Grey's anatomy

Victim of Seattle arsons reaffirms commitment to green building

Posted by David Roberts at 10:54 AM on 05 Mar 2008

As Grist readers know -- and are furiously debating -- there were some arsons in Seattle on Monday which have been attributed to shadowy (perhaps mythical) activist group Earth Liberation Front.

The following is a letter to Grist from the owner of one of the houses that was destroyed, Grey Lundberg of CMI Homes, Inc:

I am writing you today in reference to your recent article "Know Thy ELF: 'Eco-Terrorism' Suspected in Seattle-area Arson."

I am the builder of the home which suffered the most damage from the fire in the Woodinville area -- it was completely destroyed. I would like Grist readers to know how deeply I am committed to green and how surprised and saddened I am that people would choose this award-winning project as a target. I have been building green homes for over a decade, always employing the highest quality practices and products. I understand that this home was not perfectly deep green, but people need to make changes step by step; people need choices. The Urban Lodge is a home that was certified as a 5-star Built Green home through the Built Green Program of King and Snohomish Counties and verified to the Gold Level through the NAHB Model Green Home Building Guidelines. It would have used 30% less energy, offered significant water savings features, and was half the size of the usual Seattle Street of Dreams home. With the projected 40,000 people moving into the Puget Sound region this year alone, not all are going to want to live downtown, some will want places in the suburbs to raise their families. My company is a recognized leader in the green building industry in the Pacific Northwest region and we are committed to the continued education and inspiration of the public about the benefits and importance of building green, for people as well as the planet.

Grey Lundberg, President
Grey Lundberg, Inc. / CMI Homes, Inc.

Here's a picture of the Urban Lodge:

Urban lodge

The Seattle Times shows what the house looks like now.

For story: Grey's anatomy
9 Comments | Post a Comment

Before We Rush To Judgement...

Federal investigators said Tuesday that they had uncovered no clear leads on how arsonists lit the fires that destroyed three luxury homes and damaged two others in Snohomish County.
"The only thing that is consistent to this point with what we know as an ELF fire is the banner," Crenshaw said, adding that it had been sent to an FBI lab for testing.</blockquotes>

Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))

by jabailo at 11:49 AM on 05 Mar 2008

Qui Bono?

Who benefits. These were unoccupied houses. How much did the builder owe? It costs a ton of money to build a house this size.

by cheflovesbeer at 1:04 PM on 05 Mar 2008

Who benefits...

...well, far better they burn unoccupied homes (if they were really burned due to arson), than homes that were occupied. But usually, eco-terrorists won't chose targets that're occupied at the time of attack in order to avoid casualties.

As for whether or not there'll be any benefit...well, I guess that'll depend on what happens to land and houses after this.

And also on what this publicity does for the ELF (if they were truly responsible for it).

by Tasermons Partner at 1:12 PM on 05 Mar 2008

First, I don't support the burning of these houses

but homes like that are the very antithesis of green. They are the ultimate greenwash. I look at houses like that, and by association, the people who buy them, and roll my eyes. My God, what a ridiculous fantasy ...a lodge.

I understand that this home was not perfectly deep green ...

I think I would agree with that statement, although I have no idea what a "perfectly deep green" home might look like.

It would have used 30% less energy...

...than your typical bloated resource sucking monstrosity of similar size? True. Although about 100% more energy than any reasonably sized home built to the national building code.

half the size of the usual Seattle Street of Dreams home

... about 4,000 square feet, which is 2.6 times bigger than my comfortable four-bedroom, two-bath home for four, which could sit in this home's living room. Whoever bought that house would be consuming, oh, about 130% more resources and energy than my family with no improvement in physical comfort whatsoever.

Truth be told, it would be purchased for the status it would bestow. But what if someday, purchasing a home like that is seen as an indication of shallowness, something for uninformed, status hungry fools, having to commute long distances to work, school and to anything else. The street doesn't even have a sidewalk. If enough people shared my opinion it would be hard to sell a house like that because instead of being a status symbol, it would be the mark of a clueless knucklehead with money to burn.

