What are your thoughts on renovating an existing home vs building a new home?
I’ve read many articles that favor renovating an existing home using sustainable design/build practices over building a new eco-friendly home. The carbon footprint is the word of the times. As a designer I’m not sure if I agree 100% with this concept. Renovating brings up many issues: such as dealing with removal and disposal of lead paint,,asphalt, asbestos and other hazardous materials found in existing homes. Where do all these construction materials end up – in land fills that destroy our environment? Is this a better option?
Or would it be better to find land that is suitable for sustainable design/build construction practices? Practices such as minimal land disturbances, harnessing solar/water/wind for elecricity, using the natural resources from the property (timber, stone, soil) & local materials to build a small home under 2000 sq ft (following Sarah Susanka’s design principals) seems a far better alternative.
What are your thoughts on this on going debate?
GBA Detail Library
A collection of one thousand construction details organized by climate and house part
Replies
Maria,
There's no simple answer to your question. There are far too many variables. It depends on where you are building, where you want to live, and whether or not you already have a house.
Looking at the U.S. as a whole, however, it's clear that there are already far too many buildings for our current population. (The number of people per household has been shrinking for decades, while the number of square feet in the average new home has been increasing, at least until very recently).
During the real-estate bubble that finally popped in 2008, people bought more house than they could afford. These houses are now being abandoned. There are plenty of houses available in the U.S. They have problems, of course: they're too big and they require too much energy. But this country doesn't really need any new construction right now.
Complex question indeed. Reusing an existing building is the ultimate case of recycling. I'm psyched about the opportunities to retrofit our infrastructure. Having said that, an intensive retrofit can rarely have the low energy profile available in new construction, to say nothing of the behavioral changes that pertain to building design. I believe that going forward, we'll have a combination of new Low or No energy homes, and retrofits. Some of the worst case existing buildings will just have to be torn down.
Maria,
Reuse of resources is always more green than creating new. Even the toxic materials in a house can be encapsulated and kept in place instead of headed to the landfill.
However, it's almost impossible to renovate an existing building to be as efficient and healthy as its possible (though rarely done) with new construction. But I would have to disagree that smaller than 2000 sf is "green". Just a few years ago, a 1200 sf house was considered the middle class dream house. Given the current global multifaceted crises, 300-500 sf per person should be the limit for any new construction (the smaller number for larger families with shared spaces).