Interview with Thomas M. Farasy on LEED v. National Green Building Standard - Part II
.jpg)
This week's post is Part II of my interview with Thomas M. Farasy, President of the Maryland-National Capital Building Industry Association and President of Terra Verde Communities, LLC, a real estate development, investment, and advisory firm specializing in transit-oriented development, multifamily projects, and green building serving the Washington, D.C. area and the Mid-Atlantic region.
In this portion of the interview, Tom answers some of the tougher questions relating to the cost of green building, market support, and whether green building is good from the industry perspective.
Are you aware of any difficulties or issues that builders and developers are facing as they begin to seek either LEED or NGBS certification?
Regardless of the standard or certification process used, there’s a need for continuing education at the contractor and subcontractor level. It’s not enough just to put in a contract that a building has to be built a certain way to comply with whatever credit requirements the owner is seeking; there has to be ongoing communication with those responsible in the field to make sure that things are actually being done in accordance with the credit requirements. Complying with LEED or NGBS requires a lot of oversight in the field because they’re relatively new and the market is still developing. People are still learning what these things mean and how to implement them effectively.
Is the market ready to support green building costs? Do you find that more consumers are specifically looking for green features when they’re shopping for new homes?
The market, for the most part, hasn't been ready to support the extra cost of building a home to any of the green standards. Maybe some areas are becoming more receptive, but, to date, it's largely been my experience that consumers aren’t willing to pay $10,000 extra dollars for a home just because it has been certified green. On the other hand, people DO expect you to provide Energy Star appliances; people DO expect you to put in measures to reduce their energy costs - and they will pay for this.
Is green building good for the building industry?
Yes, the green building movement is good for the industry and I think it’s going to continue to grow. If we expand what we mean by “building green” into further incorporating measures to save water resources, to reduce our carbon footprint, to further reduce our use and dependence on energy resources and natural resources, then it’s going to grow. There is no doubt in my mind that technologies are rapidly developing that will enable the green building movement to expand, and there is no doubt in my mind that we’re going to continue to see new standards and certification processes developed as well as revisions and enhancements to existing standards and processes. What these are, I couldn’t say, but I bet we’ll see them in the future.
Thanks again to Tom for sharing his knowledge and experience with us.
As Tom notes, the Green Building movement is still evolving and the technologies available are changing on a regular basis. This poses challenges for builders and developers who want to implement standards into a project. The uncertainty of evolving technology always causes some hesitation or caution, however my experience is that builders and developers are embracing the green movement and hopefully consumers will recognize its value when buying a home. It is an exciting opportunity for the industry and we are all hopeful that green measures can be advanced in a cooperative and cost effective manner.
I am anxious to see the different technologies and green building standards that develop as a result of the evolving quest to build green. I agree with Tom that the green building movement is good for the development industry as a whole and once uniform incentives are put in place, it'll be exciting to see how many builders opt to take advantage of those incentives and tailor their development projects towards the green building standards.