blog

Archive for August, 2010

Is Air Quality Important? Part #1

Monday, August 30th, 2010

Was Air Quality on the top of your list of “must have’s” for your last home purchase?

Let’s be truthful, if you are like most people air quality probably didn’t make your “must have” list and in fact I bet you didn’t give much, if any, consideration to air quality when buying existing or building a new home,  but it is VERY-VERY-VERY important.

In the last several years, a growing body of scientific evidence has indicated that the air within homes can be more seriously polluted than the outdoor air in even the largest and most industrialized cities.  Other research indicates that people spend approximately 90 percent of their time indoors. Thus, for many people, the risks to health may be greater due to exposure to air pollution indoors than outdoors.

Consider the following….

RADON: Unlike natural gas that has a scent added so you can smell it, radon is a completely colorless, odorless, radioactive gas. The most common source of indoor radon is uranium in the soil that naturally breaks down and releases into the air as a gas called radon. The EPA estimates that one in every fifteen homes in the United States has radon (http://www.epa.gov/greenbuilding/pubs/gbstats.pdf ).  It is fair to assume that this percentage is higher in the midwest (Zone 1) where Radon is more concentrated (http://www.epa.gov/radon/images/zonemapcolor_800.jpg). The Mayo clinic reported more than ten years ago that radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer second only to tobacco smoke (http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/tc/radon-health-effects-of-radon-exposure).

The EPA reports that exposure to radon in the home is responsible for an estimated 20,000 lung cancer deaths each year. http://www.epa.gov/radon/index.html.

Many of the people being diagnosed with lung cancer, never smoked a day in their lives. Shockingly, it wasn’t until 2009 that Minnesota Building Code even began requiring Radon Protection Systems be installed in a new home. Even now only a Passive Radon Protection Systems are required which is nothing more than a vent pipe connected to your sump. I am sure this had something to do with politics and some group lobbying law makers. Amaris installs Active Radon Protection Systems.  An Active Radon Protection System involves a simple in-line fan in the attic that runs 24/7. We just feel that a $150-300 exhaust fan is well worth it for our customers considering the health concerns.

Next up mold.  This is gonna get very interesting…

EPA Lead-Based Paint Renovation, Repair & Painting Program (RPP)

Friday, August 27th, 2010

Amaris Company is pleased to announce that Raymond Pruban and Tony Froelich have both successfully completed the Federal EPA requirements to become EPA Lead Certified Renovators’s.  Also, Amaris Company is in the process of becoming an EPA Lead-Safe Certified Firm and shall meet all requirements with regards to the new EPA Lead Regulation 40 CFR Part 745.

This new RPP EPA regulation requires that all homes built prior to 1978 and child occupied facilities must be lead based painted tested prior to any renovation, repair or painting.  Any work areas found to contain lead based paint must be properly managed with lead safe work practices followed. This new regulation  affects contractors, sub-contractors (including painters, carpenters, plumbers, HVAC contractors, electricians, etc), property managers and anyone who disturb lead based paint.

Workers who disturb greater than 6 square feet of interior of paint per room inside, or activities that disturbs greater than 20 square feet on the exterior must follow EPA procedures. This work also includes window replacement, and projects involving demolition. Generally this work includes, but is not limited to, remodeling, repair and maintenance, electrical, plumbing, painting, carpentry, and window replacement.

To learn more, download the EPA’s lead pamphlet http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/lead/pubs/renovaterightbrochure.pdf

Home Much Will A New Home Cost Me?

Monday, August 16th, 2010

Quoting a price for construction of a new home is one of the hardest things to do because every home is unique and truly there are no two houses exactly alike, even if it is only the lot that makes them different.

Perhaps one of the most significant factors to cost of new home construction is the local region. Local building codes and labor play a major role in the cost of new home construction. Local building codes vary widely by region. For example, in warm climates building codes often do not require high-performance windows, higher insulation values or advanced heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems. Strict building codes or lack thereof makes a significant impact on the cost of constructing a new home.

Local labor in certain parts of the country is also higher than in other portions of the country.  In places that unions are prominent in residential new construction, prices will generally be higher too. Strong unions tend to set the upper price point for skilled labor and it seems non-union wages are higher in areas with stronger union representation. As a general rule, places that have excess labor will have lower labor rates. Because of the recession and the real estate new construction depression, the price of labor has been generally falling around the country the last few years. This trend will continue until the supply and demand of labor reverses itself.

