Ask any home buyer or homeowner how many leaks in their roof or spewing plumbing joints would be acceptable. What about gas leaks or faulty electrical circuits? How many doors or windows are allowed to be left out? How large a hole can the builder or remodeler leave in the ceiling, wall, or floor and still call the job complete and satisfactory?
Now, ask that same consumer how much of the energy and water that they pay good money to bring into their homes they are willing to waste every month because of poor design, obsolete products, shoddy workmanship, mediocre materials, and inefficient mechanical systems. (Never mind the fact that their lifestyle and habits will have just as large an impact on these resources—if not more—than the sum of the building quality.)
Most of the studies I have seen estimate that as much as 30% to 40% of the energy brought into American buildings, including residences, for space heating, air-conditioning, ventilation, water heating, and operating appliances is never put to its intended use. It is simply wasted. As for water, these waste estimates range from 15% to 35%, and even higher in some parts of the country.
Does anyone reading this newsletter believe the cost of traditionally produced energy is going to go down? Does anyone on a public water system anywhere in the country think they pay the true cost of sourcing, treating, and delivering a gallon of safe, potable water to the tap? Does anyone know of a city council, a county commission, or other government body that has the political will to charge the electorate the real cost of anything, fearing that people mostly vote their pocketbooks, when they can instead externalize portions of these costs and cloak them by a variety of means?
I am always amazed when I hear builders and remodelers say that their customers are not willing to pay extra for higher quality or performance or that they are only willing to spend more if an acceptable payback can be assured. Sorry, that simply does not fly with me. If this were true then there would only be one model of each product, the cheapest version possible. And somebody please tell me what the ROI is on a brand-new big-screen HD television. Sure, price matters but people don't make purchasing decisions on price alone.
No, my experience across the 25 years that I delivered homes to my customers was that they invariably chose to buy the best product, component, or system that they could afford. Sure, there were trade-offs. It was regularly necessary to balance the level of performance or price point with the overall budget until an acceptable bottom line was reached. And often they looked to me for my advice on what parts of the project they should prioritize, not only for the sake of resale value, but to help them understand where they could economize with the least impact on their quality of life.
Today, homeowners and home buyers are beginning to look at the long-term ramifications of their selections. They are realizing that operational costs, replacement rates, maintenance expenses, reliability and durability—not just the initial purchase price—are all keys to their ability to afford any dwelling over the long haul.
They are also carefully factoring insurance costs, property taxes, and the soft costs associated with their chosen type of financing vehicle (especially in the case of adjustable rate mortgages) with a keener awareness that keeping the lights on, the appliances running, the water heater fired up and the living space comfortably conditioned all come at a price, month after month, and must be transparent in the calculation.
Industry groups and individual building professionals have got to abandon their outdated circle the wagons mentality when it comes to attempting to forestall regulations requiring higher levels of performance and put an end to the monotonous messaging of denial and fear that only tell part of the affordability story. Trade associations, like NAHB, are not speaking for all of their members when they lobby lawmakers to limit increases in performance regulations to no more than token increments.
Many builders, remodelers, and contractors are already delivering performance that well exceeds the embarrassingly low minimum requirements held forever sacred by the foot draggers. It is time that the achievers are represented and rewarded rather than continuing to protect and defend those who make up the lowest common denominator.
Any building professional who believes it is possible to succeed going forward on the basis of price alone, or that higher building performance will remain voluntary, is in for a rude awakening. At the end of the day, a level playing field, an understanding that the market paradigm has definitely shifted, and a genuine determination to deliver the best performance and highest quality product possible are the keys to successful building, satisfied customers, and a brighter future for everyone.
Posted: 7/17/2009 12:00:00 AM by
| with 0 comments
I believe that the biggest problem we face today in trying to make changes to the way we do things and come up with more responsible – more sustainable – solutions to the challenges facing the world is a lack of leadership, not only in others but in ourselves.
In private conversations I have often expressed my belief that it sometimes takes more courage to try to bring about institutional change from the inside than from the outside. In the extreme, I cannot explore this subject without seeing a mental image of a lone, young Asian man in a white shirt defiantly blocking the path of a column of tanks in Tiananmen Square. A lifetime of courage could be experienced in that moment and, for better or worse, most of us will never know how that feels.
That is not to say that it doesn’t take courage to act in opposition to an organization, system or government from the outside, because it most certainly does, but if those tanks had been manned by foreign invaders rather than his own countrymen, we would perhaps view that young man’s courage as the product of pure patriotism and in that context it would be easier for us to accept, perhaps even to expect. What made that event truly remarkable was the courage that it took to face the moral dilemma of challenging one’s own government, not simply the specific actions the government was undertaking, but the rightness of its authority to govern.
I am left wondering if those of us who champion the changes we see as necessary to assure a more sustainable future have the courage to ask the hard questions about our institutions out loud, and although the immediate situation we face may lack the gravity of the choices faced by the Founding Fathers, their Declaration of Independence has never been more relevant than it is today.
In order for the United States of America to remain viable and relevant to the future of the world in this, the third century of its existence, we need to remember that governments derive “their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed”, and that the right to govern ourselves rests on a delicate balance between two simple and sometimes contradictory elements.
One is the central idea of democracy itself, which is at the core of the spirit of our agreement as citizens, that we will honor and uphold majority rule even when we find ourselves in the minority, that we will maintain the letter of our agreement by enacting and then obeying laws which have been carefully created to provide the maximum benefit and security to the greatest number of citizens while causing the minimum compromise of personal freedom to the individual.
The second is the idea that we are bound by that same agreement to defend and encourage the right of each and every individual to disagree, to express that disagreement openly, and to accept that, as a part of our rights, we each also have a duty to alter the rules of governance when they threaten our security and our liberty.
Self determination is not an exercise in the quest of a perfect ideology, rather it is the understanding that the future of America depends on our ability to adapt to a changing world while holding onto those “self-evident” truths.
Fortunately, at this moment we are not faced with a decision as difficult as whether we must overthrow our government and start over, but those of us who are involved in organizations which advocate on behalf of special interests, such as the building industry, and who find ourselves in disagreement with policy resolutions and positions on issues we hold dear - like the responsibility we have to account for the negative effects our activities have on the environment and consequently on the legacy we are leaving future generations - must somehow summon the courage to challenge conventional wisdom and find within ourselves the leadership to risk our personal and political currency in order to make changes.
It is not easy to stand firm when you know you will likely offend your colleagues and friends, nor to bear with honor the accusations that you are a provocateur seeking to make trouble because you are willing to question an established belief system and authority. However, it is easier to look at yourself in the mirror when you know that you have honored your own values and confronted the politics of denial and fear so often employed to ensure the maintenance of the status quo.
My hope is that we can step out of the shadows, overcome our fears and confront the “powers that be” in the broad light of day so that together we can lead the way to a better future.
Posted: 7/3/2009 12:00:00 AM by
| with 0 comments