Cool concept... think there's a market in OKC? http://www.bigbuilderonline.com/post.asp?BlogId=mcmanusblog&postid=624217&sectionID=391&cid=NWBD110513002

Yes. It has been discussed randomly across the forum with pictures here and there.

I think they are way too overpriced for such smaller spaces. Can anyone explain why these people are price-gouging?

For me, I prefer a nice brick with nice rock/stone house. It looks better that way with landscaping.

400 sq.ft. is the size of a small 2-car garage... You could build a LUXURY unit in OKC for under $60,000 (remember Portland prices are skewed). I think there'd be a demand for rentals if they were cool enough...

Yes. It has been discussed randomly across the forum with pictures here and there.

I think they are way too overpriced for such smaller spaces. Can anyone explain why these people are price-gouging?

For me, I prefer a nice brick with nice rock/stone house. It looks better that way with landscaping.

Price-gouging? No, it's a "real" price for real-estate that is built to last longer than 20 years... the typical Ideal Homes house is hideous to me.

Hey Dennis, you've been doing some REALLY awesome work in SoSA. Ever since the SoSA redevelopment began, how many new homes are we looking at? Is it in the 10-15 range yet?

Keep up the good work!

I like the concept, but I didn't see anything that said they are meant to last longer or even that they are LEED certified or anything. We can't just assume that since they are urban in design and concept that they are of a higher quality than a starter suburban home.

mcca: you're right, quality is a function of the builder's mindset. (LEED is a meaningless metric, and waste of effort.)

Spartan: There are 10-11 'projects' in SoSA, but I only track them... I've only built one (the one I live in)!

mcca: you're right, quality is a function of the builder's mindset. (LEED is a meaningless metric, and waste of effort.)

Spartan: There are 10-11 'projects' in SoSA, but I only track them... I've only built one (the one I live in)!

LEED isn't meaningless. However, it can be misleading. LEED points are generated in a broad range of ways. It can be meaningful. Most consumers have no idea what LEED or its various levels mean or how it is obtained. Like with anything, you have to do a little studying to see if what it is is meaningful and a priority to YOU. Be an educated consumer. But don't just dismiss it because you don't know what it really is.

LEED isn't meaningless... Be an educated consumer. But don't just dismiss it because you don't know what it really is.

Rover, I was the first architect in Oklahoma to become a LEED Accredited Professional. I really know what it is: a shameful, money-making scheme by the USGBC that results in nothing but a fancy plaque. Good, common sense design automatically results in 'sustainable' buildings ... only weak designers (and ignorant owners) need a manufactured 'rating system' to validate their misdirected lust to save the planet.

(Sorry for dumping on you Rover, but the current state of green-washing makes me ill... It's an embarrassing fad that should be encouraged to die, sooner rather than later!)

I'd be happy to debate the merits of LEED with anybody...

Rover, I was the first architect in Oklahoma to become a LEED Accredited Professional. I really know what it is: a shameful, money-making scheme by the USGBC that results in nothing but a fancy plaque. Good, common sense design automatically results in 'sustainable' buildings ... only weak designers (and ignorant owners) need a manufactured 'rating system' to validate their misdirected lust to save the planet.

(Sorry for dumping on you Rover, but the current state of green-washing makes me ill... It's an embarrassing fad that should be encouraged to die, sooner rather than later!)

I'd be happy to debate the merits of LEED with anybody...


This is something I've heard from an increasing number of architects. I think there was even a relatively recent NPR story on how many now view LEED as a "scam." I'll try to find it if anyone is interested.

We have done a few LEED Certified projects in our office but we have more demand for what we call "LEED Principled" projects. The owner/developer wants us to design the project to LEED standards where it makes the most sense but have no desire to get projects certified. Most are concerned more with sustainability more than any kind of certification.

I like row houses better. I'd rather own one floor of a three flat, I think, probably because I prefer the exterior look. Otherwise I guess it's not really much different, in terms of how space is utilized.

Rover, I was the first architect in Oklahoma to become a LEED Accredited Professional. I really know what it is: a shameful, money-making scheme by the USGBC that results in nothing but a fancy plaque. Good, common sense design automatically results in 'sustainable' buildings ... only weak designers (and ignorant owners) need a manufactured 'rating system' to validate their misdirected lust to save the planet.

(Sorry for dumping on you Rover, but the current state of green-washing makes me ill... It's an embarrassing fad that should be encouraged to die, sooner rather than later!)

I'd be happy to debate the merits of LEED with anybody...

Woah. So I should immediately stop pursuing a degree in environmental design, eh? I can see where someone would think that though, there are some fees for applying for a review from them. Still Dennis, I think you would appreciate the idea of a private 501(c)(3) professional organization encouraging people to meet the metric rather than the European model of governments requiring all new projects to meet the metric anyway. Maybe that would be more efficient, but you have to agree that the LEED buildings will last hundreds of years longer than most non-LEED buildings. Just take a drive down Memorial Rd or through Moore if you want to see a built-environment disaster..

