<%BANNER%>

Cost Effective Sustainable Housing

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024637/00001

Material Information

Title: Cost Effective Sustainable Housing
Physical Description: 1 online resource (46 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Morton, Joshua
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: cost, family, housing, multi, single, sustainable
Building Construction -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Cost Effective Sustainable Housing The topic of research which was discussed throughout this study was an analysis of sustainable development between single-family and multi-family structures. The study focused on the residential aspects of green construction as they exist in today?s society. Several case studies were analyzed in order to develop a conclusion for this study. The chosen case studies were selected from a variety of constructed buildings of several different construction types and materials. In order to better understand and to develop a cogent conclusion, energy analysis and life cycle costs were estimated for each individual project selected. The case studies analyzed were based on the design and materiality of the structure as well as life cycle costs. From the results reached a conclusion was formulated based on the cost effectiveness between both single-family structures and multi-family structures and a new sustainable housing structure was proposed. An attempt was made to limit the case studies? location to a climate with similarities to the south east portion of the United States with a primary focus on central Florida and its general region as a targeted project scope in order to limit the number of variables which would present themselves otherwise. However, this attempt was unsuccessful due to a limited amount of observed suitable cases. The establishment of a sustainable built environment is a future goal. In order to ascertain if that goal is feasible, as was proposed in this study, a comparison of both the single family and multi family structures was used to determine whether it is more cost efficient to construct sustainable housing on a large scale compared to a sustainably constructed single family home. This is both necessary and imperative and can be extremely decisive from a developer?s stand point as well as an individual?s standpoint when determining a program in the early design phase and during the financial calculations. The proposed housing development acts as both a model and a solution for the current unstable housing market in order to help people better understand the reality of sustainable architecture and the goals that can be reached both socially and economically.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Joshua Morton.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Issa, R. Raymond.
Local: Co-adviser: Ries, Robert J.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024637:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024637/00001

Material Information

Title: Cost Effective Sustainable Housing
Physical Description: 1 online resource (46 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Morton, Joshua
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: cost, family, housing, multi, single, sustainable
Building Construction -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Cost Effective Sustainable Housing The topic of research which was discussed throughout this study was an analysis of sustainable development between single-family and multi-family structures. The study focused on the residential aspects of green construction as they exist in today?s society. Several case studies were analyzed in order to develop a conclusion for this study. The chosen case studies were selected from a variety of constructed buildings of several different construction types and materials. In order to better understand and to develop a cogent conclusion, energy analysis and life cycle costs were estimated for each individual project selected. The case studies analyzed were based on the design and materiality of the structure as well as life cycle costs. From the results reached a conclusion was formulated based on the cost effectiveness between both single-family structures and multi-family structures and a new sustainable housing structure was proposed. An attempt was made to limit the case studies? location to a climate with similarities to the south east portion of the United States with a primary focus on central Florida and its general region as a targeted project scope in order to limit the number of variables which would present themselves otherwise. However, this attempt was unsuccessful due to a limited amount of observed suitable cases. The establishment of a sustainable built environment is a future goal. In order to ascertain if that goal is feasible, as was proposed in this study, a comparison of both the single family and multi family structures was used to determine whether it is more cost efficient to construct sustainable housing on a large scale compared to a sustainably constructed single family home. This is both necessary and imperative and can be extremely decisive from a developer?s stand point as well as an individual?s standpoint when determining a program in the early design phase and during the financial calculations. The proposed housing development acts as both a model and a solution for the current unstable housing market in order to help people better understand the reality of sustainable architecture and the goals that can be reached both socially and economically.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Joshua Morton.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Issa, R. Raymond.
Local: Co-adviser: Ries, Robert J.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024637:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 COST EFFECTIVE SUSTAINABLE HOUSING By JOSHUA T. MORTON A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009

PAGE 2

2 2009 Joshua T. Morton

PAGE 3

3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank all of the members of my committ ee for their insight and patience throughout the writing process of this thesis. I w ould like to thank the Univ ersity of Florida and the Department of Building Construction for being able to offer a program that has such a strong impact on society and the built environment. Th is program would mean nothing without the professors and professionals who contribute thei r time and knowledge to help educate the students and future members of the construction industry. I would like to thank the nume rous authors of publications for providing the sources of information used in much of the research for this thesis. This thesis coul d not have been possible without that information being ma de accessible by those people. Finally I would like to thank my family and friends for all of thei r support throughout my educational career. I would lik e to thank my parents, Rona ld and Jane Morton, for their tremendous support both financially and emotionally. Because of them both of my degrees were made possible. I would especially like to tha nk my fiance Megan for her unwavering love and support and for always being there for me.

PAGE 4

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................... 3LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................6LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................7ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... ...............8 CHAP TER 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 102 SUSTAINABLE DESIGN .....................................................................................................12Sustainability ................................................................................................................ ..........12Construction Phases ................................................................................................................13Cost .......................................................................................................................... ...............14Examples ...................................................................................................................... ...........15Synopsis ...................................................................................................................... ............163 HOUSING MARKET ............................................................................................................ 18Analysis ..................................................................................................................................18Area Median Income ..............................................................................................................19Housing Profile .......................................................................................................................21Market Conditions ..................................................................................................................224 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................. 265 CASE STUDIES: SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING .................................................................27Case Study Number One: The St reet Where Dreams Come True ...................................... 27Case Study Number Two: Z6 House ...................................................................................... 286 CASE STUDIES: MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING .................................................................. 307 FINDINGS ...................................................................................................................... ........32Summary ....................................................................................................................... ..........32Feasibility ................................................................................................................... ............33Financing ................................................................................................................................35Decision ..................................................................................................................................35

PAGE 5

5 LIST OF REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................44BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .........................................................................................................46

PAGE 6

6 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1 Demographic data for owners in Orange County, Florida. ................................................233-2 Demographic data for renter s in Orange County, Florida. ................................................247-1 Impact fee summary. ..........................................................................................................387-2 Permit fee calculations. .................................................................................................. ....397-3 Back-door feasibility calculations. .....................................................................................397-4 Front-door feasibility calculations. ....................................................................................407-5 Net present value calculations. .......................................................................................... 427-6 Internal rate of return calculations. ....................................................................................43

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3-1Cost burden graph for Orange County, Fl .........................................................................257-1 Case study matrix ......................................................................................................... ......37

