"Green" homes in suburbs? (Energy, Industry: big home, buyers, construction)

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by loudes13

Green is MARKETING guys, not much else. Most modern homes have semi-efficient insulation and furnaces. Spec better insulation, better windows, and an efficient furnace to the most energy.

BTW Chicago uses nat gas for, much more efficient, and less costly than most of the east coast.

You don't know what you're talking about.

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by Steve-o

The Chicago area has nothing to do with MY opinion on the whole ridiculous matter. 10 years ago the word "green" meant crap to most people. Today theyre shoving it down everyones throats. The hippies that push this agenda are the first to shrug their shoulders when you ask them exactly HOW mankind is somehow contributing to "global warming". You get the usual "well cars spew out a lot of c02 and thats why I drive a hybrid, because it runs on the electric motor most of the time"... Its fun to ask them to guess the amount of c02 that actually makes up greenhouse gases. The other day I had a lady tell me "almost 100%, thats why the govt needs to ban high emissions vehicles and make it a law to only supply hybrids to the market". All this hype by all these people and 99.9% of them are just sheep following Al Gore's lead. Funny how they never mention Al Gore's monthly electric use as his monster TN home. Do as I say, not as I do, right Al? Freak!!!!!!

You also do not know what you're talking about.

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by chet everett

I have friends that are in various occupations related to commercial real estate, from architects to property management firms to construction and maintenance firms. When I ask what they think about LEED certification I get lots of different answers. From the folks closest to real-life working commercial buildings the reply is generally "EVERY system from lighting to HVAC to and plumbing are CONSTANTLY evaluated for what is the most cost efficient". It has ALWAYS been that way and new technology has always improved on previous stuff. Nothing has changed becuase Leonardo DiCaprio hangs out with Al Gore...

Some of the more design side folks think there is something of a shift in the mindset of suppliers that want LEED as a 'marketing tool', albeit one that has somewhat legitimate standards. For those that need "continuing education credits" this is no different from the marketing driven pushes that have happened in the past regarding "sick buildings" or "designs for team focused offices" or "replacing ammonium ferric citrate and potassium ferricyanide process blue prints with non-toxic alternatives"...

Folks that I talk to in construction related fields tend to be pretty skeptical -- as a practical matter anything that costs more to make, takes longer to install, and may NOT pay for itself during its projected lifespan seems to be of little value to them, but as long they get paid they keep their comments out of the clients earshot. Most construction engineers and tradespeople like timesaving innovations, but know from experience anything over hyped is usually "too good to be true" and when it is discovered how toxic or non-stable it is they end up having to undo the bone-headed innovation years later.

I know that there are firms in the region that will do all the fancy closed cell foam insulation (just like on This Old House), and you can go through the hassle of getting other non-standard materials, but at the end of day you may very well have spend MORE and not really done anything "better". If your super insulated building requires constant ventilation, even with heat recovery air exchangers and such, does not all the added power to run those systems PLUS the added materials to build those system PLUS the added the labor to install them contribute to large initial carbon footprint?

I really question the "book keeping" mindset of tracking every input. I know aluminum is less dense than steel, but is the fact that iron ore is mined in Bemidji or Hibbing instead of Los Pijiguaos Mining Property in Venezuela | PropertyMine or Worsley Mining Property in Australia, Western Australia | PropertyMine also a factor? And if the "carbon footprint" is considered then there is no way that the trip from Minnesota to Pittsburgh is anything like the trip from Venezula or Australia. And ultimately the whole "life cycle" of each input and its ultimate fate when the building is no longer servicable is something that I do not think is truly traceable -- while some building are around for centuries the forces that will decide which are or are not are far outside the control of the current builders...

Okay, Chet does know what he's talking about, but lost me with the last paragraph.

I am a LEED accredited Architect, was accredited a few years ago as a "legacy", and have worked on several LEED projects in that time. Some comments:

-LEED for single-family homes was JUST rolled out, and it is a very new program. All LEED projects until quite recently were larger-scale buildings. There are some older certification programs for single-family houses, but none have caught on.

-Chicago (the city) is actually pretty far ahead of the curve in terms of green building. The Building Department (formerly DCAP) rolled out a Green Permitting program a few years ago, and will expedite building permits for LEED projects. Believe me, this is a very significant incentive. And Chicago will push heavily for LEED accreditation if any sort of zoning varaince is required. Daley has been greening up city-owned buildings for years, though I often question his motives.

-Many experts believe that LEED accreditation will become a code requirement in the near future. I've done a lot of work in the Bay Area, and San Jose recently absorbed LEED accreditation into their building code. San Franscisco is about to follow suit. Don't be surprised if this comes up in Illinois in the near future.

-There are MANY LEED-accredited condo and apartment buildings in Chicago, but the market for single-family houses has been more soft. This seems to be changing, and my guess is that LEED for Homes will become the favored standard. It is brand new at this time, and will take some time to catch on. As codes require greater energy efficiency, LEED may become more stringent to differentiate it's projects from others.

[Lookout Kid]

Here are some sources for anyone who is interested in Chicago's efforts to become the "Greenest City in the U.S.".

