Green Living and Historic Preservation When thinking of green building old houses aren’t what always first comes to mind. “Green building” may instead conjure up images of solar panels, strange-looking storage tanks and grassy substances growing on the roof.

One of the primary principles of green building, however is recycling. This not only applies to materials, but also applies to whole buildings. Reusing a building is by its nature a “green” process.

Sure, old buildings can have drafty doors and windows, less than adequate insulation and old mechanics that may make it operate at less than maximum efficiency, at least less efficiently than a comparable new home built in a green-friendly manner.

Take the house I live in for example. It was built in 1859 of solid brick construction. The walls are made of two layers of bricks with plaster on the inside walls. That means there is no space in between the walls to insulate. One solution could be to build out the interior walls and insulate there, but to someone who wants to maintain the original or existing look and feel of the house that’s not an attractive option.

That doesn’t mean the house isn’t “green,” however as living green is as much a matter of process as it is about meeting specific criteria.

Brick has exceptional "thermal mass” which means it has the ability to store heat and then slowly release it. An insulated wood frame house is more like a blanket that keeps the heat in. During the summer months a brick home stays cool (until it’s fully heated by the sun) and during the winter, brick walls store your home's heat and radiate it back.

Materials aren’t the only green thinking consideration, however, another is size. Your homes bricks aren’t the only thing that stores energy. Think of your entire home as stored energy. All the energy that went into making the bricks, the stairs, the foundation, the roof of your house is still there. Choosing an existing home means that you are choosing not to expend more energy building another home.

Another consideration is size. A smaller less efficient home may take less energy to operate than a larger more efficient home. Beyond heating, remember to consider the energy it takes to maintain a large lawn or even the energy it takes to travel to and from a home that’s far from amenities and employment.

There’s still more that we miss when thinking only about the insulation properties of external materials. A brick row house may also use less energy than a comparable sized detached home because at least two of the walls are attached to other walls—they never touch the cold on the outside. The fewer walls exposed, the more efficient the home is. From this point of view, a condo in a high-rise is more suited to saving energy.

Returning to the idea of historic preservation and whether it’s compatible with green building, we can use the example of changing windows. I imagine the consensus out there is that double-paned windows are a must for buying a home. Most home inspectors will note if a home contains original or single-paned windows and suggest that they be replaced.

Many people who like old homes enjoy original features including windows. I was familiar with a 1830s farm house in the small town of Poland, Ohio that in the late 1990s still had all its original windows. More, they had been sanded and painted so that they were in perfect operating condition—someone had put a tremendous amount of energy into preserving them down to the original wavy glass that has a slightly distorted quality to it.

Unfortunately the home was sold and a new owner replaced all the windows with new double-paned ones. This may have been recommended by a home inspector and even viewed as a “green” adaptation. While it’s true the replacement windows were more efficient than the original ones, it’s also true that reuse is a green –principle and simply adding storm windows or magnetic interior storms would have arguably been the preferred “green” option.

In short, when thinking green it’s important to think beyond energy efficiency and using new, renewable products made of recycled materials. It’s important to think about reusing existing homes as well as materials. It’s important to think about the amount of space you occupy, both on the inside and outside of the house. It’s important to think about where your home is in relation to the places you frequently travel and important to think about how much of your house is exposed to the weather outside.

Historic preservation and green building do go together and living green is primarily a product of thinking green.

Unthawing Pittsburgh’s Potential: Two stories about two different parts of the continent caught my eye recently. The first was about an Alaska town that offered free land to anyone willing to submit a $500 deposit and build a 1,000 square foot house within two years. There were no shortage of takers, in fact folks from Oregon, Idaho, Florida, Wisconsin and Washington were camping out in frigid temperatures for a chance to build a warm house on the cold tundra.

The second story was about a place with slightly worse prospects: Detroit. The headline about that city said cars there are now more expensive than houses. That’s not the entire story, however, while a foreclosed Detroit bungalow recently sold at auction for less than $2,000, a new condo in a downtown high-rise fetched seven figures through traditional channels. More, the long vacant and deteriorating Cadillac Hotel in downtown Detroit is being restored with the upper floors being converted into condos.

I recall reading an interview with Robert Toll, the luxury homebuilder as his company moved into the arena of developing downtown. He wasn’t sure the downtown craze would spread that far, from New York and Philadelphia into urban Detroit. Apparently he underestimated America’s new urban condo craze.

In Pittsburgh downtown condos are also coming into their own. Traditional urban neighborhoods like the Southside Flats, Mexican War Streets, Lawrenceville and Deutschtown are also holding their own, but its not hard to find the bargains mentioned in the Detroit article around here. In fact, the article mentioned in the first paragraph that homes in Motown could be had for $26,000 or less. My thoughts: Why is this news? They’ve been available here for quite some time.

Pittsburgh has had more houses than people for many years now and while people tend to cluster in certain areas keeping those values up, they don’t want to be in other places where you tend to find the $25,000 or less houses. From my general observation urban homebuyers now want to be where they can have the benefit of a walk-able neighborhood with a healthy mix of retail and residential. Urban suburbs that require you to drive everywhere are less popular.

In any case, I’d venture that most any affordable house in Pittsburgh has more going for it than a like one in Detroit or some icy Alaska land.

This hasn’t brought us to Alaska yet, but we’re getting warm.

If Pittsburgh is filled with not only vacant lots, but vacant lots with vacant houses on them, many of which are owned by the city and never reach the icy temperatures of that rocky shrubgrass is Alaska, why wouldn’t homesteaders take Pittsburgh up on such an offer? It could be a boon to the population and the tax base, not to mention the public relations value.

Of course these things are always complicated, but if its news that Detroit has affordable housing and people are flocking to Alaska in hopes of obtaining a frozen rock or two, I’ve got to think Pittsburgh has a lot more work to do getting the word out.

Ask about accessing my password-protected agent notes.