PAGE 8

8 Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Building Construction COST EFFECTIVE SUSTAINABLE HOUSING By Joshua T. Morton August 2009 Chair: R. Raymond Issa Co-chair: Robert J. Ries Major: Building Construction The topic of research which was discussed throughout this study was an analysis of sustainable development between single-family and multi-family structures. The study focused on the residential aspects of gr een construction as they exist in todays society. Several case studies were analyzed in orde r to develop a conclusion for th is study. The chosen case studies were selected from a variety of constructed build ings of several different construction types and materials. In order to better understand and to develop a cogent conclusion, energy analysis and life cycle costs were estimated for each individual pr oject selected. The case studies analyzed were based on the design and materiality of the structure as well as life cycle costs. From the results reached a conclusion was formulated based on the cost effectiveness between both single-family structures and multi-family structures and a ne w sustainable housing structure was proposed. An attempt was made to limit the case studies location to a climate with similarities to the south east portion of the United States with a primary focus on central Florida and its general region as a targeted project scope in order to limit the number of variables which would present

PAGE 9

9 themselves otherwise. However, this attempt was unsuccessful due to a limited amount of observed suitable cases. The establishment of a sustainable built environm ent is a future goal. In order to ascertain if that goal is feasible, as was proposed in this study, a comparis on of both the single family and multi family structures was used to determine whether it is more cost efficient to construct sustainable housing on a large scale compared to a sustainably constructed single family home. This is both necessary and imperative and can be extremely decisive fr om a developers stand point as well as an individuals standpoint when determining a program in the early design phase and during the financial calcula tions. The proposed housing development acts as both a model and a solution for the current unstable housing market in order to help people better understand the reality of sustainable archit ecture and the goals that can be reached both socially and economically.

PAGE 10

10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Architecture is one of the m ost urgent need s of man, for the house has always been the indispensable and first tool that he has forged for himself. Mans stock of tools marks out the stages of civilization, the stone age, the br onze age, the iron age. Tools are the result of successive improvement; the effort of all genera tions is embodied in them. The tool is the direct and immediate expression of progress; it gives man esse ntial assistance and essential freedom also. We throw the out-of-date tool on the scrap-heap: the carbine, the culverin, the growler and the old locomo tive. This action is a manifestation of health, of moral health, of morale also; it is not right that we should produce bad things because of a bad tool; nor is it right that we should waste our energy, our hea lth and our courage because of a bad tool; it must be thrown away and replaced. Le Corbusier, Towards A New Architecture Sustainable design is todays expression of progress. It is a movement that is being encouraged across the world. It is a manifestation of knowledge and will to produce a tool that is both essential and neutral to the environment. It has the potential to integrate the fields of architecture, engineering and construction simultaneously, a f eat which exists today as something of an absurdity. The outcome of such cooperation would result in a composition that is both active and reactive to an environmental substrate. The active participation in sustainable design an d construction is a task that can lead to a construct which becomes more than just a bu ilding. The functionality of the building will be integrated into its design allowing for a flui d transition between nature and man. The built environment should be comprised of material whic h is at minimum less harmful as to not disturb an already affected natural e quilibrium. The question of form and function can thus be asked again. Does function follow form or does form follow function? A structure should be designed for its function and from that function its form sh ould arise. That theory is currently in question when sustainable motives are applied. A struct ure is designed based on materiality, on cost, on recyclability, maintenance and a certification to determine its form rather than qualities meant to enhance the experience or functiona lity of the structure. That is why it is imperative that the

PAGE 11

11 building industry re-examine the rationale for to days expression of progress and define it as a lifestyle in which we may integrate an affordab le built environment ra ther than incorporate superficial aspects of it into a form which lacks function.

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 2 SUSTAINABLE DESIGN Sustainability Sustainability is not just a techn ique used to cut life cycle costs but rather a positive choice which has the ability to influence both bu dget and environment. The term sustainable is defined in the American Heritage Dictionary as Capable of being continued with minimal longterm effect on the environment. Typically, th e association of cost does not appear in any definition of the term however it is definitely as sociated with the term. However when applied to sustainable structures, it can al so be a high performance build ing, encompasses the design and construction of facilities that are energy efficient, environmen tally sound, economical to operate and maintain, and are healthy for occupants (Intermountain Contractor 2008). The first two questions from an investors prospective when introduced to a new project are what is it? and how much does it cost? Cost, in many c onstruction projects is a major deciding factor. In discussing costs relating to sustainability it is commonly considered a substantial increase in overall project costs. Howe ver, when further considered, the difference in initial costs and life cycle costs becomes an important factor. Ma ny stigmas exist in construction today regarding the increased costs of buildi ng green over standard construction processes. Contractors see the additional wo rk that is involved and natura lly assume that the costs to perform such tasks are greater than if they we re to follow a conventiona l project schedule using conventional standards and practices. The great er the momentum that the green movement builds, the greater chance that it has of succeeding. Contractors are forced to look into the idea, realizing that initial costs are most likely goi ng to exceed a traditionally constructed projects costs but when factoring in life cycle costs, ma ny times those initial costs can be recovered and there is potential for even more savings.

PAGE 13

13 Construction Phases The m ost important and time consuming phase of a sustainable project is the design and planning phase. Almost all of the decisions regarding sustainability will need to be made during these stages of the project. D ecisions should be made regarding materials, design, program, value engineering, task delegations and future plan ning and problems that may be incurred. Also during these phases energy surveys, load calculations life cycle costs, occupancy rates, material testing and any other pre-construc tion planning that may be required or is necessary should be completed. This is where a good portion of additi onally incurred costs appear. The costs can multiply quickly. However, most of the costs are due to the labor intensive processes involved in such planning and development. Material selection is probably the second most costly process involved in sustainable design. Often times the cost of recycled and recycl able materials are greater than non-recycled or recyclable. Recycling products he lps close material loops and cu t costs, reduces the amount of wasted materials and extends the life cycle of the products. The solution of using a recycled material is readily available but wh ether or not that cost can be regained or redistributed is often the issue. In almost every sustainable project so me processes or material solutions are going to end up costing money that may not be able to be recovered through the life cycle costs of the project even though that material may still be a better choice. Simply because a material or product is recyclable does not necessarily mean that it can sustain the required loads or specifications. An inferior product should not be the solution. When companies try to market a green solution for a product that is inferior to accepted construction st andards, material and installation costs tend to unnecessarily rise. The third major cost is the redesign of m echanical processes throughout the structure. The additions of items like a cistern or well, us ing reclaimed water, waterless urinals, central

