Early in 2007 the Z6 house by architect Ray Kappe was the first single family house in the US to be awarded a LEED Platinum certification. The house is said to be 80 percent more energy efficient than a conventionally built house, and built with 75 percent less construction waste. Meanwhile, just this past year The Casey, an upscale urban high-rise in Portland, Oregon became the first LEED certified Platinum level condo.

But whether you live in a green-belt city like Portland, or a smaller city in a developing country, housing projects that can claim sustainable building credentials are all the rage. In fact 2009 may be the year house seekers find it nearly impossible not to run smack into the global green building initiatives being touted by governments, marketed by the world’s largest developers, promoted by the most famous architects, and organized by NGO’s like the US Green Building Council.

Once the province of fringe environmentalists and largely ignored by developers and related industries, green building has become mainstream – and big business too. The United States Green Building Council estimates green products and services annual sales will top $60 billion by 2010.

Clearly numbers like that indicate the movement is more than just a fad, but for people who think they’ve seen this “show” before – they have! Green building movements have had their “15 minutes of fame” before, and they came and went riding the same horse – a small number of eco-builders and a few environmentally sensitive buyers.

This movement, however, has touched a much wider demographic and includes induction by all the aforementioned related industries, and investment by the world’s largest financial institutions. Simultaneous commitment by an increasing number of both supply-side developers and demand-side end-users would seem to guarantee the movement a longer “career” this time around.

THE LEEDING STANDARD
Not only is green building getting the attention of new house buyers, sustainable building practices are also changing the way architects, planners, builders, engineers, suppliers, and manufacturers think about their respective jobs. In larger markets like New York and other progressive markets around the world it’s no longer acceptable to build a new multi-family project or commercial complex without addressing the environmental impact and sustainability of the building over the long-term.

To date the standards bearer for green building, and the one most industries have coalesced around is LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) – a point-based system agreed upon by the US Green Building Council’s 12,000 plus global members. The LEED standard covers five key areas of environmental concern – sustainable site development, water savings, energy efficiency, materials selection, and indoor environmental quality. Each of the five key areas offer the builder a menu of items from which they are allowed to select LEED approved sustainable practices. As long as points are obtained from each of the five key areas, a builder is free to determine how they will reach the point total needed to achieve the desired level of certification – currently called Silver, Gold and Platinum.

In addition to offering LEED certification for building green projects, an important part of USGBC’s services are LEED educational classes attended by industry employees around the country. The USGBC also offers an individual certification for those who want to become fully steeped in the LEED building certification process. Industry professionals who obtain certification by attending USGBC classes ostensibly make themselves more valuable in the market place – a consideration that seems to hold a lot of value for the future as sustainable building practices are just hitting stride.

While largely voluntary, green building in the US, and specifically LEED is more recently getting a push from local and state governments. Some states for example have mandated that all new government buildings meet at least one LEED standard. In Portland, the city and a local non-profit are working together to award grants to project winners who use innovative technologies that spur conservation, and in a separate program the city offers tax credits to energy-saving projects. Similarly, the state of Nevada extends privately funded green developments a 35% reduction on property taxes.

Even as these organizations and industry leaders have come together to codify and systematize building the work/live infrastructure of the future, the larger question of just what constitutes a green building is more elusive and harder to define. An older definition by the United Nations and one used by the US Department of Energy’s “Energy Star” program which limited the scope to just the building structure have more recently given way to the LEED philosophy of including how the building impacts its surroundings.

However defined though, the LEED certification process is growing rapidly. Currently 41 different countries as diverse as Canada, Mexico, and India have LEED application projects underway.

BANK ON IT
One factor that is helping to propel LEED to the forefront of the building industry is that sustainable building practices are more than just accepted now, they are often demanded by both bankers and the building supply chain. Those two groups together recently signed a statement urging the US Congress to enact strict limits on greenhouse gases (Congress has yet to act).

But bankers are not just urging others to take action. The largest financial institutions have began to act like role models by employing sustainable practices in their own corporate office buildings. For example, Bank of America’s new 55-story corporate tower in midtown Manhattan will heat itself with clean-burning natural gas, cool itself with ice, and use “grey-water” to flush toilets rather than pure drinking water.

