House on Ann Arbor's West side shows homes don't need to look eco-friendly to act like it
It was really the neighborhood and the property that led Kathleen Folger and her husband Scott Ward to buy their home on Ann Arbor's West side in 2002.
After years of saving, Folger and Ward wanted to make their "forever home" the place where they plan to raise their 6-year old son and live out their retirement.
Now under construction on the footprint of their former home, the new house has all the details the homeowners wanted like a big front porch, a walk-in closet and its original stone chimney.
And, while it might not look like it, it will also be a more environmentally-friendly new house than most in the city.
"It seems like energy efficiency has gone mainstream," Folger said. "It's for everyday people trying to figure out 'What can I do?"
Planned to receive a Platinum Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design certification, the highest possible from the U.S. Green Building Council, the home will be featured in a public tour called “Behind the Drywall: The Visible Green House” on Saturday.
The ranch-style house isn’t especially large, nor does it have any sort of solar panels or wind turbines or any of the funky angular architecture or green roofs that are often characteristic of eco-friendly homes.
Created using materials found nearly as easily as those used to build a traditionally designed home, it is the decidedly unglamorous changes in the way the home is designed and put together that make the difference.
That’s precisely the point, according to Doug Selby and Michael Klement, the lead builder and architect, respectively, who teamed up for the third time to create a deep green renovated home in Ann Arbor.
“Most of the time, the thing that makes a home green is not the stuff you see, but it’s the stuff that’s working in the background,” said Selby of Meadowlark Builders in Ann Arbor. “Every home can have these characteristics.”
The house was rebuilt on its original footprint, and is largely made of wood recycled from the previous house.
Among other environmentally-sustainable features, the home:
• Was built to have a super-insulated building envelope to trap energy indoors using spray polyurethane foam insulation and altered building techniques to further increase insulation and decrease materials used in building the structure.• Has windows and overhangs designed to make the home feel larger and take advantage of sunlight for a geothermal furnace system.
• Has plumbing which uses a series of tubes that are smaller in diameter than typical copper piping, which reduce overall water use. Also in the plans are dual-flush toilets and low-flow showerheads to preserve water.
While solar panels and a geothermal water heater were too much for their budget, the home was purposely designed more easily be retrofitted with those features later. Certain walls were built in a way which would make them easy to move due to changing mobility needs of the residents, said Klement, of Architectural Resource in Ann Arbor.
The cost of completing a deep-green remodel like this one costs around $400,000 to $450,000, about $60,000 more than the cost of using traditional building techniques, Selby said.
It would have a payoff period of about 10 years, figuring an annual increase of about eight percent for natural gas, he said.
Not everyone who’s building a new home or remodeling their existing home following environmentally-sustainable guidelines can go as far as Folger and Ward, Selby said.
Choosing certain elements, such as creating a well-insulated home, can give a homeowner the biggest bang for their buck, Selby said.
Building a home is always going to be expensive, Folger said, and the couple does hope to reap benefits of cost savings through saving energy in the future. They were able to save money on adding features like the geothermal system because the federal stimulus plan passed earlier this year allows a larger tax credit for purchasing them, she said.
But the point was really about reducing the environmental impact of their lifestyle.
“There were tradeoffs in cost and aesthetic things,” Folger said. “We wanted a house that looks like a house. I didn’t want something that looks obviously green. We’re building a home.”
The Brooks Street home is an example of what homeowners can do, said Charles Poat, Detroit regional chapter board chairman for the U.S. Green Building Council.
“If you get certification, that’s really an achievement,” Poat said. But there are just some changes that are realistic or possible in certain home builds or budgets. “We want people to build above and beyond code for altruism and because they’re saving energy.”
Tina Reed can be reached at tinareed@annarbor.com or follow her on Twitter at www.twitter.com/treedinaa.
Comments
Jade
Tue, Nov 2, 2010 : 5:31 a.m.
Really isn't it a great thought to live a more eco-friendly way of life. Just some regular and easy steps to start your own way by harvesting rain water, or producing hot water from solar power also you could even generate your own electricity so that you can live an independent 'off-grid' life in an eco-friendly-house. http://www.greenliving9.com/eco-friendly-houses.html
SWard
Wed, Sep 2, 2009 : 10:04 p.m.
