FReepmail me to be added or removed to the ECO-PING list!
Posted on 11/03/2005 1:10:10 PM PST by GreenFreeper
For years, environmentalists have petitioned government officials about preserving open space and designing eco-friendly neighborhoods, but it turns out that cost-conscious developers should be the ones advocating change.
New research reveals that building "conservation communities" can be 15 to 54 percent cheaper than traditional suburban developments, according to Wisconsin-based Applied Ecological Services (AES).
The difference between traditional and conservational development is in the design principles.
Typical subdivisions tend to have wider streets, turf lawns, gutters and storm sewers, but those cause less water to be absorbed into the ground and more runoff, which can erode soil and pollute local water systems as it collects fertilizer and motor oil.
The concept of "conservation communities" refers to a variety of design features such as narrower roadways, grass swales rather than storm drains and more open space, all of which reduces the amount of runoff and increases ground absorption.
"In most projects we've been able to get more units while at the same time saving and restoring anywhere from 30 percent to 70 percent of the land for open space," said AES President Steve Apfelbaum, who is presenting the findings at the fifth annual Kendall Growth Conference on Friday.
Researching more than 100 residential development projects from across the country, AES looked at the cost of a traditional subdivision and then redesigned the project using ecological principles. The result was "substantial financial savings."
The average savings per project was 24 percent, and the savings per lot ranged from $5,000 to nearly $70,000, an average of 32 percent.
The ecological design principles were the key. For example, by narrowing roadways, developers saved between $10,000 and $1.5 million, an average of 35 percent savings, on projects ranging in size from 50 to 1,100 units.
Storm sewers were scaled back or eliminated without sacrificing flood protection for savings of between $31,000 and $1 million, or 40 percent on average.
"We feel that the only way you can entice people to change what they're doing is to show that it's cheaper," said Brook McDonald, president of the Naperville-based Conservation Foundation, which sponsors the Kendall Growth Conference.
Resistance to change
Despite the economic advantages of eco-friendly neighborhoods, governments and developers have been slow to embrace them, possibly because they take longer to build, according to Jim Miller, an ecology professor at Iowa State University, who collaborated with Apfelbaum on a survey of developers of conservation communities. The subdivisions in the Iowa State study took an average of six years to complete, including the time it took for the municipalities to revise their ordinances, though one city council refused to change its storm sewer regulations.
"It's more a matter of we get used to developments looking a certain way," Miller said. "Something new comes along and there's a certain inertia there."
Organizers of the Kendall Growth Conference hope to shift that momentum. By holding the conference on Friday for the first time they expect more government and business officials to attend.
Whereas in previous years, the conference has focused on conservation strategies, this year's focus is on implementation, especially in the Aux Sable Creek Watershed where Joliet plans to expand in the next two decades.
When Joliet passed its Kendall County comprehensive plan last November, conservation design was incorporated in the blueprint for a 22,000-acre area that is expected to accommodate 77,000 people eventually.
Otherwise there aren't many examples of conservation design in Kendall County, Apfelbaum said.
"I don't think the economics of the alternatives have been articulated," he said. "There really is a win-win solution. We can have development without compromising all the open space. And we can create profitability that exceeds the profitability of conventional developments that are going up everywhere."
"We feel that the only way you can entice people to change what they're doing is to show that it's cheaper," said Brook McDonald, president of the Naperville-based Conservation Foundation, which sponsors the Kendall Growth Conference."
FReepmail me to be added or removed to the ECO-PING list!
To them however, those sub-divisions have no washer-dryer or dishwashers or stoves and they are all single level mud huts since all those I mentioned would save developers from putting in and a cloths-line is more environmental then a dryer.
Yes, if we are true conservatives, we should want to conserve our environment in a sensible way. This is good. We aren't attacking evil business and pushing a socialist agenda in the name of conservation.
I'm always for having the other guy do all they can do to save the universe.
Okay, they're throwing out numbers on cost savings, but if the units take longer to build, there are costs associated with those delays. The most significant impact on costs is going to be labor, and I'm not sure this article isn't playing a bit fast and loose with the figures.
I'm a bit skeptical, because yes, maybe material costs went down, however, a longer time span to build means substantial increases in labor costs.
Your probably right. I wish more conservatives would shy away from being overly reactionary to environmentalists and realize that many eco-principals incorporate conservative ideals. Reduce waste, maximize efficiency, maximize profits...etc. etc.
I wouldn't doubt it but I would imagine over the long haul the energy savings, combined with the material savings, would result in net lower costs. The difference is in who retains those savings.
Imagine all the fuel the developers could save instead of bulldozing entire tracts of land they can [GASP] build around the trees.
Except this study is mostly BS. They get most of their cost savings from making narrower roads. The requirement for wide roads is not one that developers insist on, but what city planners insist on. Most developers would leap at the chance to make narrow roads.
So as usual, either the developers and their sponsors act in good faith, or building permits must be denied those that want quick dirty profits. An ongoing thing that has been around since the seventies or so. Nothing new in this supposed research that has not been brought out in hundreds of formal research projects. Same things said over and over again.
The real issue is in how willing the local governments are willing to go in not padding their pockets.
blah, blah, blah, yackity smackity
I Googled up a bit on AES; seems they are in the business of building swamps.
Well the problem lies in differentiating between the 2. The environmentalists do not come out and describe their socialist agendas, they instead play on the emotions of compassionate people. This I think has caused the vast majority of people to dismiss environmental messages right off the bat.
Is a swale a fancy word for ditch? Well I'd expect that to be cheaper than a concrete storm sewer.
I much prefer wider roads, myself. The narrow streets of older cities can be a bit of an adventure.
This study implies that it is the developer who insists on developing with wider roads and storm sewer systems. The reality is that it is the city planning that places these requirements on projects. It is city regulation that drives development costs up. This issue needs to be taken up with city planners, not developers who would love to develop property cheaper.
No doubt wider roads are nicer to drive on. The issue though is this article is BS. They act like developers don't realize wider roads cost more or using storm sewer systems cost more. Of course they do, but city regulations is what drives design.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.