‘This is a wonderful book that should be on the desk of every architect and planner. It shows how

But what about the ‘up-front’ cost of retrofitting – can it be reduced? 
One of the biggest impediments to retrofitting is the up-front cost – despite the fact that it constitutes 
a sound and ethical investment [Box 37]. At the domestic scale, for example, an up-front investment 
of a few thousand dollars in a solar hot water heater compares favourably with investing that amount 
of money in a savings account. However, many people feel that they do not have ‘spare money’ to 
invest (or save) in the first place. Also, developers usually do not have to pay the operational costs of 
the building, as they pass these costs on to the future building owners and renters. Therefore, they 
are usually only concerned with keeping construction costs down, and have little incentive to invest 
in energy efficiency. But there are many ways of addressing this. For example:
•
More councils could legislate for mandatory disclosure of the building’s energy rating to
potential buyers or renters, as is done in some places.
36
• 
Councils can create development incentives, such as allowing the addition of a second floor
dwelling unit if, and only if, the addition converts both units into ‘resource autonomous’
dwellings or better [Box 8].
37
• 
Mortgage schemes could be modified to encourage retrofits. Favourable mortgage rate 
programmes already exist in some places for new energy efficient homes.
• 
Stamp duty could be reduced in proportion to a building’s energy efficiency. 
Unfortunately, the fact that retrofitting could pay for itself while reducing public externality costs 
does not always impress people who are concerned only with short-term costs and profits. Oddly, 
some even treat the payback period as a disincentive.
Surely a payback would be the biggest incentive for eco-retrofitting?
Due to negative thinking, the payback period is often regarded as if it were a bad thing. Many people 
forget that, once paid off, the savings from passive solar design and eco-technologies are effectively 
‘income’. There is virtually no financial risk. The payback time on residential properties can be just 
a few months or years, making what Richard Heede called ‘home made money’.
38
In fact, a study 
conducted for the US Environmental Protection Agency, back in 1998, showed that, on average, 
homeowners recover their investments in upgrades regardless of how long after they remain in the 
home. The property value increases immediately and, on average, covers the builder’s upgrade costs.
39
This is partly because purchasers are willing to pay more for an energy-efficient home as an investment 
– a trend which should increase. In Canberra, where homes that are advertised for sale must publish 
their energy rating, researchers have found strengthening trends between house prices and energy 
ratings.
40
Paradoxically, while most people will not buy products where the payback period is deemed 
‘too long’, as in the case of solar panels, they will buy excessively expensive cars for which there is no 
payback whatsoever.
41
As the personal ‘brag value’ to be gained from investments in eco-logical design 
increases, awareness of sustainability issues will also grow. Nonetheless, people still need money to 
invest in the first place, at least if governments remain unwilling to put systems in place to finance 
significant retrofitting programmes or to reduce hidden subsidies to new homes. 

---

36
Positive Development