The Evolution of Green Building:
An Interview with Sustainable Design Expert David Hartke

David Hartke is a registered architect with over twenty years experience, primarily in the field of sustainable design. He is the principal of Stampfl Hartke Associates, LLC, an architecture and engineering firm located in Holicong, Pennsylvania, and co-chair of the Keystone Green Building Initiative, a green building program launched last year by the Home Builder Association of Bucks/Montgomery Counties.  David is also a lead instructor for the Bucks County Community College Sustainable Building Advisor Program.

You co-founded a company specializing in efficient home building in 1993.  What were some of the obstacles you faced then and how do they differ from the challenges today?

It was early in the green movement process, so we had to concentrate on the concept of construction quality in general design.  We tried to push energy-efficiency, but energy wasn’t very expensive at the time, so people on the east coast (Annapolis area) weren’t concerned about savings in that area.

In your experience, does a home have to exceed a certain price range before green features are viable?

No. We have integrated green features into a wide variety of homes—including subsidized housing (both single and multi-family). It doesn’t have to cost substantially more to build green. Cost-effective options include window placement (for passive solar heat gain), appropriate vegetation for shading (cooling) and water management, and interior finishes that are better for IAQ (Indoor Air Quality). Efficient heating and cooling systems do raise the price slightly; however, low-income home owners offset the cost of the mortgage through lowered utility bills. In one case, we did work with a multi-family Independent Living client that upgraded from a rather inefficient but typical “through-wall” HVAC system to a multi-unit split system—which was projected to save them a lot of money within three years.

Are there any common misperceptions that builders tend to have about green building?  Do you find that some builders are still reluctant to adopt green building practices?

The resistance and skepticism are reducing. Increasing consumer demand is attracting builders that want to differentiate their “brand” from the competition. They’re starting to realize that the green movement isn’t just for tree huggers and that green aspects/components aren’t anywhere near as difficult to implement as they perhaps feared. In addition, the storm water management aspect of the green movement is taking hold within municipalities (i.e. planning and zoning)—and builders are recognizing that municipalities are more receptive to development if the design reduces the load on their water management systems.

How have builders in southern Pennsylvania responded to the Keystone Green Building Initiative?

We currently have seven companies active in the K-GBI program, and at least a dozen more have said they’re working toward it. The program is new and builders want certain assurances in terms of payback, so it’s a process.  Our goal is to have 100 builders active in the program—and, in return, they’ll have access to a new and growing market, and an opportunity to distinguish their companies through the K-GBI brand. Part of the plan is to promote the program to the public and stimulate demand, so builders that don’t participate will be at a competitive disadvantage while builders that do participate will experience a considerable market gain.

Do you think most consumers are willing to pay a premium for green homes?

It depends on their projected return on investment, which is the responsibility of the builder (or real estate agent) to prove (or legitimately model) to the buyer. They may go up to five percent without much resistance. Once approaching ten percent, there needs to be some serious cost savings and viable proof of the savings.

How would you describe the current level of consumer demand for green homes in Pennsylvania?

Verbally, there has been major interest for nearly a decade—but the east coast has definitely lagged behind the west in terms of actual demand. It’s only now that we’re beginning to see a switch from a push market, where architects and builders try to push their green ideas onto the buyer, to a pull market, where the consumer requests—and is willing to pay for—green features. One reason for that is the fact that more data now exists and more builders are able to demonstrate, through computer modeling, what the projected savings will be if certain features are integrated, such as a geothermal heat pump, more insulation or even whether the house points north or south.

In your experience, what are the main factors that motivate most green home buyers?

Although environmental protection is at the core of the green movement, the primary focus for home owners has been energy savings (a.k.a. saving money), followed by indoor air quality or indoor health and comfort. However, we’re seeing the environment increase as a motivator due to climate change and pollution of the air and water systems.

What are the green features that consumers tend to ask for most?

Efficient HVAC, passive solar design, healthy indoor finishes, bamboo (renewable resource), integration of green design without obvious green details.

Are there any less common features or practices that, in your experience, consumers really seem to love?

People really seem to like natural local/native vegetation and landscaping. Everyone thinks that turf (or grass) is good for the environment, but it isn’t particularly effective at absorbing and infiltrating water; it uses petroleum-based energy to maintain; and it requires fertilization—which is horrible for our water systems let alone the air we breathe. Natural landscapes require maintenance, but they’re a lot better for the environment overall.

What do you think it will take to make green building the norm instead of the exception?