development

Keeping up with the Joneses is a saying that originated in a comic from the early 1900’s, or at least that’s what Wikipedia would have me believe (just confirmed by Toonopedia). The Joneses are the unseen neighbors in the comic and are often referred to with some degree of envy by the strip’s main characters. While those characters and the strip in which they lived faded out of existence, the title remained as a popular saying, a saying which captured the motivation behind much of our consumption-minded culture.

Luxury, size and cost are all purchasing choices designed to help us “keep up with the Joneses.” We are trained to feel that we need a house, car and clothes consummate with the position we have achieved professionally or socially. Unfortunately, for most things, particularly houses, what we need always seems to be bigger and less practical. Prestige measured by the square foot.

Aside from the problems most Americans find themselves in financially after spending a few years chasing the illusive Joneses, the tendency for prosperity to be represented by size also isn’t exactly helping the old planet. We add rooms to houses that are already twice as large as we need. We base buying decisions on square-footage because that is what everyone will ask about at our first party (How many square feet you workin’ with here Bob?). McMansions are multiplying like huge, ungainly, under-insulated rabbits and all this means more energy, more furniture, more . . . everything.

We need to consume less, but as long as the Joneses are out there ahead of us, flaunting all that big stuff, that kind of change is difficult to make. As a culture we are so trained to measure ourselves against those around us that we will use any scale available. The most ready scale, to date, has been size, but perhaps that could change.

If it is going to change it has to change with the Joneses. It has to change with those who everyone is trying to stack up against. If a shift can be made in the thinking of the privileged, adjusting the way in which they broadcast their position, then we might see a change in the way everyone struts their stuff. Horse-power could be replaced with gas mileage. R-values (insulation) could be the new square footage. Solar panels instead of swimming pools, ten speeds instead of hummers, subtractions instead of additions . . . who knows.

According to the New York Times, this shift might be happening in housing. With the advent of modern design and the rising concern over global warming (even among the most impenetrable minds), green houses have become more attractive. Environmentally sound housing is no longer solely the province of patchouli scented hippies. Interesting architecture and the socially conscious appeal of a small carbon footprint open this type of houses to a broader audience with a sense of style to go along with their sense of responsibility.

Conspicuous non-consumption, as the Times article refers to it, may be hard for those used to losing their spouse and children somewhere in their 15,000 square foot castle, but it only takes a few adopters to begin the trickle down (no not Reaganomics style) of change. While there may be plenty of us who have cast off our need to chase the Joneses, the majority are still affected (if only unconsciously) by this race. A change in the measuring stick is key to a societal shift.

So instead of chasing the Joneses, let’s set out to change them. Design for style and efficiency. Make green cool and aim for a new demographic. And, if anyone from the Jones Family is listening, be sure to brag about your tankless water heater, the number of miles you bike and the efficiency of your windows at the next swanky party you attend. I am all for grass roots, but it helps to have a little assistance from the top of the mountain sometimes.

Nic Darling is not a Jones.

It has been hot in Philly. Not the kind of hot where you slip on some shorts and sandals and make your way into the long absent sun after a cold, cloudy winter (love that kind of hot). No, this is the kind of hot where you stay as still as possible for fear of bursting into a terminal sweat. It is the kind of hot that feels like a damp, grizzly bear, fresh from some kind of long, sweaty, ursine 10k, is hugging you tightly for 24 hours a day. It is the kind of thick, wet hot that makes a walk to the store feel like 20 breaststroke laps in a bowl of steaming gravy.

Sure, some of you Southerners will claim that I don’t know hot, but I’ve been down South, and at least there you get an afternoon rain, a torrential cooling. Or, if you are reporting in from the desert, at least your heat is dry. Sure, it may be a cliche’ but dry heat is more comfortable. The air in Philly feels like rain that has boiled just before it hit the ground. It feels like a neck deep swamp.

But, I am not here to brag about Philly’s extremes of discomfort. This post is not meant to be a competitive statement. I am simply hoping to frame a question in the appropriate sticky, stinky, sweaty context.