PAGE 14

14 heating or air conditioning, passi ve ventilation, sun shading, solar panels, battery banks, reflective surface materials and gr een roofs are all examples of solutions which may lead to additional upfront costs. For instance, according to Reed Thomas, the chief estimator of Atlantabased R.J. Griffin & Co., a green roof can typ ically cost $10 to $15 more per sq ft than conventional roofs and wood that is certified by the Forest Stewardship Council in Washington, D.C., is usually 15% to 25% more expensive th an noncertified wood and may be hard to get (Schwartz 2008). Depending on the design and nature of the project thou gh, those costs may be at a minimum compared to the amount of savings that will follow. Cost Throughout the nation there has been a dram atic increase in the amount of construction projects applying for LEED certific ation. According to Reed Thomas, chief estimator for Griffin, there has been a tenfold increase (Schwartz 2008). Schwartz agrees that the likely increase in upfront costs are evident and according to estimators are due to the time needed to assess materials as well as document those materials an d the higher prices of certain building systems implemented into the design (Schwartz 2008). A ccording to Thomas, "Though there are always exceptions, and costs vary from project to proj ect, in my experience most LEED projects have additional costs. For the certified LEED category, it is an average of an additional 0.5% to 1.5% cost; for the silver category, an average of an additional 1% to 2% cost; for the gold LEED category an additional 2% to 5% cost; and for pl atinum, the cost on average is an additional 5% or greater (Schwartz 2008). These percentages fo r additional costs are si milar to those cited by others in the same field. According to a st udy by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development in Washington, D.C., the premium for constructing a sustainable building can come at an additional 16% cost (Hardesty 2007). However, some organizations still claim that a LEED certification can come at no additional co sts incurred. A study published in July by

PAGE 15

15 London's Davis Langdon LLP, the European and Middle Eastern arm of Davis Langdon & Seah International, a global construc tion and property firm, conclude s that LEED certified buildings do not cost any more to build than non-LEED buildi ngs (Hardesty 2007). La ngdon states that in a comparison between LEED and non-LEED buildings on average, there is no real difference in cost (Langdon 2007). Examples Many com panies like Wal-Mart, Target and Starbucks to name a few have made company-wide commitments to sustainability (B uilding Design and Construction 2008). Their commitment includes the commitment of retrofitting existing stores with certain green standards including electrical lighting and recycling procedures. In that same spirit, New Yorks first Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) platinum le vel certification was granted to an interior build out for the Manhattan offices of Cook + Fox Architects. It was a ,121-sq-ft project completed last year [whi ch] built out the Simpson, Crawford, Simpson department store built in 1902 with features such as day lighting as the main light source, a 3,600-sq-ft green roof, waterless urinals, Forest Stewardship Counc il-certified plywood, salvaged materials, and low-VOC carpet tiles (Greer 2007). Other notable examples of large sustainable interiors projects include the 1.6 millionsq-ft fit-out of One Bryant Park in Midtown Manhattan, which Structure Tone is handling for Bank of America and the Durst Organization of New York. The $1 billion project, which will be a 51-story building, is seeking LEED platinum certification (Greer 2007). Another recent member of the elite plati num LEED certification is the headquarters of Aardex, a company that does development, design, construction and pr operty services for buildings in Golden, CO. The approximate size of their headquarters is 186,000 sq. ft. and the total cost according to executive principle Ben Weeks, about $350,000 (less than 1% of total

PAGE 16

16 project cost) we believe was the premium for reaching the LEED-platinum level. But we built the building at, or less than [the cost of], many conventional build ings of similar size. We're in the neighborhood of $200 per sq ft for a Class A building (Hardesty 2007). As far as the cost savings side is concerned, Aar dex's mechanical system is expected to operate 30 to 40% more efficiently than a traditional sy stem. [And the company] has also reduced its lighting load from the typical 2-2.5 Watts per sq ft to less than 0.75 of Watts per sq ft, resulting in substantial electricity savings (Hardesty 2007). The desi gn also included about 40 waterless urinals throughout the building in order to save somewh ere around 1.6 million gallons of water per year. Synopsis There m ust be a conscious decision and effo rt applied to a design which intends to integrate a sustainable structure into the environm ent with the knowledge that there will be initial additional incurred costs that will lead to a reduction in life cycle costs. Although a LEED rating may boost marketing and potentially increasebene fits, there still remains a certain negative relationship between economics and a sustainable building. It may be that private investors are not looking to maintain a building for the time ne cessary to retrieve money invested for a LEED certification. That is why a strong majority of LEED certifications are stil l being reached in the public facilities category. But there is definitely a need for change and if some symbiosis can be reached between cost-efficient recyclable materi als and sustainable design with construction standards and application there will be an even greater rise in the green movement and a more sustainable built environment. There is aneed fo r affordable living in the economy of today and if only our focus would shift from commercial projects to multifamily residential projects using many of the goals of retailers the economy will begin to improve substantially. As the current housing economic situation slowly begins to resolv e, people will begin to have more faith in the dollar bill allowing them to put money back into the economy. People do not yet see the

PAGE 17

17 economic situation improving and until those residents who have had their homes forclosed on, received their eviction notices, and have been for ced into bankruptcy see a rise in stability, the economy will remain relitively stagnant. The co ncept of affordable multifamily housing is a solution which will leed to economic security and if that concept can be achieved sustainably, both the economy and the environment will reap the benefits. The proposed cost efficient housing development is a model for social, econo mic and environmental progress and acts as a solution to the housing markets instability.

PAGE 18

18 CHAPTER 3 HOUSING MARKET Analysis The current state of the housing m arket is in a disconcerting condition. Florida in particular is reaching record lows in housi ng sales. The market was flooded in sales of condominiums, townhouses and single-family home s starting in about 2 002. The job market, due in large part to the impact that the construc tion industry has on the local market, has started experiencing several problems relating to employment and unemployment. The rates of unemployment have increased by approximately 1.4 percent (from 32,877 to 49,014) from May 2007 until January 2008, however, also noted is the number of laborers (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2008) Two large segments of the economy in th e Orlando market are the Leisure and Hospitality and Construction indus tries. Together they comprise nearly 25% of the local nonagricultural workforces for the Orlando region (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2008). Of those two, the Leisure and Hospitality industr y has sustained a little more th an a two percent change in a 12-month period whereas the constr uction industry has suffered almo st a ten percent loss over a 12-month period (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2008). Additionally, a third major component of the labor industry in Orlando is the Trade, Trans portation, and Utilities industries. And since the metropolitan area is located near both th e Orlando Executive Airport and the Orlando International Airport, there is constantly an influx of tourists, translati ng into a high volume of job opportunities outside of the c onstruction field. One last compone nt to the dense population in Orlando is the higher education facilities locate d within the region. The University of Central Florida, Rollins College, and Full Sail University all are located in Or ange County creating a specific need to have affordable housing as an al ternative for potential permanent residents in the

PAGE 19

19 area. With urban sprawl and high population growth estimates for central Florida there will be a need for expansion and growth in housing developments. Over the last five years the Orlando mark et has added 158,000 new hires. The areas economy has become more diversified with seve ral higher salaried positions based in the Orlando region. Of the 158,000 net non-agricultural jobs added since June 2001, the strongest growth percentage came in the areas of cons truction (55.2 percent), fi nancial activities (19.5 percent), professional and business services (23. 8 percent), education an d health services (20.4 percent), and government (18.8 percent) (Orlando Business Journal 2006). As a result of the analysis for the employmen t data in the specified central Florida region two conclusions can be made. The first conclusion is that a large percentage of the economy is sustaining a healthy level of gr owth, requiring a certain level of housing suitable for a large amount of people in a rather dens e location. The second important fact or is that there are still a large number of individuals who may be experienci ng financial difficulties in the target market area due to the recent troubles in the construction industry. Area Median Income A large variable in the economic aspect of a ma rket analysis used in determining the need for housing is the targeted areas median income. The estimated median family income in Orlando for 2007 is $54,900 according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). According to the same data that is an additiona l increase of $3,094 from the 2005 census and $7,130 from the 2000 census report. The household income contributes to most variables relative to a fa milys lifestyle. It can determine the location of ones home, the amount of area of ones home, the amenities, and even the furnishings in ones own home. The definition as given by the Florida Housing Data Clearinghou se (FHDC) for a low-income household is that is a household income of less than 80% of the area median income (AMI).