In addition to visible acts like these, bankers are also rolling out their own green investment initiatives to encourage more green commerce in real estate. Bank of America has pledged $20 billion to encourage the growth of environmentally-sustainable business practices through lending and investment, and for their part, Citibank has allocated $50 billion to support the growth of alternative energy.

GIVE ME CERTIFICATION OR GIVE ME DEATH
The process of getting LEED certified starts with an application to the US Green Building Council stating the level of certification applied for and just how you’ll meet the standard. During the construction of the project the developer must keep track of the materials and methods used all the way up to building completion. A LEED trained inspector reviews the project site and combines the on-site findings with the architectural plans to arrive at an awarded point total.

The point system awards 1 point for each standard met – the more sustainable practices a building utilizes the higher its point total. In “LEED Speak” 52 points equals a Platinum certification, the highest awarded, 39 points is needed to reach the Gold level, and 33 will get you a Silver certification.

An obvious question one might ask about LEED is why would a developer put themselves through such a rigorous and costly process – and one which is completely voluntary? Not only is the process of obtaining certification detailed and time consuming, following the standards are often more costly to builders because “green” products sell at a premium since there are no scale economies, and extra-skilled in-demand labor is sometimes required for newer green technologies.

While there isn’t a single answer that all developers hang their hat on, the USGBC submits that the most important reason for following the LEED process to obtain a certification is “an increased asset value once the project is completed.” While that may be true for the longer-term, probably even more prepossessing for developers are the immediate benefits that have more to do with marketing appeal to the end user – such as 25%-35% less energy use than a conventional house, occupant health advantages, reduced waste sent to landfills, and then finally as the USGBC says, the ability to “demonstrate an owner’s commitment to environmental stewardship and social responsibility.”

LEEDING THE WAY
If there is any single project that could propel LEED to a new level of acceptance it would be CityCenter in Las Vegas – a massive $8 billion dollar privately funded development that is vocal about its intent to be awarded LEED’s Silver certification, and the largest project of its kind to achieve LEED recognition.

CityCenter says it will feature low-flow bathroom fixtures, a “highly efficient irrigation system,” materials that reduce VOC (volatile organic compound) emissions, and a co-generation power solution that will employ excess heat from the on-site power plant to heat water, relieving the strain on the larger Las Vegas power grid.

In an ironic twist it seems natural to wonder if in this case in particular the certification of such a high-profile project like CityCenter on balance is actually more important to the US Green Building Council than to CityCenter. One can’t help but wonder how much leverage the USBGC may have after the largest project in recent memory commits to and follows through with its stated goal of obtaining Silver certification.

Even if the irony is partially true though, LEED certification is still important to CityCenter, and the fact that the project is in Nevada brings an added incentive. As mentioned above residential projects in Nevada who meet LEED requirements are rewarded with a 35% property tax reduction over the life of the property. For CityCenter that represents a big pile of cash no matter how much extra it costs to follow LEED regimentation on the way to certification.

THE LEED SEED
Even though the USGBC’s LEED certification program is emerging to perhaps become the favored world standard, it had a relatively auspicious beginning. In 1993 Rick Fedrizzi, David Gottfried and Mike Italiano began an organization to act as environmental education and building catalyst of the largest builders in the US. At the time US green building practices were well behind fairly common green building practices in much of western Europe, so the USGBC was seeking a way to make the same standards more common in the US, a consumer of most of the world’s energy, and also the world’s largest polluter.

For the first few years LEED had difficulty gaining traction, but that all changed after recent publications of the dangers of greenhouse gases by world-renowned scientists which were then made famous by former US Vice President Al Gore in his documentary movie, The Inconvenient Truth, has all dovetailed perfectly in time for LEED – the green building standard in waiting.

Although the USGBC reports just over 900 completed and certified new buildings, the more than 13,000 current applications signifies just how quickly things have changed for the LEED certification program. The standard which most everyone connected to the industry has on their radar is now seemingly an overnight success.

TO LEED AND BEYOND
More recently the USGBC has expanded its rating system into the Green Building Certification Institute (GBCI), a separate organization to handle professional accreditation that as of this writing is mostly about knowing LEED rating guidelines and procedures in order to make the certification process smoother both for the USGBC and developers alike. According to the USGBC more than 41,000 industry professionals have become LEED Accredited Professionals since 2001.

