Review: Brazos' Phosphorescent Blues
Interview with Bobby Hackney of Death
I Am So Popular: Love Me Doo-Doo
Fun Fun Fun Fest Previews: Street Dogs and Betaplayer
Wine: Austin Cellar Classic Is Tomorrow
Green Builders Inc. is creating an 800-acre master-planned community with 2,000 houses that will be environmentally friendly and feature rain harvesting and energy-saving heating and cooling systems. Georgetown Village will offer 15 floor plans, from 1,800 square feet to 2,400 square feet. Several models are near completion. The homes, to be built in the next six to eight years, will be priced from the low $200,000s to the $500,000s.
While more efficient developments like these have advantages over non-green sprawl, it is still sprawl and it still has all the environmentally unfriendly aspects of low density development. Scrutiny of greenwashing has typically been reserved for corporations, but developers are becoming suspect as "green building" has become a de rigueur marketing buzzword for modern builders.
A critical consumer eye is necessary to separate true smart growth from builders claiming the green word. Green building is not simply about the individual structure. It must incorporate macro level issues of community sustainability. This is one place in which the Austin Green Building Program falls short, but which should be addressed by the LEED for Neighborhood Development program being developed by the US Green Building Council.
The Georgetown development appears to have good green intentions, including claims that "each home will be built with foam insulation in the walls and roof. The heating, ventilation and air conditioning as well as the water heater and plumbing are centrally located to improve efficiency and the homes also are being built with recycled lumber and local natural stones." Recycled lumber sounds nice, but we're not sure Rachel Carson would approve of strip-mined limestone, even if it is local. Phrases like "environmentally friendly" and "improved efficiency" can be misleading, so it is important for builders to be specific (how much cost reduction) and qualify the terminology (duration, types of materials, usage, etc). These specific homes are expected to have 50-60% energy savings, which is pretty hot.
Sprawl is sprawl, but green sprawl is probably better than red sprawl. It is sometimes difficult to tell whether something is really green or just marketed green, so industry standards and recognized organizations have become critical, including the U.S. Green Building Council, LEED certification and Austin Energy's Green Building Program. These programs along with educated home-buyers help guarantee smart growth stays smart.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
That was very informative. Thank you. I only wish we could get the type of people that move to those places to read this.
Paige, thanks for addressing the "green sprawl" issue. Well done. Green houses which still require that you drive 20,000 miles per year are only a bit better than normal tract houses in the same place - neither one is as good as the least efficient house or apartment from which you can walk, bike, ride the bus, or just drive a lot less.
Yeah, it would be really nice to see someone say, "part of our 'master plan' involves a grocery store the neighbors can walk to and we're negotiating with Capital Metro to get bus service to our development."
What's so bad about sprawl. You live out in sprawless West Texas for a few years and then tell me you don't want development sprawl. Anything's better than nothing when there's nothing to do in your town but rape a couple of farm animals.
Well said Tim & even you M1EK. I think this is just capitalization on a fad. They know people are trying to be green because its cool and they know they'll be able to charge a lot more for the homes this way while not really doing much for the environment at all.