The Oz McMansion - pretty, cheap - sustainable? |
Here we have two tradesmen doing the same things they have been doing their entire Australian working lives but now its re-branded "Sustainable" or "Environmental". It sounds good but what is the material point of difference?
Obviously it's what they are building that counts and sustainable design must be the horse that pulls and directs the sustainable building cart.
Now with the US and China's leadership in photo-opportunity agreement to do something about carbon emissions at a future date for which they will not be personally responsible - is this just a show? Will or can they walk the talk? What is the material policy and practical difference?
Today's Australian mass consumer home-market is still buying houses from project builders who want to look and sound green but are just presenting more of the cheapest, flashy looking homes they can sell on a commercial basis. Do these homes return a noticeable sustainable dividend back to their buyers or the wider community?
Consumer demand for sustainable houses must be informed and sold as truly valuable with a transparent national rated and reportable home running cost (& benefits) Australian Standard. As indicated below what happens on-site but outside the house's walls has a role to play.
What do you think is the solution?
Can sustainable homes for the masses be sold cheaply with some viable sales appeal or are we locked into more of the same cheap outer-suburb drive-though development?
Based on the new home subdivisions I have driven past (in late 2014), there is still allot of hectares locked-in to the McMansion planning and mindset holding pattern.
No comments:
Post a Comment