When you think of a “green” house, most people think of new, streamlined, energy efficient and angular. Most people imagine solar panels or elaborate water systems, but how many of you imagined an old home?
While driving to show a home in Springfield, MA tonight, I caught an interesting story on Marketplace about older green homes. I found it very interesting and it got me to thinking on this subject further.
Long a lover of old and historic homes, I have always felt that it is important for many reasons to leave property in place whenever possible. My reasons didn’t include the fact that this is the more green treatment, but it makes a lot of sense.
Discussing this topic with my boyfriend, Morriss, he pointed out a statistic that he remembered about land fills. He stated that we often hear negative statistics about the number of items like diapers that are filling landfills, but in reality it is construction debris that is a huge problem. Known as C & D Debris , it is a big problem in New England. In 2002, C&D debris accounted for 36 percent of all residential and commercial solid waste generated in Massachusetts.
With this knowledge in hand, it seems to make ultimate sense that renovating existing properties to be more efficient is the better route to take in most cases. Not only are you reducing the amount of debris that might be sent to a landfill, you are reducing the use of the existing resources like wood and you are taking a less efficient property and making it highly efficient.
I love the idea that a beautiful historic home could have added value by becoming “green” and efficient. I think that a home like that would appeal to a large number of home buyers in Western Massachusetts who love the charm and quality of an older home, but are energy and green aware and trying to reduce their footprint.
Interviewed in the story that inspired my train of thought was Emily Wadhams who said, “The greenest building is the one that’s already built.”.
photo courtesy of taberandrews on flickr.com
