The Zoning Hurdles to Alternative Green Building

One of the biggest hurdles facing alternative green building techniques is that of building zoning and development regulations. The International Code Council (ICC) which says it 'serves to protect the health, safety, and welfare of people by creating safe buildings and communities' by 'providing the highest quality codes, standards, products and services for all concerned with the safety and performance of the built environment' is often the guiding force of many of the building regulations which prioritize standardization. In the process however, it stifles innovation, creativity and sustainable building practices.

Although building zoning is often determined on the county or municipal level, supposedly to separate buildings from uses that may be incompatible (for example putting an elementary school next to a toxic waste dump), as well as to ensure that a building is safe for human habitation, the ICC's heavy influence can be felt in zoning laws that despite regional climate differences look more similar than not.

How is this manifested?

Many alternative house designs are designed to heat, cool and ventilate passively without external power or mechanical systems. Most building codes, however, are not designed for that technology and thus require alternative home builders to prove, that not only will the house be safe but that it will also perform within extremely narrow comfort parameters. For example the International Building Code requires that interior spaces that are intended for human occupancy need to be able to maintain a minimum interior temperature of 68 degrees Fahrenheit at a point 3 feet above the floor. Not 65 degrees or even 60 but precisely 68 degrees. Without such precise proof, builders are required to add backup mechanical systems (which are costly to install and maintain).

Yet, the codes have no problem with buildings that ignore passive-solar design principles, that have windows which do not open, rooms with no natural light or ventilation and that require massive mechanical systems to maintain their use, and when the power fails renders the building dangerous or even lethal. As someone who lived in a house that could potentially reach an internal temperature of 68 degrees if I was willing to spend $500 a month on heating, and who spent more than one night without water when snow on the power lines cut the electricity to the electrical pump that moved water from the well to our house, this prioritization of active systems (which easily and often fail, are costly, environmentally deleterious and are not required to have a backup) over passive systems seems absurd.

In addition, as zoning has become more entrenched, what was once about safety has become increasingly about aesthetics. Conditioned, perhaps, by one too many viewings of the Stepford Wives an increasing number of municipalities seem hell bent on creating 'houses made of ticky tacky which all look just the same' regardless of the effect on the environment. Regulations no longer merely limit what sort of activities (agricultural, open space, residential, commercial or industrial) can happen on a particular lot of land, but also minimum sizes for homes (with no correlation as to how many people the home is intended to house), to ordinances that encourage the use of energy hungry clothes dryers by banning the use of outdoor clothing lines (provoking a right to dry movement).

The solution to this kind of absurdity that stymies green development is not to simply broaden zoning regulations - building codes exist for a reason as anyone who has ever seen a house crumble like clay can attest- but rather to find a way to incorporate vetting processes that allows for ingenuity and creativity but without being so cost prohibitive and time consuming that only the most determined and affluent home builder can embark on that path. Humans are not computers; we are not simply a series of commands. A house that maintains an internal temperature of 70 during the day and goes down to 50 degrees at night during the winter is a livable house; anyone with half a brain could see that. Unfortunately building codes don't have brains, but it's imperative that those who wield them do.