Enjoying a morning coffee in at the local coffee shop usually includes a flip through the newspapers, in today’s case the Toronto Sun, and I couldn’t help notice an advertisement from Mattamy Homes. In particular, this ad was for their Mattamy’s Hawthorne Village subdivision in Milton.
Mattamy is highlighting the Energy Star homes they are building, and even have a banner to their own green initiative program.
Everything is this ad looks great!
Even the lovely artists rendering of The Ravenwood, a 3,390 square foot monstrosity available for a mere $501,990.
Wait a minute! What was that now?
3,390 square feet?
Energy Star?
One of these things is not like the other….
This is a great example of what is wrong with a program like Energy Star and how our corporate world does not really understand the point, even if they do get that there is a growing market for this new-fangled public demand for efficiency.
Don’t get me wrong, Energy Star is a great program and I applaud Mattamy for getting with the program and offering this choice to their customers. But the program is only a comparison of what is being built against an older standard (read current building code) way of doing things. Energy Star does nothing to promote buying smaller in the first place.
Mattamy will, of course, have a market for these homes. There are plenty of buyers of 3,390 square foot homes who might be interested in efficiency, and I think it’s great that they are. But there are not too many Green buyers, primarily looking for efficient living conditions, who will be in the market for a 3,390 square foot home. Mollie and I recently moved from our 1,500 square foot detached to a 1,200 square foot townhouse looking for, among other things, energy efficiency.
I’ve got a message for Mattamy. It’s called Environmental Footprint for a reason.
Some may argue with me, saying that there are people who need more space, or that people should be allowed to make whatever choice they can afford, and if we can get more efficient with those choices that’s the key.
Granted. But I’ll point out that this is the same phenomena as the North American car companies dramatically increasing the efficiency of their engines over the past 25 years, at the same time as increasing the power, size and weight of the vehicles sold, resulting in a lower fuel efficiency for the fleet and making the transportation sector into 1/3 of our greenhouse gas emissions.
In effect, Mattamy is building and marketing the Humvee of Homes.
In a twist of irony, I think it would be a great statistic to see how many SUV’s end up parked in these driveways.
show hide 7 comments
You are correct they are too damn big. I do occassionaly desire a 4th bedroom but to do so in todays market would mean adding 100′s (usually many 100′s) of sq ft or more. Why does the addition of a 10×10 room seem to require a the house to become bigger everywhere?
I looked at the add online and the “Improvements” energy star added will make a difference but they are so far behind what they could have been. Considering the cost of these houses the price of doing these houses correctly would have been minimal (percentage wise) over the life of the house and the future energy savings.
Eco studs, which would have been 1-2 % cost of cost and maybe 2% of house volume could give a lab rated R56 with blown cellulose insulation, go all out and spray foam insulation and you can be sure to a higher R rating and absolutely no air passage, that often nullifies even the thickest fibre glass. The biggest advantage of the eco-stud is the breaking of most of the thermal bridge that allows heat to pass through the framing members. Feel your outside walls in feb, you can feel the studs as cold spots on the wall, condensation will also show up if you are too moist.
The Saturday Star also had an article on insulation claiming fibreglass does not cut it when translated from lab to real usage due to air leakage (both through and around). It’s not mentioned in the article but moisture trapped between walls also nullifies fibre glass, rock wool a little less, foam mostly ignores water.
http://www.thestar.com/living/article/246794
While I know foam outgasses if it’s true that Fibre Glass does not work in reality as it does in the lab, then we are buying into a false sense of security insulating in the normal way.
SIPs are a great system for building which can allow you to steeply peak your roof, insulating at the roof line rather than the ceiling giving you new, nearly free space that will offset the added 5% cost of using SIPs. Air tight and with minimal thermal bridge makes SIPs a very good choice. SIPs however garner their strength from stressed panels not typical vertical wood members, this means they don’t bear load the same as stick frame so they do not suit all architectural styles.
Mattamy should have included passive solar features and orientation, shared community geothermal, solar hot water, insulated concrete forms for insulation on both sides of the concrete, SIPS or eco studs. One of my pet peeves is the overly complicated roof lines of todays houses, they cost a mint to re-roof and maintain, create multiple troughs which wear out too quickly, are prone to leaks and create all these micro roofs that don’t give you anywhere to mount PV, solar water, solar air especially if your house faces south/south west.
This is a classic example of green washing, you can dress up a pig but it still stinks!
