1. 

   Chris Buchanan
   October 18th, 2009 - 10:26

   I think that while the sustainable construction movement is laudable, it’s also kind of problematic. First off, getting LEED certification at any level is by itself an expensive undertaking. It requires additional spending in LEED consultants, energy studies, reviews and approvals which can easily add tens of thousands of dollars to the cost of the project before anything is even built.

   Beyond the administrative costs, some material costs will simply be higher than traditional building. In some cases limited sources for “green” products such as on-demand water heaters, locally zoned and controlled heating systems, formaldehyde free MDF, and certified sustainably farmed lumber products add costs to the project. And while availability has improved over the past few years, pricing is still generally higher than “non-green” products (think organic vs. regular food).

   At the same time, buyers – all of us – are coming to believe that building sustainably is not only good, but necessary for our collective future. Building green, we believe, should be the standard. And if it’s the standard, we shouldn’t have to pay more for it. The inevitable gap between the cost for new technology and what the public is willing to pay for it becomes starkly evident in projects like Ashworth Cottages.

   I think I agree with you that the most viable market for LEED projects at this point are large institutional and commercial buildings. They simply operate at a scale that allows owners to recoup the additional up-front costs over time.

   I also think that communities could take a more active part in rewarding sustainable building. Favorable zoning like Pryde + Johnson received is just one tool. The increased density allowed them to add units which probably allowed the project to pencil out in the first place. Beyond that, communities could do as the City of Portland does and provide subsidies and grants from the city, and public utilities that reward sustainable building systems and serve to offset much of the added cost of LEED certification. If we really believe that building sustainably is necessary for our collective future, then we should be willing to invest in it as a community.

   In the meantime, I’m with you – I’d rather buy a big old house with a yard and spend the LEED differential on modernizing it. That’s about as sustainable as it gets.

   ( REPLY )
2. 

   Sophie
   October 18th, 2009 - 16:07

   I wouldn’t jump to the conclusion that green building or LEED status sunk this project. As a neighbor of the Ashworth Cottages, I have a completely different take on their development. While some of the costs of achieving LEED platinum status may have been reflected in the original price tag, I don’t believe their failure to sell had much, if anything, to do with those costs. These homes were grossly overpriced when they came on the market because the developer was greedy. He believed that the proximity to Green Lake would sell the homes at any price. If they had been priced to reflect the developer’s real costs plus a modest profit, I believe these homes would have sold. Unfortunately for the developer, prospective home buyers weren’t as gullible as he thought. They did their homework, knew what else was available in the housing market (green and traditional), and refused to pay 50% more than fair market value. In the end, Ashworth Cottages’ foreclosure was a triumph of educated consumers over profit-driven hucksters. Sadly, LEED and green building techniques were the victims of collateral damage.

   ( REPLY )
3. 

   phil
   October 20th, 2009 - 14:42

   These are high end homes. I would expect most of the LEED features to be included with or without the LEED certification. I mean seriously, “locally zoned and controlled heating systems” is not new. It is harder and more expensive when using forced air, but I hate forced air heat anyway, so not a selling point for me.

   They overpaid for the land and wanted too much in return.

   ( REPLY )
4. 

   John G
   October 21st, 2009 - 13:33

   I believe the breakdown here is that the cost of energy includes the cost of production and distribution without adequately accounting for the cost of repairing the damage caused by consuming it. Unless energy is priced to reflect it’s total cost we won’t be able to make informed economic decisions about where and how we live and will continue to make unsustainable choices.

   ( REPLY )
5. 

   Dave B
   October 21st, 2009 - 14:10

   I live in the neighborhood as well and my wife and I often look at them and try to imagine ourselves living in one of the houses. We just don’t imagine living there (for whatever reason) plus the price was way too high. Green living really didn’t factor into our formula. LEED seems like a nice idea, but as a previous blogger mentioned, it should be the standard and reflect how we live our greener lives: efficient and thoughtful in all aspects of our environment/lifestyle and that includes economics.

   ( REPLY )
6. 

   Tanya
   October 22nd, 2009 - 10:25

   It is so good to see such thoughtful and intelligent responses to this subject.

   I think this was an interesting project and way overdeveloped. But real estate green or otherwise became the new “dot bust” of this era. So many businesses and individuals threw themselves in the market without any real understanding of the marketplace.