PAGE 20

20 FDHC also defines a household which is cost -burdened as paying 30% or more of their household income on mortgage or rent. The FDHC further classifies a household that is paying more than 50% of their household in come as severely cost-burdened. In order to determine the affordability of the proposed housing solution, a specific demographic must be targeted. In this case, th e focus was placed on people aged below 35. This allows for an age which can incorporate first ti me home buyers or renter s as well as those who may recently have had a home placed in foreclosur e and are in need of an affordable solution. According to the Florida Housing Data Clea ringhouse in 2005, as shown in Table 3-1, of households making 120.01% or more of the AMI, aged between 15 and 34, who were not renting in Orange County, only .48% were considered severely-cost burdene d. For households making between 80.01% and 120% of the AMI, aged between 15 and 34, who were not renting in Orange County, only 2.6% were considered se verely-cost burdened. For households making between 50.01% and 80% of the AMI, aged betw een 15 and 34, who were not renting in Orange County, 14.5% were considered severely-cost burdened house holds. For households making between 30.01% and 50% of the AMI, aged betw een 15 and 34, who were not renting in Orange County, 58% of them were considered severely -cost burdened. For households making less than 30% of the AMI, aged between 15 and 34, who were not renting in Orange County, 63% of them were considered severely-cost burdened. In that same year, as shown in Table 32, of the households maki ng 120.01% or more of the AMI, aged between 15 and 34, who were re nting in Orange County, not one household was considered severely-cost burdened. For house holds making between 80.01% and 120% of the AMI, aged between 15 and 34, who were rentin g in Orange County, only .22% of them were considered severely cost-burdened. For house holds making between 50.01% and 80% of the

PAGE 21

21 AMI, aged between 15 and 34, who were rentin g in Orange County, only 5.7% of them were considered severely-cost burdened. For households making between 30.01% and 50% of the AMI, aged between 15 and 34, who were ren ting in Orange County, 44% of them were considered severely-cost burdened. And for households that were making less than 30% of the AMI, aged between 15 and 34, who were ren ting in Orange County, 70% of them were considered severely-cost burdened. From those numbers it can be determined that for both rental and ownership the greater the household income the more likely one is to not be labeled a cost-burdened household. When the household income decreases, in both cases, the cost of mortgage or rent does not reduce at the same rate, leading to hi gher percentages of severe cost burden. Also a lower percentage of households that rent are severely-cost burdened, as seen in Figure 3-1, unless that household ha s an income less than 30% of the AMI. Therefore those that pay rent have a better likelihood of not becomi ng severely-cost burdened compared to those who pay mortgages. In a struggling economy, those th at pay rent have more mobility and freedom, should they need to get out of a lease agreement or move to a cheaper apartment. Housing Profile The estimated population in Florida as of 07/01/2005 was 17,509,827. That estimate will reach 28,685,769 by the year 2030 with an estimated growth rate of approximately 0.88% (U.S. Census Bureau 2008). Orange County alone as of 2005, had a population of 1,043,434 (ranking number 5 of Floridas 67 counties) and is projected to have a population of about 1,702,936 (ranking number 4 of Floridas 67 counties) by the year 2030. The average value for a singlefamily home in Orange County as of 2005 was $177,370 and the average for a condominium was $157,673. The average rent paid by Orange Count y households in the year 2000 was $699 per month, compared to $649 median statewide re nt (Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse 2009).

PAGE 22

22 Affordable housing would have the ability to lower rent costs pe r month and therefore become a potential incentive to choos e rental over ownership. Market Conditions The number of condominium sales increased by nearly 150%, more than doubling from 4,237 to 10,820, from 2004 to 2005 in Orange County alone (Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse 2009). Single-family housing sa les increased by almo st 50%, going from 21,297 sales to 33,216 sales between th e years of 2002 and 2005 in Ora nge County (Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse 2009). Of those, the major ity of condominium sales (8,463 of 10,820) ranged from $100,000 $299,999 where the majority (24,567 of 33,216) of single-family housing sales ranged from $150,000 $399,000 (Flo rida Housing Data Clearinghouse 2009). The mean sales price for condominiums in Orange County in the year 2005 was $198,675 and for single-family housing was $286,898 (Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse 2009). Now those sales are diminishing as demand is decreasing an d those costs are finally starting to decrease along with them. There still remain s however the issue for househol ds who have recently had to foreclose on their house and who probably cannot qualify for a s econd house loan. For first time home buyers, between the ages of 18 and 24, waiting a few months might be a good option because by then the housing market will just about have hit the bottom and interest rates will be lower than ever and the market will then beco me a buyers market again leading to greater demand for houses. Recently the Federal Reserve lo wered its target for the Fed funds rate from about 5.25% to 3.0%. On March 18, 2008, plans were made to cut rates an additional 0.75% which led to a 2.25% rate (Beck 2008). That became a tremendous savings and incentive for people to take out loans. Along the same lin es, the Department of Housing and Urban Development under a new proposal passed updated disclosure rules for mortgages in order to give consumers a more lucid understanding on loan terms and costs. The new Good Faith

PAGE 23

23 Estimate displays the loans interest rate and mont hly payment, how much and if the interest rate can change, and whether the loan has any pena lties. According to former HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson, many issues with mortgage problems are directly related to the literature that goes with them (Hoover 2008). By adjusting the lending documents and reducing federal rates, more incentive is being added in order to attract citizen s into reinvesting into the housing market. The other noticeable changes that even local governments are attempting to reform are the impact fees which during the strong housing boo m created a lot of revenue, recently have become a deterrent for builders seeking to inve st back into the econom y. Local Central Florida governments such as Osceola and Lake Counties ha ve decided to reduce impact fees bringing at least some relief to builders. However, Orange County still has Central Fl oridas highest impact fee for single-family homes at $11,829 (Bilbao 2008). Table 3-1. Demographic data for owne rs in Orange County, Florida. Household income (%)Housing cost burden (%)Household count 30 AMI 30487 30 AMI30.01 50158 30 AMI50.01+1103 30.01 50 AMI 30299 30.01 AMI30.01714 30.01 AMI50.01+1402 50.01 AMI 301805 50.01 AMI30.012491 50.01 AMI50.01+734 80.01 120 AMI 307060 80.01 AMI30.011887 80.01 AMI50.01+241 120.01+ AMI 3017694 120.01+ AMI30.011081 120.01+ AMI50.01+92 2005 Demographic data for owners aged 15 34 in Orange County, Florida. [Source: Florida housing data clearinghouse]

