"Sustainable Business Solutions for Environment, Energy,
and the Natural & Built Environment "
Ps.24:1
Taxis Group, LLC
4658 Catalina Ln
Bonita Springs, FL 34134
United States
ph: 239-948-6668 direct
alt: 239-777-1510 mobile
dave
Sanctuary Development, LLC is a Florida Limited Liability Corporation formed to address the need for affordable, environmentally compatible housing and land development by identifying, utilizing, developing, and applying innovative, science-based, technologies that:
Sanctuary Development, LLC enables the application of licensed technologies, building systems and land development processes as a showcase of biblical stewardship of our natural, human, and economic resources.
What is our value added?
The homes we have elected to build are part of a significant hurricane relief effort undertaken in SW Florida as a result of Hurrican Wilma. The home on the left is representative of the substandard housing stock so prevalent in Immokalee Florida. With the structures already compromised, storm impacts inflict significant damage to existing homes. Many are in need of demolition and reconstruction.
The front elevation to the right is a model created to meet the needs of a small to average sized family. It has 3BR and 1 or 2 bathrooms. Wall systems are supplied by Reddi-Wall, Inc, and manufacturer of ICF wall systems (insulating concrete forms). This construction provides superior performance for wind resistance, minimizing/eliminating mold propagation, comfort and energy efficiency. The ICF wall consists of a EPS (expanded polystyrene form which is erected and filled with concrete. The result is an extremely strong, safe and efficient structure.
Reddi-Wall showcases Hurricane Wilma recovery work in Immokalee, Florida. Follow link to their website/project page > Reddi-Wall_Immokalee
Position Paper:
Green Building and Affordable Housing / Development
June, 2008
David Hanson, Principal
Section 1 Building Green - Benefits and Costs
What is Green or Sustainable Building
Green building, also known as sustainable building, is the methodology and resulting structures and land that are designed, built, renovated, operated, and/or reused in an ecological and resource-efficient manner. Green buildings are designed to meet certain objectives such as protecting occupant health; improving employee productivity; using energy, water, and other resources more efficiently; and reducing the overall impact to the environment.
Economic Benefits of Green/Sustainable Building
Green building methods and structures may cost somewhat more up front. However, lower operating costs over the life of the building and increased consumer value produce a more cost effective structure. The green building approach applies a project life cycle cost analysis for determining the appropriate up-front expenditure. This analytical method calculates costs over the useful life of the asset.
Example - A 2003 study conducted for the California Sustainable Building Task Force shows that an initial increase in upfront costs of approximately 2% for green design will yield lifecycle savings of more than ten times the initial investment, or 20% of total construction costs (based on a conservative estimate of a 20-year building life).
According to the US Green Building Council (USGBC), even the first costs of some green buildings are comparable to or less than prevailing construction prices in their areas, because of resource efficiency and correctly -sized mechanical, electrical, and structural systems. In standard buildings, these systems are often oversized, and therefore more expensive and less efficient. Typical reductions in energy operating cost for a green building are 25-40% when compared to conventional buildings. This translates into a $.050 to $1.25 /sqft/year savings.
Maximum savings can be fully realized when they are incorporated at the project's conceptual design phase with the assistance of an integrated team of professionals. The integrated systems approach ensures that the building is designed as one system rather than a collection of stand-alone systems.
It is important to note that, while add-on technologies such as insulation, E-windows, lighting, etc. contribute efficiencies of a green building program, the basic shell configuration, foundation and lot design will yield the greatest benefits, from economic, energy, and environmental/health perspectives.
Elements to Consider in A Green Building Program
Siting Elements
Energy Efficiency
Materials Efficiency
Other considerations Include
Steps to a Successful Program
Green Building and Affordable Housing
- Literature Review Summary
Green building has emerged over the past decade as a robust movement to create high-performance, energy-efficient structures that improve occupant comfort and well-being while minimizing environmental impacts. Supported by organizations such as the U.S. Green Building Council and its Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards, both public and private entities are increasingly pursuing green buildings in the institutional, commercial, and residential sectors.
