always will be; particularly when we're talking about buildings. (a) There are too many humans on the planet. (b) Humans of the western majority culture behave like spoiled brats when it comes to the environment that keeps us all alive. (c) Those same humans are adamantly opposed to taking responsibility for their numbers, their activities, and their effects - and "Americans" are the worst of them all. Bigger may be better if you're hunting bear, but never when you're thinking in terms of your environmental footprint. The days of cheap fuel and building materials are gone and with them, the freedom to be irresponsible. Humans did this to us all who share this planet, so humans have to get busy and fix the mess they created. Ostentatious is 'out'; tasteful and respectful are finally coming back 'in'. I rattle my tongue for this.

July 9, 2008 at 1:57pm

Benjamin Wojcikiewicz

This was a great article and does bring up some great points. What I still find rather disturbing is that in the United States we rationalize square footage beyond our needs mentally and then want the feel-good of an energy-star appliance to make it all better. The resource costs of maintaining these huge structures is something that is sapping our natural resources and increasing our overall carbon footprints...it's not just the materials, but the operation and upkeep.

According to the NAHB/ANSI Guidelines as well as the LEED guidelines, there are point reductions for homes sized over, I believe, 2500 sq. ft. The reason is the energy consumption for conditioning the space...you can have all of the green appliances in the world, but if that structure is poorly constructed, meaning leaky and not well insulated (hello shoddy construction of the McMansion), all of the green appliances, reclaimed timber or recycled glass countertops in the world aren't going to stop you from conditioning that space and using a lot of gas/electricity.

We all need to realize that it's beyond flashy materials that a structure can be constructed of and understand that true greening comes in performance. It may not be something that you can show-off to your friends like Ice Stone, Richlite, or low-VOC finishes; but until we rethink performance as luxury, we're all going to fall into the same trap.

July 16, 2008 at 4:07pm

Jim Salmons

This is an interesting and timely article. I was reminded of a '3R' (reduce, reuse, recycle) project of some friends of ours at an eco-village in western North Carolina. They built a multi-purpose B&B, conference center and extended family home structure using waste shipping pallets that were traditional burned rather than reused or recycled!

Check out 'Lay Your Pallet Down, Don't Burn It!' at the Sohodojo web site.

July 17, 2008 at 7:54am

Tony Tao

a eco-friendly,rewable constrction and decro materials--bamboo pole

Bamboo is a natural grass family plant, but it has hardwood texture and tapers from base to tip, Bamboo has fantastic merchanical properties, it shows average hardness of 1642kg/cm2, Density--720kg/m3 , tensile strength of 4340kg/cm2, bamboo is in its size, lightness and strength an extreme product of nature. It is stable and because of its cavities an extreme light and elastic decoration and building material. The reinforcement by diaphragms and its physical conditions cause its enormous superiority compared to other wood materials. It also was widely use for furniture, decoration materials as well.

Useful link http://www.chinabamboogarden.com

Comment

Special Editions?

Advertiser Links