Source: EcoManor.comFirst, you have the National Association of Home Builders sponsoring a 4,700+ sf urban loft home, the 2007 New American Home, for their annual International Builders Show in Orlando, Florida. The New American Home is certified green by the Florida Green Building Coalition and uses 73% less energy for heating and cooling and 54% less energy for water heating, compared to a comparable house in a similar climate. Did I mention it's 4,700+ sf with a 576 sf, unattached two-car garage and loft? Occupancy = 3 in America, 13 in Japan.

Second, you have Ted Turner's daughter, Laura Turner Seydel, and her husband, Rutherford Seydel, who just received LEED certification for what appears to be the largest LEED home in the world. 6,000+ sf. Laura sits on the board of more than a dozen non-profit, environmental organizations, and Rutherford is an environmental attorney. Must be green. Rutherford is using his green, lawyer cred to lobby the USGBC to be more lenient with bigger homes saying, "People who can afford to build stately homes tend to adopt revolutionary technologies early. These are the people who can make a huge impact." Environmental impact, that is. The LEED system favors smaller homes, so the rich that live large think the system is designed against them.

To Laura and Rutherford's credit, their big, LEED-certified home, also known as EcoManor, is pretty incredible: rainwater reclamation; geothermal system; low-flow, dual-flush toilets; drought tolerant lawn; formaldehyde-free wheat-board doors; sustainable and reclaimed wood floors; cellulose and soy-based foam attic insulation; electronic energy-usage monitoring; hemp pillows and jute draperies; 27 solar panels and extensive use of the solar tube for natural lighting; and low-VOC paints, varnishes, and sealants.

So the argument goes, if you're going to go big, you might as well go green in the process. The 2007 New American Home and EcoManor both have the trademarks of green homes. They both have that certified piece of paper, too. But here's the thing. That big home may use a lot less energy and water than similar-sized monster homes, or a non-green 2,000 sf home for that matter, but it is not a responsible endeavor. Think about all the materials that went into such a behemoth. In many ways, big homes represent the unsustainability of gross commercialization and over-consumption. Good old fashioned American waste. If you're the Cheaper by the Dozen family, a big house might be necessary. Otherwise, big does not equal green.

According to the National Association of Home Builders, the average size of the American home has more than doubled since 1950. Average size is 2,414 sf. EcoManor is about 2.5 times bigger than the average American home. Let's make sure to standardize big green homes such as EcoManor so in about 2050, we can say we quadrupled the average size of the American home.

See also:
EcoManor: A Certifiably Green, Eco-Friendly Mansion [Fortune]
2007 New American Home Goes Green in a Big Way [Jetson Green]

Today, the huge homebuilder Lennar Corporation announced a deal with Sacramento Municipality Utility District (SMUD) to build the largest solar homes development in the United States. According to the deal, Lennar will build 1,254 energy-efficient homes with solar power systems as a standard feature in 11 communities in the Sacramento area. Under SMUD's part of the deal, it will provide a maximum of $10.9 million in incentives and Lennar will receive the rebates after homes are constructed. According to my back of the envelope calculation, that's about $8,700 per home for solar. Providing solar for homeowners creates the potential to save up to 60% annually on the electric bill and reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by the equivalent of 620 cars.

I started to think about this deal and asked myself, "Why Lennar Corporation?" Installing solar power on non-energy-efficient homes is like trying to capture rain in rain barrels that have holes in the bottom. It doesn't make sense. In the entire process of making a home green, installing solar is one of the last things a person should do. But I came to the realization that most likely, Lennar Corporation was able to score such a good deal with the SMUD because it has experience building green homes with solar capabilities.

Lennar has a program called SOLAR plus. Under this program, the house is built efficiently to maximize the benefits of having solar electricity generation. Some green home features include: low-E, dual-glazed windows with energy-efficient vinyl frames, 15 SEER rated central air conditioner, improved insulation (R-13/R-19 exterior walls, R-38 attic, and tight ducts), and energy-efficient lighting. The solar system is the PowerLight SunTile 2.3kW Solar Electric System, which blends, almost invisibly, into the profile of the roof. According to Lennar's website, the system is maintenance free and has a 25 year warranty.

Soon, entire subdivisions such as the Anatolia and North Douglas in Rancho Cordova, Village Greens in Natomas, and Laguna Ridge in Elk Grove will be seriously powered by solar. Homebuilders around the country should watch this project with interest. It's entirely likely that other local authorities will be looking for the right green homebuilders to work with to establish solar power incentive programs, but before you get the $$ to install solar, you better be able to build a green home.

