For decades, U.S. homes have been sold by the square foot—bigger meant better. But as many high-level building pros reminded us recently at our Leading from the Front getaway, that story no longer fits a world of rising insurance costs, extreme weather, and buyers who care about health and efficiency. In response, builders have had to redefine value: not price per square foot but value per square foot—a measure that includes resilience, comfort and long-term affordability.
But there’s a problem. Some of the most common words used to describe higher performance building have become politicized. Not every buyer will respond to terms like “sustainability” or “green.” They may, however, value those concepts when presented with other words.
Surveys from the National Association of Realtors and our own COGNITION Smart Data show that energy efficiency and indoor air quality rank among the top priorities for homebuyers.
Many builders are pivoting to more universal language, such as health, comfort and peace of mind. These terms make similar promises—lower bills, cleaner air, fewer worries—without evoking ideology. “Healthy home” feels personal; “sustainable home” can sound abstract.
The logic (and the neuroscience) behind this is sound. Instead of appealing to a buyer’s moral compass or triggering fear about climate change or spiking energy costs, builders have framed the home’s resilience itself as good news. For example, instead of saying a home is “resilient against storms,” they might say “a home that protects your family.” Instead of “low embodied carbon,” they may say “built to last.” The idea is to make buyers feel empowered, not trigger their fear reflex to advance a sale.
It’s a sound idea, but we do need to maneuver carefully when using words such as empowerment and comfort. These terms can easily warp into greenwashing. Of course, a house that’s bigger is “more comfortable.” An estate built miles from the nearest neighbor “empowers” the buyer to live his best life, but comes at a high cost in transportation, resources and social isolation.
Americans are already wallowing in “Comfort Culture”—marketing that urges them to pursue ease and luxury over challenge and frugality. Critics note this cultural obsession explains workplace issues, such as the disconnect between Gen Z workers and their employers.
Forbes, for example, says that focus on comfort has hurt innovation and productivity, because new ideas often break through only through stressful and uncomfortable efforts.
That doesn’t mean these concepts are wrong. They just have to be used properly, not as “fluff” words to comfort the comfortable. Builders should reclaim the meaning of comfort as a means to resilience. You can be comfortable that your home will handle storms, wildfires or power outages—not just make you feel coddled during them. Here are a few concrete suggestions on how the conversation might be changed:
When builders ground emotional language in real performance data, value becomes visible and credible. The goal isn’t to comfort people into complacency but to invite them into confidence: to show that a sustainable home is a stronger, smarter, and more secure home.
If the next generation of builders gets that language right, they won’t just sell better homes—they’ll reshape what Americans believe a good home truly is.