Success Happy

Why are some developers happy to incorporate sustainable technologies into their houses whilst others are not?

With the pressure globally to incorporate sustainable measures into new housing shouldn't ALL developers be willing to integrate the highest number of sustainable technologies into their properties? It appears only a small minority seem happy to go "green". What are the reasons (or excuses) behind this?

Public Comments

1. The market. To succeed in business, you have to give the people what they want. It is clear that people aren't lining up to buy "green". Most see "green" technology for what it is, a marketing ploy to separate you from your dollars. Don't fall for it. We need the government to make it law, Lulu? What country do YOU live in. I live in America. I don't think my government should have a say at all about how I build my home.
2. Most people are green until it costs them. Developers will not willingly add extra cost to their houses as most technologies are only marginally economic i.e solar panels take 10 years to pay back (if you are lucky) but adds about £16,000 to a house therefore making their house more expensive than another developer. . Surveyors looking at a house to value it for your mortgage will discount any "green" technology so you are then unlikely to get as higher percentage of the house value as you need. I agree all/any green technologies should be incorporated in all new houses but it needs the Government to make it law. Then all developers will be forced to incorporate them so have a level playing field economically. It would also bring the technology prices down. So its a classic chicken and egg situation!
3. certain sustainable technologies have a higher cost and a long payback term, while some could be implemented cheaper at the building stage eg: passive solar, insulation. As we pay for the amount of energy we use saving it reduces our running costs. This could be a selling point for a developer. Its up to the consumer to demand these when they purchase a new build. So next time you go to a estate agent/developer demand the building you want. This is not helped by the deficit on the supply side of the property market
4. In addition to the matter of the marketplace not producing the demand for it, technologies change. Some very quickly in fact. Governments do interfere with construction practices, and "green" technologies when more expensive than conventional technologies lose out. Many homes around the world in "developments" are built assuming there is a market for them. While some people look at newly built homes, many more who want to buy a new home want it built the way they want it to be built. Simple fact of the real estate marketplace. Many people also choose to buy older homes. It also takes much more energy to tear down and dispose of old homes than you have been led to believe. It is much more cost effective to fix up an older home. Another fact of the market. If you are so keen on governments demanding homes be built a certain way, go look at the old soviet era apartments in Russia, Ukraine, Belaruse, etc. Would you want to live there? Some people have no choice. While some things may "seem" efficient- centralized hot water supply source, centralized heat- the reality is if you do not have attentive people tending those 24 hours a day, there are going to breakdowns. Would you like to be without heat or water in a cold winter? Until sustainability can compete, it will not be accepted. Some sustainable housing I think even you would not want to live in- Thatch and wattle huts for example- very sustainable. You have to ask yourself why you are not living in one currently? To answer that you answer some of your own questions. Also bear in mind when your parents tell you something you disagree with- are you going to be happy having some bureaucrat telling you how to build or how to live when you are 40 years old? If you are like most kids and teens, you will have times now when you disagree with your parents decision when they tell you to do something- do you want governments to have that authority to tell you how to live every aspect of your life? Be careful what you wish for- you might end up with it. The rights you surrender will be your own.
5. We need some government, or some form of global consensus-forming mechanism, to stop us peeing in the swimming pool. Most non-green technologies have a hidden global cost - generating emissions and pollution costs the planet, and thus everyone, real money eventually. But there is no way to charge homeowners for the costs of cleaning the emissions from their fossil-fuel heating systems, so they are less expensive.
6. I don't think it is a question green or not. Its all down to cost. Lets face it it would be great to be green. However, I am unable to find the cost of a sun hat to make my electricity free and upload excess to the national grid oh how i wish. There is a catch for those who get a freeby! due to the fact that you are then leasing the roof to the company owning the solar panels you then will be unable to sell your house as mortgage companies will not issue a loan on a house that is part leased. Cavity wall insulation in some cases causes mould problems yucky! so going green needs to be really thought about before committing
7. Some developers build houses for lower income people that can not afford a bunch of extra crap in their house. Why doesn't every developer build $2 million houses? It is obvious that if everyone lived in a $2 million house everyone would live in a nice neighborhood.
8. Many communities like mine forbid green technologies from succeeding. How can they sell their. High priced monster homes when there's a solar panel next door. It's called "not in my back yard"!
9. In some states and countries, Building Codes or Building Regulations set minimum standards to prevent the erection of wasteful designs. These codes can, over time, drive-up environmental, safety and social standards and ensure that all developers are selling fairly on a "level playing field", simultaneously boosting demand for talented labour, benign techniques and products. Where a far-sighted, charitable or public body owns the land or intends to be a landlord for the planned development, it might well insist upon higher standards from the outset, even though the benefis of lower running costs might accrue to others (eg. future occupiers - residents or employers).