With the projected 40,000 people moving into the Puget Sound region this year alone, not all are going to want to live downtown, some will want places in the suburbs to raise their families

Living downtown is one extreme, that "lodge" is the other. Most people would be perfectly happy living somewhere in between. Just picture the resources and energy 40,000 of those lodges would consume.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

by biodiversivist at 2:29 PM on 05 Mar 2008

Ah, c'mon. Be nice.

Just because in an era of increasing Global Warming and scarcity of resources this guy builds 4,000 sq. foot houses and chooses to leave them empty for a year while his fellow americans are homeless was no reason to burn them down.

Now, collecting the insurance money for a white elephant you can't sell in a falling market; that was a good reason to burn these houses down.

I'm sure this developer can point to some eco-friendly duplexes and triplexes in the 800 to 1500 sq. ft. range that could have housed the rest of us. Just give us the link Grey and we'll all go look and tell you what a good guy you are.

Because like the rest of us you understand that if "green" and "low-carbon" are brands that convey wealth and status to the exclusion of the masses then there really isn't much point. The guy down the block feeding cardboard and pallets to his woodstove to keep warm just zero's out your efforts. You have to help him too or it's pointless.

Put the Carbon Back

by Pangolin at 3:27 PM on 05 Mar 2008

Get a Grip

Calling that monstrosity any shade of green is just wrong. Simply because someone would buy it with old technology and waste the energy doesn't make the improvements green. Unless the 'Lodge' pictured above is going to be a group home for about 25 people and those grounds are going to be used to produce food for those people...I'd also like to see solar powering all of those lights that are on, treadmills and stationary bikes for our lengthy cloudy season would be a convincing touch. I'm not saying burning is a solution, and my 2 cents on the elf issue: I don't believe they would make such a move with a member currently in a local court, it would only freshen memories, bad move for their side. If we follow the traditional "Who benefits?" ....?
Anyway....Values are changing, perspectives are changing and along with all of that our definitions and expectations are changing. Those that are slow to follow the trend (and I mean homebuyers as well as builders) will always be targets for dispute and mockery. Because someone will buy it doesn't make it right.

by morganmghee at 3:33 PM on 05 Mar 2008

Looks like a nice home...

... though far beyond my means and much larger than I would want to heat, keep clean, and otherwise maintain. I wonder whether the landscaping consists of native plants. That would be preferable. And I hope there isn't a neighborhood covenant that prevents the owner from growing vegetables in their yard.

I don't know why people need so much space, but it is their right to purchase it if they have the ability. I should point out that while I don't begrudge the potential buyers right now, I will not have sympathy for them if they find themselves in over their heads and not able to continue to make the payments. The supposed pleasure of owning such a large home comes with enormous risk and our society should not pity them or bail them out if they have trouble. Nor should it bail out those who finance such projects.

I suspect most McMansions will eventually become multi-family dwellings, complete with sidewalks connecting them. Economists have already recognized that when the current occupants of these houses retire, there will be no one left who can afford to buy them. The jobs just aren't there. The large houses are a dead end and "nature" will soon flex it muscles and rein in this sort of behavior. They will probably spontaneously combust shortly afterward due to shoddy construction and violations of building codes to bring them in under budget.

What do such houses communicate to me?

The root of the problem is income distribution. In a fair society, no one should be able to afford such a house while someone else cannot afford even a small house or an apartment. Torching houses will not solve this problem. Companies will build McMansions as long as there are buyers who can afford them.

by wiscidea at 4:27 PM on 05 Mar 2008

Uh...

Is that a road or a driveway in front of the house?!!!

Where's the garage?

Where does a person park his Hummer, sail boat, and jumbo riding lawn mower?

by wiscidea at 4:35 PM on 05 Mar 2008

NAHB Model Green

I'm not particularly impressed by certification from the National Association of Homebuilders. Apparently they found it just too much to meet LEED standards so they came up with their own brand of certification. Why bother, for instance, with pesky requirements for FSC lumber when you can just go with the timber industry's "certified" lumber?

30% energy savings is really no big deal. That's an awfully low bar (especially if they did really mean that it would use 30% of a typical Street of Dreams home, which if twice as big should imply at least a 50% savings).

by In the belly at 5:58 PM on 05 Mar 2008

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.