This House Isn't Green

Exactly my thoughts when I read an article at the weekend (New York Times?) about a couple who built a house using sustainable materials, but it was over 6,000 sq ft.

I think this is what's wrong with the "green" movement right now. It is the same thing as making hybrid SUV's, the mainstream depletists just don't get it.

i think nate said it right. these people who build these houses and drive the hybrid suvs care more about being socially acceptable since being "green" is now a trendy thing. gross.

First that is a really crappy computer rendering of a house. At least put a real picture up.

I don't think this is what's wrong with the "green" movement right now. I think complaining that it's not good enough is the problem. When ever a company or trend attempts be be greener, people say, "It's not enough". Instead of, "Way to go, your on your way, now keep going." Fifteen percent is better than nothing. Even if the house is bigger. Groups need to push LEED-H as the "cool" thing to do and buy. Not complain that an energy star home isn't good enough.

I have to agree that a bigger home is not necessarily a green home just because it meets Energy Star ratings. It just means it is energy efficient.

There was an article a couple of months ago in the New York Times about couples building their second home with sustainability in mind. Well what is sustainable about a second home?
sustainability in mind. Well what is sustainable about a second home?

This article makes a very good point about increase resource sonsumption with bigger houses. But I believe that whole comment about having to drive further to get milk because of the size of the lot is way off the mark. I don't have hard numbers to back this up, but I don't believe average lot sizes have been going up along with the average home size. In fact, most of these McMasions seem to occupy the same sized lots as the 1000sf homes of yore.

I think you are 100% accurate. Being green is a trend and a marketing strategy. 7 years ago, in Colorado, when I was working in the housing industry nothing was green, but it was slowly catching on. Suddenly, amazingly, almost all the new construction is "certified green" or "green built," and they are filled with so called energy saving appliances. One of the major changes that allows builders to claim their 15% energy rating is Low E windows, which pretty much all builders use now anyways. Energy Star also has a huge part in the false green ratings, because it compares appliances within their class and not for overall energy efficiency. In other words, the "green" and "efficient" part has little to do with better construction practices or more environmentally friendly materials. For the most part, builders have just figured out how to make people feel even better about buying their $3000 squarefoot home, which is totally NOT green. In our area builders have been increasing some roof insulation to the r30 to r40 range, which is a green move, that has been motivated not by concern for the environment, but higher energy costs. My husband and I had an intimate experience with this buying experience earlier this year, and decided to go with a 10 year old home (for price & many other reasons), which actually has a higher efficiency heater that the "built green" one!

Also, in response to Mario's comment, I would look into the hard numbers. In Colorado, where the population has more than doubled in the Front Range in the last 20 years, bedroom communities are being built by the 100s this moment. And, they are filled with McMansions. 2,000 feet is what they call a "starter" home out here. Standard homes are 3,500 to 4,500 square feet. This is not including the basement, as builders are not able to finish basements the first year of construction (due to soil shifting issues).

Most people argue that hybridizing an SUV saves MORE gas than hybridizing a passenger car.

And I don't get that either.

I don't think any single family house should be considered green.

Highrise buildings where everyone shares one roof and one foundation require a lot less construction material per dwelling. In addition, when you heat your apartment you also heat your neighbors apartment and vica versa. And because highrises are located in cities people often don't need a car to get places.

Half empty, half full....

On the one hand, energy efficient McMansions are becoming trendy. That is good. Some good building practises are becoming reinforced and mainstreamed--are fast becoming industry norms. That is good.

The *total* energy use of these houses is going up. That's bad. The persisting belief, despite evidence to the contrary, that bigger=better. That's bad.

Going on about the state of the "green" movement is a total waste of time. Why don't we focus on the facts? Celebrate the things we like, work on the things we don't.

I wonder if the reduced amount of lawn space these lot-consuming homes have somehow offsets the increased materials and heating quantity/costs ? (i.e. less grass to water, mow, and fertilize).

It's human nature: if something is lower calorie, eat more of it; if something is more energy efficient, build it bigger or drive it farther.

Don't forget also, that these mega homes require that much more furniture and artifacts to adequately decorate.

What if the house is owned by somebody who telecommutes or works from home?

Would it change anybody's opinions if the people didn't have to drive to work daily, park in a ramp, sit in a cube or office in a high-rise or spawled suburban building?

What if the house is owned by somebody who telecommutes or works from home? Would it change anybody's opinions if the people didn't have to drive to work daily, park in a ramp, sit in a cube or office in a high-rise or spawled suburban building?

What's the likelihood of that? And why can't they telecommute from a smaller house? They're sitting at a little desk with a computer all day - how much space and other resources does that require?

hybridizing an suv vs. a compact saves more gas and it's pretty straightforward:

say the suv gets 5 mpg and you hybridize it to get 10 mpg. on a 100 mile trip, that suv goes from burning 20 gallons down to 10 gallons. you saved 10 gallons.

if you were to double the mileage of a 50 mpg prius to 100mpg, on that same trip, you go from burning 2 gallons down to 1 gallon. you saved 1 gallon.

saving 10 gallons has a bigger impact than saving 1 gallon.

obviously, the better situation would be if the person were to buy the compact in the first place instead of the suv. i suppose the same concept applies to 'green' mcmansions. if people are going to buy them anyway, it's best to encourage them to be more efficient because it has a much larger impact than small improvements to already efficient homes. if you can convince them to buy a smaller home, all the better.

I don't get it. People who live in a big house but do things to use less energy are ridiculed here. Yet Laurie David, who owns not one but two mansions (in the Pacific Palisades and Martha's Vineyard) and flies by private plane, is called a hero and treated like a saint.
Make up your mind, Treehugger.

