[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

GBlist: Re:Housing Costs



Thanks for the excellent comments.  I wish all those who posted me 
privately had done so to the List;  this has been an interesting 
discussion.

First, lest anyone misunderstand, I fully support ALL the alternative 
methods and materials being used.  I'd better, because one of my current 
projects is an off-grid house using a material that's never been used in 
this half of the state.  My earlier comments were prompted because I also 
believe that being honest and rational does not preclude any of the above.

I hope others add to Mike's comments as to what creates affordability.  I 
personally appreciated the part about "... affordable housing requires 
the whole community...".  I believe "community" to be a key word;  the 
financial, regulatory, legal, and social systems absolutely must play a 
role in todays interconnected world.  Affordability is much more than a 
design or technical issue (although I think we wish it were).

Here in the People's Republic of Boulder, there is no such thing as a 
$140,000 house, either new or used.   What follows is an interesting 
story that may be coming to your town soon:  A few years ago, an 
accomplished and recognized architect decided to help develop a small (14 
units I think) affordable development.  It was wonderfull:  quaint little 
houses, clustered on 2 acres, *perimeter* access road, all open to a 
large pedestrian-only courtyard, (and get this), the residents could not 
enter their homes from the rear (there were no doors!);  they had to walk 
around in view of their neighbors and enter from the central court, to 
enhance the sense of neighborhood.  The city kicked in a lot of in-kind 
money, people had to qualify to buy (the waiting list was huge), the 
deeds were restricted for perpetuity, and the owners also had to 
contribute sweat equity (which a'la Habitat for Humanity, also gave them 
a sense of long-term caring for structures).  Amazing plan.

The neighbors fought it tooth and nail, the building department battled 
various aspects of it, and the architect, who was mostly volunteering his 
time (!!), said this project was "like living in hell" and he would never 
do it again.

This little development turned out to be fantastically successfull.  
Looks great, works great, and everyone is now happy (except for the guy 
who did it).  He was a pioneer, and will be lauded as such in the years 
to come.

This is one "affordable" scenario, that will be taking place in the 
cities with increasing frequency.  As others have said, building in a 
cluster on a bus line within walking distance to services can have as 
many "green" components as building an earthship in the woods (and then 
driving everywhere).  Neither is right or wrong, every contribution and 
attempt that we all make is laudable.


On 8/22/97 9:59 PM Mike O'Brien wrote:

>OK, Buzz, you asked for "more"...you fool, you!

