Near Zero Homes Not Nearly Green

Green is in! Go green! Even the U.S. Department of Energy is going green! NOT!

I had the opportunity to visit the "Near Zero Energy Homes" designed by Harvard Communities Architects with help from the Dept. of Energy. The development is located out at Stapleton in Denver, Colorado. The homes are built to LEED standards and may be energy efficient, but they are NOT green.

I can't understand how a 4,000 square foot home, located at 9126 E. 35th Avenue, and selling for $758,000 would be considered green. Most homes of this magnitude and price range usually only house two to four people, even though they could house many more. The rest of the house is used to fill up with STUFF. The homes promote consuming not conserving. It also has a two car garage to fill up with more cars or more stuff. To learn more about how consuming is not green check out www.thestoryofstuff.com.

Now I will give the builder credit for using recycled building materials, solar panels, excellent insulation, and thermal heat exchange. The builder stated that the power bill for an entire year would be no more than $525. Great! What about the cost to buy the place? What about the cost to build it and all the resources whether recycled or not that were used? Is that green? Who in this economy can afford that? Are only the rich allowed to be green?

What about south facing windows? The south facing windows in the upstairs were so tiny and up so high that they were only useful for ambient light. Passive solar is virtually non-existent in this home, which is important in green building.

You should check out the bathroom! It had two shower heads, a garden tub, and two sinks, with a huge counter in between. This a great place to collect more stuff. Not to mention the attached walk-in closet that Imelda Marcos or Carrie Bradshaw's (Sex in the City) shoes would love. Again I ask, "A green home?"

I was pleased with the recycled glass countertops and the home was insulated well. However when the designers were asked why the home was so huge, they stated that the cost of EE upgrades ($50,000), had to be a smaller fraction in comparison to the value of the home.

So those of us out here living on a middle to low income and want to buy a home valued at $250,000, you still would have to pay $50,000 in green upgrades. That is a larger fraction in the cost of building the home to larger more expensive home. Therefore green isn't valued in our society for middle to low income people. A view of the mountains is more valuable than saving energy. I think that's sad.

When I mentioned straw bale homes and how efficient they are to the builders, they scoffed and one designer claimed that straw bale homes have an R-value of only 16. Who did this guy think he was talking to? Anyone who knows straw bale knows the R-value is 35-48.

While the attempt at a green community is notable, the homes are not green. If you want to learn about truly green and affordable homes, check out: http://www.greenhomebuilding.com/ask_the_experts.htm