By Nigel F. Maynard

Let’s forget the green movement for a moment. The topic has exploded in the mainstream, but that growth has resulted in false claims and an unbelievable amount of greenwashing. The definition of what makes something green is subjective, making the issue as thorny as it is puzzling to consumers and builders alike.

So let’s talk in real terms. According to the EPA, the average household spends about $2,200 on energy bills every year. People in drafty old houses with single-pane windows, under-insulated walls, and prehistoric appliances are likely paying more. Simply put, saving energy will save people money.

Unlike green, energy efficiency is something that home buyers can understand, process, and wrap their heads around. As evidence of this, window replacement contractors say they have seen a marked increase in business since President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which included provisions for homeowners to receive a tax credit of up to $1,500 for energy efficiency improvements. The popularity of the Cash for Clunkers CARS program also highlights this trend.

For this reason, builders should think of energy efficiency as a prime construction strategy.

Where do you begin? Right here. In this story, you will find 10 cost-effective strategies that will help you build a better home–and one with features that your sales staff can quantify to potential buyers. There are other, more sophisticated strategies, of course, but these tried and true practices will give you best bang for your buck.

1. Orient the house for energy efficiency.

Before you even think about Energy Star appliances, recycled-content products, or whiz-bang technologies, the first thing anyone building a house needs to do is position the structure for maximum benefit. It is, perhaps, the most important decision you’ll make. This is general knowledge but still so few builders actually do it—or are unable because of how subdivisions are typically planned.

Busiest builders: Centex Homes, D.R. Horton, Beazer Homes, Bill Clark Homes, Pasquinelli/Portrait Homes

Why? The right site orientation is where energy savings begin. In addition to beneficial daylight, a properly sited house will avoid solar heat gain and require less mechanical cooling in the summer. It may also take advantage of the prevailing breezes for free cooling. “East west [orientation] is best,” says architect Ed Binkley, of Ed Binkley Design in Oviedo, Fla. The north side provides the best light, southern exposure is easy to control with shading, and the east and west should have less glass.

2. Place windows appropriately

Once the house is properly sited on the lot, the last thing you want to do is negate it with large windows in the wrong places. Let your geographical region and climate determine placement. ”If you want morning sunlight to spray across your breakfast table, your breakfast room window should face east,” Don Vandervort writes on his Website www.hometips.com. “Light from the south is bright and direct; solar houses are oriented to the south for maximum heat gain. South-facing windows are often located beneath eaves or roof overhangs to block the high, intense summer sun, but allow in the warmth of the lower winter sun.”

Why: The right window placement will mean the difference between unwanted heat gain and lack of cool, flattering daylight. Proper window placement will facilitate cross breezes and ventilation—provided the house was oriented correctly in the first place. Moreover, architect Erla Dögg Ingjaldsdóttir of Santa Monica, Calif.-based MINARC, says low window openings on a house let in cool air and high window placement allows hot air to escape.

Cost: Free.

3. Install a radiant barrier.

Your house is sited properly and windows are in the right places, but now it’s time to keep out the sun’s heat. A radiant barrier installed on the roof deck or (in some cases, the attic floor) will help. A structural panel with a thin sheet of reflective material—usually aluminum—on one side, a radiant barrier is used as regular sheathing (with the reflective side down).

Why: In warm climates or hot climates, a radiant barrier helps reduce summer heat gain, allowing air conditioners to work less, thereby saving money. The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy says a radiant barrier also can “reduce indoor heat losses through the ceiling in the winter.” Some manufacturers claim the products prevent up to 97% of the radiant heat in the panel from entering the attic.

Cost: $500 for a 2,000 square foot home.

4. Properly air-seal the structure.

One of the most important factors in a house is preventing unwanted air infiltration. Builders can do this with an aggressive campaign to caulk all cracks and seal all pipes penetrating the building envelope, with diligent housewrap application, or with spray foam insulation or blow-in cellulose. “Number one with a bullet for us is rigorous air sealing,” says Jesse Thompson, with Kaplan Thompson Architects in Portland, Maine.

Why: According to DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, preventing random air movement through building cavities helps prevent air leakage, which can account for 30% or more of a home’s heating and cooling costs. Architect C. Joseph Vigil, president of VaST Architecture in Boulder, Colo., recommends “having a blower door test done and then based on the results insulating and caulking all gaps and cracks to minimize the amount of natural air changes per hour that occur.” Moreover, Thompson says his firm is “getting builders to commit to blower-door testing during construction, especially pre-insulation, when the walls are open and problems can be caught easily.” Air sealing also will increase the effectiveness of the insulation.

Cost: $200 to $600.

5. Insulate. Insulate. Insulate.

Siding and roofing will protect the house from bulk rain, and sealing stops the air flow, but a properly insulated house will keep its inhabitants comfortable. “A good, tight, well-insulated shell is about 70% of the solution,” Binkley says.

Why: “To maintain comfort, the heat lost in the winter must be replaced by your heating system and the heat gained in the summer must be removed by your cooling system,” the DOE says. “Properly insulating your home will decrease this heat flow by providing an effective resistance to the flow of heat.” Still, the amount of insulation or R-value you’ll need depends on your climate, type of heating and cooling system, and the section of the house you plan to insulate, according to the DOE. The type of insulation is a matter of preference. Some architects use foam because it (the closed-cell version) acts as a moisture barrier and air barrier and because it fills all nooks and crannies. Other pros use blow-in cellulose, while most builders stick with fiberglass batts. Either way, the concept is the same: the insulation must be installed properly to touch all six sides of the wall cavity. “Some types of insulation—such as foam board and dense-packed cellulose insulation—can be effective at reducing air flow as well as heat flow,”according to the government’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. “However, the most common type of insulation—fiberglass—does not stop air leakage. In older homes, dirty fiberglass insulation is a telltale sign of air movement (it collects dirt like a filter).”