Although not included in the cost of building directly, land prices are easily the biggest factor in home and lot package. The cost of a lot in a city like Los Angeles, New York or Chicago could easily cost more than a home with a lot located in Indianapolis or Minneapolis. Also, lot improvements can be a hidden cost if the lot is not previously engineered by a land developer. Soil corrections, raising or lower lot elevations, sourcing utilities not on the edge of the property, drilling a well or installing a septic can all add large costs to the budget. If the lot is not pre-engineered by a land developer, obtaining at least one soil boring (four is best) where the house will be located is a very smart idea before you close on the purchase of the lot.

Finishes are another big contributor to the cost of construction. I have heard some rich and famous have built houses exceeding $5,000 per square foot with the major difference being extremely high-end finishes. Gold plating things can add up quickly. For us regular everyday type folks, even things like kitchen appliances (stove, dishwasher, microwave/hood, and refrigerator/freezer) can cost as little as $2,000, but can easily cost $25,000 for appliances that basically do the same things, like cool and cook food. Lighting fixtures can be much the same story. You can purchase lighting fixtures at your local Home Improvement store for as little as $500-600. Conversely, you can purchase a single dining room chandelier for a few thousand dollars or ten of thousands. In the case of the rich and famous, the sky is the limit on this stuff.

Having a green building background, I also know that green building can cost you your green (cash). There are a lot of builders selling “green bling”. “Green bling” are things that consumers have heard about and want added to their home and either have a slow payback or no payback at all. Unscrupulous builders can take advantage of a buyers desire to be environmentally conscience by selling a bunch of upgrades that are not only expensive, but are not really that green.

For the average American, building a new home will vary depending on the factors above and more, but in general the higher the square footage, the lower the cost per square foot and vice versa. The majority of houses I have seen around the country range from a low of about $80 per square foot to a high of $300 per square foot. In the Midwest, a good guideline is to budget for $150 per square foot on the main floor, $100 per square foot for the second story and $50 per square foot for finished square footage in the lower level. To these budget numbers you add the lot cost and lot improvements and you should be in the ballpark. For example, a 2,400 square foot two story home with 1,2000 square feet on each floor would cost approximately $380,000.000 with a $80,000 lot. In a down economy the pricing will be lower and higher in an up economy. There are wide differences in the quality of construction at the same price point between various builders.

As you can see, there are many factors that go into the cost of a new construction home and therefore it can be very hard to compare pricing between builders. Sending out a set of plans for bid does not mean you are comparing apples to apples. Builders are smart and know how to cut costs to win a build, but that does not mean you are receiving the best value.

Larger builders tend to deliver the most square footage for the least amount of money, but have cost reduced the product to make that happen. Cost reduction usually means materials are on the lower end of the price spectrum. You will see things like hollow-core pre-painted doors, plastic or pre-finished trim, vinyl floors, shower inserts, vinyl siding and the list goes on and on and on. While lower cost materials does not necessarily mean lower quality, there is a definite difference between homes built with higher quality versus lower quality materials. Square footage, house floor plan and granite counter-tops shouldn’t be the only considerations if you are planning on living in that home more than 5-10 years.

On the other hand, smaller builders tend to provide custom type construction with higher building materials, but can come with their own set of challenges. Smaller builders may not have adequate staff to provide the customer service you may be looking for or may not even be in business in five years. Many smaller builders fail to run a very tight ship financially and the cost of your project could easily be over budget. Also, using a smaller builder does not guarantee a quality built home. It is best to do your homework on any of the builders you are considering.

As a builder myself, we use an open book methodology. This means the consumer sees all actual costs and the actual builder’s profit. I am not advocating our system over another, but I find in todays’ world of educated consumers, consumers understand a builder needs to make a profit and seem to be more comfortable when that number is fully disclosed. To that end, I have never had a customer come to us and ask us to cut our profit.

I am not sure I adequately answered the question “How much will building a new home cost me”, but hopefully you have a better understanding of the things that attract cost and some ideas about how to go about selecting a builder.

Green Building Myth’s Part #4

Friday, August 13th, 2010

Myth #4 – Green houses look weird

Back about thirty years ago when the energy crisis happened, there were a bunch of new housing technologies experimented with. Structures like dome and earth homes suddenly were being built by universities and we were told they were going to be the next great thing.  Not.  There were also systems like double exterior wall designs,  SIPP’s and ICF’s which were all given birth during this time period.  None of these ideas have ever made it to the main stream building industry.

There is also a sub-culture of extreme green environmentalists that have proposed houses should be made  from things like hay, rubber tires and coke bottles, etc. Ridiculous!

Today, this idea of living in a green home is a home that looks exactly like any other, it just out performs the normal homes. Green houses don’t look weird and in many cases use products that you desire.