Mayor Daley’s Green Crusade | Metropolis Magazine | July 2004

The Greening of Chicago - TIME

America's 50 Greenest Cities | Popular Science

[Steve-o]

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

You also do not know what you're talking about.

Do you? Please, may I ask WHAT mankind has done to raise temperatures on earth?

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by Steve-o

Do you? Please, may I ask WHAT mankind has done to raise temperatures on earth?

Even the freakin' Bush Administration has come around and admitted that global warming has been caused by man (they finally acknowledged this in 2005 after years of denial). I don't know why you think you're qualified to argue this point against a pretty solid consensus of experts. Sure, there are some outliers who challenge this consensus, but are you really qualified to sort through the data?

Anyway, "Green Building" is about a lot more than reducing carbon footprint. The U.S. Green Building Council's LEED system deals with five categories: Sustainable Sites, Water Efficiency, Energy & Atmoshpere, Materials & Resources, and Indoor Environmental Quality. Each of these categories offers a variety of credits that can be earned, as well as some prerequisites that must be met. It's not a perfect system, but it represents the most comprehensive evaluation at how buildings affect the environment that is available to us today. And since bulidings use 70% of all energy produced in the U.S., green buildings can have a very significant impact.

[via chicago]

Originally Posted by Steve-o

The Chicago area has nothing to do with MY opinion on the whole ridiculous matter. 10 years ago the word "green" meant crap to most people. Today theyre shoving it down everyones throats. The hippies that push this agenda are the first to shrug their shoulders when you ask them exactly HOW mankind is somehow contributing to "global warming". You get the usual "well cars spew out a lot of c02 and thats why I drive a hybrid, because it runs on the electric motor most of the time"... Its fun to ask them to guess the amount of c02 that actually makes up greenhouse gases. The other day I had a lady tell me "almost 100%, thats why the govt needs to ban high emissions vehicles and make it a law to only supply hybrids to the market". All this hype by all these people and 99.9% of them are just sheep following Al Gore's lead. Funny how they never mention Al Gore's monthly electric use as his monster TN home. Do as I say, not as I do, right Al? Freak!!!!!!

Do you not care about the environment you live in on a daily basis?

LEED isnt necessarily about global warming, per se. Its about taking small steps in the design of buildings related to sustainability and low environmental impact. For instance, using nearby river water in the cooling system. Having showers available for workers who might want to bike to work (as well as bike storage). Using bamboo (quickly renewable) instead of wood. Orienting buildings to take advantage of sunlight in the winter, and shade/breezes in the summer. Building close to public transit. Using recycled rainwater for landscaping. Using permeable paving bricks to prevent runoff. Underground parking to reduce heat gain. Using the absolute most efficient energy systems.

How can you possibly argue with these initiatives? Maybe it is part marketing. So what? The benefits are real and will pay for themselves over the long run.

I've become a fan of LEED oriented architecture. Some of it is very nice. Stuff like this:

[Steve-o]

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

Even the freakin' Bush Administration has come around and admitted that global warming has been caused by man (they finally acknowledged this in 2005 after years of denial). I don't know why you think you're qualified to argue this point against a pretty solid consensus of experts. Sure, there are some outliers who challenge this consensus, but are you really qualified to sort through the data?

Anyway, "Green Building" is about a lot more than reducing carbon footprint. The U.S. Green Building Council's LEED system deals with five categories: Sustainable Sites, Water Efficiency, Energy & Atmoshpere, Materials & Resources, and Indoor Environmental Quality. Each of these categories offers a variety of credits that can be earned, as well as some prerequisites that must be met. It's not a perfect system, but it represents the most comprehensive evaluation at how buildings affect the environment that is available to us today. And since bulidings use 70% of all energy produced in the U.S., green buildings can have a very significant impact.

Im not a scientist, Id be the first to admit that. However, I do admit that all the scientists who disagree with global warming tend to make more valid points which none of the global warming advocates seem to answer. There just seems to be far more evidence proving that the earth goes through natural heating and cooling cycles, rather than some ridiculous THEORY that mankind has somehow caused temperature change. Count the ice rings in the Arctic Circle if one wants pretty accurate proof that the earth has warmed and cooled MANY times. Or the fact that most of this earth recorded its highest temperatures way before the term "global warming" was carelessly thrown around (where were all the doomsday analysts back then???). How about the FACT that solar flares are the cause of earth's temperature rise, not a piddly .5% (yes, half of one percent) level of c02 in the air. Sorry, mankind isnt the cause of global warming, the sun is.

Im just glad the Dust Bowl isnt occurring now, Al Gore would probably be carted around on the backs of 20 people, carried in a golden carriage with people fanning him with palm leafs stating "we told you so, we told you so, we told you so!"

[The green guy]

There are some green homes in Evanston - some of which utilize geothermal systems. I list the geothermal properties on my site - www.evanstonhomesandcondos.com

[cohdane]

Any ideas what geothermal for a 2000 sq ft home would cost? Even a range? I have no idea what these systems go for. (I know it's not cheap.)