After reading the comments in AA.com and the AA Chronicle, I continue to be saddened by the waspish tone taken by some of the commenters on the various articles about our home. It is a little disappointing that the level of inquiry on such an important topic devolves to a quasi-hostile attack on, and unfounded speculation about, our lifestyle, finances, and politics. It seems that it is much easier to cast aspersions on someone or their choices than to explore new ideas. Our decision to embark on a whole-house remodel is based on the firm belief in the science of global warming, the logic of resource scarcity, and the analysis of economic theory. Despite the frequently and loudly voiced opinion that global warming is untrue, a closed system cannot, by definition, heal itself. If it's big and complex, like the Earth, there is a huge capacity for absorption, but in the end, the Earth is a closed system. If you add enough garbage to it, it will eventually be overwhelmed; God is not going to take out the garbage. You *could* have a legitimate discussion about the timeframe of the effects of global warming, but if you truly have an understanding of and respect for science, cause and effect, and probability, you *cannot* argue about the logical outcome of human behavior and its effects on the environment. Despite the apparent limitless supply of such energy sources as coal, oil, and natural gas, a closed system cannot, by definition, contain unlimited resources. The Earth is a closed system; God will not magically replace all of the resources we have used. You may have a rational argument about the timeframe for when a resource may be used up, but if you truly understand and respect science and logic, you *cannot* argue about the logical outcome of our current resource usage. Every choice we made within the scope of this project was carefully considered and some involved tradeoffs, either to choices in our lifestyle or between two maybe non-optimal options. One commenter does state a valid concern about one material used - foam insulation - which "causes global warming." Polyurethane foam is not "green". But is allowing a structure to stand that leaks energy like a sieve a better choice? In this case, we made a choice, and believe strongly, that the greater good was served by doing what we are doing. With an 80+% recycle rate and the resultant decrease in energy usage, believe me, the environment is benefiting from this project. We also carefully considered the financial aspect of the project as well, as my wife points out. Though it is true that not everyone can afford to undertake such a project, if more people did as we did, thought logically about our place in, and impact on the world, had a long-term savings plan and did not indulge in an orgy of conspicuous consumption, more people could do somewhat smaller projects perhaps and the world would benefit. (As an aside, we also partnered with a local Architect, and a local Builder who promotes local hiring and purchasing, so we also benefited the local and Michigan economies as well.) For the record, I am a progressive Democrat, a fiscal conservative, and one who believes I have a duty to do what I can to be a good steward to the environment, and to help make the world a better place for my family and those around me.
WendyV
Thu, Aug 27, 2009 : 9:57 p.m.
The $400,000 was just for the remodel. Add in the old house and lot (and demo cost) and the new house price is close to $700,000. I like new technology, too, but I just don't get how it is "green" to fill a landfill with an entire house AND build a new one from scratch. The new house is "largely made of wood recycled from the previous house". Really? It was cost-effective to pay someone to pull all the nails out of the old lumber? All the lumber in the photos looks brand new. Doug Selby says, "It would have a payoff period of about 10 years, figuring an annual increase of about eight percent for natural gas." Is "It" the $400,000 cost of the remodel, the $60,000 difference of a non-green remodel, or something else? Natural gas prices are cheaper now than a year ago. But now that the owners have a geothermal system, it will be electricity prices they'll have to worry about. One of the owners says, "the point was really about reducing the environmental impact of their lifestyle." Go ahead and live how you want to live in the house you want to live it but don't pretend the waste created and energy consumed by this project was in the best interest of the environment.
xmo
Thu, Aug 20, 2009 : 1:48 p.m.
$400,000 for a green house for liberals might be affordable but what about us working Republicans, it seems like a lot of money. Maybe, President Obama should tax these people so they cannot afford a house like this. It seems unfair that most people cannot afford a house like this. By the way, polyurethane foam insulation causes global warming if you believe the fairytail of global warming.