This heat, similar (I imagine) to being inside a beached whale in Death Valley, leads Philadelphians to that predictable technological response . . . air conditioning. The hum of AC units becomes a part of the summer sound-scape, blending perfectly with the constant whining of those caught outside and the gentle sizzle of pigeons cooking on the blacktop. The light drizzle from thousands of window units falls gently on the pedestrians in the streets, and each store front doorway blasts welcoming cold on passerbys. Interior climate control is the sweet breath of modern civilization, but at what cost?

Air conditioning is definitely a significant sucker of electricity and it seems to be used with a kind of reckless abandon. It flows out open doors and windows. It runs 24 hours a day. Despite the increasingly prohibitive cost, nearly everyone seems to use it and use it and use it. Is this caused by  a loss of climate acclimation? Have we forgotten how to exist in the heat? Is it made worse by a lack of alternatives? How did we stay cool before AC and what will we do when the environmental cost of its use becomes too heavy to pay?

Chad is working on some alternatives for the 100k house, and I thought we would try to get a discussion started here as well. How much energy do we waste conditioning our air? What are the alternatives to AC? Is it possible to survive in Philly (or elsewhere) without it? If so, is it possible to be comfortable?

Talk it up in the comments.

Nic Darling actually enjoys this hot, stick weather. He is obviously a witch and will be burned accordingly.

I am a fairly regular reader of Scott Adam’s Dilbert Blog and enjoy many of his occasional forays into saving the earth. Most of these ideas for a brave new world are fairly untenable (as Scott himself admits), but now and then he hits on something that just might make a difference. Today was such a day, and while I am sure this idea has already been developed and presented somewhere else (a phenomenon to which Scott will also happily admit), I still thank him for bringing it to my attention.

Essentially, Scott’s idea is to require an actual cost assessment with the sale of a home. He compares this to the APR requirement for loans which is intended to allow borrowers to understand the full cost of their loan and more easily compare their options. This “actual cost” would be the asking price of a house adjusted for a variety of important factors.

For a house these factors might include:

• Water Use
• Energy Consumption
• Maintenance Costs
• Property Taxes
• Insurance
• And More (Suggest others in the comments)

So, instead of just seeing the asking price for the house and comparing that with the asking price of other houses that appear similar, one would have a house price adjusted by the above factors to reflect the actual cost of ownership. A listing might look something like this:

2 Bedroom Row House
1200 Square Feet
List: $250,000
ACA: $330,000

or

2 Bedroom Row House
1000 Square Feet
List: $300,000
ACA $270,000

As Scott mentions in his post, many people are uncomfortable paying for benefits that seem intangible to them. While education regarding green building techniques and sustainable lifestyles has helped consumers to get a grasp on the benefits (both environmental and financial) in going green, it is still sometimes difficult to convince a consumer who has grown up in a “bigger is better” barrage that the smaller more “expensive” house is actually a better deal. LEED certifications and Energy Star compliance certainly add a perception of value but not in the same concrete way an actual price tag would.

Of course, developing an algorithm that everyone could agree on will be nearly impossible, and the enforcement of an actual cost standard would be a bit of a nightmare with the regionally varying real estate rules. The idea, while valid, requires legislation and administration that is daunting to say the least.

But, what if one real estate company took up the cause? What if one one bold company began presenting “actual costs” on each of their listings, not an intangible list of possible benefits, but a concrete, easily understood number?

Is this a useful idea? Is anyone doing it yet? What are some other ways of introducing this concept to the public?

Use the comments. That’s what they’re there for.


Nic Darling is a writer and marketing guy who also happens to have an interest in the happenings at postgreen. While not an avid hugger of trees, he has been known to gently stroke them and, on occasion, engage them in fierce philosophical debates. He claims that the majority of these debates are civil and mutually beneficial except when an oak is involved. Oaks, he claims, tend to be staunch and often angry defenders of Cartesian subjectivity and are loathe to concede points they deem in opposition to this “I think therefore I am” dogma.

