16
This old house may be the greener one
The Darling House in Claremont, Calif. undergoing green renovations.
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
TEXT OF STORY
Kai Ryssdal: In Chicago, Ill., today the talk is of kitchen countertops made from recycled soda bottles and insulation made out of old blue jeans. The Green Building conference started this morning -- the newest construction techniques and design methods that are gonna help save the planet. But there's a school of thought out there that, for buildings at least, new isn't as green as old is.
From the Marketplace Sustainability Desk, Eve Troeh reports.
Eve Troeh: The TV show "World's Greenest Homes" has the air of "The Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous."
"The World's Greenest Homes": This 3,200-square foot weekender functions entirely on its own energy, thanks to solar power, a wind turbine and rain collection.
And that's how most people visualize a green building. Big, angular, new and armed with the latest energy technology. But some argue that's the wrong idea. Real green building looks more like this:
Bob Villa: Hi, I'm Bob Vila and welcome to "This Old House." I've got something to show ya...
Historic preservationists say renovating an old building is almost always better for the environment than framing up a new one. You don't add to sprawl by taking up more land. And, you don't waste all the energy and resources, like wood and metal, already in existing buildings. But people don't often equate old buildings with "going green."
Take Blenda Wright's historic bungalow in Claremont, Calif.
Blenda Wright: Hello, come on in.
Troeh: Thanks, and this is Greene and Greene Darling home, is that right?
Wright: The Greene and Greene Darling Wright home, it's been here since 1903.
To be clear, this Greene and Greene has no relation to today's concept of going green. At the turn of the 20th century, brothers and architects Charles and Henry Greene launched the Arts and Crafts movement. When the Wrights bought the house, they loved its built-in fixtures and old-growth wood beams -- but not the way it leaked air.
Troeh: Were you afraid that, "I'm gonna live in this drafty old house.
Wright: Yes!
Wright laughs
They hired designer Bill Baldwin to "green" the house without compromising the Greene and Greene aesthetic.
Bill Baldwin: They thought about harmony and balance and detail.
He combined that style with technology to make this the first historic home to earn a green rating from the state of California. There's no rain-collecting roof or solar panels -- that wouldn't look authentic. And besides, Baldwin aimed to prove that a "green" home doesn't have to look futuristic. He hid high-tech insulation behind the vintage wainscoting.
Baldwin: We did an inch of close-cell foam to seal it, then we...
And the warm glow from the stained glass lighting fixtures?
Baldwin: It's a flourescent light, so highly energy efficient, but until you look under the shade, you wouldn't know.
The house earned its credentials, imperceptibly.
Baldwin: The thing I'm most proud of is that you can't tell.
But that green rating important, says Scot Horst. He runs the most popular system for measuring the environmental impact of buildings. It's called LEED.
Scot Horst: Existing buildings that become LEED buildings also have a higher value, and value tends to incentivize buildings to stay around.
Meaning, they're less likely to be torn down. He says if you re-use a building, you do get points toward LEED certification. But it's a small percentage of the total points needed, says Emily Wadhams at the National Trust for Historic Preservation.
Emily Wadhams: We feel it sends a signal to the marketplace that reusing a building simply isn't that valuable or important.
She says it will always be easier to build in energy efficiency from scratch. But if renovation got more credit from the get-go, more people would do it. And the definition of "green building" might change from new, high-tech weekend homes to something like this...
Wadhams: The greenest building is the one that's already built.
In Los Angeles, I'm Eve Troeh for Marketplace.
Pages
Very impt. story. There is a related story here. LEED, the certification program for building does not ensure Green either. And it is not friendly to the context often. Bill Reed, one of the originators or the concept, is so disappointed in what it became. I see the same with businesses going "sustainable". Neither produce a healthy planet and community. Carol, Author, The Responsible Business: Reimagining Sustainability and Success Jossey Bass 3/1/11
In response to the many comments submitted about the Greenest Home OPED, it is obvious that "green" means many things to many people. Whether the end result is reduced energy consumption, safer materials, improved urban environments, or any combination there of, existing structures are a far better alternative. Third grade arithmetic is all you need to demonstrate that even the most exhaustive renovations typically produce only a fraction of the carbon that would be required to replace the building.
Thank you for presenting this article on this important topic. Quanitfying the embodied energy of historic and existing buildings and the existing infrastructure that supports them are other key points in favor of rehabilitation. Also, there are practices we can learn from traditional building construction that can inform modern construction. Durable materials, climate response, and thermal performance were considered by our ancestors.
Natalie,
Can you provide some support for your assertion that 45% of greenhouse gas is from new construction? I am looking at the 2000 Colorado Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory and Forecast. It shows that utilities emit 47% of CO2, transportation 24%, industrial 12%, residential 8% for 1997, the most recent reporting year for this study in Colorado. What is your source for the 45% due to new construction, this seems awfully high compared to all the electrical production and transportation emissions.
To Jason Burke - "the greenest building is the one already built" is absolutely true. If you look at historical housing it is most often in high density, pedestrian friendly surroundings near public transportation. The sprawl you are speaking of is relatively modern (modern enough that there is no lead paint - post 1974). When one realizes that 45% of greenhouse gas is due to new construction, then it only makes sense to look at sprawl and reuse and REDESIGN the built environment short-sighted developers have left us left with. LEED ratings are a start, but they fall far short of where we need to be for sustainable construction.
As was a child in Claremont in the 50's I remember a retirement village right near downtown with many seniors using golf carts (on 'slow' streets); bicycle-friendliness; a rail depot (now MetroLink); and in the mountains above, one of the earliest municipal hydro-electric systems in the US.
So don't lump it in with strip malls and the like. Claremont held off a freeway through it for a couple of decades. Sure, it's upper-middle class suburban and a college town... People live in non-green houses, one needn't get elitist about it. I say, convert!
"The greenest building is the one that's already built." This is so not true. Sprawling, auto-oriented strip malls and suburban sprawl surrounded by seas of parking and freeways, with little or no pedestrian connectivity are not green. Green building is more than simply how energy efficient a home or building is. The LEED checklist also gives points for being close to public transit, walk-ability, community connectivity, bicycle facilities, stormwater infiltration, etc. I would argue that any energy efficiency measures incorporated into an auto-oriented, sprawling strip mall will be offset by the huge carbon footprint of all the vehicle miles required to use this form of auto-dependent urban sprawl. And this doesn't include the lead based paint, VOCs and asbestos common in many older commercial buildings.
Pages
