Real Estate Investor · Columbus, OH · Member since 2013 · 10 posts · 2 votes
I have a duplex, currently live in one side, and need to make a decision on a window purchase. I received a quote to use regular windows or for an additional $1,150, to use low-e + argon. I am debating spending the additional money to include in the 16 new windows and would like to get some opinions on what other landlords are providing in their units. Are low-e windows worth the additional money and could they be used as an "amenity" for the property when advertising the units? Is this something potential tenants usually ask for specifically? Any feedback is greatly appreciated!
This is what my window guy says. You will never, ever, ever realize the cost savings from a window upgrade of any kind from energy saved. The difference is primarily in comfort. He says after you get past double pain (from single pain) it's really hard to tell the difference. There is a difference though. Unless you can demonstrate ubber low power bills then I have not seen an increase in rental income unless you negotiate it with existing tenants like Mihn does. It's my opinion that you should take the extra $ and invest in a high efficiency furnace or on demand water heater if you want to save energy. Really the best better approach is to seal the living space and add attic insulation. Spend $150 on "Great Stuff" and go into the attic and seal every plumbing and electrical penetration. Take the $1,000 and take a weekend get away. You will save more energy doing that.
In general most dual pane windows are low-e so double check on that. Argon gas is an upgrade. With that said, if you can raise the rent $25/month after installation, it pays for itself. That's how we do it out here. We raise the rent $50 to $100/month after each upgrades. We just talk to our tenants and come up with the number that both agree on before we do the upgrade. Win-win
Although tenants would not know what low-e is, they would know that the house gets to hot in the summer. Low-e is cheap, and you should always spend the extra few dollars for it, argon is expensive and unnecessary except in very cold climates.
Thanks everyone for your feedback! Some great points and I will have to determine whether the windows are double pane vs. single pane. I assume double pane but worth the check!
This is what my window guy says. You will never, ever, ever realize the cost savings from a window upgrade of any kind from energy saved. The difference is primarily in comfort. He says after you get past double pain (from single pain) it's really hard to tell the difference. There is a difference though. Unless you can demonstrate ubber low power bills then I have not seen an increase in rental income unless you negotiate it with existing tenants like Mihn does. It's my opinion that you should take the extra $ and invest in a high efficiency furnace or on demand water heater if you want to save energy. Really the best better approach is to seal the living space and add attic insulation. Spend $150 on "Great Stuff" and go into the attic and seal every plumbing and electrical penetration. Take the $1,000 and take a weekend get away. You will save more energy doing that.
We prefer to buy the cheapest double pane, single hung window you can buy that has a lifetime warranty. No bells or whistles. Can save you $100 a window. That adds up to serious change whether you are replacing them in 2 units or 100.
For a higher end or "A" property we would consider a few frills.
A few years ago I believe there were tax incentives to go with Low-e. But outside of that I agree with the others. Tenants don't care, even in colder climates they only care if landlord or tenant paid heat.
Justin - Whenever I upgrade windows I always get them with Low-E glass and argon gas. I would say that the argon is more important than the low-e but it is pretty cheap. I usually pay about $240/window installed or about $300/window installed with the exterior wrapped. I see no need to buy a fancy brand window. There are many companies at least in my area that offer plain jane windows installed at a great price.
I always put the energy effiecient window in because for the extra $70/window it is a great selling feature and is even better for getting higher rent as you can tout lower cost utilities and comfort factor. In the end it comes down to a business decision but I feel it is worth it. As another factor in my choice I do live in wisconsin so we have both extremes in weather.
Since improving energy efficiency is one of our mandates, when we replace windows we use, as a minimum, double-glazed, argon (sometimes krypton) windows. We also prefer to use casement, awning, or tilt-n-turn where an operating window is required as these are the most efficient styles of operators.
While we use double-glazed w/ inert gas as a minimum we more frequently use triple-glazed windows in our retrofits with exposure specific glazings as the capital cost difference is minimal over the life of the product.
