On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 01:24:56 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 01:02:34 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

Just because Wimpy is not building them doesn't mean they are not cost
effective. They are.

Could it be that people don't *want* them I wonder?

What a stupid thing to say.

Not really.

Could it be that no one has heard of them?

The problem is that the marketing and designs have been really poor.
The impression of most people is that eco-houses are futuristic
designs using unfamiliar materials and pushed by the beards and
sandals brigade.

One can argue on the merits and demerits of that impression, but it's
the case.

For most people, their home is the largest purchase that they will
make and also represents, rightly or wrongly, something in which they
tie up and hopefully grow a significant part of their capital. With
the poor performance of the financial sector, pension schemes and the
like, property is seen as a long term safe bet.

In view of this, most people tend to be quite risk-averse when
selecting a property to buy. Even in a seller's market, buyers walk
away from property that has been underpinned, even though it is
probably better than it has ever been because the insurers are
conservative.

I think that if you were to survey people in the street, you would
find that most look for the conventional, traditional and "safe" bet.

Technical features don't win the argument. If they did, there would
be no need to legislate around energy saving. I'm not saying that
energy saving is a bad thing, but requiring legislation to create
change implies that the market is not in broad support for whatever
reason. This could be lack of knowledge, apathy, cost or a number of
other factors.


If
there are two similar priced and sized houses and one has no hearting bills,
which one do you think people will go for? Now think hard about this and I
hope you don't have brain ache in the process.


There's no need to think a great deal on this one. This point was
discussed a few weeks ago.

Most participants thought that the use of energy issue and its cost
was not a major factor in choice of property to buy.

They are far more interested in location, proximity or not to other
properties and facilities, whether the kitchen and bathroom are
decent; potential for growth.


Another explanation is that the construction companies aren't making
eco-houses because they believe that people won't want them for
whatever reason. Again that may be for right or wrong, but the effect
is the same.

Even at the relatively low numbers of houses being built, a very small
proportion dramatically exceed the requirements of the Building
Regulations and very very few could be described as highly eco in
nature.

That's the way it is. Gradually things will change. It will
become more interesting to build eco houses when energy really does
become expensive. Without that, there is no economic driver.

The alternatives, to make things change more quickly are education to
encourage people to see the merits (slow and not very effective
without economic driver) and legislation (usually not popular).




..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl