I know I owe everyone a redesign of our Performance Sticker and some talk of the various available home energy use metrics, but that is tall order, and I have been a bit short on time. So, instead I’m going to buy a little more time with a discussion of one of the lesser points that arose in the Sticker post comments . . . how involved does government get in the process of making performance stickers a requirement of the building industry?

Comparative energy use performance information has long been a staple of the auto industry. EPA estimates, for better or worse, have given us a means of comparing the fuel use of cars. They also give those of us obsessed with energy efficiency an open invitation to a dark pit of depression when watching car commercials. Seriously, they’re bragging about 24mpg? Pass me a pint of ice cream, a bottle of rye and my blanky . . . isn’t that how everyone deals with depression?

This testing is, as I understand it, carried out by the car manufacturers and reported to the EPA. The EPA then audits 15% or so of them to keep the manufacturers relatively honest. These tests are only performed on new cars and certain large models are exempt. For instance, GM is not required to provide Hummer data to the EPA. Presumably the 10mpg results would just be too embarrassing for everyone.

Car manufacturers test only a single representative of a given model for mileage as each is expected to be nearly identical. While the results are not always particularly accurate when compared with real life performance, they do provide a fairly reasonable means of comparing different models. For instance, I may not know what the exact, real-life mileage of my Accord will be, but I can be fairly certain it is going to be  15 to 20 mpg better than what I would get from that Dodge Ram.

All of this originated with a “Gas Guzzler” tax intended to encourage the production and purchase of more efficient private automobiles. Larger vehicles like trucks and vans were left out because they were seldom owned for private use. The law assumed if you had a truck or van, you had a legitimate use for it. How surprised those lawmakers would be today when a 6,000 lb truck is considered a perfectly reasonable vehicle for running your 80lb child to soccer practice.

Legally we can't call this a "Gas Guzzler"

So, how might this system apply to homes? Basically, we have a government mandated test for new products tied to a tax. Could that work in the housing market? With what changes? Believe it or not, I have an opinion.

Let’s start with the idea of a tax. We have an established habit of taxing things that have a negative effect on individuals and/or those around them. We tax liquor, tobacco, gas guzzlers, etc. We also tend to be more comfortable with taxes on non-necessities. At a NY grocery store there isn’t a tax on milk, but you’ll be paying one for the cookies to go with it. I think we can agree that low-performance homes fall in one if not both of these categories. So, a tax would not be outside  our historical inclination.

Let’s say we impose a graduated tax based on the projected energy use of new buildings. This tax would be levied either on new construction builders or buyers. I would argue builders as the buyers are going to be paying it either way. Leaving the exact metric out of this for the moment, let’s imagine that we base this tax on the results of some basic standard test and analysis. Results of this test must be sent to the appropriate agency. The agency would then levy the tax and provide an official document to be used in the sale or resale of the home in question.

There are, of course, some challenges. In this plan, each individual home would need to be analyzed. Solar orientation is the biggest reason for this individual attention, though variation in construction quality can certainly not be discounted. This could be conceived as an unreasonable burden on the builder. However, one could also argue that builders have been unreasonably unburdened in this respect for too long. Home performance, unlike performance in nearly every other consumer product, has remained relatively unchanged for a long, long time. This burden could also be reduced by providing a baseline rating based on code requirements. Homes would receive this rating without the necessity for more elaborate testing and be taxed accordingly. Builders would still be required to share the rating with potential buyers.

Another challenge could be oversight. If left to their own devices there is little doubt that some builders would be less than honest in reporting certain specifications. Insulation values, for instance, are an excellent opportunity for subterfuge. The oversight agency would have trouble auditing any of the reported homes for  those things, like insulation, which are difficult to inspect once a home is complete. This could be solved by third party inspection and oversight, but again we start to see the system become cumbersome.

A little drywall and this looks perfectly fine.

Lastly, energy use in a home is difficult to predict as so much relies on the habits of the homeowner. Any predicted usage is likely to be way off. However, this is a similar problem in our car example and rather than dissuade universal enforced use of some sort of metric, this unpredictability of behavior encourages it. The more universal the adoption of a metric like this, the more useful it is. This is because such metrics only provide truly useful information in comparison. Sure, the family that leaves the heat set to 85 and doesn’t believe in an off switch is going to use far more energy than the amount on their home’s  performance sticker. However, they can be reasonably sure that they would be using even more energy if they had bought the home with the lower performance rating.

So, to make a long post short, I propose a required analysis provided by a third party for all new homes. This would likely include a blower door test and a detailed analysis of all specs (orientation, insulation, mechanicals, etc.) including an inspection. In a perfect world, this test could be part of the municipal permitting process with the tax revenue from inefficient homes providing the necessary funding. The result would be an easy to understand comparative metric that would inform buyers and determine the gas guzzler style tax on the property. Of course, there is nothing perfect about this world, and my idea is, without a doubt, too simple to work.

To answer a valid concern in the comments of the original performance sticker post, I don’t think a program like this should be mandatory for older homes, but it doesn’t seem unreasonable to expect some required energy oversight for new or fully rehabbed houses. Older homes could choose to use the system as it becomes something buyers expect to see, but as was mentioned in the comments, there is certainly no need to waste money  to tell me a 100 year old Philly row home is inefficient. I expect it’s use in older homes to become a voluntary but eventually expected practice.

Well, I appear to have used this blog post to demonstrate something of the nature of inefficiency. My apologies. It is as Mark Twain once said, “I didn’t have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead.”

If you made it through, tell me what you think. Should we mandate the use of a particular metric to value the energy performance of new homes? Does an accompanying tax for poorly performing homes make sense? What other strategies are there for insuring consistent use of a single standard?

Use the comments to provide your own insights or to chastise me for my long, lazy and confusing writing.

Most of us have probably heard the term “rental grade” in reference to the finishes in an apartment or rental house. Finishes referred to in this way are usually chosen largely for low cost and/or high durability. Things like occupant health or design aesthetic tend to be secondary at best in a “rental grade” unit. This marginalization of the more complex needs of the occupant (beyond simple shelter) is usually carried over into the actual structure of the house as well. Many rental units feature low insulation, sub-par windows, cheap mechanical systems and little to no attention to air sealing. They are inefficient which means they are expensive to the occupant and costly to the environment.

Over 30% of our homes in the US are occupied by renters. This number is likely even higher in major cities. Some of these renters have plenty of choice in the market (from high rise condos that haven’t sold to converted warehouse lofts), but even these privileged renters have very limited options when it comes to performance. For the majority of  less well-funded renters the options are even slimmer. Sure, there are still cool warehouse conversions and old row homes, but if you are hoping for something healthy and efficient, you are likely out of luck. It is also tough to find modern architectural design in anything but the most expensive buildings.

Of course, there is a reason for this, particularly in Philadelphia where we have one of the worst build cost to rental rate ratios in the country. Rental grade is inexpensive. It is cheaper and easier to build drafty, under-insulated units. Material costs are lower if one is unconcerned about air quality. The margins are tight in the Philadelphia rental market, and often, to give people the space they want at a price they can afford, one has to cut corners.

This is a contest where one wants to avoid the top five.

So, how do we upgrade rental grade? How do we improve performance, design and health without pricing everyone out of the units?

To be honest, I’m not sure it’s possible. At least, I think it might be unrealistic to imagine that every rental can perform to the kinds of standards we expect from our homes. Rental grade finishes, in all their unpleasant glory, will remain a consistent part of the landscape. I certainly think there can be improvements in all rentals, but to expect radical change across the entire market is a bit niave. So, the question is, where can we effect change and what kind of change can it be?

I think that there is a market niche in rental much like the one we have identified in homeownership. This is a group of people with a price point somewhere in between the bottom of the rental market where mere location is the driving factor of choice and the top end where money presents broad opportunity. Much like in housing, I think there is an opening to provide a better product at a similar price, but it requires compromise from both the renter and the owner.

The owner needs to be willing to spend the time, energy and money (though hopefully not too much more) up front to create a better building. The design process has to be thoughtful and involved so that performance can improve without ballooning the budget and finish can become more “high end” without high-end products. This upfront investment may mean a slightly less intense focus on pure profit with an eye for the long term benefits of the building strategy on the bottom line. Energy rate increases, growing consumer education and potential incentive structures will add long term value to a building with potentially lower opening margins.

The renter needs to understand that a better designed space can be smaller and still comfortable. They need to embrace urban living so that the city becomes an extension of their home. There may be a slight premium to the spaces but if they can grasp the energy savings and learn to use the building to their advantage that premium evaporates in the face of other savings. There shouldn’t be a sacrifice involved in a well design building. Quite the opposite in fact. But there needs to be a change in perception, especially when it comes to unit size.

Naturally, there will be a finish value difference to be understood as well. This is where design comes in. The expectation of things like granite countertops and other supposedly high-end specifications needs to be challenged by design that redefines affordable materials and creates a new understanding of value. Healthy finish options, artfully assembled can create a better space than all of the sexiest interior design in the most expensive downtown loft. I truly believe that good design can work it’s way around cost.

Lastly, the renter needs some flexibility when it comes to location. This is, however, not a one way street. While the renter should be prepared to find themselves slightly on the edge of their search area, owners need to provide locations that are well connected via transit and in neighborhoods growing in vibrancy and amenities. Location is the key consideration of many renters and owners need to help those renters understand new areas of the city that are not only viable alternatives but in many ways better ones.

This is, as usual, just a rambling account of my own opinions. It is light on details, but that is something we will remedy soon as we begin to develop our own rental units. In fact, we have already sent a couple investor proposals to that end, and if you are interested in getting involved, you need only let us know. We will be talking quite a bit about our specific strategies as those projects get under way.

As always, this post is intended as more of a conversation starter, albiet a long one. So, what do you think? What is the niche market where energy efficient rentals are possible? How much do health, efficiency and design matter to renters? Even if renters aren’t necessarily willing or able to pay much more for a rental are they willing to rethink space requirements, finishes and location in exchange for these things?

Let’s knock this about in the comments.

I have a topic for discussion that has been brewing in my head for some time. It is illustrated below in an educatedguessographic about the New Construction Home Building in the US.

Discuss.

Hypothesis: If builders built homes in the “Market Gap” circle, they would sell them. If banks lended to builders that were catering to this market gap, they would be successful.

I believe that mortgages should be biased toward homes in urban areas. This is not simply because such a bias would offer a positive response to global warming or the growing crises sparked by our energy gluttony (though its effect in those areas couldn’t hurt). Nor is it driven solely by my own love for the vitality and creative energy present in cities. Rather, it is, I believe, a simple economic choice. It seems (from my admittedly limited understanding) that urban mortgages are simply a much better bet for banks.

Suburban bias in mortgages has long been a driver of sprawling development. The FHA in particular has been somewhat notorious over the years for its discouragement of multi-family construction or mortgages for rehabilitation of older buildings (particular urban needs). Less well known, but equally anti-urban, are it’s past directives to underwriters to note the property’s “protection from adverse influences”, “freedom from special hazards” and “appeal” when considering a mortgage. These were liberally interpreted to deny mortgages in urban areas where density itself was seen to “lessen desirability”. I do not doubt that there are several highly defensible factors at play in this situation. The baby boom certainly put a strain on the housing in many cities and made a move to suburban building a quick, attractive fix. There is also a very real argument that the conditions in an industrial city without modern sanitation techniques could have been a very real motivation to those developing an understanding of “appeal”. However, there is equally little doubt that racism, classism and numerous other unsavory “isms” played their own role in favoring suburban development.

Regardless of the history (interesting as it is), we are at a point now where that bias should be shifted. For the first time we have urban populations that exceed those of non-urban. People are moving back to our cleaner, safer cities and some of those people actually still want to own a house. I believe those people should have an easier time getting a mortgage and that their mortgage should be more favorable than the suburban equivalent. Here’s a few reasons why . . .

Reduced Car Ownership

City dwellers own fewer cars than those who live in the suburbs. This is a significant economic advantage. According to the Brookings Institute, “Households in drivable suburban neighborhoods devote on average 24 percent of their income to transportation; those in walkable neighborhoods spend about 12 percent.”  The same article goes on to say that “dropping one car out of the typical household budget can allow that family to afford a $100,000 larger mortgage.” And this is not even considering the heavy subsidy that car owners receive in terms of road maintenance, oil subsidies and free parking. Imagine if, one day in the future, individuals were expected to pay a higher percentage of the cost of owning and operating a car. That seems like a risk that needs considering.

No sidewalks will get you here.

Fewer Average Square Feet

While this feature of urban homes might be a bit painful during an appraisal, the smaller size is a significant advantage when considering the long-term cost of ownership. Smaller homes tend to have smaller expenses in terms of maintenance, energy use and furnishing. These lower costs translate to more cash with which to pay the mortgage.

So many roofs. So many potential leaks.

Lower Landscaping Costs

This may seem like a small item, but by turning yards and outdoor space into largely shared amenities (parks, rec centers, etc.), city dwellers save a significant amount of money over the average suburban dweller. Lawn mowing, pest control, tree maintenance and so on are significant expenses and risks. Eliminating, or at least greatly reducing those costs, can make personal cash flow higher and more predictable.

Tree attacks are less common in the city.

Housing Value Stability

This one is a bit tougher because it assumes an agreement on our basic sociological direction. There are currently more people living in cities than outside of them for the first time in history. I believe this is a trend unlikely to reverse itself as our economy, energy demands and improved city development point in the direction of urbanization. At the very least, we see a heavy bias in polls toward walkable neighborhoods, particularly among those soon to enter the housing market. From this I would argue that an urban home has a better chance of retaining it’s value (or increasing it) than it’s counterpart in a distant, inaccessible exurb.

This doesn't add much. I just liked the image. Click to see it bigger.

There are, of course, a number of arguments against my position. One could point out that education is often a significant expense among those who can afford to own homes in the city. This is true, but it effects less than half the households and is, I think, likely to be a less and less significant problem as demand improves urban public education. One could also point out that crime presents a higher risk in cities, but as our cities become denser and more affluent these problems begin to balance. Also, the risks presented by urban crime are minimal compared to those presented by car accidents (a much more suburban problem). Costs of food and other necessities can be higher in the city, but this is largely a reflection of individual neighborhoods and not the overall urban environment where bargains are still to be had. It is also likely a function of fewer WalMart style shopping opportunities, a situation which can be tough on the wallet but easy on the soul.

I am aware that I am only barely qualified to act as a catalyst for conversation on this topic, but I felt the potential for discussion outweighed the risk of embarrassment if someone calls me out on my poor arguments. So let’s get to it. Where am I wrong? Where am I right? Where could I have been even more right if I actually knew what I was talking about? Are the ongoing costs of homeownership actually lower in the city or am I imagining things? If so, do these lower expenses beyond the mortgage payments make urban buyers a better risk? Do banks take ownership expenses into account? Should they?

The comment section is aptly named. Use it.

Those in a position to fully understand and appreciate the looming consequences of our planet abuse have reached the point where politically motivated equivocation is waning. The tempered suggestions of carbon caps and higher efficiency standards are giving way to more drastic and likely more honest suggestions. The fact that those suggestions can and will be used to make these experts look “extreme”, “out of touch” and “crazy” is overridden by a kind of growing desperation. This is illustrated nicely by a recent call for countries to consider a WWII style rationing in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The mere fact that this “wacky” idea was shared with the ever skeptical and judgmental public should suggest a reason to start devoting even more time and energy to your backyard climate shelter.

Home Sweet Post-Apocolyptic Home

The rationing idea, put forth by Professor Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research, is essentially part of a larger plan to halt the economic expansion of developed nations. According to the professor, this is the only way to reduce global emissions while still giving the undeveloped world a chance to catch up. This could mean restrictions on electricity use, flights, gasoline and other high impact products. It is, of course, total lunacy.

Now, by calling his idea lunacy, I don’t mean to say that he is wrong. This man knows more about our planet’s climate than nearly anyone. The odds are that he is right, or at least near the mark. No, this idea is crazy because it will never actually happen. The populations of every developed country in the world are unlikely to agree to such a sacrifice. I would be shocked to see it considered in Europe, and I would likely pass out if it was even mentioned in the USA (in anything other than a mocking tone of voice). After all, our country does have a less than stellar track record with the acceptance  of climate change science.

China Hasn't Caught Us Yet In This One

We are second only to China in carbon emissions (that’s a title we weren’t sorry to lose), and we have a significant portion of our population who won’t believe global warming is even happening until they are wading through Manhattan or stranded in the new Midwestern desert. Even then, most of them won’t believe that mankind had a thing to do with it unless God Himself (or Herself) descends from the heavens, puts His hands on His hips and says “Dear Me, look what you guys have done to this place.”  And, even if you could somehow convince the masses that the people who have spent their lives studying the climate might know a bit more than those who have spent an equivalent amount of time in a pre-show makeup chair, you would still have to contend with the fact that, contrary to our background check, the people aren’t the only voice to which our government listens. Optimistically, they are a voice, but as we learned from that classic Charlie Sheen vehicle, money talks. Such is the power of our corporations in the election and continued prosperity of our government officials that even a hint of a bill like this is something that would only be found on the desk of a lame duck senator with a terminal medical condition, and that would be buried under a pile of other stuff out of fear that someone might see it.

I’m sure versions of this resistance to climate science exist in other countries. China is certainly hesitant to  accept any explanation that might slow their economic growth. But, I am not much of an expert in other countries. Hell, I’m not much of an expert in this one, but the obvious doesn’t always require expertise. This country is not likely to agree to any limitation of emissions, let alone a rationing system that might impinge on our binge. It is difficult to self-inflict painful choices even when it’s good for you, and the US seems to have grown worse and worse at that kind of decisive governance. No one wants to be the bad guy.

Of course, Professer Anderson knows this. He isn’t an idiot. I am certain he knew how such a suggestion would be perceived, and that is why I find his suggestion so disturbing. Rather than hedge and try for something that might actually gain acceptance, he has placed on the table an obvious impossibility. Why? I think it is because he honestly believes the situation cannot be fixed without such a drastic move and that the time to work through incremental steps is past. Worse, I think he probably feels that being dismissed as crazy will have the same long term results as being accepted with a tamer, more comfortable idea. This, I think, is cause for concern.

So, where does that leave us? Are we in a position where the only hope of halting and reversing our walk down the plank is something that no one will ever accept? Are we too far gone to recover with anything less than an overwhelming response? And if so, what kind of scenario would allow people to accept this kind of painful suggestion? What sort of tactic could circumvent the short sighted interest of the powerful?

I know this post has been outside of our usual set of topics, but I appreciate you bearing with me. I also realize that I have just taken one small soundbite from a huge discussion, but I hoped it could generate an interesting conversation. To that end . . .  If you have something to say about my little tangent, do it in the comments.

There are many appeals to living in a Postgreen home. Some like them for the modern look, some for the increased comfort of a home that has no drafts or spots of significantly varying temperatures, some for the extremely clean air, and many for the very low utility and water bills. It is that last sliver of the population that I will focus on now, specifically for the corollary to those low utility bills, which is very low energy consumption.

After spending a lot of time researching buildings and adding a bit to standard construction costs we’ve been able reduce the energy consumption of our buildings to roughly half that of your typical code-built home, which is about as low as is possible without adding solar PV and/or forcing our occupants to drastically change their habits. This is a great achievement and we look forward to building as many buildings to this level as possible. However, what is interesting is that at this level of energy use other aspects of peoples lives, most notably their habits for transportation and recreation, become an even more significant portion of their total energy consumption.

For example, the rough numbers show that if Chad and his family (who live in the 100k House) took one round trip flight to Hawaii, their portion of the planes total energy use would be equal to the energy consumed in their house over an entire year (it’s also equal to 2 flights to San Francisco and 6 to Chicago or Atlanta). Similarly, if each person in the house drove just 10 miles a day in a standard car (or 20 in a spiffy new hybrid) then this driving would also consume the same amount of energy as the house uses all year (as would a daily ride of 28-miles on bus or rail).

My summary? If you like our homes primarily because of their low energy consumption then its good to be aware of all of the other pieces in your energy pie and see if you can adjust them accordingly.

If you would like to calculate these numbers on your own, I found it easiest to use kilowatts as the standard energy metric and be sure to use source energy (this accounts for the energy lost in burning fossil fuels to create electricity and refining crude into gasoline). For driving, a standard 20 mile per gallon car uses 2.14 kWH/mile and a hybrid uses half of this. For flying we assume 0.17 miles per gallon and 400 passengers to get 0.75 kWH/mile. For bus travel we assume 4 miles per gallon and 14 passengers to get 0.75 kWH/mile. For commuter rail we use Amtrak’s reported number of 0.86 kWH/mile. For light rail we use Portland’s Tri-Met reported number of 0.75 kWH/mile. Finally to calculate your homes energy use multiply your annual electricity usage (already in kWH) by 3 and multiply your annual gas usage in CCF or Therms by 30 (this converts CCF or Therms to kWH) then divide this number by the number of occupants. If you find any better sources for these numbers please let me know in the comments below.

We have talked before about the unreasonable growth in American home sizes even as the average household size continues to decrease. We have also spoken about the need to understand houses based on performance rather than square footage. Often these conversations turn toward educating potential home buyers. Ideas like understandable metrics and car-style performance labeling are usually suggested as a means to teach buyers about benefits of smaller, more efficient homes. The thought is that proper marketing can potentially convert home buyers, but there is a larger more difficult problem which can trump this educational effort. That problem . . . how does one assure that buyers even see your smaller home project and marketing materials when the process of looking for a home is geared to steer them away?

Prior to beginning a home search there is a decision path that potential buyers take. This path whittles home options to a manageable number. Traditionally it looks something like this . . .

• Step 1 -Price
• Step 2 – Location
• Step 3 – Square Footage
• Step 4 – Beds and Baths
• Etc.

Each step down this path eliminates homes that don’t match the determined criteria regardless of their potential other benefits. This is particularly problematic in the square footage category where a well designed smaller home can be eliminated before it even makes its case. Unlike price and location, which have outside factors (proximity to work, budget, etc.), square footage is almost solely a design concern, and a well designed, energy efficient 1400sf could be just as attractive as a 2000sf one. Unfortunately, the person looking for a 2000sf home is unlikely to ever see the smaller house.

One reason this problem might exist is because most real estate agents allow their clients to determine the criteria of their search. They seem to seldom offer alternatives based on their understanding of the market and home buying/ownership expertise. Real estate agents, in many cases, rely on the MLS (multiple listing service) to return search results based strictly on their client’s criteria without suggesting reasonable solutions slightly outside of their requested preferences. This means that even the most appropriate of smaller home projects don’t make it out of the mess of the MLS and in front of potential buyers.

Of course, this is not true of all agents. I’m sure there are many that do say something like, “have you considered a smaller, more energy efficient home?”, but I think those agents are still in the minority. This is not really their fault though either. It is a structural problem with our understanding of home value. The MLS itself makes it difficult to search on any criteria that consider efficiency, sustainability or design. Appraisers have to have their arms firmly twisted to take performance into consideration. Banks claim to offer energy efficient mortgages, but I’m not sure I’ve ever heard of anyone getting one. Size is still firmly in charge of the housing market.

Alright, now I know this post is a bit of a mess, but I wanted to get these thoughts out there so we could talk about them. Obviously we have some ideas about how to get our homes in front of buyers, but I want to hear yours. First though, am I right about this problem? Are good homes being ignored because they are slightly smaller? Who are the culprits behind the aversion to small? And then, how do we keep good, small homes from being ignored?

Let’s talk it out in the comments.

Yuck

Everyone who has read this blog knows I have a certain anti-car bent. It’s not that I am adamantly against the automobile itself. In fact, I actually enjoy driving. One of my favorite jobs I ever had was delivering pizzas. However, I do believe that far too much of our infrastructure is designed for and around the car. I dislike the way that our heavy subsidizing of the automobile has hamstrung our public transit and high speed rail development. I despise the divided highway, strip mall landscapes it has created. I am even inclined to blame some of our degraded sense of community and neighborhood interaction on the car, but for now I want to keep the conversation simpler (if that’s possible). I want to talk specifically about urban garages and their place (if they have one) in our growing cities.

As many of you already know, we are just beginning the development of four homes in Fishtown that will feature garages. The main driving factor behind this was that the existing zoning for the lots already had the garages built in. Rather than reenter the zoning process from scratch, we decided to take these garages on as a design challenge and incorporate them into our homes. This has led to an ongoing and occasionally contentious discussion about urban garages both here in the office and over on the Postgreen Homes Blog. I thought it might be useful to move the discussion here in a way that wasn’t specifically attached to that particular project.

