Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
ahhhhh. So you are saying the principle value (of the existing option) or cost (of the new) is in the land price, itself, and not in the structure, either way?
Quote:
So what did you conclude?
Looped back to what you have already observed -- Location, Location, Location, and the negative relationship it creates as far as cost.
I am coming to the observation that 10 + acres rural have a better "green" and Net Zero Energy value than the 1/4 acre city lot which costs about the same as the 10+ acres rural.
That means going rural scales the whole thing WAY down in terms of dollar comparison. By not doing the overpriced (?) high dollah city lot for Location, Location, Location, it leaves the options so wide open that either the rebuild or the new rebuild are fine -- at least as far as the money is concerned. And having Both your options be a Good Choice is a Very Good Thing.
Once you can get past the money aspects (which is where your starting question was totally focused) you can get into the technical aspects of the decision. Some existing houses are suitable for a rebuild into a Net Zero Energy, and some are not. At that point you can look at the rebuild options for a particular existing house on a case-by-case basis.
I am coming to the observation that 10 + acres rural have a better "green" and Net Zero Energy value than the 1/4 acre city lot which costs about the same as the 10+ acres rural.
Which works, in theory, as long as one is self-employed/telecommutes or is retired, grows/raises all of one's own food and either homeschools or is child-free.
Sorry, but I have known too many people who "moved to the country" either for some sort of bucolic ideal or to be more "green" and ~80% of them discover that they just spend wayyyy too much time, energy and resources driving driving driving.
Like I said, it's potentially a great idea (move to the country, go off the grid) for the retired person with a green thumb and no children. For young families with careers and school activites, sports, etc etc. the city, or town location can be a better choice.
That being said....why does it always seem to come down to city vs. country? Small towns, with ammenties withing walking/biking distance are a nice in-between option.
Back on track.....I was really hoping this thread could focus on the actual building. My SO and I are old-house lovers and we try to reuse and recycle as much as we can during any sort of restoration or renovation. We are, however, aware of the new technologies available and often wonder about the carbon-offset of building a "new" structure that would be as energy efficient and as "sustainable" as possible.
With all due respect, none of these responses actually addresses the question I asked.
I'm still waiting to hear from some "experts" too . We are currently pursuing choice "B". Although we are not only concerned with energy savings, but also restoration and preservation (so the aesthetic and historic side of things).
For health reasons I'd renovate . i read years ago about how homes leach chemicles for at least v20 years. If you buy an older house most have already been leached out, except for abestes I guess .
Be sure and check where the drywall came from too . Chinese drywall is very dangerous, Google it '.
We didn't have that choice because we already owned the land so we had to build .
Which works, in theory, as long as one is self-employed/telecommutes or is retired, grows/raises all of one's own food and either homeschools or is child-free.
All true enough. All of which at this point is about where we are or where we are heading. So I suppose in that regard would make it a good fit.
Quote:
Sorry, but I have known too many people who "moved to the country" either for some sort of bucolic ideal or to be more "green" and ~80% of them discover that they just spend wayyyy too much time, energy and resources driving driving driving.
Like I said, it's potentially a great idea (move to the country, go off the grid) for the retired person with a green thumb and no children. For young families with careers and school activites, sports, etc etc. the city, or town location can be a better choice.
That being said....why does it always seem to come down to city vs. country? Small towns, with ammenties withing walking/biking distance are a nice in-between option.
Have looked pretty hard at that, too. On closer examination, it looks like the idealized small town is the bucolic myth. From what we have seen most of the small towns in our region tend towards being dying, low-performance inbred backwaters, and/or meth-land.
Quote:
Back on track.....I was really hoping this thread could focus on the actual building. My SO and I are old-house lovers and we try to reuse and recycle as much as we can during any sort of restoration or renovation. We are, however, aware of the new technologies available and often wonder about the carbon-offset of building a "new" structure that would be as energy efficient and as "sustainable" as possible.
Yes, the technical issues are pretty straight-forward. But they are also specific enough to each individual rebuild that a generic answer is probably not practical. To go with the re-build of an existing house option -- issues may include: Southern Exposure, foundation level matters, HOA and City Code tolerances, on and on. Maybe a question something like -- How could I Net Zero these 10 houses, and list 10 MLS houses from Realtor.com or something. Then the dollars to donuts comparisons could be made on technical aspects.
With all due respect, none of these responses actually addresses the question I asked.
Noticed that, too. Might be partly with the question?
You are sort of mixing two concepts -- $$ (a form of Green ), and those $$ are measured pretty tightly via bankers math -- with "Green" which is somewhere between a fuzzy concept with some pretty sketchy measures, and often just plain mis-used for marketing purposes.
So maybe branch one or the other?
A $$ comparison of a rebuild v. new net Zero -- which already observed in your case is a wash as part of your "given."
Or simply the Green-ness of a New v. Existing Re-build. Here is the real deal on most measures applied to that . . . mostly you are going to get BS. Even LEED standards (typically applied to commercial buildings) is rather air-head when you get past the board concepts and into the specific, and generally the real practical use is as part of marketing. So when it comes to the overall Green-ness . . . you pick your own standards and you will get your own answers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. We are currently pursuing choice "B". Although we are not only concerned with energy savings, but also restoration and preservation (so the aesthetic and historic side of things). 
), and those $$ are measured pretty tightly via bankers math -- with "Green" which is somewhere between a fuzzy concept with some pretty sketchy measures, and often just plain mis-used for marketing purposes.