PAGE 24

24 Table 3-2. Demographic data for re nters in Orange County, Florida. Household income (%)Housing cost burden (%)Household count 30 AMI 302371 30 AMI 30.010 630 30 AMI 50.01+ 7017 30.01 50 AMI 30 1115 30.01 AMI 30.010 4763 30.01 AMI 50.01+ 4649 50.01 80 AMI 30 8042 50.01 AMI 30.010 8901 50.01 AMI 50.01+ 1037 80.01 120 AMI 30 16380 80.01 120 AMI 30.010 2153 80.01 120 AMI 50.01+ 42 120.01+ AMI 30 15372 120.01+ AMI 30.010 74 2005 Demographic data for renters aged 15 34 in Orange County, Florida. [Source: Florida housing data clearinghouse]

PAGE 25

25 Cost Burden, Orange County, 20050 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 0-30% 30-50%50% or more Amount of Income Paid for HousingNumber of Households Owner Renter Figure 3-1. Cost burden graph for Orange County, Florida. [Source: Florida housing data clearinghouse]

PAGE 26

26 CHAPTER 4 METHODOLOGY Case Study Analysis: T he intent of this research wa s to examine the relationships involved in sustainable design and to determin e whether environmental impacts on multi-family residences offered a more affordable solution to sustainable living than single-family design. One method to accomplish this was through a cas e study analysis of both single-family and multi-family dwellings. A case study analysis of both single-family and multi-family residences provided a market cross-sectional representation in which conclu sions could be drawn regarding the efficiency and rate of return expected from such constructions. A case study analysis should provide a system atic way of looking at several projects of similar nature in order to determine similarities and differences. The case studies used in this research provided specific and clear results us ed to determine the vali dity of the hypothesis. There are similar techniques that could have been employed to present alternative results, however based on the case studies chosen, the results found lend themselves to proper conclusions due to their specific applicability. Although not quite similar in nature, the sample case studies attempted to represent random projects located within a re latively narrow geographic area. This was to make sure that no alternate variables needed to be calculated to account for differences in things like climate, rainfall, wind resistance or durability. Even through some differences existed geographically, the sustainable goals were similar. As a basis of comparison, these studies s how cost, materiality, energy consumption, specific LEED certifications, time, benefits to the community, and industry standards with a strong emphasis on affordability.

PAGE 27

27 CHAPTER 5 CASE STUDIES: SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING Case Study Number One: The Street Where Dreams Come True Location: Corner of Lakewood Ave. and Miller R eed Ave., Atlanta, Georgia. The Street Where Dreams Come True is a green building project in which seven singlestory, single-family homes were constructed in an area of South Atlanta. The project was geared toward developing low-cost houses while integrati ng sustainable design principles in order to cut utility costs, expose green building practices and educate communities and volunteers for prospective developments (Global Green US A 2007). The project was funded through an affiliate organization of Habitat for Humanity na med Atlanta Habitat, one of Atlantas largest homebuilders for low-income families. The model homes are based on a simple squa re design with a pitched gable roof and small front porch. The idea behind these homes was simplicity. Each of the single-family homes averaged about 1,150 square feet on lots that measured about 9,000 square feet. The total construction cost was $502,641 or about $72.00/sq ft. The average construction cost per unit equaled about $71,805. The project was completed in early 2002. Much of the time and labor was donated through volunteer initia tives, thus construction cost s are somewhat deceiving. One major goal of the project was the ability to reduce electrical, gas, and water bills by 30 percent. The focus was on the residents after construc tion was complete. Building an economically conscious home was not enough for these low-inco me residents. The ability to maintain the home at the lowest costs possi ble was the ultimate goal. The use sustainable design concepts allowed the homes to be cons tructed on a tight budget whic h maximized cost-efficiency. Although the HVAC system only had a 12 SEER rati ng, techniques such as air tightness, proper sealing, and intelligent locations of ducts were utilized in or der to create energy efficiency

PAGE 28

28 without being cost prohibitive. The EarthCraft certification that this project achieved was calculated at an additional $2,180 pe r house. This cost would be rec overed in about 10 years. Case Study Number Two: Z6 House Location: Santa Monica, California. The Z6 house is a single-family residence located within a dense urban neighborhood. The home has 4 bedrooms, 2.5 baths and a twocar garage and was completed in August 2006. With a commitment to reduce the structures ecol ogical footprint, the pr oject team coined the term six zeroes to define their goals: zero waste, zero water, zero energy, zero emission, zero carbon and zero ignorance. The house is of a modu lar design built off-site and erected on-site. Since the structure was only assembled on-site, th is allowed for a drastic decrease in waste. Where a comparable home of standard constr uction practices may produce between 30 and 40% material waste, the Z6 home was able to signi ficantly reduce that number to about 3 or 4% material waste. A portion of the houses LEED points come from a design which meets regional requirements fulfilling criteria such as the loca tion of a public transportation stop within onequarter mile of the house. Local conveniences such as shopping, restaurants and schools are within walking distances and bicycle usage as a form of transportation is common within the community. The climactic issues that the home addresses are important to both energy consumption and comfort. When designing the house, the decision to orient it at 45 degrees in the north/south direction, not only allowed the use of natural ventilation for cooling purposes, but helped prevent solar heat gain with the he lp of large overhangs above windows and doors. Conversely, during the winter s eason, the large glass windows allow for solar gain thus minimizing energy costs needed to heat the house. For hot water the house uses an evacuated-tube solar hot water collector. This again helps to minimize energy costs. A green roof was incl uded in the design as well as xeriscaping around

PAGE 29

29 the house. The rainwater collected from the roof is stored in a 3500-gall on cistern below grade and used for what minimal water is required to ir rigate. Low-flow fixtures were also used. As a technological feature, the house has incorporated a monitoring sy stem which has the ability to track the quantities of total water usage and energy consumption throughout the house. The total amount of potable water used per year is about 29,000 gallons. The house has a 2.4 kilowatt photovoltaic array to help offset energy cons umption and can account for about 60-70% of overall energy usage. The interior of the house u tilizes low VOC wall coverings such as paints and sealants and all wood materials used were certified according to the Forest Stewardship Council. Overall the house acts as a model for singlefamily sustainable living.