It is also vitally important to pay attention to the frame, particularly the spacers used between the panes. You can have the best krypton filled, tripled-glazed windows, but if the spacers and frame do not provide sufficient thermal insulation (i.e. are made of steel or aluminium), your window performance will be reduced.
@Roy N. I understand if people do those kinds of windows because they are compelled to because of regulation or personal convictions.
I would love to see some data that shows "the capital cost difference" is recoverable from energy savings. The time value of money makes it very challenging to financially justify capital expenditures with more than a few years of payback time.
In the property we retrofitted this summer, the cost difference between using double-glazed low-e (argon filled) windows and the triple-glazed version of the same window average ~$35/window (<$750 for the entire building). The triple-glazed version also provided us with more options for exposure specific glazings which allowed us to increase the solar performance of windows where it made sense.
While it was possible to calculate a payback of ~4 years based on the difference in energy efficiency ratings between the two windows, it will be hard to measure this delta given the other measures taken to improve the building envelope.
You are correct, that given current energy costs, the additional $35/window likely cannot be justified on a 1-5yr payback. In choosing better than the base windows, we are hedging that as energy prices increase over the next 20 years, so will the benefit of the better window.
@Roy N. The savings from windows is math. There are a number of programs out there that people use to estimate heat loss in buildings (DOE website lists about 50). You can build a model of your building and it will tell you how much your window savings will be. The key trick of window salesmen is, "This window is this x% more efficient than that window". The reality is, as you pointed out, only part of your heat loss/savings is through the windows. The real $ benefit of windows becomes a % of a %. Sure it's only an extra $35 but if that $35 only saves you $1 per year then it takes you a long time to pay it back. Window sales people know that most people don't actually measure the savings from windows. They know that good windows feel warmer than old single pain window. They also know that people do more than one upgrade at the same time so they can't determine which actually saves the money. Lastly, good window installations probably save more from the proper installation than from the window itself.
In reality, poor installation can cost you more in heat loss than you would experience in savings from upgrading. The actual window is only a small part of the picture.
If you really want to save energy. Seal your building envelope.
We use several different pieces of software to model our buildings when preparing for a deep retrofit - some of it home grown. OpenStudio and EnergyPlus are probably the two most readily known by Joe & Jane Public.
You are correct, proper air sealing is one of the biggest 'bang-for-your-buck' efficiency returns you can make to a building. Sadly it is rarely done well nor complete.
What Bill just said about the importance of proper installation is absolutely critical. A few years ago, I bought new windows for my own home and that winter, it was still drafty! Turns out, these guys just slapped the windows in place and called it good. They didn't seal up the window frames at all. They didn't even fully caulk all the windows!
Without that, the window is basically useless when it comes to energy savings.
What Bill just said about the importance of proper installation is absolutely critical. A few years ago, I bought new windows for my own home and that winter, it was still drafty! Turns out, these guys just slapped the windows in place and called it good. They didn't seal up the window frames at all. They didn't even fully caulk all the windows!
Without that, the window is basically useless when it comes to energy savings.
A further illustration that air sealing is rarely done well ... or, in this case, at all.
I would try and push the contractor on price. When I bought windows from a local supply house the upgrade cost was only like $12-15 a window to have low e/ gas filled. It seems like they are further padding their profit margin with the upgrade cost.
I personally paid the slight upgrade because I was only replacing 7 windows. If you were doing a large building then maybe it would add up.
Not trying to distract from the thread, but
Anyone have an recommendations for a window installer in the Minneapolis area that wraps the exterior also?
Has anyone ever actually tested their low e windows? I had our building including own unit done in top rated Certainteed vinyl regular double pane, but they screwed up the order and one specialty window came in low-e & argon. One winter I compared with a non-contact thermometer that window with a regular one on the same facing and there was no difference! Maybe in the sunbelt it pays, but I can't detect it here.