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.
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.
Old Professor's note about AES building swamps sounds like the natural result of eliminating the storm drains, just run the water into the green belt/open area. Here in CA like as not, the water will evaporate or percolate into the soil but in New Orleans.....
I think the longer time involved was not in the actual construction phase, but the time it took the developers to get city hall to issue the variances and zoning changes required to do it in an eco friendly way. Once all the permits and such were in place, I'm sure construction went at a normal rate.
And yes, as a true conservative, I don't have a problem with conserving land, forests, greenspace. This article points to a way of doing that that is economical from a fiscal point of view without being environazi about it, and that's the way these things should be addressed.
It's a start.