Cost: Between 25 cents to 90 cents per square foot (fiberglass). Foam costs about three to four times more.

6. Remember the attic.

It’s tempting to overlook this part of the house, but the attic is also an important part of an energy efficiency strategy. Simply put, “Properly insulating and air sealing your attic will help reduce your energy bills,” reminds the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

Why: “The attic is critical,” says Robert Jordan, president of the insulation company Dr. Warm in Upton, Mass. “Hot air rises and wants to go higher and escape from the house. Doing the attic is most important.” If the attic is vented, make sure to seal all attic-to-home air leaks because most insulation does not stop airflow, DOE says. This may not be necessary if you’re using spray foam in an unvented attic.

Cost: About $3.50 per square foot for 9 inches of open-cell foam. Cheaper options are available.

7. Install a properly sized efficient furnace or boiler.

The last thing you want to do after being diligent about the other energy efficiency strategies is blow it by installing an inefficient HVAC system. In 2006, DOE mandated that manufacturers cannot import or produce air conditioners with anything less than a 13 SEER. Shoot for ratings above that. Vigil adds that builders should avoid any mechanical system that is less than 90% efficient.

Why: Installing the most efficient system will result in direct saving because heating and cooling a house represents the costlier part of maintaining it.

Cost: $1,000 to $5,000. Plus, if the house is sealed properly and insulated well, the physical size of the system can be reduced.

8. Choose an efficient hot water system.

In most houses, the refrigerator and the hot water tank are the two major appliances that are always on—always! In fact, water heating is the third-largest expense in the home after air conditioning and major appliances and accounts for 14% to 25% of a home’s operating costs.

Why: As of this year, EPA and DOE, issued criteria that water heaters must meet to obtain the Energy Star label. The agency says the standards are expected to save American consumers about $780 million in utility costs by the fifth year of the standard’s use. Though Energy Star covers a variety of tank types, different architects have their preference. Vigil prefers tankless systems that heat only when they’re needed, while Binkley prefers a solar system. Traditional storage tanks can also be efficient.

Cost: $300 and up for traditional storage units (uninstalled); from $800 for tankless (uninstalled); and $2,500 to $3,500 for solar (installed).

9. Choose fluorescent-friendly fixtures.

The Energy Star program says lighting in the average U.S. home accounts for about 20% of its electric bill. Switching out an incandescent lamp for a medium-based compact fluorescent bulb (CFL) will help will save about $30 over its lifetime and pay for itself in about six months. But there is a better way: Use fixtures designed for pin-based fluorescent bulbs instead.

Why: Though medium-based CFLs use 75% less energy and lasts about 10 times longer than incandescent bulbs, there is a problem. “If they are put into incandescent fixtures they need to be left on for longer periods,” says Binkley. “Fluorescents are not made to be switched off and on for short periods, they will burn out fast.” Sea Gull Lighting says an Energy Star fixture that is designed for a pin-based fluorescent bulb not only looks better, but the quality of light and energy performance is better as well.

Cost: Starts at $40 for a ceiling fixture.

10. Install Energy Star appliances.

No builder interested in efficiency should be installing anything less than Energy Star rated appliances. Period.

Why: Energy Star models exceed federal standards for energy and water use and are more efficient than older ones, thereby helping homeowners save money on their utility bills. Forget baseline models that meet the minimum standards and consult with www.energystar.gov for models that go beyond. For example, some dishwashers exceed government standards by 50%, while others beat them by 147%.

Cost: Varies.

By Craig Webb

The U.S. economy is emerging from its worst period since the 1930s, but housing’s recovery will trail other industries and its rebound depends on skirting several potential pitfalls, a Mercer University economics professor told Florida building material dealers.

“I believe this economy has started to come out of this recession,” Roger Tutterow said Thursday at the Florida Building Material Association’s Main Event meeting in Kissimmee, Fla. He predicted the revival will be well under way in six to nine months, at which point the gross domestic product will be increasing at about a 2.5% annual rate.

Energy and food price hikes have moderated, inventories are shrinking, money is moving back into the credit markets, and residential real estate prices have “bottomed out … forming a basis for recovery,” he said. Added encouragement comes from the Conference Board’s index of Leading Economic Indicators, which has turned positive and now points toward an annualized growth rate of 4%.

But Tutterow also presented several reasons why the housing industry won’t be leading the economy out of this recession:

• The 2.5% growth rate that Tutterow forecasts for mid-2010 trails the typical annual recovery rate of 3.5% to 4%.
• Payrolls won’t rise again until well into 2010. That matters because job growth typically spurs household formation, which in turn encourages new-home construction.
• The improvement in credit markets, such as for commercial paper, isn’t being shared by the commercial and industrial lending market. Regulators continue to tell banks to write down the values of loans and to toughen standards, Tutterow said. As a result, he said, “Half of the credit crunch is behind us. But the half that’s within the banking side is still there.”
• Hopes for a recovery in housing could be dashed–or at least delayed–by an unexpected rise in foreclosures, by banks’ decision to dump recovered properties onto the market, or by a premature rush by builders to start putting up new homes.

Meanwhile, the commercial construction market probably will need until 2012 before vacancy rates fall again. “We’re in a shutdown mode, allowing the economy to catch up,” the Atlanta-based professor said.

Reprinted from ProSales Magazine: August, 2009

By Katy Tomasulo

Las Vegas, Jan. 22 – The number of products advertised as “green” has multiplied at a record pace in recent years. But while some are as eco-friendly as they say, others are dripping in greenwashing. So how can pros ensure they are selecting green building products that not only live up to their sustainability claims but also offer the expected performance of the products they are replacing? The key is good old-fashioned research, according to a panel of legal experts during the workshop “Green Building Products: Can They Perform as Promised?” at the International Builders’ Show.

