The annual Houses issue had a very interesting editorial on the costs of Green Building. Thoughtful and articulate, it makes some good points about affordability. Specifically that we shouldn’t always think about payback for energy saving features that we add to buildings, since we “plunk down money on luxury items- a Porsche, say…” without considering the payback.
After reading this and noting the increased emphasis on Green in this years houses, I was surprised to see the editorial’s message diluted by several of the selections.
One house, ironically, has the bottom floor devoted to the storage of vintage Porsches. A second incorporates a $24,000 photovoltaic grid, and $15,000 sand bed to reduce the energy bills for a 1900 sf house in a temperate climate to $2000 a year. For comparison, my own house in a similar climate, with no great attention to detail or special features, uses less than $1000.
From the editorial I know their hearts are in the right place, but I wish they would dig a little deeper to find appropriate examples we could use as inspiration.
Replies
Good point. I live in the bay area (like the house you mentioned) in an under (not?) insulated, drafty old bungalow, with a wife who likes to crank the heat, a baby that needs lots of laundry, and I like looong hot showers after work.
Our bill is probably about $2000/yr... If they can't do better than that, I'm mystified.
k