While this progress is impressive, for a number of reasons it has not included significant numbers of affordable housing projects. These reasons, several of which are unique to affordable housing, include: an almost exclusive focus on “first costs,” the existence of per unit cost caps, regulatory rigidity that limits green innovation, and a finance system that fails to recognize the long-term value of green investments.
A common perception has been that green costs more and is, therefore, not suitable for affordable housing. Recent studies have documented the costs and benefits of green building in the commercial and institutional sector,1 reporting that green buildings have a modest initial cost premium, but that long-term benefits far exceed the incremental capital costs. These findings have bolstered green building activity in these sectors, but their applicability to affordable housing development has been viewed with considerable skepticism.
Until recently few or systematic studies evaluated the costs and benefits of greening in the affordable housing sector. This summary addresses this data gap. We have surveyed green affordable housing projects around the country and conducted detailed case study analyses of the costs and benefits of sixteen projects for which adequate data was available.
Notwithstanding significant data gathering and methodological challenges, analysis of these case studies have led to several key findings, including:
Using a life-cycle approach, green affordable housing is more cost effective in net present value (NPV) terms than conventional affordable housing.
1 The existing financing system for affordable housing is complex and rigid, and typically does not recognize the long-term value of green investments. This serves as an impediment to widespread development of green affordable housing.
Total development costs for the green projects reviewed in this report ranged from 18% below to 9% above the costs for comparable conventional affordable housing. On average, the sixteen case studies show a small “green premium” of 2.42% in total development costs.
2 These incremental costs are largely due to increased construction (as opposed to design) costs. From a life-cycle net present value perspective, the case studies show that the benefits of green affordable housing are real and, in some cases, substantial. In virtually all the cases, energy and water utility costs are lower than their conventional counterparts. In many cases, decreased operating expenditures alone more than pay for the incremental initial investment in greening the project in present value terms.
3 The use of more durable materials and equipment in several of the case study projects result in reduced replacement costs and provide additional life-cycle financial benefits. Moreover, the value of improved comfort and health for residents, as well as reduced environmental impacts, is substantial, although not captured quantitatively in the analyses.
While the case studies indicate that up-front costs are nominally higher, life-cycle green building benefits exceed costs in almost all cases, those economic impacts are not the same for all parties. Developers, owners and residents experience different life-cycle costs and benefits of green affordable housing.
For example costs to developers surveyed range from about $9,700 more per unit to $34,800 less per unit in net present value terms than the non-green alternative. This wide range and whether developers experienced gains or losses depends largely on whether the developer retains a long-term ownership interest and whether the owners or residents are responsible for utility costs (and savings). In five of the sixteen case studies, developers received net benefits from greening, in two cases greening the project had no net financial effect on the developers, while in nine cases the developers experienced net losses relative to investing in comparable conventional projects.
4 For residents of affordable housing units, the life-cycle financial outcome is almost always positive, ranging from a NPV of -$140 to $59,861 per unit. This is the case largely because owners/residents are not responsible for the incremental capital costs of greening, but they receive the benefits of lower utility costs, not to mention the unquantified benefits of improved comfort and better indoor air quality. In 14 of the 16 cases owners/residents receive a net benefit from greening; in one case, there is no impact on the financial condition of residents, since they are not responsible for any of the utility costs; and in one case residents experience higher net costs from greening, though the project developer attributes this to anomalies in project design and resident demographics.
5 Several factors have limited the scope of this research. First and foremost, there are a limited number of completed green affordable housing projects with comprehensive data, particularly with respect to green operating costs and the capital and operating costs of comparable conventional projects. With this small data set, broad conclusions from this research must be made cautiously.
Moreover, when cost data are available they are often in non-standard formats and stored in disparate locations.
Reports suggest that developers focus on assembling an experienced green team, employing an integrated design approach, and utilize life-cycle costing in evaluating the economics of a project. For policymakers - create innovative funding mechanisms that recognize the long-term value of green projects, instituting higher mandatory standards for energy efficiency in building codes, and adoption of minimum green standards for affordable housing.