Challenges of Green Building – Part #5

Wednesday, August 11th, 2010

MORTGAGE INDUSTRY IS WORST

There are special “energy efficient” mortgages out there, in theory. This link will give you some background information about these programs (http://resnet.us/mortgages). Also you could read my past posts called “Energy Efficient Mortgages”. It is a five part post that details out the challenges and products out there.  The links in those posts are out of date, but the information in the post is still fairly current.

My frustration as a green builder, is I still have not found anyone willing to underwrite these mortgages. An even bigger problem, is obtaining construction loans, period. If new green home construction received construction loan backing similar to the SBA does for small business, I believe you would see a boom in green building activity. Optionally, we need is a single-close “green” mortgage product offered by the FHA or Fannie.  My belief is that construction loans are a major problem for all builders and would be a major carrot for builder to change over their practices.

THE FALLLOUT

What is the fallout of all this? If the appraisal comes in low, the buyer automatically thinks they are paying too much and that is hard to argue with. Unless the consumer can make up the difference with a larger down payment (unlikely), the appraisal MUST support the cost of the project.  Because Amaris approaches green building from a price performance perspective, we have been able to by-pass this problem, but it has been challenging.  If we were to ignore the value equation and just follow green specifications blindly, we wouldn’t be building any “green” homes.

Challenges of Green Building – Part #4

Monday, August 9th, 2010

THE APPRAISAL INDUSTRY NOT UP TO SPEED:

One of the major challenges to obtaining a mortgage these days is obtaining an appraisal supporting the purchase price. In general, Appraisers are not trained in “green” and from what I have been able to glean from my industry friends, there are no industry standards or places on the appraisal forms for checking or indicating the home is “green” and assigning a value to those improvements.  It is my understanding that an appraiser can increase the quality of the construction from “average” to “above average”, etc which has nothing to do with anything.

The second issue with the appraisal industry, as it relates to appraisals on “green” homes, is similar to the building departments / inspectors. Appraisers are trained to appraise homes that are more or less built to code (at the date of construction) and they do not know the value / cost of green improvements and may not have access to the tools to get the proper information. In the appraisers defense, they are generally only getting paid $200-$400 for an average appraisal and they are under tremendous scrutiny.  As a result, they are not very  motivated to do anything that would be questioned because it could easily cost them a banks appraisal business.

Even if they wanted to support the value, they might not be able to and stay with all the guidelines. What I have been told is that, if I build for example, a five bedroom home and the are market comps to support a higher price by say $20,000, that does no mean the home will appraise for $20,000 more.  The actual number of five bedrooms homes sold and the projected demand for five bedrooms affects the appraisers valuation. It could actually happen that the appraiser could comp a five bedroom for less than a four bedroom based on what they are seeing in terms of the number of sold comps, demand, listings, etc.  I have always struggled to understand this issue, but I believe the same problem is true for “green” building.  If there is no definable market for “green” (e.g. in most markets), the appraiser is handicapped.  In essence, the “green” improvements may have no resale / market value and therefore cannot be supported in the appraisal value.

We do provide detailed specifications and drawings to the lender we hope gets to the appraiser, which would at least alert the appraiser to the fact the home is “green” and will undergo significant construction techniques and improvements.

The latest news, on June 02, 2010, the Appraisal Institute released a new book teaching appraisers how to appraise ”green” homes. I have also noticed they are beginning to offer seminars too. This is all very good, but there is much work to be done. Until there are standards for appraisers with FHA, Fannie and Freddie appraisal forms  and guidance for appraisers to follow, appraising ”green” homes will remain a hit an miss situation.

Challenges of Green Building – Part #3

Friday, August 6th, 2010

GREEN WASHING BY COMPETITORS:

There is a lot of attention being given to the word “green” these days. Green can mean a lot of things to a lot of people and it is becoming a very subjective word. Any seller of products can slap a “green” label on their marketing and call it “green”. The same is true in the building business.

There are green programs surfacing that are nothing more than code built homes with a few minor changes.  Consumers are beginning to be a bit cynical of the word “green” and they should be. How do we know a product is “green” and how “green” is it? I can assure, you building to the MINIMUM state building codes is NOT green.

IT GETS WORSE:

A few years ago, Amaris was building a house kitty-corner from another house being built by another local builder. The buyer of that other house, I will call her Amy,  kept watching our house go up.  One day Amy comes over and commented that she had been watching the construction of our house and that there was literally nothing the same between her house and ours (no surprise to us). She noted things like the closed cell insulation instead of the standard R-19 fiberglass batts, metal strapping,  storm shelter, and the structural insulated sheathing (SIS) instead of OSB.  Amy told us she had asked her builder if he was going to be using closed cell insulation on her house. Like most home buyers, Amy didn’t know what she was getting (“ingredients”) ahead of time.  The builders response was he was using “foam” to spray the electrical boxes closed. Of course, this is part of the state building code to close all air passages with “foam” for fire retardation purposes and has nothing to do with insulation.  When I heard this, it was hard for me not to laugh out loud, but sadly this is what we have to compete against everyday, which is not easy. Builders cut corners wherever they can, put in sexy finishes and consumers don’t know how to sort out the difference.