   In San Francisco these would have sold but in Seattle where people are more conservative about their home choices and are less enamored with “labels” be it LEED or what-have-you this is the end result.

   I have often said we need visionaries and people willing to push the envelope in any field. However, as in anything I have seen of late this is not the end of these type of visionaries despite the obvious. We will see more of this reverse type of “greenwashing” (in other words overkill) in the future. If there is a belief that money is to be made on the greed of stupidity, green is hardly exempt.

   Build smart. Build affordable. Build it right. It will all be green that way.

   ( REPLY )
7. 

   John G
   October 22nd, 2009 - 16:56

   @Tanya – I’m not so sure that greed lead to over pricing; that implies that Pryde Johnson set price far above cost to make a profit which hardly makes sense if they went into foreclosure.
   Anyway – the interesting questions are;
   1. Is building sustainably affordable?
   2. How important is it to build sustainably?
   3. If we do need to build sustainably to survive on this planet, how are we going to if it’s not affordable?

   ( REPLY )
8. 

   Tanya
   October 23rd, 2009 - 08:42

   If not “greed” it was stupidity. Ashworth was not their only project and I believe their other projects also collapsed and are now apartments not condos.

   They are like many in that period of immense insanity when it came to real estate development they simply chose “green” as their building excess of choice.

   When you have excessive financing and over extended plans with no real buyers (as they weren’t part of the business plans of most developers – it was the Field of Dreams concept, build it and they will come with adjustable ARM’s and other methods of creative financing. Just ask Beazer Homes)

   If you understand the costs of building green vs not you will see a very minor neglible cost increase that does not warrant the significant prices placed on these homes. When buyers and communities see that “green” costs more than the average say “built green” townhouse that smaller builders did the message of green becomes very confusing and diluted.

   We need to build sustainably and that can be done affordably. However adding LEED certifications and the like to mix doesn’t make it any greener it just makes it expensive.

   ( REPLY )
9. 

   Abdul Alhazred
   October 23rd, 2009 - 14:36

   Tanya said, “If not “greed” it was stupidity. Ashworth was not their only project and I believe their other projects also collapsed and are now apartments not condos.”

   I would observe that the development arm of Intracorp (charged with selling the remaining Ashworth Cottage units), also started out with a condo project at the Seattle Center, then converted to apartments and sold the completed project to a national apt. mgmt. co. That was neither greed nor stupidity, but a response to the changed market.

   The city placed an extraordinary level of scrutiny on Ashworth Cottages, over & above its pilot LEED Home platinum status. For example, an old pipe discovered to bisect the site formerly carrying Licton Springs runoff had to be removed & replaced. Built by Parks with no easement, a new public easement was required. That impacted the site & home designs. However, the property to the south had no such problem with DPD or SPU, and no-body cared the developer just built on top of the old pipe.

   In the Ashworth Cottage case, built smart and built right did not mean built affordable. If I owned here, I would be happy knowing my cottage or carriage home won’t disappear into a sinkhole. I also would not jump to conclusions that qualifying for LEED and green marketing substantially increased the pricing. There are other, simpler explanations.

   ( REPLY )
10. 

    Ken
    November 7th, 2009 - 11:56

    Builders build LEED or other “green” building for one reason only: they think they will get a lot more net profit out of it. They expect to find a socially conscience, whole-wheat granola eating, Prius driving, $175K a year earning sucker to buy it.

    In the case of Ashworth Cottages, had it been completed 18 months earlier, they would probably all been sold for their outrageous $/sq ft.

    We built a vacation home in Southern Utah next to Zion NP. Here’s what we did to build green that paid off in a big way: thicker walls/ceiing for a lot more insulation, and a pure-white roof.

    Summers there are above 100 degress every day. The house remained 25 degrees below the outside temperature, and our utility bill was 1/4th that of our neighbors. The extra money it cost paid for itself in two years. To spend $100K or $200K more for a “green” home will not reap the payoff in your grand-children’s lifetime.

    Builders do not build green (LEED or otherwise) because of a social conscience. I fully expect a builder to chime in to refute what I am saying, but I say “follow the money.”

    ( REPLY )
11. 

    Franklin Real Estate
    December 21st, 2010 - 08:12

    Purchased a tankless water heater a couple years back and love it. If you plan on buying one, do your homework the application needed for your climate though. They will save you alot on your utility bills.

    ( REPLY )

Leave a comment