Eco-housing, the exception or the norm?

In my work I meet people that have a "green heart" and want to do something positive for nature or the environment. Some of these people even go so far as to want to create an "ecological project". The initiatives seldom amount to much as the economics of such dreams of a better future for one's personal life and the planet don't stack up. This prevents many idealist from completing actual projects. I'm not mentioning this to put down the dreamers amongst us, no, I simply want to draw attention to the divide between what is dubbed "conventional" versus "ecological".

Ecological projects that can be linked to water management are the most easily realised in the Netherlands, as there is standing policy encouraging this. There is also a quid-pro-quo approach in planning which means that if for instance someone wants to develop a site for new housing, this will have to be compensated via the building of "new nature" or an investment in the spatial and natural quality of the landscape on site or in a suitable location earmarked by the planners for so-called blue-green developments.

There are many projects of concerned citizens trying to improve the environment and the future of the planet by setting up projects within the sharing economy, reducing waste, promoting reuse and the circular economy,  cleaner energy, reducing energy consumption and localism. The collection of reusable materials has been well organised with collection points for glass (to be separated by colour), paper, metal, plastics and green waste. And slowly the sharing economy is becoming part of the mainstream. Furthermore many local authorities strongly favour a more durable way of transport and developing offices and housing. Central government also issues directives concerning building standards, energy efficiency for new-builds and remodelled or revamped buildings, reusability of building materials. And the waterboards (Waterschappen) have clear guidelines concerning hydrological impact assessment and hydrological compensation. Developers are now noticing that houses with durability features sell better so nearly all new-builds are fitted with high yield glazing, passive heating, heat exchangers, extra insulation, photovoltaic panels, sun boilers and/or geothermal heating systems.

This is the way forward. As many new-builds that look "conventional" are in fact outperforming the so-called eco-housing, the question arises why there is still the insistence on separating conventional and ecological housing. I think this is in part a sales trick from developers that market their housing with more than minimal durability measures as ecological. This is impossible without creating the impression of a less durable "conventional" option. It is, to my mind, a bit like those washing machines that are all Label A+, A++ and A+++, with  categories down to E on the label. This is less than honest as no machines are sold below label B.

Another factor for emphasising the special status of eco-housing might lie in the people and organisations that are promoting this as part of their perceived shared identity. All the GEN-initiatives are clear examples of this. Where EVA-Lanxmeer tried to create practical solutions imbedded in its spatial and social context, most GEN-initiatives emphasise their peculiar uniqueness and are aimed at only the group of like-minded individuals (e.g. the Dutch Ecovillages).

The earliest durability measures in buildings were strongly technical and most have proven to be non-practical or give less positive results than was first calculated. The houses with a computer controlled ventilation and passive heating turned out to make people sick, as moulds flourished, allergens were constantly reintroduced and no window could be opened. Some people will be attracted to a New-Age commune with the intention of self-sufficiency, most people however are well-willing to do their bit for the planet as long as they can have some sense of continuity of lifestyle and social context. Only a small group can't be swayed by any argument and will choose to be as wasteful and polluting almost out of spite against the concerns of the many...  

I think eco-housing as a separate category is fine, for those for whom it is part of their core identity. This is only a small and well-defined group. For all other people new housing must include best practice concerning durability measures and existing housing should be improved to meet higher standards. Durability measures should be aimed at the majority of people and made mandatory in building regulations and planning. As the conventional looking housing of Westerpark in Breda or In Goede Aarde in Boxtel show, a lot can be done without being too obvious about it.