The panelists—Sheila Fix of Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman, LLP in Glendale, Calif.;
Loly Tor of K&L Gates in Newark, N.J.; Peter E. Nelson of Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc./Consulting Engineers in Waltham, Mass.; and Patrick J. Perrone of K&L Gates—outlined a three-part plan for analyzing and selecting green products, and for protecting your business in the process.

“You will be inundated with green product advertising,” said moderator Perrone. “You need to have an approach to selecting those products.”

EVALUATING PRODUCT CLAIMS

Part 1: Will It Perform?

The first step is to determine if the green product will perform as promised and what installation changes you need to make to accommodate its unique characteristics. To avoid a performance problem, said Nelson, you need an approach to avoid product failure. Understand the nuances of the product’s installation versus the product it is replacing and if different or additional steps need to be taken.

To determine product performance, ask the following questions:

• What is it supposed to do?
• How does the green product compare to the traditional version?
• Does the product meet recognized industry standards, such as building codes, that tell you how to apply it?
• Does it have third-party certification?
• Can large quantities be delivered on a timely basis?
• How long will the product last? Request test data and consider conducting your own testing under the conditions you will be using the product in.
• How difficult is the product to repair?
• Are there installation issues that need to be considered? For example, efficient windows are great, but not if you don’t flash them properly.
• Are there any maintenance requirements to ensure long-term performance?
• How will the product work in a wet environment or if it gets wet?
• What effect will the product have on the home system?
• What is the product’s performance history? Ask about claims history and to speak with other pros who have used the product.

Not every product will meet every criterion. The key is to weigh all of the data and avoid items with too many strikes against them, or that appear risky or unproven.

Part 2: Is It Green?

Like in part one, Tor recommends exploring the following areas to determine if the product lives up to its green marketing claims:

• Ask how the product affects the environment. Weigh energy efficiency, carbon footprint, water efficiency, material optimization, and public health. Bamboo, for example, is rapidly renewable but has to be shipped long distances. Wood takes much longer to grow, but is available locally in many cases.
• Look for applicable green standards that you can measure the product against. Look to green labels such as Greenguard, Greenspec, SFI, FSC, Energy Star, and others for third-party validation. (But remember that not all labels are the same. Look for programs that identify specific criteria; are objective and consensus based; and are stringent so that only the best products can achieve their label.)
• Beware of greenwashing. Proceed with caution if manufacturers cannot support green claims or if they focus on only one attribute. Sticking the word “eco” in front of a brand does not make it green.
• Ask if a Life Cycle Analysis has been conducted. Compare the LCA against that of similar products.
• Consult reliable databases of environmentally preferred products. These include the EPA, EcoLogo, and GreenSeal.

Asking questions and obtaining data can help you better evaluate each new product you’re considering. “There’s no magic formula,” Perrone said. “What we’re trying to convey is a practical, common-sense approach to evaluate products that are out there.”

PROTECTING YOUR BUSINESS

Once you’ve determined a product lives up to its green claims and will perform as needed, it’s important to take steps to limit your liability. Fix and Tor offered the following recommendations:

Pre-construction considerations with manufacturers:

• Work only with reputable companies that have proven track records.
• Obtain an extended warranty and look at it closely. Seek warranties that cover replacement AND cost of replacement (labor).
• Avoid overly restrictive limitation of damage or limitation of remedy provisions.
• Seek permission to assign and pass all warranties on to the homeowner. This is critical; otherwise, the owner will look to the builder to remedy a failure.
• Seek defense and indemnity provisions for third-party claims involving defects.
• Seek additional insured coverage under manufacturer’s policy. And be sure to get a copy of the endorsement and certificate of insurance.
• Ask if manufacturer provides instructions/training concerning proper installation.
• Pre-construction considerations with subcontractors:
• Seek warranty regarding ability to properly install the green product. Ensure they are familiar with it and keep an open dialogue. Consider third-party testing of assemblies.
• Ask for references regarding prior experience with installation of that product; follow through on checking references.
• Seek defense and indemnity provisions for third-party claims arising from improper installation.
• Seek additional insured status for installation problems causing damage to “other property.” Get a copy of the insurance certificate and endorsement.

Post-construction considerations with homeowners:

• Avoid misrepresentation of claims and be careful about what you say. Tor recommended:
  • Avoid vague references to green and health benefits
  • Avoid inflated or unsubstantiated claims
  • Don’t promise specific energy savings
  • Train employees, particularly sales, about what they can and can’t say
• Look to FTC Green Guides for guidelines on what you can and can’t say. The FTC is currently considering changes to add claims for green products.
• Let others speak for you. For your new homes, seek third-party certification such as through LEED for Homes, NAHB Model Green Home Building guidelines, and Energy Star.
• Pass along the manufacturer’s warranties. Make them a part of the move-in package. In the contract, say you assign warranties to the purchaser.
• Define what you mean by green in your contract documents.
• Limit liability by contract.
• Provide homeowners with materials on maintaining their products.

Reprinted from ECOHOME Magazine January 2009.

By Paul Jannke

The U.S. housing sector is in its worst downturn in more than 50 years. With five months of data in, single-family housing starts are poised to average just 370,000 units at a seasonally adjusted annualized rate in the first half of 2009. This is far and away the lowest level in the 59-year history of the series. The question now is: Are we likely to stay at these levels and if so, for how long?

Most forecasters believe starts will remain at or below this level. In fact consensus forecasts imply single-family starts of 350,000 units through most of 2010! But in our North American Lumber Forecast , we estimate this is much too low. Why is that? One need only look at new home inventories to understand why.

Actual inventory of new single-family homes for sale have been declining for several years now. In fact, inventories fell to 292,000 units in May. At the current sales pace, this is just over a 10-month supply, too high to encourage builders to ramp up construction. However, inventories will almost certainly continue to fall over the next six months, with supply likely to hit seven months by year-end, a level at which builders will begin to ramp up production.