>If we were to approach the question from a slightly different angle...how
>would we build an affordable house that was easier on the environment?
>What's involved, besides the wall structure?
>
>Taking the long view, I can imagine that today's experiments with new
>materials and construction methods could lead to changes for the better. So
>they should be encouraged!
>
>However, the reality today is as Buzz describes it. The home building
>industry is geared to building what most everyone in society agrees they
>want: a savings account they can live in. Everyone in the industry is
>cashing in on rising land values and rising home prices, at the same time
>they bemoan the lack of affordability and point the finger of blame at
>zoning or environmentalists.
>
>So if you plan to build houses and make money, you'll build "traditional"
>suburban subdivision houses that are all alike except for the color of the
>spa tub (how did his 'n her sinks get to be a NECESSITY, for heaven's
>sake?). That's what you will be able to finance with construction loans,
>that's what the buyers will be able to finance with permanent loans, that's
>what realtors know how to sell, that's what people think they should buy to
>"protect their investment" as well as, let's be honest, make a good
>impression on their family, friends, coworkers and neighbors; that's what
>the building products manufacturers are supplying the parts for. Our local
>HBA likes to call this "giving the buyers what they want" and seems
>incapable of looking at it as a prisoner's dilemma no one knows how to
>break out of. The expectations built into these houses are driving the
>costs through the roof, NOT building technology. The average new house size
>right after WWII was about 950 SF for a family of 4; now it's 1850 SF for a
>family of 2.2. Today, fireplaces and garbage disposals are mandatory, not
>optional, luxuries. Result: the nice suburban house starts at about
>$140,000 and people have to shop at Costco to be able to afford it. ;^)
>
>This year there will be about 6,000 such houses built in the Portland metro
>area. The whole industry is geared to building and selling the same thing.
>How do we redirect this juggernaut, away from consumerism and a neurotic
>focus on style, into a wholesome preoccupation with living lightly on the
>earth? And make housing more affordable?
>
>Affordable houses do get built here in Portland, and here's what they seem
>to have in common:
>
>They consider the family's costs for transportation and shelter as coming
>from the same pot of money. So features that allow the family to live
>without a car, or with only one car instead of two, are integral to an
>affordable housing package. Features like close-in locations, easy access
>to bus and light rail (and soon a trolley line), mixed uses (living above
>the grocery store), higher densities, no built-in or attached garages,
>secure bike storage, bike lanes and safety measures, and a feeling of
>personal safety because lots of people are always walking around the
>neighborhood, especially at night, so you can too. And--suprise!--many
>people actually like living without a car in affordable neighborhoods that
>are vibrant and alive.
>
>Affordable housing is intelligently designed so it serves the needs of the
>occupants, without being any bigger than it has to be. One reason is that
>the buyers are not all assumed to be nuclear families. Affordable housing
>is being designed and built to fit the needs of single people, single
>parents, people who are rooming together, childless couples, and all the
>other types of families we have today. An 1100 SF townhouse can have all
>the amenties of a 2000 SF tract house (and then some, in my opinion), while
>using a lot less materials. "Intelligent design" uses materials to provide
>living space and amenities, as opposed to creating an artificially inflated
>sense of style (One of my faves: the "soaring ceiling"...nine foot walls
>and a vaulted roof...but ya gotta have 'em, say the realtors.).
>
>Affordable housing is being built where infrastructure already exists, so
>the new home buyer isn't also paying for a whole new set of roads, water,
>sewer, utility lines, storm drains, street lights, and city and school
>buildings.
>
>Affordable housing is energy efficient to cut the family's ongoing cost for
>space heating and cooling, water heating, appliances and lights. (Today,
>efficiency extends to water, sewer and garbage also, because those rates
>are shooting up.) Reducing monthly expenditures for energy allows the
>family to qualify for a higher value house, and/or reduces risk to the
>lender, a concept recognized in Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae's "energy efficient
>mortgage" and the various Home Energy Rating System programs.
>
>The affordable house is durable so the occupants don't have to spend a lot
>of dollars on maintenance that should never have been needed--a better
>exhaust fan that eliminates mold in the bathroom is a typical example. In
>the long run, durable equates with beauty, because it's the attractive
>house that gets renovated instead of replaced, so affordability includes
>beauty. And, it's cheaper to renovate than build new.
>
>Affordable housing is healthier, so families will spend less money on
>fixing health problems created by their house, such as chemical toxins,
>allergens or other air pollutants. A moldy basement, or a damp carpet, or a
>toxic foundation, can cost a family a fortune in repair, lost work time and
>health care costs, yet could easily be avoided or prevented by design and
>construction measures.
>
>Finally, it's my personal opinion that affordability is affected by the
>perceptions of lenders. They affect affordability by raising the loan
>rates, points and fees for any type of housing that is outside the standard
>suburban model described above, because they are unfamiliar and uncertain
>about it, and feel it is definitely more time-consuming to evaluate and may
>be riskier. They don't want to lend at all on mixed-use housing, so it has
>taken the intervention of the city and HUD and Fannie Mae to back up the
>developers and take some of the risk off the lenders before they will
>participate. So arguably, affordable housing requires the whole community
>to cajole the lenders...the developer or builder can't do it alone.
>
>I probably forgot some really important variables, but what jumps out is
>the synergy...that the "affordable" house is also the "green" house. It's
>small, compact, efficient, easy to live in, easy to like, easy to maintain,
>in the middle of the action, healthier, and will be there in 200
>years...while the "brown" house in the suburbs will have collapsed under
>the weight of its excesses. The affordable house takes up less land, uses
>fewer resources, generates less waste, uses less energy and water, requires
>less commuting and auto pollution, reduces surface water runoff and
>erosion, gives people more of their priceless health, time, and
>pleasure...(sotto voce) maybe even spiritual comfort?
>
>I worry a bit about houses being built out on open land, away from the
>city, that the accounting may get skewed...for example, maybe a wall made
>of (insert your earth material here) is cheaper than a framed wall, but the
>cost in gasoline goes way up, for hauling people and stuff to the site?
>
>Mike


Buzz Burrell  *  buzz@diac.com  *  4439 Driftwood Pl, Boulder, CO 80301

Project Manager: Geneva Cohousing Community - 176 acres N of Lyons, CO 
Owner: Bolder Building - solar adobe house finished 7/96
                       - pumice-crete house began 2/97 
Co-founder: Colorado Friends of Tibet - hosted The Dalai Lama 5/97

*     *     *      *      *      *       *      *      *      *      *


----------------- End Forwarded Message -----------------
______________________________________________________________________
This greenbuilding dialogue is sponsored by CREST <www.crest.org>
Environmental Building News <www.ebuild.com> and Oikos <www.oikos.com>
For  instructions send  e-mail to  greenbuilding-request@crest.org.
______________________________________________________________________