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.
In other words builders subdivide a lot in a established community such as West Asheville and cram as many homes as they can into what was once a large back yard or wooded division between homes. See the pretentiously named Gaia development out near Trinity Baptist to get a better idea.
Many of these lots were originally platted as building lots and were not built on - sometimes just because the next door neighbor bought an extra lot and didn't do anything with it. Infilling like this is the proper way to accommodate additional population. I would much rather see houses built on these type lots than developing farmland and mountainsides outside of city limits. Infill lots reduce infrastructure costs and the need of the homeowners to drive to get anywhere.
People are going to move here regardless of your protests, so keeping that in mind, do you have a better idea of how to handle the growth?
It's interesting that you mention Gaia as an example of what you take issue with, since Gaia is a very well-done development. High-quality construction, smaller footprints, common green spaces, centralized perimeter parking, solar water heating, radiant floor heat - all for under $300,000. Maybe you should take a closer look - you would probably change your opinion.
Nobody is saying $300 per square foot. $300,000 / 1500 SF = $200 / SF. Where did that $300 number come from?
These builders are economizing anywhere they can on the building of the house without sacrificing quality, trust me. They are not getting rich off these houses. The increased cost per square foot is coming from the cost of land, the fact that they are smaller houses (square footage cost goes down as the house gets larger), and that they are using better materials and equipment.
There's more to building a green-certified house than buying low-formaldehyde materials.
Nobody is saying $300 per square foot. $300,000 / 1500 SF = $200 / SF. Where did that $300 number come from?
Uhhhh........
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asheville Native
What size are these 300K green homes? The green homes I see around here are $650K+ for 1700 - 1800 sq/ft, on tiny steep lots with no usable yard.
I was being lenient, my example, a listing on the internet is $361 sq/ft, in final stages of construction right now.
Yes there is more to a green home than I listed;
whole house electronic air filters; not that unusual or expensive
whole house water filters; not really needed here, but not that expensive either
VOC- free paints and stains; could add maybe a couple hundred dollars to the total cost of a house
formaldahyde-free building materials; mentioned earlier
high seer HVAC system; let's see the government has mandated high seer units
all appliances are Energy Star; pretty standard fair today, appliance stores are full of them
the best insulation; I'm sure it costs a bit more, along with installation but a few thousand total for a house?
How much is the term "green" (not the actual material/labor) adding to the cost?
I was being lenient, my example, a listing on the internet is $361 sq/ft, in final stages of construction right now.
Yes there is more to a green home than I listed;
whole house electronic air filters; not that unusual or expensive
whole house water filters; not really needed here, but not that expensive either
VOC- free paints and stains; could add maybe a couple hundred dollars to the total cost of a house
formaldahyde-free building materials; mentioned earlier
high seer HVAC system; let's see the government has mandated high seer units
all appliances are Energy Star; pretty standard fair today, appliance stores are full of them
the best insulation; I'm sure it costs a bit more, along with installation but a few thousand total for a house?
How much is the term "green" (not the actual material/labor) adding to the cost?
The term "green" doesn't add anything to the cost. Building a better quality house does. The added cost to buy a high-efficiency house will pay back over the life of the house several times over for the homeowner.
1. Infill lots near already existing infrastructure cost more than suburban or rural lots. The cost of land impacts the final price of the house.
2. Smaller houses cost more to build per SF than larger houses.
3. Fresh air ventilation systems (not necessarily filters) such as ERV's and HRV's to supplement fresh air into these tighter houses can cost anywhere from $1500 to $2500 to install. Electrostatic filters (if we want to talk about high efficiency filters) can add several hundred dollars, if not more, to the cost as well.
4. High efficiency HVAC systems will exceed the federally mandated minimums (which is currently 13 SEER / 7.7 HSPF for heat pumps). Many of the builders I work with are installing 15 SEER / 9.0 HSPF or higher units, which will reduce operational costs for the homeowner. They do cost significantly more than these Federal minimum efficiency units. $1000 to $2000 would not be unrealistic, and can go MUCH higher depending on the efficiency.
5. Insulation can definitely impact cost. Spray foams cost more than fiberglass, but also can provide for a tighter thermal envelope. Depending on the kind of insulation used, this can definitely add a few thousand to the cost of the house.
There are plenty of other items, but this should be a good start.
Just curious, do terms like "not that expensive", "not that unusual", "I'm sure it costs a bit more", and "maybe a couple hundred" count as facts? I know how much you like facts...
Last edited by vandemusser; 04-20-2009 at 01:17 PM..
My question is this a sustainable building model if the input costs are so high? $300,000 homes aren't exactly flying off the market; nor will they as we're feeling the first death shudders of the collapsed credit bubble. Price points that were sustainable during the height of the bubble are no longer attainable as banks are forced back to traditional lending standards.
Green-certified homes in Buncombe County are selling in half the time as compared to non-green homes, and at closer to asking price. The fact that sub-$300,000 green homes are still selling in this horrible market is a pretty good indicator to me that this is not only sustainable, but ultimately where the residential market is heading.
The input costs aren't high if you look at the big picture. Does it add slightly to the selling price of the house? Probably. Will the homeowner have a house that costs less to operate for the rest of their lives? Most definitely yes.
A $300,000 price point is not an unrealistic price point in Asheville, even in this economy and with the current lending environment. If it wasn't, these houses wouldn't be selling.
Median family income in Buncombe county is $44 k. Residents of the area cannot afford these homes, so they cannot be the driving force behind residential development in the area. The impetus for this type of development therefore has to be newcomers to the area; specifically retirees and independently wealthy individuals. We'll see how that works out over the coming years. I personally don't see the economy improving any time soon. Good luck in your endeavors.
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.