The bottom line, is consumers are not educated and there is a ton of misinformation out there making it harder for quality conscience builders to be rewarded for their efforts.

Challenges of Green Building – Part #2

Wednesday, August 4th, 2010

CONSUMERS NOT INFORMED

A consumer can buy a box of animal crackers and read the ingredients label to know exactly what is inside that product. Conversely, when you buy a new home the consumer generally has no idea what they are buying.  What are the details of the building systems and will the consumer ultimately be satisfied purchasing a home that is built to the MINIMUM state building codes? There is no state law the requires builders to provide the full details (“ingredients”) of the building systems; all a builder is required to do is build to the MINIMUM state building codes.

LIPSTICK ON A PIG

Consumers know what the finishes of their home are going to be. These items are things like floor coverings, cabinets, granite counter-tops, doors & trim, paint colors, tile ,etc. Picking these items is a very exciting part of purchasing a new home.  The finishes are what are on the outside of the box so to speak, but what about the ingredients? Consumers have no idea how their home is being constructed; and they assume local building codes protect them.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

How durable will your new home be? Will it have mold in ten years or the day it is finished? Will it rot away from the inside because of poor building practices? Will it have water drainage problems? What is the air quality going to be like? Will it contribute to respiratory problems or not? Is it energy and water efficient? How much energy will it consume to keep you comfortable? Is the house safe from a high wind event?

Putting granite counter-tops on a poorly built home is like putting lipstick on a pig!

When those granite counter-tops are installed, did the builder add additional floor trusses to support the extra weight or will the floor sag in five years?  Did you know that a sagging floor caused by granite counter-tops is NOT a warranty item? There is a lot more to a home than the size of the box and the finishes. A scientifically built home looks are durability, water management, energy efficiency, air quality, impact on the environment, comfort and much, much more.

Unfortunately, consumers are focused on the finishes (“lipstick”) and not concerned about the ingredients. It is not all that dissimilar to the animal crackers. The vast majority of consumers don’t pay much attention what the ingredients are, so long as it tastes good. The difference is a home  is a long-term investment which will have long-term inpact on your safety, health, comfort and total cost of ownership.

Challenges of Green Building – Part #1

Monday, August 2nd, 2010

BUILDERS ARE VERY SLOW TO CHANGE:

The vast majority of builders (99%+)  build to the MINIMUM state building codes even if it doesn’t cost any more to build to higher quality. Builders are generally a very reluctant group that resists most change.  Builders are generally afraid of implementing new products because it takes time and resources to do the homework and gain an understanding how the products will integrate into the building system.  Builders prefer to wait for someone else to figure things out.  At our office we call it the “builder mentality”. However, even with the mandate to change, I found employees resistant to change, especially when those changes are perceived as being more work.

SUB-CONTRACTORS ARE EVEN WORSE:

When we began improving our building practices, we gave every one of our sub-contractor the opportunity to change with us. We were patient and tried to implement change over the course of construction of a half dozen homes. In the end, we had to fire most sub-contractors because they simply would not change.  Maybe this is one of the reasons builders are slow to change too; even if a builder wants to change, they are fighting an up hill battle.

BUILDING INSPECTORS DON’T MAKE IT EASY:

Every time, we submit plans for a permit, we have to educate the local building department/inspector. Building departments and inspectors are used to seeing things built a certain way (minimum state code) and when things are significantly different, it slows down the building process.  We have experienced longer permitting times, multiple phone calls and meetings and longer inspection approvals.  Once, we were held up more than six weeks when we implemented a new sheathing product. Even though we had the required paperwork and the building inspector spoke several times with the product engineers, they simply did not want to accept the sheathing product, claiming it “might not” meet wind sheer requirements.  This is the reward of a builder implementing new products.

We finally gave up and laterally braced the exterior  walls with metal strapping and to this day use lateral metal strapping because it is the path of least resistance.

WARRANTIES ARE INCREASINGLY PUNITIVE:

The more States move towards a punitive posture against builders, the less Builders’ can take the risk of implementing new ideas. The downside is simply to great. For example, last year the State of Minnesota changed the building warranty from an “implied” warranty to a “specific” warranty. Bankruptcy of a building company no longer protects the builder from personal liability.  This does not encourage the implementation of new products and building practices.