I thought you were the architect of record for many of the other SoSA projects? I like the FreeSoSA website, too.

Spartan, get whatever kind of education you want; just please don’t fall for the tripe that sustainable buildings will save the planet. Yes, they are the right thing to do on their own merit… but the current greening of America is the result of political science and rampant commercialism run amuck. It is not the solid religion that huggers believe it is.

LEED buildings do not last any longer than non-LEED buildings. There is nothing inherent in LEED requirements that cause a building to be higher quality.

I’m in favor of logic and reason “requiring” that buildings meet certain quality standards. LEED has done a lot of good to introduce the concepts, and excite design professionals to do the right thing… Life safety codes are essential, and reasonable energy standards are good; but you cannot legislate morality.

I agree that most new development is cheap, ugly, junk. The vast majority of current residential and suburban commercial buildings will always be just that… Good and smart designers can turn that around, but mandated standards can’t. Become a good designer, and please improve the environment one building at a time… You can this without LEED.

Spartan, get whatever kind of education you want; just please don’t fall for the tripe that sustainable buildings will save the planet. Yes, they are the right thing to do on their own merit… but the current greening of America is the result of political science and rampant commercialism run amuck. It is not the solid religion that huggers believe it is.

LEED buildings do not last any longer than non-LEED buildings. There is nothing inherent in LEED requirements that cause a building to be higher quality.

I’m in favor of logic and reason “requiring” that buildings meet certain quality standards. LEED has done a lot of good to introduce the concepts, and excite design professionals to do the right thing… Life safety codes are essential, and reasonable energy standards are good; but you cannot legislate morality.

I agree that most new development is cheap, ugly, junk. The vast majority of current residential and suburban commercial buildings will always be just that… Good and smart designers can turn that around, but mandated standards can’t. Become a good designer, and please improve the environment one building at a time… You can this without LEED.

Well, LEED buildings are still so far and few that it depends what you're comparing it to an example of non-LEED design. I agree that LEED doesn't have a monopoly on good design either, and I can also agree that the "save the planet" link is pretty weak. Obviously though, as far as design merits go, having a LEED certification on a project is not a bad thing (I wouldn't reject a project because it was "green"). You seem pretty jaded on the whole LEED thing however, so I have to ask, why did you initially get your accreditation before anyone else? Just wondering.

Bringing us back to this micro-home urban infill topic however, how would anything like this in OKC ever catch on? The small-scale urban infill is what is more important in building a city, and it's clearly what is most lacking in OKC, and furthermore, this seems like quite an advanced development model.

I think micro-homes would succeed just about anywhere, mainly because it provides an affordable way to get into desirable areas. If well planned, and detailed to be radically hip, it’d be a no brainer for 20-something renters. To keep land cost down, you’d have to locate in a “marginal” location.

LEED was created as a fact-based rating system, which was in stark contrast to the emotion-based green movement… I thought it would provide a level headed, business friendly way to advance sustainability. But it was soon engulfed by the save-the-planet whackos, and perverted into the ineffective system it is today. There are many great LEED buildings out there, and you’re right, it’s not a bad thing. I don’t object to the end result as much as the ignorance of the cheerleaders.

Honestly, they look like a complete waste of money, to me. Go buy an old home and fix up the neighborhood. These are like clown cars with granite countertops. If you really want to go green, start a commune and have a smaller footprint. It looks to me like gross consumptionism - a yuppie suburbia that people get because it is cool.
That being said, I also think McMansions are insane. Wish people would go back to a nice little 1.5 bath, 3 bedroom bungalo and fix up their neighborhoods.

AMEN, Penny.

Old Fogies rule...

I think micro-homes would succeed just about anywhere, mainly because it provides an affordable way to get into desirable areas. If well planned, and detailed to be radically hip, it’d be a no brainer for 20-something renters. To keep land cost down, you’d have to locate in a “marginal” location.

Well, part of the problem is that right now I don't think downtown housing can be made very affordable. We're a city with one real estate mode, and that's suburban. Anything that goes against that grain seems to have artificially inflated costs and lacks support services like grocery stores, etc. So how would it be comparably affordable in OKC?

I guess what I mean, in a broader general sense, is I don't see any feasible way of making this stuff real. How do you make OKC's inner city a real, functional, viable inner city real estate market? It seems like selling the novelty or the style of downtown living will, for the foreseeable future, be absolutely integral to development success. How do you turn the tide when it's so powerful (the suburban sprawl). When you start to realize what is going on in other cities, all of our wonderful "renaissance" in OKC starts to look like we're just treading water. I love OKC, don't get me wrong, I just think there are a few deep problems that need to be solved.


