They Like It, They'll Pay, and It Works
These two photos show the dining rooms in the conventional (top)
and energy-efficient (bottom) homes used in the Homearama lighting project.
Surveys of house-hunters found that overall, the energy-efficient lighting
was more popular than the more traditional design. |
In Rochester, New York, two side-by-side townhouses
were put on display to the public during the "Homearama 1994" home show.
Both houses were designer decorated, and they were from the same line of
homes, with base prices (before customization) of $119,000. But there was
a difference: the builder, Gerber Homes of Ontario, New York, had installed
its standard lighting package in one home. In the other, Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute's Lighting Research Center (LRC) had installed a custom energy-efficient
lighting package. Both the builder and the LRC researchers wanted to know
whether customers would appreciate a home with good lighting design that
was efficiently lit by full-size fluorescent, compact fluorescent, and
halogen reflector lamps.
The results were surprising: of 706 people who
looked at the two homes, 79% liked the appearance of the efficient lighting
as much as or more than the traditional lighting. There were even higher
levels of acceptance or preference for efficient lighting in kitchens and
bathrooms.
This doesn't mean that efficient lighting alone
can appeal to the masses. But it does show that well thought-out design
can make fluorescent lamps an appropriate technology for the home. LRC's
Rita Koltai carefully designed the efficient lighting in accordance with
the LRC's Lighting Pattern Book for Homes (see "Lighting
Makeovers: The Best Is Not Always the Brightest," HE Nov/Dec
'94, p. 20). Lamps and ballasts were selected for their warm color temperature,
lack of flicker, and appropriate brightness; fixtures were placed to make
tasks more comfortable. The conventional lighting package was relatively
poorly designed, with less task lighting, too much glare, and visually
unpleasant fluorescent lamps.
Fully 97% of the prospective customers said they
would be willing to pay more--half said they would be willing to spend
upwards of $825 more--for efficient lighting. However, this alone would
not cover the $1,300 difference in cost between the conventional and efficient
lighting systems.
The efficiently lit home sold, while the other
home did not. However, this cannot be entirely attributed to the lighting,
as other custom features also distinguished it from the other house. A
year after the home show and survey, the traditionally lit home remained
on the market, while the efficiently lit home was operating just fine--the
occupants had neither added nor removed any lights, were very satisfied
with the lighting, and had low energy bills.
|
