Here's an observation: While many people are ambivalent about countless aspects of home design and architectural style, they usually have very definite opinions on certain details. I saw this in action recently when we discussed including roof-mounted solar water heating collectors on Green Builder’s Orlando VISION House. 

As you might expect, opinions were split between those who categorically resist the look of roof-mounted collectors on aesthetic grounds and those who welcome the collectors’ presence as visible symbols of energy independence, environmental stewardship, and sustainability. (We had another related problem, too: Homeowners’ association rules in this community prohibit the use of devices, such as solar collectors, that are visible from the street.) 

Even greater, and often more emotional, differences of opinion emerge regarding preservation issues, especially with buildings and neighborhoods that have been officially designated as historic. Fans (and residents) of such areas eagerly research the details of these buildings, including homes, and they often passionately pursue the enforcement of these structures’ preservation and exact attention to detail when restoration or even routine maintenance is required. In these cases, the performance of the building is a distant second to the absolute enforcement of conformity to the rules.

I was shocked recently when I read a quote from an ardent fan of historic preservation who (despite the intention of improving the energy performance and interior comfort of a building) declared that, “Next to arson, the worst thing you can do to a historic building is change the windows!”  I found his comment sadly ironic. Improving the energy performance of a building’s windows is one of the most important steps in increasing the structure’s overall energy performance. 

This puts us at a stalemate since it’s fairly certain we will not reach consensus on aesthetics versus performance. To resolve this issue, we will need to look for innovative strategies that address the concerns from both sides.

We already see examples in the form of new high-performance products and systems that integrate smoothly into buildings, even conventional ones. When weighing the question of appearance versus performance, there’s another saying about beauty that comes to mind for me: “Beauty may be skin-deep, but ugly goes all the way through.”

It applies to the fact that a poorly performing building, no matter how attractive or historically accurate, costs all of us when we try to balance the environmental ledger.  

After all, which would you rather have in your neighborhood: roof-mounted solar collectors providing energy to homes or a hazy sky polluted by the emissions from coal-fired power plants? 

I’ll take the rule-breaking roof.  

The cornerstone of Green Builder Media’s operations is Green Builder Magazine, the third-largest publication in the residential building space and the only one to focus on green building and sustainability issues. Green Builder Magazine reaches more than 105,000 of the most productive and forward-thinking building professional firms in the top 50 markets across the country. These firms employ 2.3 million people, have an annual purchasing power over $60 billion, and actively specify products within the home. You can view past issues on the web at www.greenbuildermag.com. 

A widely known expert on green building, and recently named NAHB Builder Advocate of the Year, Ron Jones is the only person ever to serve as a member of the Boards of Directors of both the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) and at the U. S. Green Building Council (USGBC). He served as charter chairman of the NAHB Green Building subcommittee and is an original member of the LEED Homes committee for USGBC. Originally published in Green Builder (www.greenbuildermag.com), August 2007. Reprinted with permission