Every now and then, I see comments like the following, "That home is 2,200 sf. There's no way it can be green, such a monstrosity! People need to live in smaller houses." I disagree with that blanket statement. No house is too big, it's just the number of people in the house is too small. But I've heard equally judgmental comments with respect to second homes and vacation homes. How green can a second home be? To help us with this one, Amy Gunderson of the NY Times wrote an article called "Making Your Second Home Green." It's pretty good.

According to the article, James and Kathleen Seligman decided to build a green second home in Three Rivers, California. The 969 sf, two-bedroom house has double-paned windows, energy-efficient appliances, clay-based wall coverings and no paint, and non-toxic cotton insulation. Additionally, the house was designed to accomodate solar panels (not sure if they were actually installed), sustainably harvested wood was used, and construction debris was recycled, as opposed to going to the landfill. Note however, they decided to go with the granite counters for stylistic purposes, rather than opt for some of the other sustainable counters on the market. But for the most part, this is a fairly impressive green home.

James and Kathleen also have their first home in Three Rivers, so this home will be lived in occassionally and rented out to tourists the rest of the time. Which brings us back to our initial inquiry. How green can a second home be? I think, imho, to determine whether a second home can be green, one must look to the first home. In this situation, the second home is an investment and many of the green features serve to lower operating costs, but as it relates to James and Kathleen, have they lessened their incremental impact on the environment at all? Not that I know of. Sure, it's better to build a green second home than a non-green second home, but in reality, the question of greenness cannot be separated from the occupants or the people. What changes do we see in the people? That's what going green is all about. Incremental change on a going forward basis.

So to answer the queston posed by the title to this post, one must look a little deeper. What is happening to the people? Any home can be a green home, but the question of whether something is or is not green also depends on the circumstances. Look at the circumstances and you decide. You tell me, how green can a second home be?

Image via Nancy Doniger.

Vail Resorts, Inc. (NYSE: MTN) just announced an ambitious plan to build a new green resort development in North America. Ever Vail will be a $1B, 9.5 acre, multi-use resort village on the current site known as West Lionshead. If approved for development, Ever Vail will be the largest LEED-certified project for resort use in North America and one of the earliest developments to come under the LEED Neighborhood Development certification program.

In all, the total development will be about one million square feet, with 150-250 whole ownership condominium units, 75-125 fractional ownership condominium units, a 100,000 sf hotel, 100,000-150,000 sf of commercial retail, office, and restaurant space, and 100,000 sf mountain operations facility.

Importantly, Ever Vail plans are still being finalized and haven't been submitted to the Town of Vail for approval. Once approved, sales will start in about 2009, so this is very much a prospective project. Vail Resorts has partnered with Callison to help design and plan the development. Callison Principal Steve Harmon remarked on the partnership: "Callison believes sustainable design is good business and is honored to partner with Vail Resorts on leading the effort to create an innovative, smart-growth destination that uses land more responsibly, reduces resource consumption and minimizes sprawl."

As our writers here on Green Options have reported, environmentalism and climate change is always on the mind of winter resort operators, so seeking LEED certification is another way for resorts to consider the impact of their operations. The LEED for Neighborhood Development certification program (actually still in the pilot program stage) was officially inaugurated on February 1, 2007. It's a rating system established by the U.S. Green Building Council that integrates principles of smart growth, urbanism, and green building on a neighborhood level. Vail Resorts plans also to develop all of the buildings at Ever Vail to LEED criteria.

Image Credit: Vail.

There's a reason GreenBuild 2007, the green building industry's major conference and expo, is going to be in Chicago. The city is just busting at the seams with progressive thinkers and eco-entrepreneurs.

Recently, I noticed a news report about Baum Development rehabbing the old Cooper Lamp Factory in Logan Square into a one-stop, live-work, shopping center of green businesses and activities. It's going to be called the Green Exchange. The four-story, 250,000 square foot building, located at 2545 West Diversey Avenue, will be renovated to LEED Silver standards with a variety of uses including retail, showroom galleries, office, and incubator lofts.

The Baum Development team is planning on some aggressive green renovations. The parking spaces will have electrical outlets for hybrid cars, but that's not all: hybrids have priority parking privileges. There will be a 9.000 square foot sky garden, solar panels on the roof, and a roof garden. A rainwater cistern will collect water for the gardens and landscaping. Some other green features include the high-efficiency HVAC system, eco-friendly paints and stains, bike room and showers, car sharing services, and energy-efficient doors and windows. In total, Baum will spend about $30 million outfitting the old facility with the latest and greatest in green building technologies.

