One of the most popular building trends of the last decade is “Green” development. A green development has less to do with the exterior colors, which coincidentally seldom contain any green, as it does environmentally friendly building techniques. The goal is to build developments which have a reduced impact on the environment. Does “Green” development really accomplish what they set out to do OR is it a marketing ploy conducted to charge a premium on a perceived value? 

The US Green Building Council is the leading organization to provide guidelines and certifications for commercial, single family, and multi-family housing. The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) is “the nationally accepted benchmark for the design, construction and operation of high performance green buildings. LEED gives building owners and operators the tools they need to have an immediate and measurable impact on their buildings’ performance. LEED promotes a whole-building approach to sustainability by recognizing performance in five key areas of human and environmental health: sustainable site development, water savings, energy efficiency, materials selection and indoor environmental quality.” 

 The LEED certification is widely accepted as the gold standard of environmentally friendly development among residential developments. There are a few developments in Charlotte that have marketed themselves as “Green” developments. The Vyne and Celedon are the two “Green” residential developments nearest to the Uptown. There are a few commercial building such as the newest Wachovia tower and Bank of America tower which make claims of being “Green”. In general, there hasn’t been much demand for “Green” development in Charlotte.

Are the people of Charlotte insensitive or careless about the environment? 

I don’t think so. I would venture to say that the lack of demand for environmentally friendly low impact development is due to a lack of exposure to a real benefit to the environment. 

In the urban core the two developments that have marketed themselves as “Green” developments have done little to push the cause or educate people about a real difference. Their marketing of the environmental components is lacking. One can only wonder if there is any real value in going “Green” or is this just a marketing fad of the new century?

At The Vyne, the most substantial environmentally friendly component is a small garden area that will allegedly require very little water to sustain itself. Rumor has it the garden will be replaced by a swimming pool. 

At both The Vyne and Celedon, they have completely stripped down any vegetation that formerly existed on the site. Is that what “Green” development is all about? Stripping land of natural resources? What’s really new about that?

Proponents of “Green” developments will argue that the materials used in the construction are what make the development environmentally friendly. That the low carbon content in the paint used on the interior and the smaller GPF(gallons per flush) in the toilet are better for the environment. But where is the real value? Why not just encourage people to follow the “Mellow Yellow Rule”…if it’s yellow let it mellow; if it’s brown flush it down? Simple answer: There’s no money to be made in encouraging Mellow Yellow. 

The million dollar question no one has asked is: How much better are these “Green” development practices that strip down all the vegetation and replace them with condos with energy efficient windows? Are these homes really better? OR should they just leave the land alone? 

The question is of net effect. For what these “Green” developments take away, do they really contribute to a healthier earth?

Ironically, the developments that have the most positive net effect haven’t marketed themselves as being such. Developments such as Alpha Mill (currently operating as apartments);  Circle (currently under construction); 3030 South (condos in South End) are all developments that have taken land decimated by the industry of days gone by and have redeveloped the wasteland into something useful. They have taken something negative and turned it into something positive…net effect positive.

So why haven’t the “Green” developments gone further than toilets and windows? Why not put solar panels or utilize geothermal power? Why not harvest rainwater and focus on Brownfield redevelopment?  

The answer: a lack of demand from consumers for something really different that really improves the environment and really utilizes natural resources to the fullest capability…really.