Energy-efficient housing priced itself out of reach of budget-conscious buyers

Evidence

But the structural problem went deeper than the reluctance of builders to seek architectural advice. The requirements of environmental design increased the cost of construction. To produce an energy-efficient house for the low-cost market, a builder had to sacrifice space or equipment, and tract-house builders knew that a house without a minimum of space and equipment would not sell. “It is not contemplated that many of the features of … climate control can as yet be incorporated to any great degree into lower cost developments,” the 1956 edition of the Community Builders Handbook acknowledged. “At present it would appear that they will be confined for some time to higher cost homes on relatively large lots.” That meant that the homebuyers most likely to care about the potential savings on utility bills – the people on the tightest budgets – did not have the choice of buying a solar home. — Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside, 245

Categorization

• XREF: Cost-inefficiency of sustainable building versus cheap conventional energy is a core environmental-justice trade-off; links to the Eco-Justice course theme of who bears environmental burdens. — connects to: Cheap energy and mortgage pressure defeated energy-efficient postwar housing design — Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside:…, 214; Consumer environmentalism failed because both rich and poor buyers chose energy waste — Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside:…, 292; Homebuyers keep buying risky homes because regulation costs eat their housing budget — Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside:…, 1084