If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed.
So, guess what!? Here’s another topic we would really love to hear your opinions on. (Imagine that!)
We are at the point (and actually a little beyond the point) with some of our projects where we need to make decision whether to try for a LEED certification or to pass. Our strong commitment to creating eco-urban may make this seem like a no-brainer, but the more we talk about it the trickier it gets.
Our conversation has been circling around three things:
First, Which program?
There are over 70 regional green building certification programs in the U.S. according to the USGBC website. With LEED, the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) was the first to establish a comprehensive set of guidelines for rating the sustainability of a building. Since LEED’s formation, there have been quite a few new systems added to the mix. California Green Builder, and Build it Green are two other regional rating systems that are most recognized in California. Add the Energy Star certification and the local utility programs such as SMUD’s and PG&E’s energy efficiency and solar programs and there is an overwhelming amount of certification to be done. That is, of course, if it really makes sense to spend money on all the documentation!
Second, what is the trade off between the extra marketability, and the extra cost?
Let’s take B Street West for example. We have applied for the LEED ND pilot program that certifies the project as a whole – it is supposed to verify that the neighborhood we’re creating is an eco-urban place. It broadly rates the location and linkage, neighborhood pattern and design, and the green construction and technology equally with a 106 point scale. With everything included (application fees, consultant analysis, site verification and certification fee…) we are looking at about $1,800 extra a unit. That doesn’t sound too ridiculous, but when we think of all the cool possibilities of what we could do with that same $1,800 a unit, we are just not sure if it is a good trade.
LEED ND Certification or Paperstone countertops?
LEED ND Certification or higher efficiency insulation?
LEED ND Certification or a cork living room floor?
LEED ND and LEED for Homes
The analysis of the actual houses is not as intensive with the LEED ND program as with other building-specific rating systems. We could then go through the LEED for Homes process to certify that each home is built to LEED standard, which comes with its own set of fees and an even greater requirement to manage the certification process. This could be somewhat redundant due to the green construction and technology analysis that would have already been completed in the LEED ND certification noted above. The process is a 108 point scale that certifies a building Certified LEED with 30 points, Silver with 50 points, Gold with 70 points, and Platinum with 90 and above. A building is certified with 27% of the allowable points. Generally speaking LEED is a slow, cumbersome process- one that Micah estimates can take one person on the construction management team about a quarter of their time to manage the process (This is from experience in the commercial realm with LEED NC). So that could be $88,000 dollars in additional costs beyond the LEED ND certification fees. That makes the total closer to $4,300 per unit.
Build It Green’s “Green Point”: An Alternative
An alternative to the LEED for Homes program is the “Build it Green – GreenPoint” rating system. They use a 260 point scale which is comparable to the LEED Homes scale for rating the buildings. They have a lower threshold for “Green” and allow any home scoring 50 points or more into the club. So if you attain 19% of the points you are “green”. We have received a quote from Scott Blunk at Greenbuilt to manage and certify the process as a “Green Rater” through their program. This would cost substantially less, at about $650 per unit. So we could combine the LEED ND with a Build it Green certification for a total of $2,450 per unit.
For marketability purposes the LEED certification clearly stands out as the undeniable leader. This is not necessarily due to a better quantitative system but mainly name recognition. LEED does pay more attention to site and neighborhood planning issues than Build it Green does.
Finally, and most importantly, do we really believe a certification guarantees a greener home/neighborhood for our buyers?
There’s been a lot of debate about what LEED does and doesn’t guarantee. LEED has not only unquestionably filled a large need for a universally accepted standard for green building, but has also fueled a new level of demand and media attention to the issues of green building. But that’s not to say it has it’s own set of shortcomings.
One major limitation is that LEED is a prescriptive based program and not a performance based program. If our goal is a truly efficient, healthy home in a eco-urban neighborhood a prescriptive method does not necessarily guarantee this. One example of this is the way in which points are allotted. As others point out, there’s a problem when a point system weights a renewable-energy system about equal with a bike-storage room.
On the other hand, there’s also some potential validity to the increase in value for the homebuyer with green-certified house. Will houses with green certification appreciate at higher rates than houses without? If so, certification would certainly help the overall market acceptance and demand for green-built housing which would lead to more and more eco-friendly housing.
Since this post is already getting long, we’ll just refer you to a really well articulated article from 2005 that covers all this and more at grist.org.
So, the jury is still out. Give us your feedback/experience, please!
Micah and Vanessa
13 responses so far ↓
1 wburg // Jun 22, 2007 at 5:25 pm
If you don’t take the lead with LEED, it’s hard to say why other developers with less commitment would have a reason to. You’ve set yourself a very high standard, and despite being new to the game you already have imitators (generally, pale ones.) LEED isn’t perfect but it is the de facto standard. It’s also a system that makes doing the right thing environmentally a better marketing point. It’s also an amenity that guarantees use: one of the more popular enhancements lately, a free scooter, has problems because most of those free scooters never get used.
If it sounds like I’m just repeating your own points back to you, it’s because I am: it sounds like you want to hear someone tell you that you’re on the right track to pursue LEED certification, and I’m here to tell you that I think you are.
2 Greg // Jun 23, 2007 at 7:11 pm
I am probably too old to be in your demographic – but if I were buying one of these units, I’d rather have the $1800/unit spent on the cork floor or extra insulation. If you want to make me feel good – do a one page cut sheet explaining what green features that the homes have. Just one man’s opinion.
