Now if their homes weren't so ugly...
Good for Garbett. I'll be on the market soon, and I will keep this in mind.
Like this a lot.
NEWS FLASHBuilding new homes is not environmentally friendly when
there is already a glut of used overpriced inventory on the market.I
have to say the utility bills they are quoting are quite impressive though, if
true.At the end of the day though, building more new homes while
there are reams of repossessed/bankrupt/short-sale homes available is NOT
environmentally friendly and further depresses prices of existing housing.It is comical that organizations put themselves forward as
"green" meanwhile by their very existence are exactly the opposite
considering the current housing market situation. Good marketing for
the sheep that will buy it thinking they are acting green though. Even though
less efficient, it would have less environmental impact to buy an existing home
rather than continuing to support these builders building new ones.Marketing can and does deceive many.Example? Apple. Supposedly
many of the people who purchase their products are "green" and yet
Apple was recently rated as one of the worst according to Greenpeace. Google
"least green tech company" and see for yourself. That
does not seem to stop the sheep from buying their overpriced anti-environment
products though.Like I said, marketing deceives many.
Interesting article. I have seen some Garbett Homes in the Salt Lake valley and
really liked their minimlaist style architecture. I was not aware that they were
also aggressively pursuing energy efficient designs. I am impressed.
@The Final Word - Your comments regarding new home building might be accurate if
the population on the Wasatch Front were stagnant. However, this is not the
case. The Wasatch Front continues to grow so existing housing cannot accommodate
demand. In the long run, more housing is necessary to meet that growth in
population. Although this is likely to have associate environmental impacts,
energy effecient construction is an excellent way minimize those impacts. Would
you rather have the new homes people build be energy efficient or inefficient? I
would prefer the former and therefore I commend Garbett for pushing the market
in this direction.As to whether this construction is really green
(or energy efficient), I think consumers can figure this out. If energy bills
really are lower in a Garbett home then a buyer can know the home is more
efficient (therefore, more green). If a Garbett Home utility bill is what the
company claims it to be, then it is clearly a very efficient home (i.e. a green
home). I wish my utility bills were that low.
If people want this type of home, then the market will show that. Just DON'T
FORCE IT on us through government regulation.How many people do you
know that would say they selected their house or community or neighborhood or
options in their dwelling based solely upon the cost of utilities? And what if
the gas bill is lower, but the specific city services like water, sewer and
garbage (or the local school district for that matter) were considerably higher?
And what about property tax? There's a lot more to consider than the
difference between $6 and $20 a month for electricity when deciding which type
of home to buy and where.Don't be decieved----do your homework
I've always loved Garbett home designs and now knowing they're energy efficient
is great, too!
If we must have more new homes built in Utah they should all be built like this!
It's nice to see a company innovating in a way that benefits society and the
environment (not exclusively their bottom line).