For success it is recommended that a broad range of actors involved in developing affordable housing be educated as a solid starting point for a better understanding of the costs and benefits of greening these projects. Field experience and appropriate accounting methods makes a strong case that greening affordable housing is cost effective and should be pursued with vigor.
____________________________________
References
1 Sustainable Building Task Force, The Costs and Benefits of Green Buildings, by Greg Kats of Capital E, et al October 2003.
2 This premium drops to 1.73% if photovoltaic panels are not included. Often inclusion of such technologies would not have
occurred without targeted grant funding support from public agencies or utilities. We calculated the first-cost premium of greening based upon the non-subsidized costs.
3 Life-cycle costs and benefits are reported in present value terms to account for the time value of money and express the net results in present day dollars. We assume a 30-year life for projects studied.
4 These results change when green subsidies are included. After grants and rebates specifically for green building features, seven developers have green building benefits that outweigh costs, three break even, and six have costs that outweigh benefits.
Section 2 Building Systems
Exterior Shell
Building systems are now being employed which offer most of the properties required to meet green building program criteria. Additional elements which are desirable for a sustainable community based approach includes:
Consistent with current discussions between Taxis Group, LLC and the One to One Foundation, two primary building systems have been identified for evaluation. These include insulated concrete forms ( ICFs) and structural insulated panels (SIPs). A comparison of the two technologies is indicated which will allow the selection to be based on the project requirements.
Of course, the selection of another building system(s) is always an option, however only ICFs, and SIPs are included in this discussion.
The two technologies are similar in that each uses an integrated insulating layer of expanded polystyrene, or EPS and an additional structural component. The primary difference is the fact that the SIP systems use the laminate structure of exterior sheathing – interior foam core – exterior sheathing as the structural component. ICF walls use concrete poured into the interior of the EPS form as the primary structural component.
Structural Insulated Panels
SIPs are an engineered prefabricated laminated panel system consisting of a structural sheathing such as oriented strand board (OSB) or cement fiber board or metal sheathing bonded to a EPS foam insulating core. These panels can be used for wall and roof panels and are available in varying dimensions and core thicknesses. SIPS made with cement board from one manufacturer meet the static wind load tests (ASTM 330) and the Southern Building Code Congress International(SBCCI) standard for large missile impacts ( SSTD 12-99).
Considerations for use include:
Insulating Concrete Forms (ICF)
ICFs are permanent cast-in-place forms made of expanded polystyrene (EPS) which become an integral part of the poured concrete wall system. There are three basic configurations which are employed.
These wall systems are also engineered to meet and exceed the applicable building codes including the Florida Building Code, Chapter 19 on ICF wall systems.
Among the three basic ICF systems the most widely used design is the flat panel. This is largely due to the ease of manufacture and design of the basic product. The post and beam design is employed to a much lesser degree.
The design which offers all the benefits of the basic ICF concepts but uses less concrete in the structural core is the grid design ICF. One manufacturer has refined the grid design ICF concept to achieve the maximum strength in the form as afforded by the mechanical properties of the EPS materials used in its production.
Reddi-Wall Inc manufactures this product which has the internal cross section configuration resembling an aircraft wing. This design maximizes the strength to weight ratio and provides unsurpassed strength in the field during the pour where form failure might occur. No form failure has been observed when installing the wall system according to manufacturer instructions.
The engineered performance characteristics of ICF walls includes:
___________________________
1. Complete Reddi-Wall test data available. Please contact us for more information.
Here you might let your visitors know how they can get more information or purchase your products or services. Be sure to include ordering information and a link to your Products and Services page, and encourage readers to contact you for more details.
Contact us today!
We welcome your questions and queries. Please see our Contact Us page for complete contact information.
HOME ABOUT US SERVICES RESOURCES SANCTUARY
TAXIS RESOURCE SYSTEMS CONTACT
ices and technologies that will maximize resource stewardship in all its forms.....
|
|
|
Copyright: Taxis Group, LLC 2005 - 2012. All rights reserved.
Taxis Group, LLC
4658 Catalina Ln
Bonita Springs, FL 34134
United States
ph: 239-948-6668 direct
alt: 239-777-1510 mobile
dave