Study says green = a better value, quicker sale. Do you agree?
Yesterday I wrote a story about how GreenWorks Realty of Seattle crunched some numbers, did a little addition… and discovered that even in the not the best (to say the least) housing market over the last year, green homes in King County have sold quicker and for a higher value than their non-green counterparts.
GreenWorks looked at homes sold on the Northwest Multiple Listing Service 
between September 2007 and May 2008 that were “environmentally certified” - here that means LEED homes, Energy Star, or the Master Builders of King and Snohomish Counties’ Built Green Program.
On average, single family homes sold for four percent more, 18 percent quicker, and were 37 percent more valuable per square foot.
To see more or learn how condos measured up, visit GreenWorks to look at the numbers yourself here. (By the way, this is some of the first analysis of its kind).
Now, recently a pretty high level developer in the Seattle area told me there was no point in developing office space that wasn’t LEED certified anymore, because it is going to lose its value quicker.
Combine that with this research saying green homes sell quicker and for more, and logically, building green seems to make sense.
But there are a lot of challenges to building green, not to mention building green well. I could go off about the issues forever: some green systems are so new they are untested or people don’t know how to install them, it’s difficult to know if something is really green, green is “more expensive….” But I would rather hear from you.
If you can take a moment out of your holiday weekend, answer me this: What stops you from building green? If you work on residential projects, could these numbers convince you to try something new? Do these numbers matter at all and why? Do they matter in your neck of the woods, or is the information too Seattle-area specific?
And is it better for someone to do bad green design or do nothing green at all?
Or heck, you can just answer the poll at right!
I’m all ears. To read the story, press here.
Tags: green homes, King County, Measuring performance, products, Research
Loading ...
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:30 pm
I believe that building green is important, and I believe that some projects are meeting some minimum points to claim LEED certification or Built Green. It doesn’t take a ton to get enough points to label a project “LEED” or “Green Built”, especially in the city. But building green well can be hard, and can be expensive.
I like projects that don’t label themselves Green, but go into explanation as to WHY they are green. Do they have grey water recycling (though I hear that is a problem with the city and water rights), do they have an on-demand hot water tank, do they have solar panels, or do they have rapidly renewable resources? I want to know HOW they are green…
I think it’s harder to sell non-green products to the Gen y and x’ers, but not so much so to the Baby Boomers.
I am not sure you can use what Greenworks did to evaluate the data… as the level of greenness isn’t accounted for. Sadly, one might have to compare townhomes in the same block… one not green, one green and one super green to determine how much it really is worth.
Just my two cents!
July 4th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Is it worth it? Absolutely! But we need to understand that “green” can mean many things - in my view, green means: Non toxic bldg materials (or at least low-tox), energy efficient, and resource conserving.
Many people are unaware that simple house design can save substantial money and energy. See the following page … http://www.building-your-green-home.com/energy-efficient-home-design.html
Also, green doesn’t need to mean “lots more greenbacks” to build the house! There are so many options.
And it really is a “pay me now or pay me later” project.
If you cut corners in building, you will have increasingly higher and higher energy bills, and possibly poor health in addition to it. And who wants to move into a new home and not be able to enjoy it?
July 7th, 2008 at 9:27 am
with some systems, the long term value isn’t there — but not many people live in their houses for 30 years anymore. I recently refinished my wood floors using the classic “Swedish Finish” and I did not get the water based version. Reason? the solvent based system lasts about 30 years in residential traffic and the water based systems are lasting 8 to 10 years. I had to move out of my house for a week, and keep all the windows open for 2 more weeks, but the floors won’t have to be refinished until long after I sell the house.
I also have alkyd based paints that have lasted more than 20 years on the interior of my house — and they lasted through a wall scrubbing (due to furnace fire). The only room that had to repainted, because it was uncleanable? the newer “high performance” latex.
current new electrical and mechanical/plumbing systems are better engineered and more efficient than the old ones, and no one is going to go back to their ineffective furnace from 25 years ago. But some interior products, and particularly a lot of the low-solvent products simply don’t perform. Is a paint green if you have to repaint every 5 years or is it “greener” if it lasts for 20? in terms of first time and continuing labor costs, the math is pretty easy…
July 8th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
You three have very interesting points, so thank you for sharing them. Jon, it’s interesting that you say generation y and x’ers aren’t buying green homes yet. Parr Lumber researched that demographic and based an entire green housing system on the idea that they, and the baby boomers, would want to buy green homes in the future. I wonder if it just hasn’t started yet….?
Lise, the “pay me now or pay me later approach” does apply to a lot of green products, but there’s also a lot of greenwashing out there. And there’s also a lot of green products that haven’t been properly tested. With those dilemas, I wonder if most specifiers or contractors want to risk the possible negatives, or if they view green building as a worthwhile learning curve. Which brings me to Anne’s comment….
Is it greener to use a “green” product that you have to replace every 10 years or a “non green” product that lasts 30? I suppose this answer comes down to the specific product, how much carbon emissions are created to produce it and just how bad it’s negative effects are. But Anne has a point, for many people, chances are the math will outweigh the desire to do good…..