Garages in the city are problematic, and for the most part I would argue that they are unnecessary in a Philadelphia row home. In general I am frustrated with any accommodation for cars. I believe we should be actively trying to discourage individual car ownership in the city. Garages, on-site parking and free street parking all fall into this category for me. While I realize that eliminating all car ownership among city dwellers is impractical, I think we should be doing a bit more to discourage it. As a policy matter I think that fewer privately owned cars would lead to a better urban fabric, happier commuters, cleaner forms of transportation and economic stimulation of urban neighborhoods. But that might just be me . . .

Not a great street for a stroll

On a more practical level urban garages are a problem because:

• The curb cuts in the sidewalk eliminate at least one parking spot per garage. This issue is exacerbated by the fact that many of those garages are used for storage rather than cars. This means that a new home might add a car to the street parking burden while eliminating one of those parking spots. Again, I am less concerned with this issue myself, but it seems to be a major worry in many Philadelphia neighborhoods.
• Garages destroy the interior layout of a first floor. Adding a garage to a narrow row home often creates odd, difficult to use rooms on the first floor. In the interest of square footage, most developers will squeeze some rooms in around the garage, but the result always feels a bit awkward.
• Garages create an unpleasant street condition for pedestrians. The blank walls created by closed garage doors, particularly in long, continuous rows of homes makes for a cold, uncomfortable walking situation. Most garage bearing row homes have nothing but a garage door and an entry door on the entire first floor. There are no windows and thus no interaction with the street. The curb cuts also create a slanted walking condition which can be irritating for those with strollers, walkers or wheelchairs.
• I mentioned this above already, but garages limit interaction with one’s neighbors. They can, if used as intended, eliminate the need to go outside via the front door. In an extreme case all one might see of a garage using neighbor is their car as they pull in and out each day.
• Garages also cause some air quality issues in homes with a door leading directly from the conditioned home space into the garage. Exhaust and other garage related pollutants get into the home each time the door is opened. These can be very unhealthy, particularly in homes without adequate ventilation.

That said, I can see some situations and conditions where a garage might be appropriate. Philadelphia has many narrow streets where no street parking is allowed. This doesn’t mean that people don’t just pull up on the sidewalk and park anyway, but it is not technically legal. These streets offer a situation where the addition of a garage has a much smaller impact on the overall parking situation and might even be considered a positive. Streets like this also tend to be less of a pedestrian thoroughfare, so there is less potential effect on the comfort of those using the sidewalks.

I also believe that a city needs a variety of housing types to accommodate a range of people. Even in a situation where one might think that including car storage with a home is a bad strategy, I believe that there can be justification for a garage as a work/play space (almost like our original WORK model). Garage-like space could be used by artists, musicians and the mechanically inclined as a space to pursue their work and hobbies. The garage door itself could be a huge asset to artists who work on a large scale. The space could also be used by people who enjoy entertaining. The garage could become a covered continuation of their yard. All of this involves a slightly different sort of garage, but it seems appropriate in the right conditions.

Or maybe wooden go-carts . . .

Well, I have already gone on a bit. This is what happens when I don’t post for a while. Now let’s hear something from all of you. What problems did I miss when discussing urban garages? What other possible upsides might there be to providing garages? Are there other better strategies for providing a garage-like space without causing the related problems?

Let’s talk it out in the comments.

An odd image dug it’s way out of my mind the other day. I pictured a person sitting in their suburban track home flipping the channels on the latest hi-def, flat screen TV. I imagined them telling me all the amazing television performance specs as hundreds of channels whisked by at the speed of an excited thumb. Then the scenario changed and instead of a TV it was a phone. State of the art technology and an absurd list of features were captured in a wonderfully small bundle of brilliant engineering, and this imaginary person was excitedly explaining why their phone is the best piece of technology since the calculator watch (everyone loves a calculator watch right?).

This train of thought continued through all sorts of products owned by this figment of my mind. Each product from the home computer to the car in the garage was worthy of exposition. Every thing this person owned was chosen for its exceptionally high performance. The computer had the latest quad core processor and the car had an engine that made lesser cars weep oil. This fictitious friend of mine knew every impressive statistic that lay behind every purchase. Every major item was carefully chosen for quality and performance. Except, of course, for the house.