What was a small non-profit ran by a handful of people at the turn of this century now employs over a hundred workers – and still a non-profit. The USGBC is now a multi-armed green build rating system and educational outpost for tens of thousands of the most influential building professionals and related-product industries around the globe.

With a $50 million dollar annual budget and thousands of yet non-participating smaller builders potentially representing thousands of additional candidates for LEED’s Accredited Professional certification exams at $300 plus per exam, plus an unending number of new construction projects by those same small builders who will be looking for a new hook to sell their product in the now stagnate US housing market all adds up to a very bright outlook for LEED on into the next decade.

Learn more about the USGBC and LEED here, and read more about the Z6 house in a coming Modern House Magazine story.

In an attempt to build a case for yet another green rating system, the National Association of Home Builders under their relatively new “Green Building Program” has laid down a goal of increasing US house energy efficiency by at least 15 percent when compared to non-rated houses.

Late to the game, NAHB’s Green Building Program will have to play catch-up to other more established “green” rating organizations. Chief among them is LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design), the most well known US “green” rating system entering its second decade of issued green guidelines for commercial buildings, and more recently a LEED for Homes program (see The LEED House).

But with a lot of inherent advantages the relatively new NAHB program may become an “overnight success”, and in the longer term we may end up buying more Bronze, Silver, and Gold houses rated by the NAHB Green Home Building Guidelines.

Saddling Up To The Green Rating Bar
All green rating programs share the same basic imperatives. A pre-determined accepted practice or material for each stage of the building process is proffered to participating subjects. To the extent they wish to follow the rating imperative, the building project receives a corresponding level of reward in the form of certification. This “stamp of approval” can then be displayed or even advertised to neighbors or potential buyers of the rated house.

Essentially the goals of each green rating system are two-fold. First, provide a method for builders to get in on the next “big thing” in house construction by offering a well-known and respected certification that can spur demand for houses while keeping a “leg up” on builders who are slow to recognize the next “big thing.” The second objective is to encourage green buying in the consumer sector through education and peer pressure. If everything goes right, buyers and sellers (builders) will meet in the middle as we transition from big expensive inefficient houses to smaller smart energy efficient houses over the next generation.

How The NAHB Rolls
The mechanics of the NAHB’s Green Program, as it turns out, are very similar to LEED, right down to categorizing and awarding points for line item actions believed to contribute to a more “green” house.

In the NAHB Green Building Program line items have been separated into 7 categories, with Energy Efficiency stressed as the most important objective. The remaining 6 categories in NAHB’s Green Building Program include, Lot Design, Resource Efficiency, Water Efficiency, Indoor Environmental Quality, Operation and Homeowner Maintenance, and Global Impact.

Starting with the NAHB’s online Green Scoring Tool, a builder “claims” points as determined by the house plan. According to the NAHB flow chart the house then gets a pre-inspection before drywall is in place (assuming the house uses drywall). After final inspection by a verifier, the NAHB awards the level of certification justified by the pre-established points for each line-item under the 7 categories.

The similarities between the NAHB and LEED may not be entirely by accident. As the NAHB says in their own documentation citing the genesis of the current program, “The NAHB Model Green Home Building Guidelines were developed through… an extensive review of… several public sector and non-profit programs.” If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, LEED should be thrilled, but in this case it may prove to be a source of discontent should green building become uber-competitive some day in the future.

The Devil At Work
The old adage “the devil is in the details” springs to mind when analyzing the NAHB process for scoring “green” houses. The key it seems to any rating system hinges on the independence of the verifier who reports findings back to the rating organization. How each line item is verified is critical to the overall reliability of the the final certification level awarded. If the verifier role can’t be trusted, any awarded certification calls into question the legitimacy of the entire process. For example, by simply reviewing the NAHB guidelines we find out that the method of verifying many line items is apparently accomplished largely from reviewing “House Plans” or a “Set of Site Plans.” The obvious question becomes, just because “green” choices are included in the builder’s plans, how can the consumer (or even the verifier after the fact) trust that the plans were followed?

Because the verifier is so critical to the process, it’s natural also to wonder who performs site verifications under the NAHB program? Part of the answer again can be found in the NAHB’s own publications. According to their own material we find that “Builders… may verify homes from other builders.” On the heels of the recent devious Wall Street back room secrecy that led us down the path to financial ruin, this kind of insider verifying doesn’t particularly boost the future buyers’ level of confidence in the legitimacy of how points get awarded – not when it seems too easy for insiders (builders) to make deals that ultimately bypass the original intent of the certification.