PAGE 30

30 CHAPTER 6 CASE STUDIES: MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING Case study number three: The Plaza Apartm ents are located on the NE Corner of 6th St. and Howard St. in San Francisco, California. The Plaza Apartments are studio apartment housing for extremely low-income residents. It is an urban high-rise building featuring 106 studio apartments that are approximately 300 square feet each and include a full bathroom and kitchenette in every unit. A dditionally, the structure contai ns ground-floor retail, and a community theater. As part of San Franciscos gr een building principle, the city became the first in the United States to implement sustainable building standards for all new affordable housing projects (Global Green USA 2007). The Plaza Apar tments were designed as the San Francisco Redevelopment Agencys pilot project in order to serve as a model for other developers to follow. Several entities were involved in the proj ect including Global Green USA, the Enterprise Green Communities Initiative and the city of Sa n Franciscos Department of the Environment. The project goals were to crea te a healthy indoor living enviro nment that was energy efficient and low in cost with a design that would rein force green goals (Global Green USA 2007). The total project cost was $22.8 milli on with a construction cost of $16.5 million. That equates to a cost of $225 per square foot and a unit cost of $150,000, which only about 3% higher than the average affordable living project for San Fran cisco. The project was completed in December 2005. Throughout the entire construction process, the project team was dedicated to green practices. At the demolition phase, a goal of construction debris diversion from landfills was 75%. The team surpassed this goal with a 94% diversion rate, steeri ng nearly all of the construction waste to recycling locations (G lobal Green USA 2007). During the design phase, the focus was on a healthy interi or living environment that wa s aesthetically pleasing while

PAGE 31

31 maintaining efficient, durable, low maintenan ce building systems. The floor plan featured a circular hallway to push occupants to the exteri or windows of the buildi ng to experience views of the landscape. Natural daylighting and floor-t o-ceiling windows were used as well as glazing and glossy finished walls to allow light reflec tion within the building and rooms. The structure has vertical openings in the front and side facades which help to bring natural light to the interior of the building. The building also has sun shading de vices located at the top of the roof as well as on the windows which have been recessed to allo w for a built-in shading device for exterior windows. The design concepts used in this projec t allowed for savings of both upfront costs and monthly costs. In this way the project was able to maintain affordability.

PAGE 32

32 CHAPTER 7 FINDINGS Summary Based on the case study analyses and literature reviews in the previous chapters of both single -family and multi-family dwellings and other various commercial projects it can be concluded that the costs involved in developing an energy efficien t sustainable structure can be achieved at minimal additional costs to conventio nal construction practices. This holds true for residential cases as well. The cas e study matrix (Figure 7-1) of th e three buildings studied shows that although the projects use similar design techniques and sustainable materials, there remains a large cost variation between each structure. It can further be conc luded that cost differences can in part be due to climactic inconsistencies as well as variations in mechanical efficiencies and budgetary constraints. There are several different factors which can account for cost fluctuations in a sustainable project and there are multiple ways of achieving sustainability without sacrificing cost efficiency. As the different met hods of analysis show, there is no one answer to the cost of building green. A single variable or average cannot be used even within similar building types to determine the costs of a sustaina ble project. Each project needs to be analyzed on an individual basis to determine the best solutions for a sustainable design. As a result of the analysis the multi-family sustainable structure pro posed is an attempt to create an efficient means of housing citizens who require a ffordable housing given the fragil e state of the housing market. The proposal is dedicated to a market analysis and response determined by an investigation of the housing economy of Orange County, FL. The market area is defined as the metropolitan area of Orlando. The targeted demographic group for the analysis is focused on young couples within age groups that can be categorized as firsttime homeowners. Typically such a demographic criterion fits people between the ages of 18-35. Homeowners who have recently experienced

PAGE 33

33 foreclosure and are looking to investigate a more economic approach to living via affordable housing are also included in th e specified demographic. The development proposed offers a solution to purchasing a single family home and risking pote ntial foreclosure through an affordable multi-family sustainable dwelling located near the downtown Orlando area, a core to the local social and economic structure of the county and even surrounding counties. Feasibility Based on the m arket analysis presented in Ch apter 3 of this study, it was determined that the proposed housing development was in demand and even a necessity for certain targeted demographic groups. Since the development is targ eted toward attracting young families recently entering foreclosure and even bankruptcy, the financ ial responsibilities of those families must be less cost-burdensome than their previous residences. Most of these families will look at this structure as a temporary residence until they have the ability to enter back into home ownership, thus a rental or lease agreement was optimal. Ta king into account that these families are mostly coming from previous homeownership, the goal of the development is to attempt to maximize space and privacy while minimizing costs. The 100-unit structure proposed with sufficient parking requires a lot approxima tely 200 X 350 in dimension. Th e total estimated area required to sufficiently house the number of units spec ified was 140,000 SF. This allows for 100 units approximately 1,000 SF/Unit. The minimum tota l estimated construction cost is $16,763,850.00 or approximately $119.74/sf. (RS Means Cost Estimator 2008). The 1,000 SF units should have sufficient space to house an average 3-person fam ily. Low cost sustainable building practices will be employed throughout the design and constr uction phases. This will begin with the design of natural daylighting throughout the structure as well as de sign for natural ventilation and passive heating and cooling with in the individual units. The signi ficantly concrete structure will utilize fly ash in the concrete as well as light colored materials for exterior cladding and roofing.

PAGE 34

34 Close attention will be made to ensure strong seals at all penetrations a nd air tightness will be an important goal. ENERGY STAR rated appliances and fixtures will be used to maintain energy efficiency. Low-flow plumbing fixtures will also be installed in the project. Interior furnishings and materials used will be recycled, low odor, and low-VOC. With these practices in place the essential needs of the community will be met with a long-term sustainable outlook. Building sustainably is essential and this proposed struct ure cannot afford to not be built as such. Tables 7-1 and 7-2 are the required impact fee and perm it fee calculations necessary to determine the financial feasibility of the proposed structure. Tables 7-3 and 7-4 show the Back-Door and FrontDoor calculations used to estimate the costs of co nstruction and monthly rental rates in order for the project to remain feasible. According to the Back-Door analysis, the maximum construction cost of the project would have to be $104.71 to keep a monthly rental rate of $1500/unit. In comparing that to the Front-Door analysis, at an estimated construction cost of $119.74, the minimum monthly rental rate would have to be $1,685.63/unit to remain f easible to construct. The potential gross income, which was calcula ted based on the number of units and cost per month, was estimated at $1,800,000 annually. Sin ce approximately 10-20% of that revenue will go to expenses an adjustment factor of .85 was used to determine a net operating income of about $1,530,000 annually. Since the project is not n ecessarily of high risk a capitalization rate of .09 was used which determined the project value to be about $17,000,000. After the land acquisition and development costs were subtract ed from that number the total building budget was determined to be $14,659,769. The net present value (Table 7-5), which was ca lculated using a discoun t rate of 6% over a 20-year period, determined the project to yield a positive invest ment of $548,979.46 meaning that the project has a valid reason to continue with development. Th e internal rate of return based