I’ve been designing my Peak Oil, homesteading survivalist retreat in my head for several years and there are so many alternatives to stick frame and fibreglass that get no press. A good portion of the acceptance problem starts at the building permit level where towns do not wish to take chances with anything but the status quo, ditto for insurance companies and mortgage insurance. Builders don’t want to use modern systems as it would take training, more time and increase costs. Homeowners don’t get it yet, the cost will pay off long term. As for size I think a carbon tax will help take monster houses off the market eventually, the initial cost plus the heating will end this trend but far to late to do us any good. I think a additional $5 per sq foot per house per year should be charged on any new house built over 2000 sq ft. starting now. This is not only about carbon but sprawl as well, we need to encourage smaller efficient homes and community not a world of castles, battlements and isolation.
Given my choice I would go for the integrated foam concrete forms for partial basement (north side only) the remainder of the house would be on a slab for thermal mass , the first floor would be load bearing straw bale with second floor/roof being SIPS. 4 bedrooms about 1400 sq feet.
Glenn, thanks for your quick and concise reply. Please feel free to You did not respond to my point about cap-and-trade being proven to work by actual Acid Rain reductions. Can you give me an example of a carbon tax that has worked as well and as cost-effectively as that?
I have two other concerns with Carbon Taxes: (1) Assuming that you set them high enough to work, revenue could eventually vanish as people find ways to really cut carbon. (2) Carbon taxes are inequitable, requiring complex rebates to compensate the poor — which may not reach the poorest people in any event.
First, I wonder what would happen to the Government Budget when the struggle is won, and carbon is no longer emitted — at least not in the quantities that would support general Government services?
This is already a possibility with some existing “sin taxes” like the tobacco tax. Together with other measures, this tax is — all too slowly! — helping to reduce consumption. But once we reach the coveted goal of a “Smoke-Free Ontario” (which I do support), we would need to replace the tobacco tax with revenues from elsewhere.
Gas taxes might be next in line, if and when Plug-In Hybrids and/or Battery Electric Vehicles start to predominate (which again, I do hope would happen). All the municipalities that have been demanding a share of the gas tax might be surprised when there’s much less revenue left to share. (Hmm… but would they be surprised at all?… Miller’s 1% of GST for Cities campaign is starting to become understandable — given that he’s also supporting Toronto’s test of Plug-In Hybrids!..
What’s the “exit strategy” from the more general Carbon Tax, though, i.e. what would you tax after the Carbon Tax does its job?
Second, Carbon Taxes, like any consumption taxes (e.g. GST or PST) are regressive: they take money from people regardless of their ability to pay. Income taxes are designed (in most countries, like Canada), to be progressive: they take the most from those with the higher incomes, who can afford to pay higher rates. Proposals for a flat-rate income tax are usually met by howls of protest from most people to the left of Malcolm “Steve” Forbes, Jr.
A Carbon Tax would be yet another regressive consumption tax. Sure, you can take that revenue and rebate it to lower-income people. You can do it at the point of sale, with a means test built into every carbon purchase. But imagine the privacy issues around having to state your welfare status at the gas pump! –Or you can reduce income taxes (or even give income supplements) for the lowest tax brackets. But like many income tax rebates, this would probably only reach those who bother to fill in tax returns — realistically, you would not reach the poorest of the poor.
A carbon cap has the advantage of simplicity: it directly regulates what we want to reduce, at exactly the level to which we want to reduce it. It does not make the Government dependent on revenue from something that the Government wants to eliminate. And carbon credits under the cap could be allocated equitably (e.g. per capita, like the carbon rations discussed by George Monbiot in his book “Heat” — with top-ups for rural and northern residents who cannot use public transit and/or need more energy to stay warm).
If the cap works, which it most likely will based on history of other caps (see above), then why bother with Carbon Taxes at all?
And by the way, feel free to do more than just peruse my blog at http://climatechangecdn.blogspot.com — turn-around is fair play, and I also welcome your comments!
Glenn,
I think making a house (or car, or whatever) smaller vs. making it efficient are two completely separate concepts. I always believe efficiency to be a concept relative to the output/size. I don’t believe there is anything wrong with buying a house or car that is the appropriate capacity for someone’s needs. If someone has a need for a large house or car, then that’s what they must do.
I would argue that a family of 8 driving a GMC Suburban is perhaps more efficient than a single person driving around in a hybrid. They getting more passenger miles to the gallon than the single person in the hybrid. You can’t expect the family of 8 to shoehorn themselves into that little Smart car!
Isn’t it the same thing with houses?