Still, another question about the NAHB system that has so far gone unexamined is the actual process order in which points are awarded. As mentioned earlier, the first step in obtaining certification is builders “claiming” points for the seven main categories using the NAHB Green Scoring Tool. It is then up to the verifier to agree or not – but in either case at least psychologically speaking the “pressure” is on the verifier to agree with the points already claimed by the builder, instead of the verifier being the sole determinant of how many points should actually be assigned based only on their independent verification.

Still LEEDing
While LEED (who prefers the rating levels Silver, Gold, and Platinum) has morphed into the most recognizable green rating system in the US, it has not reached its current standing without receiving its own set of criticisms from outspoken architects and builders alike. Though not a direct criticism, perhaps the most telling was LEED founder and CEO Rick Fedrizzi wondering out loud why the AIA has so far refused to endorse his LEED rating system.

For their part the AIA, perhaps in response to Fedrizzi, issued a policy statement on three major rating systems, LEED, another rising green build system called Green Globes, and the less consumer friendly SBTool 07 administered by the International Initiative for a Sustainable Environment. While the AIA has yet to endorse or partner with LEED, the two have since announced “strategic alliances” where they will cooperate on smaller projects that support advocacy and research.

Noticeably missing though in the AIA policy statement was any mention of the NAHB’s Green Building Program – suggesting how much ground the NAHB needs to make up on more entrenched rating organizations.

In The Year 2030
Complicating the matter, the AIA still has not officially joined forces with either the USGBC or the NAHB, but has promoted its own initiative, “The 2030 Challenge” which asks the global architecture community (slanted towards commercial development) to create designs that get us incrementally to a “carbon neutral” world by that date.

While calling on the global community to act as one seems like a particularly ambitious goal, it also might amount to a “call to arms” without a detailed plan to win the war. Provocative types in reviewing the AIA’s own challenge may want to ask as Clara Peller did in the infamous 1984 Wendy’s commercial, “where’s the beef.”

Rating The Raters
As a larger system, green building in the US is still so new that all rating organizations will undoubtedly go through many revisions, and so any final evaluation should be reserved for the future. In fact LEED, the system most likely to emerge as the default, has already gone through numerous changes over the past 10 years. The most recent was to consolidate multiple LEED rating systems into a single effort (although not affecting LEED for Homes).

While it’s fair to expect rating systems to morph into more accurate and meaningful measures of what’s really best for sustainable living, there are questions we can ask now that may help to get there faster.

A few of them are:

1. Should we adopt a single standard that can unilaterally be promoted and understood equally by builders and the consumer alike?

2. Will competing green standards result in fractured systems that degrade the purpose of increasing green living environments?

3. Do any of the major US standards actually go far enough to change the outcome of long-term sustainability?

4. Should we abandon the point systems in favor of more holistic approaches advocated in Europe and by some US architects?

5. Should the federal government be involved with unifying the rating categories, and would government funded certifications encourage more and faster participation from the building industry?

6. Should verification only be performed by a completely independent and separately regulated third-party so there can be no compromise between builder participants, rating organizations, and the public. Perhaps a government sanctioned organization?

The danger though of completely re-thinking our systems designed to encourage new “green” building is that according to most scientists we are running out of time to change our living habits, and so going all the way back to step one will sacrifice any progress made to date.

That may ultimately be the trade-off we are faced with now. If time really is of the essence, doing something at this point may be better than doing nothing.

Cast Of Thousands
In the end we’re left with a few mostly uncooperative major green building systems that, depend on how you look at things, is either better than none, or a sure way to instill confusion, and as a result less participation from important players, not to mention house-buyers.

While the national “green” rating systems seem to also support the many local “green” building programs that have been hatched all over the country, it’s not hard to image a situation where disjointed “green” building systems confuse builders and consumers alike – as the saying goes, “too many cooks spoil the broth.”

In an economy as anemic as the current housing industry, one thing is for sure, the next generation of houses in the US will need to be more efficient, starting with the planning of where houses are built, and following all the way through the post-purchase maintenance of installed green technologies.