PAGE 35

35 on that same 20-year period was calculated in Ta ble 7-6 and was shown to be about 6%. These numbers show conclusive evidence that based on the projects construction estimates the proposed development in terms of f easibility should be continued. Financing The financial strategy considered was to acqui re a loan with a m inimal down payment at a low fixed interest rate. Government loans are an altern ative which could be considered, however, since the project does not entirely meet needs of severely cost burdened residents an exclusive government loan did not seem to be a likely solution. The decision to use a traditional loan with a possible government subsidy was the conclusion. There are several loan programs which could be used as long as the LTV is around 80 85% and a cap rate of about .9, the loan should stand, allowing financial feasibility for the developer to begin the necessary steps to begin the construction process. Decision There seem s to be a legitimate demand for this development outside of financial feasibility for the developer. The state that the economy is in presently is also an additional reason as to why this particular type of facility would be we lcomed into a community which has a fairly large population. The majority of multi-family housing in the location chosen is in fact luxury apartments, yet remains vacant due to a slowdow n in the economy and an abundance of similar residential communities. This is an opportunity to present to the community a unique and very necessary idea of affordable living that has the potential to be reproduced in surrounding communities. As a response to both the comm unity and those that are forced into an economically burdened household, the choice to continue with the development of this project should be confirmed. This solution thus acts as a model for an affordable multi-family structure

PAGE 36

36 to be replicated based on necessity and define s a feasible solution to further todays progress toward an affordable sustainable society. The proposed solution acts as a model and tool to educate people on the qualities of a sustainable building and the positive e ffects that it has on the environment.

PAGE 37

37 Sustainable Housing Case Study Evaluation Matrix Case StudyProject DetailsProject CostsSite Energy Water Materials Atlanta, GA "The Street Where Dreams Come True" Santa Monica, CA Z6 House San Francisco, CA The Plaza Apartments Diversion of construction waste by 94%. Structural materials used as faade. Fly ash used in concrete. Fiberglass rigid insulation. Recyclable flooring materials. Not Given Multi-Family. 106 studio apartments (avg. 300 SF). Completed in 2005 Construction Cost: $16.5 million; $225/SF. Unit Cost: $150,000 Revitilization project. Urban site. Minimize stormwater runoff. Airtightness. 26 kW photovoltaic system on roof to provide approximately 12% of electrical load (Savings of 58,860 kWh/yr). Hydronic heat used (95% efficiency). ENERGY STAR appliances. Insulated windows to minimize solar heat gain. Increase insulation throughout. 1.5 gpm low-flow showerheads and 1.6 gpm low-flow toilets. Drip irrigation with bubblers Single-Family. 4 bedrooms, 2.5 bathroms, 2-car garage (2,480 SF). Completed in 2006 Located in dense urban neighborhood. Public transportation nearby. Local conveniences. Oriented at 45 degrees in north/south direction. Natural ventilation for cooling. 2.4 kW photovoltaic array to offset energy costs by 60-70%. Monitoring system for energy consumption and water usage. Low-flow fixtures. Evacuated-tube solar hot water collector. Rainwater collection for green roof. 3,500 gallon below grade cistern. 3-4% material waste. Constructed off-site. Assembled on-site. Low VOC wall coverings. Certified wood used. Re-Use Site with minimal disruption of existing trees and groundcover. Single-Family. 7 single-family homes (avg. 1,150 SF). Completed in 2002 Tight building envelope. PV sensors on exterior lighting. Double-glazed, vinyl-frame, double-hung windows with low-e glass (U-value <0.56, solar heat gain coefficient <0.4). R30 insulation in ceiling. R-5 insulation in exterior wall. R-13 in walls. ENERGY STAR washing machines. Stormwater management techniques Recycled construction waste. Off-site framing. Re-use materials such as drywall, siding, shingles and block ground up for base material. Construction Cost: $502,641; $72/SF. Unit Cost: $71,805 Figure 7-1. Case study matrix. [I nformation gathered from Global Green USA and BuildingGreen.com]

PAGE 38

38 Table 7-1. Impact fee summary. Impact fee summary Description Amount Road impact fee Use: multi-family Units: 100 dwellings $260,300.00 Law enforcement impact fee Use: multi-family Units: 100 units $6,569.00 School impact fee Use: multi-family Units: 100 units $697,900.00 Fire impact fee Use: multi-family Units: 100 units $19,517.00 Parks and recreation impact fee Use: multi-family Units: 100 units $100,275.00 Total $1,084,561.00 [Source: Orange County Government, Florida website]

PAGE 39

39 Table 7-2. Permit fee calculations. Permit fees Submittal fees Paid at time of submitting plans Valuation of project: Less than $10,001 = $ 31.00 $ 10,001 $25,000 = $ 52.00 $ 25,001 $50,000 = $103.00 $ 50,001 $100,000 = $206.00 $100,001$500,000 = $412.00 $500,001$1,000,000 = $618.00 $1,000,001-$2,000,000 = $824.00 Over $2,000,000 = $800.00 Plus per additional $100,000 or fraction thereof = $21.00 $16,763,850.00 $2,000,000.00 = $14,763,850.00 $14,763,850.00/$100,000.00 = $147.64 $147.64 X $21.00 = $3,100.44 $3,100.44 + $800.00 = $3900.44 Total submittal fee Zoning division new construc tion plan review fee = $194.00 Development engineering division $1.33/LF of perimeter = $1.33 X 1100 (200 X 350 lot) = $1,463.00 Utilities division ne w construction = $113.00 Total permit fees = $3900.44 + $194.00 + $1,463.00 + $113.00 = $5,670.44 [Table by author]

PAGE 40

40 Table 7-3. Back-door f easibility calculations. Average monthly proposed lease rate/unit $1,500.00 Number of units 100(multiply) Months/year 12(multiply) Potential gross income (annually) $1,800,000.00 Income/revenue ratio (estimate) 0.85(multiply) Net operating income $1,530,000.00 Cap rate (estimate) 0.09(divide) Total project value $17,000,000.00 Land cost (allowance) $1,000,000.00 Sitework (estimate) $250,000.00(add) Permit fees $5,670.00(add) Impact fees $1,084,561.00(add) Total land development cost $2,340,231.00 Total building budget (tpv tldc) $14,659,769.00 Gross building area (sf) 140,000(divide) Maximum construction cost/ sf $104.71 Back-door feasibility analysis [Table by author]