Jetson Green reported late last week on a new report from CoStar that LEED and Energy Star buildings are financially outperforming similar buildings without these classifications in every category a building owner could care about. LEED buildings are selling for $171 more per square foot and renting for $11.24 more psf! That’s a big difference.

For more on the story check out the full stories here:

Green Buildings Financially Crush and Outperform Non-Green Buildings!! by Jetson Green

CoStar Study of LEED and Energy Star Buildings

In case you haven’t seen the new plans for the 100K House project here are a few links:

• Flickr Slideshow
• Project Page
• 100K House Blog Post

Our architect, Interface Studio Architects (ISA), is finalizing the last changes we made in the last design meeting and should have them ready soon. We are going to open up the ground floor floorplan, create a full second bedroom and add a deck off of the master bed in the next iteration of plans.

There is one company in Philly that most locals know have paved the way for modern and green development in downtown Philadelphia. The company is Onion Flats and I have not been to their website in a while so decided to catch up on their projects this morning. If you’ve somehow never heard of them go their now and check out there past, present and future projects. Their site is all flash or I’d include some nice teaser pics for you.

I say they have paved the way for modern and green in Philly for a variety of reasons.

One, Philly can be especially resistant to modern architecture when it comes to getting the approvals needed to get a new project started. This has a lot to do with trying to preserve Philly’s history and culture, which is great, but the Onion Flats’ projects have now proved that modern architecture can enhance a neighborhood and a community without sticking out like a sore thumb. They have made it easier for all modern developers who follow them to get their project approved.

Secondly, they prove to the lenders that there is a market for modern and green in Philly. There are many architects, developers and realtors who know a virtually untapped market exists, but the banks like to see bricks and mortar + solid numbers to match. The Onion Flats give us nice comps to show that, yes - these homes will sell and everyone involved will not lose money.

Third, they have generated a lot of attention for environmentally responsible development in Philadelphia which helps grow the potential market for green while simultaneously giving great examples to the local and state government to encourage more of the same type of environmental responsibility in their programs.

Keep up the good work, Onion Flats!

That site again in case you missed it above is http://www.onionflats.com/

Greg La Vardera had a great post last week on his LamiDesign Modern House Plan Blog about whether or not modern home design is reaching the tipping point of breaking into the mainstream of American housing. Greg observes that over the past few years we have seen a surge in modern design publications like dwell, modern prefab projects as well as new development companies specializing in modern and green design. He then asks, “Will modern houses break into the mainstream, finally? Will this be the time when everything changes, and anybody who wants to buy a house, build a house, will have modern as one of their legitimate choices?”

This question got me thinking over the past week. I have certainly noticed the same indicators of modern home design’s growth in recent years that Greg talks about and agree it is a growing movement gaining more and more media coverage each month. I want to believe that we are reaching a tipping point but sometimes I feel my viewpoint is skewed from living in an urban environment. More and more people are moving back to cities, including Philly, and modern architecture has always been prevalent in our cities.

Maybe this is simply a matter of the balance of population shifting in America from rural areas to cities. If the majority of the population will be living in cities withing the next decade and modern design becomes the mainstream in our cities, does that mean modern has passed the tipping point?

For modern to reach the mainstream, though, the vast amount of homes being put up by the major builders of the county in the suburbs must be effected. This seems like a harder audience to influence. One thing that gives me hope is many of the new modern developers that have set up shop around the country in recent years. When I read about home builders in the Philadelphia Inqurier’s weekly New Homes section many of them have been in business for around 10 - 15 years and they are working on communities of homes in the low to mid hundreds of units. Many of the modern developers are approaching their 3rd, 4th and 5th anniversaries in business. While they may have started with just a few homes they are now planning larger and larger communities of modern homes. It won’t be long before some are breaking the 100 home development mark and not only challenging the way homes are designed but also how communities are designed.

I don’t know the answers to Greg’s questions but I plan to meet his challenge to be a “connector” for the remodern movement. Thanks for the stimulating post Greg and keep up the great work!

Also check out John’s thoughts on Greg’s post at another of my favorite blogs -  Future House Now - better living in modern green homes.