The “green” rating systems seem to recognize this much, and there is finally real government support for “green” building, so at the very least we may be at the beginning of a “green” awareness revolution. If that’s the case “green” building standards are sure to evolve as we learn more about the science and can then apply it to the accepted building systems of the day.

NAHB Consumer Information.

LEED Consumer Information.

Green Globes Consumer Information.

The recent International Builders Show in Las Vegas which houses the annual building products convention sponsored by the National Association of Home Builders featured their version of the “green” home of the future, a massive 8,721 square foot building they call The New American Home.

While the 2009 show home does integrate some of the latest energy efficient heating and cooling technology, and employs some off site building methods that can minimize material use and reduce waste, its size and overt luxury beg the question why despite the housing crisis the “New American Home” keeps getting bigger? And also why the IBS chooses not to show off the latest building efficiencies in a more reasonable “Real American Home?”

There is an apparent disconnect in the building industry when young engineers not yet out of college this year at the Solar Decathlon will build and showcase models of sustainable houses that are more relevant than the featured “New American Home” from the National Association of Home Builders.

You Had Me At Eco
After touring The 2009 New American Home one gets the sense that the leaders of the US housing industry still fail to understand the two major reasons for the industry blowup – houses are too big and too expensive for the average American family. Hopes can only be bolstered by the apparent awareness of some green technologies. Still, it seems until builders come to grips with reasons one and two, the industry is likely to continue to regress.

One way the NAHB could start to regain credibility in 2010 is to feature an averaged-sized affordable house more in step with the times! Perhaps something more along the lines of the EcoFabulous Home by Architecton in Vancouver, BC.

EcoFabulous was chosen as Feature Home for the recent 2008 Home and Garden Show by the Greater Vancouver Home Builders Association. When you see the house and do a mental accounting of the infused “green” amenities that are a part of EcoFabulous, you can only conclude that the Vancouver Home Builders understand the current and future housing market better than some American counterparts.

The award-winning architect behind EcoFabulous is Kanau (Kon) Uyeyama. Uyeyama has designed hundreds of structures during his long distinguished career. In EcoFabulous he has combined materials and practices used in previous work into one modern sustainable and affordable gem. “We put all our knowledge to the test and designed and built the EcoFabulous Home,” said Mary Todd, Promotions and Development Consultant for Architecton.

Eco As Fabulous
Starting with its small Eco-footprint, EcoFabulous is 1000 square feet but still manages two bedrooms and two bathrooms, large enough for many different households including singles, roommates, or young families. Plus, a 400 square foot red cedar deck accessible to both wings of the house increases the living space on non-inclement weather days.

The house materials include sustainable or recycled cork, cedar, cotton, wool, and silk are simply beautiful; and there is no shortage of amenities often categorized as “high-end” such as an integrated Home Control System (smart wiring), spa, fireplace, and built-in recycling bins in the kitchen.

EcoFabulous is factory built to reduce waste, uses energy efficient lighting, windows and appliances (included with the house), a hydronic heating system which is over 95% efficient, and a solar panel. In addition to all of the above, “green” paint and other materials used in the house emit zero or minimal VOC’s (volatile organic compounds).

Perhaps best of all Uyeyama’s EcoFabulous house can be put together in just eight weeks, and the expected price to build excluding foundation, shipping, and assembly starts at $180,000 (Canadian). US residents will of course need to account for slightly longer build times and some increased costs due to shipping. The final costs of EcoFabulous for US residents is likely to fall between $200,000 and $300,000.

In the end EcoFabulous may come at a slightly higher dollar cost than some other similarly sized sustainable prefabbed houses manufactured in the US. But because of its advanced features the added costs will likely be viewed as added value to many interested buyers.

Then again, think how much added value you’d have if you bought the “green” 8700 square foot house the NAHB adored at the International Builders Show.

View the Featured EcoFabulous Slide Show.

The basic itHouse priced at $125 per square-foot consists of two bedrooms, one bath, plus a double courtyard to meld the indoor-outdoor experience. If you want to “make it your own,” there are optional packages and upgrades for kitchen, bath, and solar. Because itHouse is a component driven system you can also change the 1100 square-foot floor plan, move the doors and windows, and add selected furnishings.

The lightweight easy to assemble components can be shipped and assembled by your contractor in as little as three months. While there are a number of prefab component houses that assemble quickly, itHouse was designed so a crew of just two people can assemble the house, plus the contractor won’t need to hire a crane to get the job done.

