I strongly suggest that you get your hands on a copy of the magazine. They explode many myths, including the one you’re grasping, that replacing windows is your best investment. In fact, the magazine suggests that insulating around the windows generally gives you a far bigger bang for your buck than replacing the windows, admittedly not cheap.

Those big windows do provide a lot of natural light. Many of the new construction green buildings try to achieve this level of sunlit space. In fact, the Trust has assembled studies that show that people use less energy for lighting when the windows are doing more of the work.

Finally, the National Trust for Historic Preservation is a private group, not a government group. Most of the big wigs associated with the organizations that I have met around the country seem to have Republican tendencies like yourself. In fact, some even reveal Libertarian leanings.

As a result, the group has not generally, at least to my knowledge, advocated for increased government regulations. Instead, they support incentives to encourage private investment in a direction they support. With this particular issue of Preservation, it seems that they are now shifting some of their resources into education.

I do hope that some of our design and construction professionals will weigh in on this topic. I think that their thoughts and experiences might be more valuable for the community than yet another debate on philosophical minutiae between you and me.

See you at The Cow,

Ross

But, I am heartened that the Northfield area planning commissioners (Northfield, Dundas and Bridgewater) have or are updating their comp plans to reflect this adjusted reality. Keep up the faith and we conservative conservationists will turn this 1000′ ore boat of a society to a better path.

Tracy is preaching to the converted in my case as well. Your existing home (or commercial building) can be extremely “green,” no matter how new or old it is. I have suggestions for greening your home, be it new or old, on my website.

If you are an Xcel Energy customer, you can request a subsidized $35 energy audit and you’ll get a couple of hours of an energy auditor’s time in your home, helping you identify and prioritize energy-saving opportunities. (Disclaimer: I perform energy audits as a sub-contractor for Xcel in this geographic area, so if you request an energy audit and live in the Northfield area, you’ll probably be stuck with me….)

In my case, it’s preaching to the converted. As many of you know, the Founding Fathers of the NDDC, Bardwell Smith, Brett Reese, Jim Braucher and Keith Covey, based the organization on the Four Points of the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s Main Street Program. In fact, last year I attended the national conference in Seattle and blogged about it both on the NDDC and LG websites:

http://nddc.org/weblog/post/571/
http://nddc.org/weblog/post/574/
http://nddc.org/weblog/post/575/
http://nddc.org/weblog/post/578/
http://locallygrownnorthfield.org/archives/779/
http://locallygrownnorthfield.org/archives/782/
http://locallygrownnorthfield.org/archives/785/

Tracy references the January/February edition of “Preservation – The Magazine of the National Trust for Historic Preservation”. The NDDC is a member, and we always get the magazine, however, in my mind, this was a particularly valuable issue, with important information for both commercial and residential applications.

Indeed, it’s about being green.

Native Minnesotan and National Trust President Richard Moe sees the convergence of the preservation and sustainability movements. He states that at first the Trust worked to save iconic structures, next it emphasized the economic benefits of reusing historic buildings, more recently they’ve talked about the sense of stability and continuity that comes from preserving and enhancing well-built older neighborhoods, and now they are focusing on preservation’s environmental benefits. Some Trust members are calling preservation the ultimate recycling.

Moe points out that “older buildings were built to last, which is the very essence of sustainability”. The National Trust and its supporters argue, such as Trust Public Policy Associate Rhonda Sincavage, that the “retention of existing buildings conserves the materials and the energy embodied in the construction”. This “embodied energy” is the energy required to extract, process, manufacture, transport, and install building materials. In fact, analysts have determined that the typical building required the equivalent of an average of 10 gallons of gasoline per square foot. If the building is abandoned or destroyed, the benefits of that embodied energy are lost.

Architect Walter Sedovic notes that “before sustainability had a name, traditional builders incorporated sustainable elements into buildings. Working in sync with the environment was the norm, including siting, local materials, natural ventilation, shading, reflective roofing, cisterns, indigenous plantings – the list becomes long, and in many ways mirrors ‘new’ standards espoused today”.

Advocates for the Trust suggest that the ‘green design’ movement may have undervalued the ecological value of building reuse. They cite an east coast foundation’s newly constructed Environmental Center, the first building to earn a LEED Platinum rating, that used many of the most cutting edge technologies to reduce its environmental impact. However, the new building was constructed 10 miles from the original downtown headquarters and many of the 100 employees that once walked to work now drive.

The Trust’s researchers are beginning to quantify the value of preserving older buildings by gathering data on topics such as embodied energy and building life cycle analysis. They are already sharing recommendations on managing building operations to bring energy usage in line with even the most green new construction buildings.

Mike Jackson, chief architect with the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, put it well. “Let’s tell the story that we’re green. We’re just stealth green.”

Perhaps going forward, the Trust will be a little less stealthy and a little more noisy.