The project is not without its skeptics. One such argument is that environmentally-friendly products and businesses only cater to about 25% of the consumer market. The inference being that it's a bad business idea to target 25% of the market, especially if there's a softening in consumer demand for green products. Portland, Oregon has a similar green market that has been highly successful. The Jean Vollum Natural Capital Center has about 20 tenants in 70,000 square feet of space. The owners say their market has been very successful and they get calls for space all the time. In fact, they feel they could double the space and still do great.

So, Chicago: what do you think? Are you going to make the commitment to speak with your wallet and frequent businesses that try to pollute less, recycle more, and conserve more? Are you going to buy things that improve the health and quality of life? It's a loaded question, but we'd like to know what you think…

Via Chicago Tribune & Baum Development

Going into this, please understand that I don't intend to be crass, but this is a topic that needs to some attention. Admit it, when people talk about low-flow toilets, you laugh thinking, "It won't work…believe me…you don't know my _____ (insert favorite male of your choice)."

The fact is, green toilets have come a long way and are pretty effective at what they do. Water is a precious, scarce resource that can be conserved with the right toilet technology. Within the green toilet category, you have the high-efficiency, pressure-assist, and the dual-flush toilet, or a combination of all three. Let me explain further.

In the March 2007 edition of domino, the esteemed, green entreprenuer Graham Hill said, "save thousands of gallons by following 'if it's yellow, let it mellow. If it's brown, flush it down.'" Sorry, but that won't fly with my wife or dog. That's where the dual-flush toilet comes in handy. The dual flush toilet has full volume flush (1.6 gallons) and water-saving flush (0.8-1.1 gallons), which you use accordingly, depending on whether you have a #1 or #2. A dual-flush toilet using 0.8 for the water-saving flush will save a typical household roughly 7,000 gallons of water per year.

The high-efficiency toilets are about 20% more efficient than the 1.6 gallons per flush (gpf) standard, flushing in at about 1.28 gallons. Depending on your state, there may be rebates available for these types of toilets, and a typical household will save about 4,000 gallons of water per year. Many of these toilets use the pressure-assist technology, which adds a little umph to the flush. So you use less water, but that's compensated by pressure-assist technology.

In the future, you may hear someone say they installed a low-flow toilet, but dig a little deeper. Was it a dual-flush? A high-efficiency toilet with pressure-assist technology? A dual-flush with pressure-assist technology? A high-efficiency, dual-flush tiolet with pressure-assist technology? Here are a few places to go to look for toilets: Toto Aquia Dual-flush, Caroma Dual-flush, Zurn EcoVantage, Sterling Rockton Dual-flush, and American Standard FlowWise.

Photo Credit: Renovation Experts.

The U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) can now hold itself out as an example of what green building is all about. The USGBC has a 22,000 square-foot office suite in the LEED Gold for New Construction (LEED-NC) Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Building. What's more incredible is that the USGBC's office suite just obtained LEED Platinum for Commercial Interiors (LEED-CI). So the building is gold on the outside and platinum on the inside. That's a fairly powerful combination.

President, CEO & Founding Chair of the USGBC, Rick Fedrizzi, said: "We wanted to walk our talk by providing a highly functional, healthy and enjoyable work environment. We are already seeing an increase in collaboration and productivity as a result of the design scheme." The inside schematic is designed to foster interaction and collaboration, in an environmentally friendly way. Designed by Perkins + Will and contracted by Davis Construction, this office space is above and beyond any ordinary space. Here's a list of some of the green features:

• Renewable bamboo flooring
• Reused granite countertops
• Non-toxic paint on the walls
• Abundant natural light (93% of the interior has a view of the outdoors)
• Recyclable ceiling tiles
• High-efficiency and low-energy use lighting
• Low-flow plumbing fixtures, dual-flush toilets, and waterless urinals
• Terrazzo flooring in the elevator lobby
• Fully recyclable carpet tiles and cork fooring

One of the goals with the project was to create space that was not only green, but good looking. As green buildings, homes, and interiors become more prevalent, green materials are getting better and more available. Not to mention modern and aesthetic as well. Via GreenSource + USGBC.