Ready to go off-grid, itHouse can use solar PV to provide electrical power, while solar thermal panels are available to heat water and the radiant floor system.

A unique feature of itHouse is the planned interaction between the house design and the arts community. This means you can keep the house as simple as you like, or add one of many optional sun-shading and privacy patterns to the glass walls. The patterns have been developed by internationally acclaimed artists so while there may be many itHouses, yours can take on a different look than the neighbors. A fireplace, curtains and other furnishings also designed with itHouse in mind can set the imagination free.

A 2008 AIA Los Angeles Merit Award winner, you can now buy itHouse from the architect, Taalman Koch.

View the Featured itHouse Slide Show.

That’s because Form & Forest in partnership with architect D’Arcy Jones has developed flat pack cabins you can build just about anywhere you choose to get away.

Modern in style, building materials, and construction methods, these structures have nothing in common with the cabins that will come to mind from all those years watching Gun Smoke on TV as a kid. Form & Forest cabins add style, comfort, and energy efficiency to “the wild west.”

Complete with detailed drawings, floors, walls, windows and finishes these cabins come with just about everything you’ll need to build the perfect retreat at an affordable price. You’ll of course need to hire your own contractor, get permits, and find the land. Also, Form & Forest cabins don’t come with the bear rug or the antlers of the five point you shot last winter.

Currently there are three cabin models distinguished by appropriate names such as the Cowboy, Ranger, and Trapper. The Ranger is the largest with just over 1400 square feet up and down, while the Cowboy and Trapper cling to the more traditional size of just over 600 and 700 square feet respectively. Prices range from around $65,000 to $100,000.

A fourth cabin is scheduled to be unveiled soon, and Form & Forest says they plan to roll out four additional models in 2009.

Media: Form & Forest Cabins

There was a time when unseasoned architects like Rodney Dangerfield “got no respect,” now they’re discovering the latest advancements in materials, designing enviable modern structures, and constructing self-authored bleeding edge projects virtually all on their own. To borrow a phrase from another artistic icon, “the times they are a’changin.”

As a study in what can be done Mod.Fab represents sustainable modern house design in a most favorable light. “The goal fundamentally was to create an affordable sustainable well-designed building that could be prefabricated in a factory and delivered or site built,” said Project Manager Christian Butler describing the goal for Mod.Fab. He then went on to reiterate, “I think it’s important that good design is also affordable.”

The sustainable features of Mod.Fab start with its site specific plan (as all good architecture does), and expected use as a fair-weather campus retreat housing students and guests for short-term stays. Playing off that theme the house is situated to take advantage of passive cooling from breezeways and the rotation of the sun. Mod.Fab uses solar panels that can also send power back to other buildings on the campus when not in use during typically hot summer months in the desert. A gray water system re-uses shower and sink water to maintain the surrounding landscape. The system also harvests rainwater, and low-consumption fixtures help reduce total water usage.

Although the end result could inspire public requests for the prefab design to be ordered from a factory, Taliesin Mod.Fab was intended to be an educational “exploration of…sustainable methods,” and as such the existing plan Christian Butler explained “would need some adaptations before the house could work as a year-round residence in a typical urban environment.” Even so, given the pedantic study that went into Mod.Fab it would be a disappointment if in some form it wasn’t eventually made available for public consumption.

Frank Lloyd Wright once said, “…the belief in a thing makes it happen,” and it is that sentiment that suggests he would take some joy in the study that produced Mod.Fab.

View the MHM Feature Slide Show of Mod.Fab.

To reach this level of savings the homeowners say they didn’t have to spend as much up front as most people are led to believe is required. The conundrum though is how a mansion like the Santilo’s that averages a much smaller $100 a month electric bill won’t be certified by any of the major green building labels.

The answer seems to be that when it comes to green houses, size matters. Typically, a plan to build a house this large is frowned upon by green building standards, and in the case of LEED, is penalized before the first shovel hits the dirt. The simple rationale is that larger houses require a lot more materials than the average-sized house.

In apparent disagreement with the LEED point system homeowner Jeanine Santilo said, “we felt that it just emphasized feel-good green, and not really making-the-planet-a-better-place green.” Similar critiques in different contexts have been hurled at LEED before by a number of outspoken architects, builders, and developers. But the LEED side of the argument may come back to how a house handles energy use, or how much it saves. And the LEED category with the most available points is in fact about using less energy – so energy savings is indeed an important part of obtaining a LEED certification.