We are quite certain inventories of unsold new single-family homes will continue to fall over the next six months, for several reasons.

First, new home sales stabilized in the first half of 2009 at an annual rate of around 340,000 units. Moreover, they increased in April and would have increased in May except it was an unusually short month (typically May has 22 workdays; there were 20 in 2009). With affordability improving (year-over-year new home prices are off 11% and mortgage interest rates are down more than 100 basis points), we conservatively expect new single-family home sales will average 360,000 units over the next six months.

Second, because it takes six to seven months to complete a home from the time it is started, we know the pace for completion of single-family homes in the second half of this year-around: an annual rate of 370,000. Now, with 360,000 homes being sold at a 360,000 annual rate,you might think inventories should actually be increasing.

However, not all the home started are built for sale. In fact only about 65% of the starts in recent quarters were for sale. The rest were built by or for the owner and don’t go into inventory. So, again speaking in terms of an annual rate, of the 370,000 homes that will be completed in the second half of this year, only about 240,000 will go into inventory and 360,000 will be sold.

With seven months left in the year, this means inventories will be drawn down by 70,000 units leaving us with 222,000 units of inventory. At an annual rate sales pace of 360,000, this is the equivalent of just over seven months’ supply.

Once the monthly supply of new homes gets down to this level, we believe builders will begin to increase single-family home production. While they certainly won’t jack production back up to 1 million units, we would expect them to work towards stabilizing the inventory of unsold homes. At an annualized sales pace of 360,000, builders would need to produce 550,000 single-family homes (assuming 35% of the homes are built by/for an owner) to stabilize inventories.

So, even if the RISI forecast for single-family housing starts proves overly optimistic (reaching an annual rate 700,000 units at year-end), the consensus that single-family housing starts will stay in the low 300,000-unit rangethrough the end of this year is certainly too pessimistic.

This article was originally published by ProSales Information Service.

By Chris Wood

The competing lumber certification bodies – which certify working forest acreage, as well as the paper, pulp, fiber, and solid lumber goods derived from such forests – have always had a contentious relationship. But things are heating up in a brand battle that also includes certification standards under the American Tree Farm System (ATFS), the Canadian Standards Association (CSA), and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC).

Once a hard-to-find, premium-ticket item, certified lumber has become commonplace on the racks of building material retailers. Its use in the manufacture of flooring, cabinetry, doors, windows, and siding also is on the rise.

Simply put, all certified lumber carries a promise that it comes from a sustainably managed forest. Regardless of the acronym, the message is the same: Rest easy, because we didn’t clear-cut the rainforests, destroy animal habitats, or otherwise screw up the environment in the making of this product.

In the ever-greening global economy, that promise carries saleable weight, say certifiers and product distributors, and certified lumber consequently has enjoyed a surge in demand. Certified lumber also qualifies builders for points under various green building programs. As certified lumber commands more market share through these programs and increased awareness, certifiers are in a no-holds-barred wrestling match to get their brand identity front and center.

Cola Wars

The competition for visibility is an interesting one, considering that, unpromoted, certified lumber is typically sight unseen within green building projects.

In an applied setting, certified lumber does not reduce energy usage, make the building more efficient, or reduce harmful emissions. Its greenness lies in the guarantee that it comes from sustainably managed professional forests. By using it, you can earn points or credit within most green building programs, add substance to your marketing message, and feel good that you are not contributing to rainforest depletion, unfair trade practices, or the complete disregard for natural resources and virgin ecosystems.

Within a larger green building product, it gives the builder another bullet point and line item of environmental friendliness.

“We’ve spent a lot of time in the last six months making the market more aware of SFI and the benefits that the standard offers in the marketplace,” says SFI president and CEO Kathy Abusow. “Historically, SFI did not do any outreach, and a lot has changed – we became independent from the APA, we revamped our standard in 2005, and we instituted a chain-of-custody program. We want to put the word out on those successes, so we’re meeting with customers, hitting the trade shows, and making a huge push on product labeling.”

At FSC, U.S. region president Corey Brinkema has felt the market heat. “SFI is spending a considerable amount of money to create some consumer demand for its product and do what it needs to do to get credibility in the marketplace,” Brinkema says.

Brinkema counters that his organization’s partnerships have led to the appearance of the FSC moniker on Victoria’s Secret, Crate & Barrel, and Williams-Sonoma catalogs as well as the last Harry Potter book. “All of a sudden, we have the eyeballs of the American public on our brand,” he says.

Whether or not co-branding and industry outreach can conjure a dominant market share in the building materials sector remains to be seen. Collectively, SFI and FSC already account for the lion’s share of certified wood available in the United States; certified wood overall makes up about 10% of U.S. wood supplies. According to data prepared for the U.S. Green Building Council by the Yale School of Forestry, SFI-certified producers account for approximately 50% of U.S. solid wood products and 85% of U.S. panel production, while FSC remains the de facto certification body for wood not originating in North America.

Naturally, competing certifiers would have you believe their standard is the best, the largest, the fastest growing, the most preferable, the greenest. But navigating through each program’s certification criteria doesn’t reveal a clear-cut winner, even for the experts.

“All of the programs – FSC, SFI, the American Tree Farm System, the PEFC system – if you look at what happens on the ground, are today remarkably the same,” says Jim Bowyer, professor emeritus at the University of Minnesota Department of Bioproducts and Bioprocess Engineering and an elected fellow of the International Academy of Wood Science, which does not endorse any particular certification standard.

“I hear that argument all the time, that it is Coke vs. Pepsi,” says Brinkema. “And I think that PEFC and the related standards of SFI and CSA would have you believe that all standards are equal. But the reality is that they could not be further apart.”

Culling the Stock

But are they? Comparative matrixes prepared by both Yale and the independent Forest Certification Resource Center show that all standards share active oversight and balanced participation from academics, industry stakeholders, and members of the conservation and environmental community.