Honestly, they look like a complete waste of money, to me. Go buy an old home and fix up the neighborhood. These are like clown cars with granite countertops. If you really want to go green, start a commune and have a smaller footprint.

Well, unfortunately, communes aren't really raking in the dough these days lol.

hahaha, communes never made much money. They'd generally disolve because the same three people out of twenty ended up constantly doing the dishes, picking up the laundry and taking out the garbage.

Well, in Austin they do have some successful co-op housing models. Actually they're infinitely nicer than what I usually think of when I think of co-op housing (Co-Op City in the Bronx). They're very popular for the UT students wanting to live around downtown Austin.

I think micro-homes would succeed just about anywhere, mainly because it provides an affordable way to get into desirable areas. If well planned, and detailed to be radically hip, it’d be a no brainer for 20-something renters. To keep land cost down, you’d have to locate in a “marginal” location.

LEED was created as a fact-based rating system, which was in stark contrast to the emotion-based green movement… I thought it would provide a level headed, business friendly way to advance sustainability. But it was soon engulfed by the save-the-planet whackos, and perverted into the ineffective system it is today. There are many great LEED buildings out there, and you’re right, it’s not a bad thing. I don’t object to the end result as much as the ignorance of the cheerleaders.

Hence I said that LEED has to be understood. It is like any standard, it isn't a total answer.

Your obvious anger at conservationism and environmentalism is somewhat surprising for you being an architect. Must be a tea party architect. Hate is all through your critique.

BTW, I am not a huge LEED fan either. Last year I gave a speech to a group of HVAC people regarding the abuse of LEED by developers and architects and the resulting failures of the projects to meet the spirit of LEED even though they earned LEED status. Learning and using LEED guidelines for good design is noble, but using them just to get financial advantage is certainly not.

Hence I said that LEED has to be understood. It is like any standard, it isn't a total answer.

Your obvious anger at conservationism and environmentalism is somewhat surprising for you being an architect. Must be a tea party architect. Hate is all through your critique.

Wow. I sure didn't read anything hateful and certainly nothing about tea partiers. YOUR post on the other hand... You just seem a little touchy and going out of your way to make a political swipe. You just had someone with a different take, is all.

LEED is also going through some changes, to everything for LEED 2.0. It will be much harder to obtain LEED accreditation if many of the things currently being discussed for LEED 2.0 come to fruition. The reasons for that have much to do with it being co-opted by many and finding the holes to exploit. Just like any other set of rules there are going to be those who exploit and circumvent the rules if they can realize some sort of gain.

Wow. I sure didn't read anything hateful and certainly nothing about tea partiers. YOUR post on the other hand... You just seem a little touchy and going out of your way to make a political swipe. You just had someone with a different take, is all.

""Rover, I was the first architect in Oklahoma to become a LEED Accredited Professional. I really know what it is: a shameful, money-making scheme by the USGBC that results in nothing but a fancy plaque. Good, common sense design automatically results in 'sustainable' buildings ... only weak designers (and ignorant owners) need a manufactured 'rating system' to validate their misdirected lust to save the planet."

I was responding to this idea that if you are for green sustainable you are a "tree hugger" and greedy. LEED has been flawed, but so has a huge amount of architectural and development work that results in shoddy inneficient building. All who strive for preserving and sustaining are not "huggers" ...a generally derisive term usually intended to ridicule a viewpoint.

I was responding to this idea that if you are for green sustainable you are a "tree hugger" and greedy. LEED has been flawed, but so has a huge amount of architectural and development work that results in shoddy inneficient building. All who strive for preserving and sustaining are not "huggers" ...a generally derisive term usually intended to ridicule a viewpoint.

Actually, I'm attempting to highlight the difference between rational sustainability, and emotional environmentalism. I applaud sustainability that's predicated on reason and logic... I mock plaque-seekers and those that think reducing carbon footprints can alter climate change. Both approaches result in better buildings than the old, non-sustainable norm; so, if I were politically neutral I'd stop there (but I'm not). I use the term "hugger" to describe the emotional environmentalist. I use the term "greedy" to describe anyone taking advantage of hugger's ignorance.

I guess that is a little derisive.

Actually, I'm attempting to highlight the difference between rational sustainability, and emotional environmentalism. I applaud sustainability that's predicated on reason and logic... I mock plaque-seekers and those that think reducing carbon footprints can alter climate change. Both approaches result in better buildings than the old, non-sustainable norm; so, if I were politically neutral I'd stop there (but I'm not). I use the term "hugger" to describe the emotional environmentalist. I use the term "greedy" to describe anyone taking advantage of hugger's ignorance.

I guess that is a little derisive.

