Opinion article criticizes green building as too expensive
Here is an opinion article published in the Chico Enterprise Record. It is probably a typical first reaction many advocates of green building run into when pitching a project. What arguments would you use to counter it?
Titles and “gold certificates” are well and good, but really, 20,000 square feet at a cost of $46 million? I spent a year in Saudi Arabia overseeing construction projects, and princes’ palaces didn’t cost $2,300 per square foot.
I don’t think this is something to be proud of — I’d be rather embarrassed.
As a semi-retired architect, I despise the waste of money. Cost efficiency is every bit as important as energy efficiency, and with today’s advances in artificial lighting, natural light can be cost-efficiently emulated without the burdensome solar heat gain.
I welcome a response from any university official involved with this project, or a representative of the design team in a position to allay the concerns of an interested local citizen.
– Rudy P. Paolini, Paradise
In general, green building costs more at the outset, but cuts operating costs through energy conservation. It also reduces the environmental impact of both construction and maintenance.
Midge Salley said,
July 25, 2007 @ 8:19 am
I would like to comment on the following statement:
“In general, green building costs more at the outset, but cuts operating costs through energy conservation. It also reduces the environmental impact of both construction and maintenance.”
I understand the “long range savings”. But, it takes “now” money to create the “long range savings”. I think building green is a luxury that is out of reach for the common home builder, or people like me that has a “now” project to build green on a small budget. My husband and I are building a retreat. We need the “long range savings”. I’m not sure how it is going to happen with our “now” money. I appreciate any comments. Midge