The criteria of CSA, FSC, and SFI all touch on a broad range of forest science, environmental, social, and economic issues; are addressed by independent third-party audits; and are subject to public review. All prohibit using illegally harvested wood, and all offer chain-of-custody certification that verifies to the end users that the product they hold has been segregated from noncertified wood throughout the harvest, milling, and distribution processes. Certifiers also offer “percentage” or “mixed” chain-of-custody standards that allow for co-mingling certified and noncertified woods.

Perhaps more relevant to builders is a realization that certified lumber is ultimately just wood. “Certification does nothing to verify the durability and the strength of the lumber,” says Russell Richardson, director of industrial markets for Kenner, La. – based Southern Pine Council, which has CSA-, FSC-, and SFI-allied members but does not endorse any one certification body. “Don’t forget about the structural attributes and aesthetics of your lumber. You want wood that looks good, is durable, and is environmentally friendly.”

One core argument for certified lumber is that wood, in and of itself, is an environmentally responsible material. Within a full life-cycle assessment, wood is renewable, consumes atmospheric carbon during growth, requires comparatively little energy for harvest and manufacturing than nonorganic building materials, and is biodegradable and recyclable. Bowyer even argues that any wood professionally produced in the U.S. and Canada has already met regulations that put it within the top 5% of environmentally sustainable lumber on a global scale.

But to be sure, and to earn points for green building programs or up-sell the eco-friendliness of your product to your clients, you’ll need the appropriate product labeling.

“Definitely one of the things driving an increase in demand for certified lumber is the ability for builders to highlight its environmentally friendliness to their homeowner customers,” says Paul Novack, a product specialist for Green Depot, a green building products supplier. “With that demand, costs have come down and availability has gone up.”

To get the brand, expect in general to pay a price premium of up to 5%. Additionally, a host of products, from floor joists to replacement windows to flooring and cabinetry, are now manufactured using certified wood. Expect the typical low percentage price premium and the corresponding prevalence of the certification brand on the more wood-heavy products, like flooring.

In some categories, such as windows, you may not pay a premium at all and might even have to search a spec manual to see the certification brand.

One thing is for sure: With The Home Depot, Lowe’s, Menards, and most independent retailers now carrying a range of certified lumber products, availability should not be an issue. Ultimately, you just have to choose where your brand loyalty lies.

This article was originally published by Remodelling Magazine.

By Boyce Thompson

With most economists and builders expecting a national market decline this year, this may not seem like the best time to be selecting the “healthiest” markets in the country. Virtually every market was down last year. But a close look at the numbers reveals that some markets have way outperformed others during the last four years and are likely to continue to do so this year.

When the housing market stages its official recovery, the markets listed on the following pages are likely to lead the parade. It may take a year or more for the weakest markets – where burgeoning foreclosure sales are still pounding new home values, making building and selling new homes an exercise in futility – to finally stage a turnaround. We’ll present that list next week.

The healthiest markets have many things in common. Most of them are great places to live, either close to the ocean, mountains, or major universities. Most of them didn’t have a huge run-up in prices during the boom and aren’t experiencing rampant deflation during the bust.

To compile these lists, we analyzed the top 75 housing markets in the country. We ranked them based on population trends and job growth, perennial drivers of housing demand. We also examined what’s happened with home prices; many of the healthiest markets have managed to hold the line on home values. And finally, we considered the rate building permits, which may be the single best ongoing indicator of builder confidence in a market. We combined all these metrics to produce a score for each market. Here are the top 15, in reverse order.

15. Myrtle Beach, S.C.

2008 total building permits: 3,211

Though permit activity dropped sharply last year, Myrtle Beach remains one of the hottest markets in the country, especially when you analyze the number of permits pulled per resident. Only 266,000 people live in the Myrtle Beach metro area, which until recently had been growing its population by nearly 5 percent a year. That means builders pulled one permit for every 82 residents. A steady influx of people, many of them retirees, are drawn by close proximity to the ocean and 117 golf courses at last count. That has helped keep home prices steady; they fell only 4 percent last year to an affordable $189,400. Most of the home building is split between Brunswick and New Hanover counties. Jobs are dependent on the tourist industry, though, and the metro area was rocked last year when a $400 million rock-and-roll themed amusement park, Hard Rock Park, opened and then filed for bankruptcy. Myrtle Beach added jobs last year, but as of December employment was decreasing at a 4.2 percent rate compared to a year earlier.

Busiest builders: Centex Homes, D.R. Horton, Beazer Homes, Bill Clark Homes, Pasquinelli/Portrait Homes

14. Wilmington, N.C.

2008 total building permits: 3,551

Wilmington has the second highest ratio of permits pulled per resident, behind only Myrtle Beach. The population here, 355,700 by Census estimates, has been growing at a better than 3 percent annual rate for the last five years, well above the national average. Primary residents are drawn by a four-season climate, close proximity to Atlantic beaches, and affordable housing. Median home prices, at $203,100 last year, are just about the national average. The area gave back 1,100 jobs in December of last year, after gaining 20,000 the previous three years. Wilmington has had a 60 percent decline in permit activity since 2005, around the national average, but its track record for population growth helps it make this list.

13. Charlotte, N.C.

2008 total building permits: 12,231

People and businesses must love Charlotte, because they are moving there at a high rate. The metro area of 1.76 million has grown its residents by 4 percent annually over the last five years, one of the highest rates in the country. They are drawn by relatively affordable housing for the East Coast—median home prices are only $197,800, and they’ve “corrected” downward by only 3.2 percent in the last year. A strong fourth quarter helped Charlotte record 12,231 permits last year, a 44 percent decline since 2005. Charlotte’s strength relative to other markets led the investment banking firm UBS to predict last year that it would be one of the first markets to recover from the housing downturn. Charlotte is still a single-family market, with 62 percent of the residential activity in stand-alone homes. The job market in this banking hub contracted last year, after growing 3 to 5 percent annually the previous three years.

