27 Apr Affordable or Cost-Effective?
At G•O Logic, we know we can build super energy efficient, beautiful homes at an affordable price. None-the-less we have always had trouble finding the right words to really express what the affordable thing is all about; Inexpensive, cheap, low cost, reasonably priced, affordable- those terms all seem to imply that the quality of our homes might suffer in order to keep the first costs (or construction costs) low. When in fact, that is the exact opposite of how we design and build! We do not use cheap alternatives like vinyl siding and vinyl windows- we don’t even use anything less than triple glazing! We build homes that are durable, great to live in and will save a huge amount of money and energy in the long term. But a G•O Logic home does not cost more than most standard construction because of how we have unified the design and construction of our buildings. But how can we really express that concept?!?
I have a motto when it comes to building performance and sustainability: “when in doubt, look to the Germans”. And so I did. In the most Recent issues of Detail, Review of Architecture, 2009, series 4, the entire issue is based on Kostenguestig Bauen, or “Cost-Effective Building” (not a bad term). The editorial article for that issue, titled “Cost-Effective Building Means Sustainable Building” (no doubt something was lost in translation), by Dietmar Eberle, is an excellent explanation of the very concept that we have been struggling to express… The concept being the delicate balance between first costs vs long term costs, assuming the building will be used long into the future. Cost-effective therefore relates not just to how inexpensively a house can be built, but what is the most effective use of our resources today and in the future… (It seems that in the US we have real trouble with that idea of planning for the future.) In reading the article, Mr. Eberle brings up a few good values that we share at G•O Logic as well.
1. Not too small! Building the absolutely smallest house for the sake of costs or material saving does not make sense. Cleary we should live with less, but reacting too far in the opposite direction is also a mistake. Take public housing projects- they are not being taken down because they are a delight to live in. Creating a floor plan with space and flexibility to accommodate various uses today and in the future is key. Overly small and specific space planning does not gracefully accommodate changing needs and results in obsolescence in the future.
2. Build the best shell! As designers and builders we cannot control how people live in the homes we build. We can, however, control how well the building shell will perform in the long term. Today millions of houses are being retrofitted and upgraded to make them more energy efficient. We knew the energy thing was coming since the 70’s, but conventional wisdom insisted, “why bother with building for the long term, when you can build dirt cheap today”? Alas, now all these homes are having expensive and rather ineffective retrofits being done to their shells- it costs less to do it right the first time! In addition, the building shell is the most expensive long term investment that a home owner will make… and like any financial investment, why not put your money in one that will perform well and save a bunch of money in long term?
3. Be local! The US is a big country with a huge variety of climate conditions. The way we design and build has everything to do with the local climate, and the specific climate is the one factor that will not change over the building’s lifespan- if it was cold last winter, it will be cold the rest of the winters as well. Not accounting for the most basic realities is crazy.
So how do we describe our homes: Affordable?, cheap? Inexpensive??? I think I like the sound of cost-effective. It makes sense for the planet, and it makes sense financially to do the right thing!