Mandating Zero Energy Homes

What if the Niagara Region insisted in its Official Plan that all new subdivisions were required to have zero-energy homes? Imagine the fuss, the complaining, the backlash. They would, however, be doing us all a huge favour. It can be reasonably imagined that homes that are energy inefficient will lose market value. With oil at $132/barrel, today's price and climbing, it is possible that all energy costs, including natural gas, will have a profoundly negative impact of the viability of homes that are poorly designed.

A net-zero energy home is capable of producing an annual output of renewable energy that is equal to the total amount of its annual purchased energy.
Is this far fetched? In fact no, Austin Texas is considering the idea. This from Builder Magazine:

Austin has appointed a task force to study the feasibility of a change in the building code that would require all new single-family homes in the city to be zero-energy–capable by 2015.

"The NAHB Research Center put out a report this year that stated that zero-energy homes are feasible across the U.S. by 2020," says Richard Morgan, green building manager for Austin Energy, the city-owned utility. "We figure we're a little ahead of the curve here, and 2015 should be feasible for us."

The city's goal is to make all homes built within the jurisdiction of Austin zero-energy–capable with on-site energy generation, which with today's technology means solar voltaics, Morgan says. That would make the houses about 60 percent more efficient than similar units built today.

If large numbers of homes are not viable in a high energy cost market, the whole local economy will suffer, people will double up or leave, and the tax base will diminish. Services will suffer, including mass transportation. All in all not a pretty picture and demonstrating that Smart Growth is also about ensuring the 'private' sector and well as the public infrastructure are equally important areas of concern.

Watering Paradise

I stood watering Mother's petunias last week. They were looking fine. So were the geraniums. The grass was coming in nicely. All in all a fine Minnesota garden. Sadly it was in Apache Junction, part of metro Phoenix. On the other side of the wall was the desert, dry and brown as it moved into summer. Mom loves her garden and I don't say anything. As a good son I just hold the hose spilling out the precious water that is the life blood of a very large consumer-oriented population, living where they have no hope of sustainable living in those numbers. Some other observations:

• Mom is careful about recycling pop cans which can be taken down to the club house. Everything else – everything- is headed for the landfill. There is no recycling program. Governments have no courage to do so as the voters, many on fixed income, will not tolerate the cost.
  
• Roads are four and 6 lanes wide, even on secondary roads. They are largely deserted. The automobile is king. No one walks because of the heat. On the positive side, the boulevards are beautifully landscaped. Public realms are wonderfully designed and maintained.
  
• No solar collectors. Then again, a shower did not need the hot water turned on – only 'cold' water.
  
• I saw very few recreational vehicles. Most of the snow birds had left, but there were almost none on the road to Tucson. Everyone was complaining about the cost of gas.
  

We came back to Canada to cold wet weather, leaving behind 90º F and dry comfort. This week it is over 100º F and the petunias are dying. Arizona was oddly attractive and at the same time unreal. The guilty pleasure of an unsustainable life……… When gas is $10 a gallon, the city in the desert will likely suffer the same fate as the petunias.

Development Charges on Size

This directly relates to development charges. I find it interesting that we in Niagara continue to charge the same for monster McMansions as we do for modest homes. If we want to encourage smart growth, living space sizes need to come down to encourage better density. This from Cooltown Studios:

Imagine if half of all your employees suddenly couldn't afford to live conveniently near your workplace? Many of them would leave rather than spend two hours of their daily lives in traffic or transit. Of course you'd replace them, but you wouldn't be attracting the same level of talent, then naturally, your customers would gradually realize the same.
Thus local businesses today are advocating for more 'workforce housing' - housing that is attainable to working families earning between 60%-120% of the median income for the area, and typically unsubsidized, as defined by real estate industry representative Urban Land Institute.
The following survey results of local businesses (this one in New Orleans) reflects a growing national concern, a result of a peaking perception that more square footage is better.
- 71% said the lack of workforce housing negatively impacted their business;
- 65% considered the need serious;
-42% felt developer incentives would increase the supply;
- 33% proposed public-private partnerships as the answer.
Myriad solutions are provided for such a pervasive issue, but the most logical lies with the fact that the average area of living space per occupant in the U.S. was 290 s.f. in 1950 and is 939 s.f. today. So maybe the answer isn't how do we build affordable 1200 s.f. homes, but how do we make 'not so big' cool again

So Long Suburbia??

Author James Kunstler says the end of the Automotive Age is near, along with all the at dependent on it. From Business Week:

The suburbs were largely products of industrialism. We had a huge supply of oil and cheap undeveloped land, and we decided to become a happy, motoring utopia. It had many practical benefits. The trouble is after a while it became a cartoon
of country living. Cheap oil is what made suburbia possible. But we'll run into problems with spot shortages. As we get into trouble with these supplies, our economy will suffer. Major instabilities in the system will present themselves much sooner than we are led to believe. And by that I mean the way we
produce food, the way we conduct commerce, and the way we move around.

The rise and fall of oil production is asymmetrical. In other words, it'll be a steeper, rockier tumble down than the steady increase going up. My own sense of things is that we will be in very serious trouble inside of five years. I get people who come up to the podium after a speaking engagement to tell me they've just gotten a Prius, expecting brownie points. It's not that we're driving the wrong cars. It's that we're driving cars of any size, incessantly.

Virtually anything organized on a grand scale is liable to fall into trouble—government, finance, corporate enterprise, agribusiness, schools. Our gigantic metroplex cities will prove to be inconsistent with the energy diet of our future. I think our smaller cities and towns will be reactivated. We are going to be a far less affluent society.

This sounds ominous, but is consistent with what many have been saying for some time. Imagine a week or a month of shortages at the pump. The oil is still flowing, but not as quickly as we expect. Spot shortages in Niagara will have the same effect as everywhere else.

• People will stop buying anything but the essentials. They will stop travelling (goodbye Niagara Falls).
• They will not be eating out as much.
• Big ticket items, homes, cars, etc, will simply crawl to a halt until there is some clarity in the market.

When it become clear that the shortages are not predictable, unnecessary travel will be a thing of the past for most people. Buses, trains, (not airplanes) will be in demand. Home close to city centres will be in demand. Prices for suburban homes will be in decline.

Devaluing Suburbs

This from the U.S. Environmental and Energy Study Institute and the Urban Land Institute and reported on NPR. Living in urban centres may not be just fashionable. It is clear that rising fuel prices will make suburban life less tolerable. Some cities, like Portland, Oregon, have people spending 10% of their discretionary income on transportation. Other cities, like Los Angeles require residents to pay on average 35%. Guess where Policy Analyst Jan Mueller says people are likely headed?

For a long time, cheap energy did allow people to make a choice to save money to live in a place that was less expensive further out. It's becoming less competitive from a financial and a time standpoint to live further out. Congress needs to encourage cities to invest more in existing infrastructure and less in new roads and developments. These changes will help reduce global warming and preserve home values in a down market. Houses closer in to cities have appreciated more than homes that require a long commute to urban centers.

Less roads (hear that Niagara Region?) and better downtowns. That is the future. It is also the future of where property values will increase.