In the end the Santilo’s have an energy-efficient mansion that will use less energy resources this year than many American houses half the size.

Still, as the “green” housing trend engrosses the industry, houses like this will likely ignite future debate over what it means to build “green.” Will it be enough to build a house that saves energy after being built, or should the selected building materials and construction methods be equal requisites to building the “green” house of the future?

The recent Florida Cottage Design Competition sponsored by the Florida Foundation for Architecture, the philanthropic arm of AIA Florida, told emerging professionals who participated to create hurricane resistant sustainable homes at affordable prices. In the spirit of the Katrina Cottage the designs also needed to “raise the bar” of emergency housing design.

As expected the winning designs emerged vastly different. Emilio Cox added flexibility to the mix with his entry titled “Common FASH” (Flexible Autonomous Systems House). The prefabbed design ties connections to a plenum wall, and can be expanded by adding floor modules to the base.

Cox shared the first place award with Lilian Sherrard whose Adaptable Solution went beyond the scope of the competition. Sherrard designed a module that can take on different configurations based on the individual.

In Sherrard’s plan common style elements of each house bind them together without the need to replicate the same emergency shelter for each inhabitant. You can then create a community very quickly in a way that still allows for individual need and preference.

For Sherrard, diminishing returns set in even if you design and build great sustainable houses and place them in a row similar to the typical suburban neighborhood. It may be quick and cost effective, but as she said, “they lose their appeal once you have twenty of them.” Instead, her design ties together affordable sustainable houses with design choices atypical of housing currently categorized as emergency shelter.

Competitions such as the Florida Cottage Competition spark creativity by challenging designers to think about a specific problem that can then be applied to similar real life situations. Hopefully we’ll also get to see these advancements in prototypes and once that happens the technology can make its way into actual houses soon thereafter.

Once again young architects have shown by researching the latest technologies and applying it to their new designs that the future of architecture is in good hands – if we pay attention to them.

Media: Florida Cottage Design Competition

The housing industry is also starting to look at how other mass produced products are built, and finally connecting the dots to conclude that efficiency matters.

Many times those pushing for new building methods come from another background. In the case of Rob Boydstun, that meant changing his metal works company from building car carriers to constructing precisely engineered houses out of junked cars.

His new company Miranda Homes now builds houses with recycled steel studs fastened with screws rather than nailed wood, a combination of rigid foam and blown-in foam insulation, shorter duct runs, high-efficiency furnaces, ICF foundation instead of wood forms susceptible to pests, mold, rot, and mildew, and Miranda can build a house in 45 days at a cost as low as $95 per square foot.

The houses Miranda Homes build may look like the typical suburban house but the materials and building methods share very little in common. Miranda’s houses are built in a controlled plant environment eliminating hundreds of trips to the site by numerous sub contractors. In the end, it’s not the style that makes these houses “modern,” rather the efficiency.

That’s important considering the country is made up of large swaths of people who are on-board with the “green movement” but aren’t ready to switch to a modern streamlined appearing house.

Miranda Homes could be on to something, and proof of that may be interest they’ve recently been shown from Landwaves Inc., a master plan community developer. Landwaves wants Miranda to help them build a new master community in a small Oregon town where much of the population is baby boom age or older. Landwaves Inc., apparently likes the fact that these houses are “green,” rapidly constructed, affordable, and appeal to house buyers of every age.

Going forward, we might expect to see more people like Rob Boydstun enter the housing industry, and if they’re smart, more builders who revamp their current business model to mimic the efficient practices successfully used in other industries.

The finished house is a good example of Gottfried “walking-the-walk.” Perhaps the real importance though of this project was not just in building the “greenest” house, but more about how the house was built.

First, this wasn’t a new house built from scratch, but a 1915 bungalow redesigned to modern living standards. In the process Gottfried knocked out walls and reused materials while adding a solar hot water system to make the house modern, energy efficient, and sustainable.

Renovating green rather than building new can have a huge impact on reducing construction waste, and this house built on that belief makes it an honest real-life example of what current homeowners can do to “go green” without having to move.

Learn more about the house at www.gottfriedhome.com.

Learn more about LEED for homes.