Around all of these incredible examples of human ingenuity stood the walls of a leaky, inefficient home built with techniques that would have been obsolete many years ago in any other industry. This dreamed up person, who was so careful and picky in all of his other purchases, had bought a shockingly inferior building in which to house them. Leaky inefficient double hung windows shed light on his beautiful machines of modern convenience, but did nothing to lessen the load on his poorly installed, over-sized HVAC system. The structure of his walls were less a protection from the elements than a glowing image of thermal loss in his brand new digital SLR camera with it’s fancy infrared setting.

This person may have been a mere daydream, but I seem to know so many people like him. I have family and friends who were no doubt the inspiration for my phony pal. These are people that demand quality, that save and sacrifice to have the best, that research and question before any purchase. Yet, they almost invariably live in houses that perform worse than a middle school orchestra (sure there are some good ones but come on, for the most part there are few things worse than an amateur string section). For some reason, their expectation of quality does not extend to their home. It is the one place where size trumps performance and location excuses everything.

We need to introduce performance as a key way of understanding a home. We need to point out the absurdity of the ways in which homes are chosen. Somehow we need to convince people that a home should be evaluated much like any other product. It should be expected to be built with recent technology and techniques. It should be durable and well crafted. It should be professionally designed for comfort and ease of use. It should, above all, perform at least as well as the vast collection of smaller purchases we all make.

This is a bit of a rough little post but I would love to hear your thoughts. Has anyone else found it strange that homes aren’t held to the same standards as most products? Why do we think that’s the case and what can we do to remedy it?

Lay it on in the comments.

That’s right, I’m headed down to New Orleans bright and (too) early tomorrow morning to cover Rebuilding Together’s big event in the Big Easy. Fifty for Five is an effort to rehab 50 homes in the Gentilly neighborhood in 5 days and is a sort of celebratory construction binge to mark the more extensive work that the organization has done throughout the region. Volunteers from all over the country are headed down to help repair homes in this Katrina-devastated neighborhood, and I have been asked along to share the effort with whoever happens to wander into this humble blog over the next few days.

First, let’s get the disclaimer out of the way. Sears Holdings (in the guise of the Sears Blue Appliance Crew), the key sponsor for this event, is paying my way down to New Orleans and is even hooking me up with a Flip Cam to document the action. They are not, however, dictating anything that I write (or don’t write) while I’m there. In fact, they have been very clear that there is no requirement on my part to mention them or even the organization running this whole deal if I don’t want to . . . except of course in this disclaimer. The only thing they ask is that I at least write something about the event while I’m there and that I use Twitter to document my doings, a request that definitely needn’t be made. Okay . . . great, that disclaimer stuff is out of the way. If you still have questions about my integrity please use the comments to tear me asunder.

I haven’t been to New Orleans since about a month before Hurricane Katrina. I was on a cross country road trip that was, much as this is meant to be, supposedly focused on writing. In fact, to give a little context, I dug this excerpt from the trip out of the vault . . .

the moon hung turgid
and lurid green over the still spectral
idea of new orleans as we burned
the black miles beneath us.

this is the moment where unsleep
begins to undermine the ground,
where the surface shifts, cracks, divides.

and so on . . .

I’m not sure that actually gives much context. At least we can hope it doesn’t. I’m certainly not planning on turning this trip into some kind of Gonzo take over of the blog, but I’ll admit, we might become a bit of a one trick pony for a couple of days. If you don’t want to hear about New Orleans and the Fifty for Five event, I suggest shifting your focus from now until Monday over to the Postgreen Homes Blog or Hybrid Construction where there will be some good old fashioned building talk. If you do want to hear about New Orleans then hang around and help me out.

I’m not yet entirely sure how I am going to cover this event, but I hope I can make it interesting to all of you who stick it out. I plan to take plenty of video, talk to whoever doesn’t run away from me and, of course, follow my normal digressions to their inevitably confusing conclusion. I also hope to find an insight or two on the repopulation of a city, something that has been occurring in a much slower way here in Philly. Most importantly, I plan on taking whatever useful suggestions I can get from our readers. So, use the comments and use them well. I’m gonna need all the help I can get.