PAGE 41

41 Table 7-4. Front-door f easibility calculations. Construction cost/ sf $119.74 Gross building area (sf) 140,000 Total building budget (estimate) $16,763,600.00(rs means 2009) Land cost (allowance) $1,000,000.00 Sitework (estimate) $250,000.00(add) Permit fees $5,670.00(add) Impact fees $1,084,561.00(add) Total land development cost $2,340,231.00 Total project value (tbb + tldc) $19,103,831.00 Cap rate (estimate) 0.09(multiply) Net operating income $1,719,344.79 Income/revenue ratio (estimate) 0.85(divide) Potential gross income (annually) $2,022,758.58 Months/year 12(divide) Number of units 100(divide) Average monthly minimum lease rate/unit $1,685.63 Front-door feasibility analysis [Table by author]

PAGE 42

42 Table 7-5. Net present value calculations. YearNet cash inflow Present value Principle2009(17,000,000.00) $ (17,000,000.00) $ 120101,530,000.00 $ 1,443,396.23 $ 220111,530,000.00 $ 1,361,694.55 $ 320121,530,000.00 $ 1,284,617.50 $ 420131,530,000.00 $ 1,211,903.30 $ 520141,530,000.00 $ 1,143,305.00 $ 620151,530,000.00 $ 1,078,589.63 $ 720161,530,000.00 $ 1,017,537.38 $ 820171,530,000.00 $ 959,940.93 $ 920181,530,000.00 $ 905,604.65 $ 1020191,530,000.00 $ 854,344.01 $ 1120201,530,000.00 $ 805,984.91 $ 1220211,530,000.00 $ 760,363.13 $ 1320221,530,000.00 $ 717,323.70 $ 1420231,530,000.00 $ 676,720.48 $ 1520241,530,000.00 $ 638,415.54 $ 1620251,530,000.00 $ 602,278.81 $ 1720261,530,000.00 $ 568,187.56 $ 1820271,530,000.00 $ 536,026.00 $ 1920281,530,000.00 $ 505,684.91 $ 2020291,530,000.00 $ 477,061.23 $ Net present value548,979.46 $ Net present value Discount rate = .06 Term = 20 years [Table by author]

PAGE 43

43 Table 7-6. Internal rate of return calculations. YearNet cash inflow Principle2009(17,000,000.00) $ 120101,530,000.00 $ 220111,530,000.00 $ 320121,530,000.00 $ 420131,530,000.00 $ 520141,530,000.00 $ 620151,530,000.00 $ 720161,530,000.00 $ 820171,530,000.00 $ 920181,530,000.00 $ 1020191,530,000.00 $ 1120201,530,000.00 $ 1220211,530,000.00 $ 1320221,530,000.00 $ 1420231,530,000.00 $ 1520241,530,000.00 $ 1620251,530,000.00 $ 1720261,530,000.00 $ 1820271,530,000.00 $ 1920281,530,000.00 $ 2020291,530,000.00 $ 6% Internal rate of return Internal rate of return [Table by author]

PAGE 44

44 LIST OF REFERENCES rd Annual Salt Lake S ustainable Conference Slated for April 29. Intermountain Contractor 64.4 (2008): 9. Barnes, Jaime L. Perceptions of sustainable co nstruction in large U.S. construction companies Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Press, 2005. http://purl.fcla.edu/fcla/etd/UFE0011647 Beck and Boye. Fed rate cuts put squeeze on comm unity banks profits. Orlando Business Journal 21-27 Mar. 2008: 3. "Best Buy pledges to build green for all its new stores." Building Design & Construction 48.12 (2007): 3. Bilbao, Richard. Delay in raising impact fees a re lief for Osceola builders. Orlando Business Journal 29 Feb. 6 Mar. 2008: 9. Brown, R. S. Sustainable design and construction strategies fo r research building typologies Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Press, 2003. http://purl.fcla.edu/fcla/etd/UFE0000850 Cohen, Todd Randall. E valuating the Integration of Green Buildings into Affordable Housing Development Policy Gainesville, FL: Universi ty of Florida Press, 2007. Edwards, Brian. Green Buildings Pay 2nd ed., London, UK: Taylor & Francis Group, 2003. Forster, Wayne and Dean Hawkes. Energy Effici ent Buildings; Architecture, Engineering and Environment New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, 2002. Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse. http://www.shimberg.ufl.edu Global Green USA. Blu eprint fo r Greening Affordable Housing Washington, DC: Island Press, 2007. Greer, Diane. Build It Green. New York Construction 55.1 (2007): 28. Hardesty, Linda. The Price of Building Green; Ev en owners of spec buildings can reap some advantages, Colorado Construction 10.11 (2007): 30. Hoover, Kent. New real estate closings ru le gets OK reviews. Orlando Business Journal 21-27 Mar. 2008: 12. Kibert, C. J. Sustainable constructio n: green building design and delivery Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2008.

PAGE 45

45 Langdon, Davis. Cost of Green Revisited: Reexam ining the Feasibility and Cost Impact of Sustainable Design in the Light of Increased Market Adoption London, UK: Taylor & Francis Group, July 2007. Le Corbusier. Towards A New Architecture New York, NY: Dover Publications, Inc., 1986. McIntee, Marcus Paul. Updating Performance Data for Comparing Green to Conventional Buildings on UF Campus Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Press, 2006. McIntosh, Angus, Sarah Sayce and Anthony Walker Building Sustainability in the Balance: Promoting stakeholder dialogue London, UK: Estates Gazette, 2004. Moe, Kiel. Integrated Design in Contemporary Architecture Princeton, NJ: Princeton Architectural Press, 2008. Orange County Government, Florida we bsite, Retrieved March 20, 2009, from http://www.orangecountyfl.net/ebuilding/imp actfee/im pactfeecalc/impact_calc2.asp Orlando Business Journal 6-12 Oct. 2006: 1. Schwartz, Karen, Estimating Sust ainable Projects; Planning, Expe rience Key to Keeping Green in the Black, Midwest Construction 11.2 (2008): 24. Smith, Greg. LEED: Is it Adequate? Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Press, 2007. Smith, Peter F. Sustainability at the Cutti ng Edge: Emerging technologies for low energy buildings 2nd ed., Oxford, UK: Architectural Press, 2003. U.S. Census Bureau International Data Base, Retrieved November 12, 2008, from http://www.census.gov U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, Retrieved December 03, 2008, from http://www.huduser.org/datasets

PAGE 46

46 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Josh Morton was born in W int er Park, Florida, and gradua ted from Seminole High School in 2003. After completing high school, he attended the University of Florida, where he graduated Cum Laude with a Bachelor of Design in May 2007. His ambitions led him to then pursue a degree in the construction field. He obtained a Master of Scien ce in Building Construction from the University of Florida in 2009. He hopes to utilize the knowledge acquired throughout his education in order to apply that knowledge towa rd designing and building with more sustainable and affordable goals.