So what do we use to describe ignorant or greedy architects who use their leed training to con their client and the public to think they are actually doing what is intended? Most of the abuse of LEED I have seen has been by architects and developers who manipulate the design to get certified and get them or their client credits or a marketing advantage.

I think any organization that is a strong institution has manipulation issues. I'm not sure that this is unique to LEED. I would compare it to OCURA, which could soon be replaced with some far less democratic. Obviously OCURA is preferable to the Alliance controlling urban renewal assets and dictating public redevelopment efforts. That doesn't mean I could ever 100% stand by OCURA, because we all know they screw up, a LOT.

Just because you can't stand by LEED 100% doesn't mean that it's 100% bad.

So what do we use to describe ignorant or greedy architects who use their leed training to con their client and the public to think they are actually doing what is intended? Most of the abuse of LEED I have seen has been by architects and developers who manipulate the design to get certified and get them or their client credits or a marketing advantage.

Most of the LEED abuse I’ve seen is just the opposite: clients looking for the cheapest possible Certification to dupe the hugger public into believing they’re environmentally conscious If you researched it, I think you’d find that a surprising number of LEED projects are done for marketing purposes rather than because the owner wants to be good to the environment.

I can’t think of any examples of architects using their LEED training to con clients… that doesn’t make sense (con them into what?). Many architects advise their clients that good design is sustainable by default, and LEED Certification is a waste of effort.

Most of the LEED abuse I’ve seen is just the opposite: clients looking for the cheapest possible Certification to dupe the hugger public into believing they’re environmentally conscious If you researched it, I think you’d find that a surprising number of LEED projects are done for marketing purposes rather than because the owner wants to be good to the environment.

I can’t think of any examples of architects using their LEED training to con clients… that doesn’t make sense (con them into what?). Many architects advise their clients that good design is sustainable by default, and LEED Certification is a waste of effort.

I have worked with architects who used leed points in some areas to get design exemptions in other areas and had no interest in the sustainability of the project. I had a large project in LA where the architect gathered leed points in areas like packaging so they could get a variance on the amount of glass used in the building. That is a sham. I have had developers work with their architects and engineers to get leed so they could charge more rent by promoting leed, but in fact they didn't have any interest in real conservation or sustainability. I have worked with plenty of architects, engineers and owners who were more than happy to use the letter of the law and ignore the intent for their own selfish interests. The architects knew exactly what they were doing. I have had engineers tell me they didn't care what the equipment ACTUALLY DID as long as we could help them get leed points. And these were large international firms as well as some consulting engineers and leed certified designers.

This is why I agree that LEED certification isn't the end all and be all...it is very flawed. But, rest assured, this isn't just a tree-hugger issue, as has been stated.

Rover,

I never suggested it is a hugger issue only. The whole LEED metric is meaningless for exactly the reasons you noted.

It’s not because of the architect’s “own selfish interests.” It’s because of the general business pressures driving the project. There’s more to it than just the poor environment… The very same thing happens with the myriad of codes, regulations, standards, laws, guidelines, etc., etc., that MUST be satisfied to build a building. It’s a very complex balancing act, and the last thing needed is a meaningless layer of irrational hugger requirements.

You’re damn right the architects knew what they were doing.

Rover,

I never suggested it is a hugger issue only. The whole LEED metric is meaningless for exactly the reasons you noted.

It’s not because of the architect’s “own selfish interests.” It’s because of the general business pressures driving the project. There’s more to it than just the poor environment… The very same thing happens with the myriad of codes, regulations, standards, laws, guidelines, etc., etc., that MUST be satisfied to build a building. It’s a very complex balancing act, and the last thing needed is a meaningless layer of irrational hugger requirements.

You’re damn right the architects knew what they were doing.
It amazes me how blatantly some developers try and get around codes and standards all in the hopes of saving a penny or two. Sometimes we have to try to convince some clients that they have to comply with the ADA which has been in effect for 20 years and building codes, just because your building met the current code in 1979 doesn't mean that you don't have to comply with the 2009 code in effect. It is just going to get worse as the new energy codes come into effect and the current lights and equipment they use will no longer comply. We had one client with an office suites building try and break everything into smaller than $50,000 construction cost projects so he did not have to submit ADA upgrades to the TDLR (Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation) to comply with TAS (Texas Accessibility Standards). I for one would have a hard time working on something that was intended to get around a standard like that but many developers seem to have no qualms about doing such things, luckily I didn't have to touch it.

If there was a way to market compliance and make money off it you know for damn sure they would be willing to do it but all they see is the perceived initial cost and not the cost down the line if they get sued for non-compliance. The fact they can market LEED Accreditation is one of the reasons the pressures exist to game the system. The USGBC has created a system that is ripe for exploitation and as long as there is a buck to be made exploiting any kind of regulation the business world will try and make money off it and find those people who will be complicit in attaining their goal.