Busiest builders: C.P. Morgan, NVR/Ryan Homes, Pulte Homes, Centex Homes, KB Home

12. Denver, Colo.

2008 total building permits: 8,800

Denver has been all over the home building news of late, with Beazer and Centex leaving town, then Village Homes of Colorado declaring bankruptcy. But the market hasn’t been hit as hard by the home building recession as other Western markets, in part because it didn’t experience rampant price appreciation during the boom. That’s partly because there’s lots of land available to develop in Denver. The median price of an existing home here was still an affordable $219,300 last year, down only 10.6 percent in the last year. Denver enjoys one of the highest population growth rates in the country – 2 percent annually for each of the last five years. Builders pulled 8,800 permits in Denver last year, down from 20,864 in 2005, a percentage decline that’s close to the national average. Denver is buoyed by a strong commercial real estate market.

Busiest builders: D.R. Horton, Richmond American Homes, Standard Pacific Homes, Shea Homes, Engle Homes. Courtesy: Hanley Wood Market Intelligence.

11. Nashville, Tenn.

2008 total building permits: 8,142

Nashville, the 20th largest home building market, operated under the radar of the national housing boom. It didn’t ramp up wildly during the boom years, and it’s not contracting viciously during the bust. Median home prices remain an affordable $159,800, propped up by a growing job base. Seventy percent of the residential construction is single-family. Some of the market’s resilience stems from above-average population growth of about 2.3 percent a year. Back in the day, 2005, Nashville accounted for 16,654 permits; it now runs at about half that level. But that’s a better performance than most major markets.

Busiest builders: Ole South Properties, Beazer Homes, Centex Homes, The Jones Company of Tennessee, Technical Olympic USA. Courtesy: Hanley Wood Market Intelligence.

10. Washington, D.C.

2008 total building permits: 11,693

Washington, D.C., showed signs last summer that it might be emerging from the downturn, then it turned south again. Even so, the area produces a ton of jobs—29,200 in the last year—that fuel a vibrant housing market, the 11th largest in the country. Many of the jobs stem from contracts with the federal government. Washington remains a relatively unaffordable place to live, with a median home price of $343,00 last year. But values have fallen only 20.4 percent in the last year, in part because the population continues to grow—an average of 1 percent annually over the last five years. Home building patterns have changed dramatically in the nation’s capital with builders mothballing subdivisions well beyond the beltway and focusing on infill opportunities. The region remains one of the worst in the nation for commuters.

Busiest builders: Ryan Homes, K. Hovnanian Homes, Centex Homes, NV Homes, and Stanley Martin Companies. Courtesy: Hanley Wood Market Intelligence.

9. Fayetteville, Ark.

2008 total building permits: 2,989

Fayetteville has made some important lists in recent years. Located in the foothills of the Ozarks and within an easy drive of Wal-Mart’s corporate headquarters, it has recently been named one of the best places to live (by Kiplinger) and to do business (by Inc.). Employment, which had been strongly positive since 2005, dropped somewhat in the fourth quarter of last year. Recent layoffs at Wal-Mart’s corporate office sent tremors through the market. But several Fortune 500 companies that sell products to Wal-Mart have established offices here, and they have helped Fayetteville achieve one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country, 4.1 percent in the fourth quarter. The University of Arkansas is also located in Fayetteville, and it has helped attract start-up businesses. Residents are drawn by an affordable housing stock; median prices average only $137,600, below the national average, and they’ve lost only 3.4 percent of their value in the last year. Builders pulled only 2,989 residential permits last year, down from 7,449 in 2005.

8. Indianapolis, Ind.

2008 total building permits: 7,004

Builders are still pulling permits at a relatively healthy rate in Indianapolis, despite a virtually flat job market. Unlike other major markets that have become multifamily-oriented, single-family still accounts for two-thirds of home building activity. Ultra-affordable housing accounts for some of the activity—the median price of a home here is only $111,200, making it one of the most affordable markets in the country. As a result, home prices have declined only 7.7 percent in the last year. At the top of the market in 2005, builders in Indianapolis took down 15,619 permits, so activity is down 55 percent, slightly better than the national average. Unfortunately, the relative health of the market wasn’t enough to keep Davis Homes, one of the area’s largest private builders, from going out of business last year.

Busiest builders: C.P. Morgan, Beazer Homes USA/Trinity Homes, Centex Homes, American West Development/Arbor Homes, The Ryland Group. Courtesy: Hanley Wood Market Intelligence.

7. Seattle, Wash.

2008 total building permits: 15,389

Seattle, a city of 3.4 million people, last year weighed in as the eighth largest home building market. Residential construction activity here, as measured by permits, is off only 40 percent since 2005, much better than most markets. Seattle has steadily transitioned during the last 10 years from an affordable to an upscale housing market, with the median price of an existing home reaching above $350,000. Even so, existing-home prices fell only 7.7 percent in the last year. One of the secrets to Seattle’s success is that it has added lots of jobs in recent years and held on to them last year. Some builders there have even stepped up their land buying in anticipation of a market recovery. As the city has become more urban, the share of single-family to multifamily permits has reversed; multifamily now accounts for 57 percent of activity.

Busiest builders: Quadrant Homes, Centex Homes, Murray Franklyn, Camwest Development, Polygon Northwest. Courtesy: Hanley Wood Market Intelligence.

6. Raleigh, N.C.

2008 total building permits: 11,386

Another state capital with multiple universities, Raleigh was still adding jobs at a 2.6 percent rate last year. With a population of more than 1 million, it also has one of the highest rates of population growth of any top metro market in the country over the last five years: nearly 5 percent annually. Though the price of a median home here, $223,400, is above the national average, it is well below other cities in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast. The metro area has added roughly 65,000 jobs since 2005, and employment held steady last year. With a glut of national builders in the market, locals such as Dixon Kirby have experimented with different looks and styles to keep sales alive.