I also think that the concept of efficient design is perhaps just as, if not more, important in larger homes. Every percentage of energy use saved in the larger home is a higher total savings. Better for the environment, and a bigger financial savings to the homeowner in energy costs.
I just sold my 1,700 square foot Newmarket townhouse and will be moving into a significantly larger home across town in September. I’m not looking forward to the higher costs, but we want to have a family, and just want to have some more space. I don’t think that is being too selfish?
—–
I agree that these are two separate concepts. In fact, I think that’s what I said. But in order to address Climate Change and Peak Oil we will need to decrease our energy use in total, not just in efficiency terms.
Yes, passenger-kilometer’s per litre is the best measure to use, but do you really know that many families of 8 to account for the SUV sales in Canada? The numbers don’t add up.
I would submit that the concept of efficient design is important in every house, regardless of size. And I think we need far more demanding building codes and a tax regime which rewards higher efficiency, and help for the poor to afford it, etc, etc.
Buying a house that is appropriate for your needs is fine. But I think we have a bit of a disconnect in this country about what our needs actually are, and what our “perceived needs” are costing us. I am not calling you selfish for needing what you need. Who am I to judge? But statistically, we use far more energy per capita, live in far larger homes, and drive far less fuel efficient cars than most of the rest of the world, so beyond our individual “needs” is a society that “wants” more than is actually necessary.
And the entire point of my post is still that we will never address Climate Change in any meaningful way by only getting more efficient and not addressing the monster home subdivisions which have become the norm. –Glenn
[...] detailed (and appreciated) comment from ydzabelishensky on my post, When faced with efficiency, Go BIGGER?, prompted me to write a new [...]
Dave, I think that expectations have changed for the worse when dealing with homes. Yes it is more important to be efficient the larger you get and it certainly is a different issue than size but the demand for larger and larger houses when average family size is shrinking is about “keeping up with the Jones” and over blown expectations than need or rationality.
Over consumption and materialism have made our houses seem small because they are full of crap we don’t really need and yet the average house size has almost doubled since the 60′s all while families shrink. It might not be selfish if you can afford it but it might just be irrational if it’s not be sustainable.
Peak oil could in the next 10 years could double /triple/quaduple our heating bills, make suburban houses over priced, hard to sell and too far away from many peoples work location to maintain their viability as a community. This is definately an era to live as small as you can so you risk less and have the least amount of debt in uncertain economic times. Recent studies on happiness show that getting more is not leaving us fulfilled and we are missing community and social contact as we hide in our castles. Living well and happy is not the same as living large, people have bought into a death sprial of debt and unsustainability that is depleting all resources, peak oil, peak fresh water, peak metals, and sprawl that is eating up our arable land.
A well designed 1700 ft home should have 3-4 bedrooms and should fill 90% of the publics housing “NEED” unfortunately housing developments don’t want to make these kinds of homes and cities would like the higher tax rolls of monster houses on postage stamp lots.The fact that you must go to 2000+ sq ft to get 4 bedrooms is a function of the industry driving the market not the market driving the industry.
I hope your house is nice but having been frequently on construction sites in Newmarket just a few years ago, I doubt you’ve gained any efficiency to go with your bigger size. I’ve seen walls sealed up with holes in the blue foam, fibre glass left out of walls, torn vapour barriers, no gasket on sills. Efficiency can not even start while our standard suck and no one actually upholds building codes.
Long term both efficiency and reasonable sizing will matter.
I am really suspicious of some who swing onto the green bandwagon. Advertising does wonders. Mattamy won awards and they were the ones who sold a house without electrical power and had the furnace illegally wired (code) to the house next door. A Town of Oakville building inspector passed this. Green!!! Mattamy began construction on land that had recently been fertilized with bio-solids (human waste) and the Province had to stop them. Concerned about the environment and safe… Must be a different definition for Green…
I know a fellow who was doing a job that required going to developments and noting hydrants, supper boxes, transformers and such so they could be used to alter property tax rates of houses within a development. It was in Markham.
When he went to look at these lots he had papers in his hands claiming they had been inspected and passed yet the holes were still being dug.
I’ve been in a brand new home with water on the basement floor and the crackling sound of electrical arcs coming from the fuse box, needless to say I told the owner to move out and call the building inspector.
apathy, too few or pooly trained inspectors and even corruption is rampant in building. Unless I could act as my own contractor, or at least take time off to oversee I doubt I would trust most builders. The reason most contracts ban you from the premisiss while construction is taking place is not for saftey it is so you cant see what the are doing wrong.
If they can’t build a normal house to standards they sure can’t build a green one.