3 Vanessa // Jun 25, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Liking the feedback, the problem is I agree with both of you… and I’d like to give the buyer both!
(And you’re both telling us what we want to hear? maybe)
I agree with wburg that LEED is getting to be the standard for green building and we should start moving to support that, that is important.
But my major struggle is that I hate that we are spending our money on an amentity that doesn’t “guarantee use” in quite the same way insulation or cork or upgraded windows would.
I’ll keep you posted on our further discussion
4 Levi // Jun 26, 2007 at 8:18 pm
Another variable that is comming up in the discusion is the continued value of LEED homes VS. ones that the developer says are green. LEED has been shown to improve sustained property value. A good thing for our mission to build projects whos contribution increases over time….. Its a tough call. I personally agree with Greg that I would rather have real value built in than a certificate. But on the flip side I would want my house to be worth more than any other house in the area to.
5 Amanda // Jun 27, 2007 at 12:33 pm
I would skip the LEED certification and spend the money on the extra features. LEED certification isn’t really developed for the eco-developer and so why jump through the hoops of the certification if your intent to build green is already there?
6 wburg // Jun 28, 2007 at 1:56 pm
amanda: Unfortuately, it takes more than the developer’s intent that they are building green. If there are no standards to follow, I can crank out a leaky energy sieve of a building, send the previous structure to the landfill, use materials and techniques that ensure a carbon footprint the size of a football field, then slap on a tree and a recycling bin and a “green building!” sign out in front, and presto, I’m a green builder!
In other words, intent simply isn’t enough. LEED isn’t a perfect standard, but it is the current standard.
7 Amanda // Jul 2, 2007 at 6:42 pm
bill:I think people are attracted to green building will be knowledgeable about green technologies and they are the most likely to want to buy in one of lj urban’s developments. People who buy the greenwashing are only interesting the veneer. And I honestly think there are very few people who actually fall for the greenwashing with honest intentions to buy green. I think best good would be to convince those people that are living in a greenwashed neighbor that they should demand more. I am not sure that a LEED certification would do that.
I go through this same type of arguement with people when I am discussing retaining old windows versus caving to the vinyl window salesmen. Those people who truly love their period houses will listen to the discussion but people who buy old houses but don’t value their character tend to create a McMansion from a quaint small Tudor Revival.
Just my two cents.
8 wburg // Jul 3, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Standards exist in historic preservation too (such as Secretary of Interior standards,) and if they aren’t followed, it’s not hard to dupe people who aren’t familiar with the standards, even if they have an interest in the subject. Maybe I’m just cynical (okay, no “maybe” about it) but idealists are alarmingly easy to dupe.
9 Omkar // Jul 5, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Well i am new to this debate we are having. I am planning to critique the LEEd ND document for My Masters Paper. The biggest fault i think with LEEd is that it is only from the level of Subdivisions, it needs to expand its horizon to urban planning and even political scale. No thought is given to how it will be used in the Urban fabric and make sense as city. Giving max points for the location criteria is good but what impact the development will have is not addressed. What happens to the brown field area is not covered or guided by LEED ND. These lacunae give the developers huge chance to advertise smart growth communities without actually doing a thing for the environment.
As always there are personal opinions anyone is free to disagree.
Omkar
10 James // Jul 25, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Great thread here! I found this blog doing a Google search on “the added value of LEED homes” which I’ve been researching. First, my background: I am an architect working for a firm that is developing 6 or so residential projects that will be LEED for Homes certified. For our firm I think going through the LEED program makes sense. It is a recognized standard and it shows our level of commitment to good building practices to the local and professional community. But now let’s look at my personal project…
My wife and I are in the early planning stages of a complete gut of our 150 year old, 1100 SF row house in Philadelphia. We are on a very tight budget, we do not have extravagant tastes, we are both highly committed to a “green” lifestyle, and I actually know how to design our house to LEED standards. We were both initially very excited about the idea of having our house LEED certified until I got the estimate from the local Provider. $3500 for everything. Huh.
Like I said, there is no fat to cut on this project. We are only getting done what is absolutely necessary (everything in this old house it seems) and there is no $25/sf glass tile. The only thing we can really cut that isn’t necessary for the house to be livable are the solar hot water tubes for the radiant floor system, which costs, you guessed it, around $3500.
So, which is it, the LEED logo on the side of our house or a solar hot water system that reduces our gas bill and carbon footprint? I know which way I’m leaning. Not to mention the benefit of not having to deal with another consultant or file tons of paperwork.
As for the added value of LEED to the resale of our house, well, we’re staying put for at least ten years, and who knows what the “green standard” will be by then. Hopefully enough people will be educated about green building practices in 10 years they will understand what we did and what it’s worth without needing an endorsement by “the establishment”
11 dan // Jul 27, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Right-on James! I’m interested in hearing about some of the other green strategies you are using in your old home. I have a 120 y/o Victorian…
12 Amie // Apr 15, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Omkar- As a Planner, you have to recognize that the best thing for the environment is dense, urban, mixed use development. LEED’s main shortcoming is that it doesn’t offer enough points for dense development. Forget “urban fabric”, we’ve got bigger fish to fry.
13 Alec // Mar 2, 2009 at 2:35 pm
The criticism here is that LEED certification and councelling costs could potentially go into green features. I would agree with this point only in the case of an experienced green builder or someone who has “deep” green motivations. In any other case – especially unscrupulous large volume builders – I think the certification is definitely necessary, since it ensures that a third party actually verified details in the house.
Leave a Comment