Busiest builders: Centex Homes, KB Home, Pulte Homes, Hovnanian Enterprises, Atreus Homes & Communities. Courtesy: Hanley Wood Market Intelligence.

5. Dallas, Texas

2008 total building permits: 26,145

In a year when permits declined 35 percent nationally, Dallas only experienced a 9 percent fall-off. With a population of 4.3 million, Dallas was the third largest home building market last year, as measured in permits pulled. Employers in Dallas, a popular place for corporate relocation and expansion, added 42,000 jobs last year, a growth rate of 2 percent. Existing-home prices have held steady, falling a paltry 3.4 percent in the last year. Interestingly, the face of residential construction has changed dramatically in Dallas in recent years; 58 percent of the activity last year was in multifamily, compared to a five-year average of 23 percent. The relative stability of the market, though, wasn’t enough to prevent Wall Homes from filing for bankruptcy earlier this year. On the other hand, former Meritage co-CEO John Landon recently started a new Dallas-based home building company.

Busiest builders: D.R. Horton, Highland Homes, David Weekely Homes, K.Hovnanian Homes, Drees Custom Homes. Courtesy: Hanley Wood Market Intelligence.

4. San Antonio, Texas

2008 total building permits: 10,261

San Antonio is another Texas market that is still adding jobs, about 18,000 last year. A city of more than 2 million people now, its population is also growing, at a 2.8 percent annual clip through last year. Existing-home prices are barely declining in San Antonio, down less than 1 percent in the last year, to an affordable median price of $152,800, 25 percent below the national average of $200,500, according to the National Association of Realtors. The upper end of the housing market was hurt recently when AT&T announced it would be moving its corporate headquarters to Dallas.

Busiest builders: D.R. Horton, K.B. Home, Centex Homes, Pulte Homes, Fieldstone Communities. Courtesy: Hanley Wood Market Intelligence.

3. Fort Worth, Texas

2008 Total Building Permits: 10,388

Fort Worth, always operating in the shadow of higher profile Dallas, nevertheless can currently claim to have a slightly healthier housing market, based on its employment growth, relatively strong permit activity, and inexpensive housing. Now the 14th largest home building market in the country, Ft. Worth’s builders pulled 10,388 permits last year, roughly two-thirds of them single-family. That may be half as many as 2005, but many other major markets showed much sharper drop-offs. The relative strength of the Fort Worth market in recent years stems from its ties to the oil and gas industries, which has fueled above-average job growth. The metro area added 17,300 jobs last year.

Busiest builders: D.R. Horton, Choice Homes, History Maker Homes, Meritage Homes, Centex Homes. Courtesy: Hanley Wood Market Intelligence.

2. Austin, Texas

2008 Total Building Permits: 14,250

Nine years ago, during the tech bust, some builders felt that Austin was too crowded and left. The bloom is back on Austin’s yellow rose now; it moved up the leader board to become the sixth largest home building market last year. Job creation explains the move. While other markets lost employment, Austin added 17,400 jobs last year, 2.3 percent growth rate. It helps that Austin is home to both a major university, The University of Texas, and the state capital. Existing homes cost a little bit more in Austin than other Texas markets, roughly $188,600, but that’s still below the national average. Also, Austin is one of the few metro areas in the country where median prices actually rose in 2008 – 2.7 percent. Amazingly, Austin now generates more home building activity than Chicago, which has six times more people.

Busiest builders: D.R. Horton, Lennar, KB Home, Centex Homes, Meritage Homes. Courtesy: Hanley Wood Market Intelligence.

1. Houston, Texas

2008 Total Building Permits: 42,697

They like to do things big in Houston. Now the metro area, home to more than 5.8 million people, can lay claim to being the largest home building market in the country, with 42,697 building permits. The market is still benefiting from an influx of population and jobs and rebuilding in the wake of Hurricane Ike. Employment was up 2.5 percent last year, representing the addition of an incredible 65,000 jobs. Home building activity in Houston has only fallen 31 percent since 2005. Also, existing-home prices rose in Houston through the first three quarters of last year. They finished the year at a median of $151,600, even with the previous year. Roughly one-third of the home building action is in Harris County, followed by Houston proper and Fort Bend County. One of Houston’s largest builders, Royce Homes, shut down last year, and Kimball Hill, one of the biggest builders in Texas, closed its doors this year after it failed to find a buyer.

Busiest builders: Lennar, Perry Homes, David Weekley Homes, MHI/McGuyer Homebuilders, and KB Home. Courtesy: Hanley Wood Market Intelligence.

This article was originally published by Builder Magazine.

By Katy Tomasulo

A report released by research firm The Freedonia Group estimates the U.S. market for green building materials will exceed $80 billion by 2013, with a predicted 7.2% annual increase from $57 billion in 2008. Much of the growth, however, will be driven primarily by the overall recovery of the residential market, according to a statement.

The report states that FSC-certified lumber and wood panels will be the fastest-growing segment of the green products market, more than tripling in the next four years. Water-efficient and energy-efficient fixtures will undergo double-digit growth. These three categories, however, represent small shares of the market.

Green floor coverings, which include Green Label Plus-certified carpet and flooring made from rapidly renewable materials, has a slower anticipated growth rate of 5.6% annually, but maintains the largest share of the green building products market overall. Another large category, concrete made from recycled materials, is expected to grow 8.4% per year.

Windows will grow at a significantly faster pace – 14% annually – compared to the category’s previous five years’ growth of 0.5% annually.

Overall, the green building materials market grew 45% between 2003 and 2008, from $39.2 billion.

This article was originally published by EcoHome magazine.