Photo Credit: Sara Harding/USGBC

SolarCity is going from one city to another, helping California residents make the investment in solar power. They’ve developed a program called the “Collective Power Program,” which leverages economies of scale to provide lower prices for solar panels. Here’s how it works: if SolarCity can install enough solar panels to generate 175 kw during an optimal five hour period in the middle day, they can charge customers $7.90 per kw a system (as opposed to $10.05). In Portola Valley, the response was overwhelming and they sold enough panels to generate 322 kw. Next stop = Mountain View (aka Google City).

SolarCity is planning a community meeting with Mountain View residents and businesses this Saturday (February 10), and the company’s president Lyndon Rive will discuss the details of the Collective Power Program. With group purchasing power, Mountain View customers will save 30% over typical solar installation and service costs.

Where does the cost advantage come from? (1) SolarCity can purchase supplies in bulk and get a lower price; and (2) by having customers in a concentrated geographic region, it can minimize costs of service and maintenance. SolarCity makes the investment easy for consumers, too. Services include permit processing, system design and installation, rebate administration, financing, energy efficiency consulting, and system monitoring. From what I understand, SolarCity takes a pro-active approach to the whole process by making sure the system is working optimally at all times.

I think this is going to be what it takes to get solar moving forward, on a larger scale. If a company can establish good will in a specific region, there will be huge opportunities to capitalize on economies of scale without getting over-extended into different geographic regions. Solar is such a complicated product, including the piece meal regime of rebates, the best companies will be those that can provide expertise and service. Local companies will have a vested interest in the success of solar power generation and can help people rely less on coal- and gas-power plants.

Sidenote: Regarding homes that are not energy efficient, solar power may not be the first investment to make. After all, what good is solar power if your home is leaking heat/ac through the walls and cracks? That said, after speaking with a green professional about the specifics of your home, solar could be the right, next step.

Technology adoption amazes me. Sometimes it's quick and sometimes it's not. Take TiVO, for example. Back in the day, people couldn't figure out what the hell a TiVo was! It was (and still is) an innovative product, but it was complicated to explain. Once you used it, however, you were hooked.

Similarly, we have the technology to build a zero energy house, including super water efficiency, amazing indoor air quality and a lighter environmental footprint. But for various reasons, home building is anachronistic and laggard. Is it too complicated?

Green building can be complicated, but fortunately, we have a growing reservoir of case studies, which we can use to take progressive steps in the future. In greater Dallas, custom home builder AndersonSargent teamed up with Barley + Pfeiffer Architects to build a zero energy home. Take a gander at the Zero Energy Home website, and see if there are any ideas you can apply to your current situation.

This green home is not small, either, weighing in at 3,800 square feet. [Aside: imagine the air conditioning bills on a 3,800 square foot home in the middle of Texas!] Without considering the benefits of the photovoltaic solar panels, this home's utility costs are roughly equivalent to a 1,300 square foot home and about $70 /month for electricity + gas per month. With the solar panels, this is a net zero energy home.

Here's a small list of some of the green features of the zero energy home: proper solar orientation and passive design; ventilated radiant barrier roof system; spray foam insulation and Durisol block construction; air sealed attics; proper roof overhangs to maximize the sun and shade balance; a light exterior color scheme to reflect heat; enhanced natural ventilation; 90% fluorescent lighting (much of it electronic-ballast high resolution); low-flow faucets + showerheads; on-demand hot water system; Energy Star kitchen + laundry appliances; and a comprehensive outdoor water conservation system incorporating native/low-water-use plants, a 5,000 gallon rainwater cistern, and a smart irrigation controller. Every geography is different and has different needs, but at a very minimum, homes like this should give us a starting point to build better and consume less in the future.

McGraw-Hill Construction, one of The McGraw-Hill Companies (NYSE: MHP), just released its market research findings on green building in the education sector and guess what? It's the fastest growing green building sector. Of all the construction sectors, education is the largest with an estimated $53 Billion for 2007, which happens to include construction for K-12 and university levels. This is a good thing, especially if green building benefits trickle-down into other construction sectors. As green materials start to get hot, production and innovation will increase, so this is a win-win situation for the industry.

Why is green building getting such traction in the education sector?

1. Opportunity for improved health and well-being
2. Operational cost decreases and other fiscal advantages such as energy cost savings

While the market research findings also discovered that higher first costs are the primary challenge to building green, many green building owners are starting to realize greater benefits through operational cost decreases. Pictured above is the J. Lindsay Embrey Engineering Building at Southern Methodist University, constructed by Turner Construction.