By Craig Webb

Not long ago, I visited a sawmill just west of the Continental Divide that’s making a business out of our ancestors’ mistakes. Intermountain Resources’ operation in Montrose, Colo., expects this year to saw 40 million board-feet of lumber largely from lodgepole pines that are growing – dying, actually – on federal land. Those pines’ story is largely the story of wood in America for the past 120 years.

These lodgepoles sprouted naturally in the late 19th century after the prospectors, miners, and ranchers who settled Colorado cut down the original forest so extensively that parts of the state have more trees on them today than they did in the 1870s.

Soon after came President Theodore Roosevelt who, with Gifford Pinchot and John Muir, created national forests and parks. Thus, they began pushing America toward two goals at once: to preserve forests both for logging and forever.

The pines reached middle age just after World War II, when active management of forests began. Unfortunately, that management style regarded fires as bad, not part of a forest’s natural life cycle. Loggers can do some of what fire accomplishes by thinning out the forest, but by the 1980s, environmentalists’ lawsuits drastically curbed the amount of cutting on federal land. The lodgepole pines kept growing.

Today those pines are all deep into old age and, like humans, they’re more vulnerable to attack. That has made it easy for mountain pine beetles to arise and kill off vast stretches of Colorado trees. Those casualties, plus the ones that died of natural causes, comprise what’s being milled in Montrose.

My visit at Intermountain Resources was part of a yearlong investigation into the future of wood. After traveling thousands of miles and interviewing scores of people, I can report that wood’s future is exciting. (The findings start on page 31.) But its future also is perilous, and not solely because we can’t say how ownership patterns or energy prices will affect the product dealers sell most. It’s dicey because our past figures so much in our future.

Take our national forest policies. It was memories of the mid-19th century denuding of the Upper Midwest, combined with the furious cutting in the Northwest, that prompted the creation of national parks and forests more than 100 years ago. Today, it’s environmentalists’ memories of what they regard as over-aggressive tree cutting between 1945 and 1990 that they use to help justify the clampdown on timber harvesting in national forests. Spotted owl lawsuits were a means to that end.

Politics aside, the past matters in lumber’s future simply because it takes so long to grow a tree. A farmer in Florida can raise several crops in a single year. A vintner in California might invest four years in grape vines before they start producing. But a tree farmer needs 12 years minimum in the South and decades elsewhere to get a seedling to the payoff stage.

Near the end of my investigation, I ate dinner in Olympia, Wash., with a local lumber buyer and seller named Les Sjoholm (SEE-holm). His father emigrated from Sweden to work in the Northwest’s logging camps, and as a kid, Sjoholm lived in the camps while his mother cooked for the men. Loggers were “extremely rough people,” he recalls, “but with hearts of gold. Their bark was worse than their bite.”

Sjoholm kept my head spinning that evening by tossing out terms I had never heard before, like “misery whip,” “rattlers,” “can of snooze,” and “gypo logger.” Given how quickly the logging industry is using automation to replace humans, Sjoholm spoke what’s becoming a dead language. But what those loggers did endures – a little bit in our memories, and a lot in the forests where they worked. It’s a legacy we’ll deal with for decades to come.

This article was edited from a version originally published by ProSales magazine.

The U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) hopes to finish work by year-end on a proposal to allow wood certified by groups other than the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) to qualify for points under USGBC’s LEED program for green construction, a vice president of the council told lumber dealers and distributors recently. That’s at least half a year longer than some observers had expected the group would need to resolve this long-simmering issue.

USGBC aims to create a benchmark that would be used to assess whether a program has the qualities needed for USGBC to recognize it as a certifying body, Brendan Owens, the USGBC’s vice president for LEED technical development, said.

“We’ve had a long history with this issue, and we are working to create a position in the market that respects LEED’s position as a leader,” Owens said. “We’re redrafting the benchmark [and] hope to concluded by the end of the year.” One key, he said, is whether remaining concerns can be handled through a second public comment period that would take place later this year.

The USGBC’s original request for comment, issued last year, generated 1,800 responses – roughly 60 times more than USGBC normally receives when it is seeks comment on a particular credit in its LEED program.

It’s partly because of the high volume of responses that USGBC has taken so long to act, Owens indicated. He spoke in Washington during a green building forum co-sponsored by the National Lumber and Building Material Dealers Assciation (NLBMDA) and the National Building Material Distribution Association.

Wood certification has been one of the most contentious product-related issues that USGBC faces with regard to LEED, the program that has become the top green building program for commercial construction and that now aims to do the same for homes. LEED doesn’t give points for wood certified by the Sustainable Forestry Intiative (SFI), Canadian Standards Association, American Tree Farm System, or similar groups that tend to be much more supported by the timber industry. Most other green building groups – particularly the Green Building Institute’s Green Globes system as the National Association of Home Builders-led Green Building Standard – recognize a number of certifying bodies.

Meanwhile, LBM associates have complained not just about how the standard was unfair but also because it was so hard to get FSC-certified wood – a result of many major timber companies’ refusal to abide by FSC standards and instead promote other standards, particularly SFI.

According to an executive summary of the original proposal, the proposed new language would make non-FSC certification systems eligible to earn points under LEED provided they meet measurable benchmarks in four areas: governance; technical standards/substance; accreditation and auditing; and chain of custody and labeling. Owens didn’t say anything today regarding how, or whether, USGBC had revised its proposal as a result of the comments it received.

This article was edited from a version originally published by ProSales magazine.

Forest products consulting firm Forest Products Solutions of Portland, Ore., has published a resource guide for developers, residential architects, builders, remodelers, and homeowners, “Building & Remodeling with FSC.” The guide teaches residential building pros about forest certification, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), and strategies for incorporating FSC-certified products into homes.

Katie Miller, FSC-US’s communications director, called the publication “a wonderful tool for anyone involved in residential construction who is interested in ensuring their wood products, from lumber to flooring and cabinets, come from well-managed forests.” Download a copy of “Building & Remodeling with FSC” by clicking here.