I don't get it. People who live in a big house but do things to use less energy are ridiculed here. Yet Laurie David, who owns not one but two mansions (in the Pacific Palisades and Martha's Vineyard) and flies by private plane, is called a hero and treated like a saint. Make up your mind, Treehugger.

I think the difference is Laurie David is out doing more than paring back her own footprint - doing far more than any individual trying to be ecologically "perfect" could ever do in terms of net effect.

The objection to "green" McMansions is that McMansions are a mainstream design choice that is multiplied over millions of times. They are simply questioning their "greenness", as one might question a 10 mpg SUV running on ethanol.

Driving alone to work v. working at home v. walking to work, US, 1980-2000

Driving alone to work... +35.1 million
Works at home... +1.9 million
Walks to work... -2.0 million

Carbon emissions seems to be the biggest problem facing the world right now. Part of the solution is to limit one's carbon footprint. Keep it the same or make it smaller. Going from a 3000 sq ft home to a 4600 sq ft home will not do that with the nominal increases in energy efficiancy and insulation.

Also that big house will likely have a big TV, a big stereo, hot tub and a bunch of other big (meaning energy hungry) appliances and gadgets.

How are we going to share this planet with everyone so that we can all live well is the pressing question. I don't think a 4600 sq ft house is part of the solution.

Jingojaymes:

If Carbon Emissions are the biggest problem facing the world then it's time we figure out how to get people to leave the suburbs and live back in the cities. Unfortunately our Government, especially urban Government, makes cities incredibly expensive both to build in and to live in. The result is the exodus to the suburbs and the McMansion.

some thoughts. to one of the anon's above...so if i save the world somehow or convince a nation to reduce its carbon footprint by 10, 50 or 100%, then i can build myself a 50,000 sq ft supermansion? to me, the best way is to live what you advocate. action is just belief manifested. that said, i don't know lauri david's deal, so i'm not commenting specifically about her...just your logic and its seemingly counterintuitive and conflicting conclusion.

and here's an honest question...what if that larger home used only FSC certified wood, ensuring that the forest was sustainably harvested. or say the owners went even beyond FSC standards...and ensured workers were treated even more equitably and forests managed even less intensively than what FSC requires. or say that home produced more renewable energy than it consumes, and provides this energy to the neighborhood? purifies its wastewater instead of merely reducing it?

now compare this against the smaller home that may take some sustainable measures, but doesn't adopt the approach that mimics the cradle to cradle manufacturing theory.

any honest thoughts?

Sure, don't build a giant new house and call it "green", but what about larger houses that are already built? Tearing them down and replacing them with a new smaller house is just as bad. If you can afford to do so, I'd say that moving into a larger house and doing a full green remodel benefits everyone.

I live in a 2400 sqft house, and we're just embarking on a green remodel. The house was built in the 1940s, so I had no say in the size or the construction.

Now, I could move out of this house and move into something much smaller to earn the moral approval of strangers. But then someone else would move in, someone who is probably not green minded, and the same building would continue to waste energy.

Or, I could stay here, and invest my time and resources to green the house, leaving behind a resource efficient building that will continue to be resource efficient no matter who lives here.

That is exactly what a man by the name of Eric Doub has done...

http://www.ecofuturesbuilding.com/solar_harvest_tours_available?PHPSESSID=83bf93e6d6521078d4fdf51c2d63440e

honest response to building a bigger green home -- kudos to those with money who can do this sort of thing. All in all, it would be better to live in a high-density eco condo, but people with $ who use them to do green things, do make it easier down the line for Joe Shmoe to do green things. However, replacing McMansions with EcoMansions is still bad. Increased density and or smaller homes all around, plus real green building is good.

Does size really matter? In general yes. Throughout history if people could afford to build large- they did.

But is it possible to build a giant sustainable, and zero energy home? I think the answer is yes.

The trend in 'green' housing is good- but I think 'sustainable' or even positive building practices should be adopted. Often these practices are tried out by the wealthy or the die-hard.

The increase in high-end green design is pushing the frontier, and creating markets for green products that could never exist without these 'green' McMansions.

What about the mansion that insists on sustainable materials from the contractors or providers...these same contractors then use the materials in other homes and so on...
Without the catalyst of the wealthy, it might be tricky to get these products started.

I don't think we should condemn the wealthy for wanting more, but show them what else they can buy... (and make it sustainable)

I'm not sure that working from home means that you need an enormous house. My partner and I share a 500 sq ft home - it's plenty large enough for me to have a modestly sized office where I work everyday. I don't think we have a 'small' house either!

The only rationale I can think of for having 4 000 sq ft home, is that it houses a family of 6!

so if i save the world somehow or convince a nation to reduce its carbon footprint by 10, 50 or 100%, then i can build myself a 50,000 sq ft supermansion?

Absolutely. The planet doesn't care about the components of contribution to emissions, but rather the sum total. The notion that we should all have equal shares is basically communist. Some people use their carbon for the sake of reducing much more carbon. We should encourage, not discourage, that.

Think of the President of the US. Is that person supposed to personally consume the same amount of resources as some couch-surfing nobody? Or does their work demand that resources be marshalled in greater quantities, since they are working for the sake of hundreds of millions of people?

to me, the best way is to live what you advocate. action is just belief manifested. that said, i don't know lauri david's deal, so i'm not commenting specifically about her...just your logic and its seemingly counterintuitive and conflicting conclusion.

It appears conflicting, counterintuitive, etc because most people don't think that way - which I find unfortunate. It's not about hypocrisy, it's not about double-standards, or whatever. It's about doing what works, and if some people have to use more resources personally for the sake of conserving even more, I whole-heartedly support their efforts. Some things require greater scale and investment to get an even greater return. But of course we shouldn't just blindly follow people, either, and if their work isn't really getting results and their lifestyle is wasteful to boot, and especially if they moralize about such things, then they should definitely be challenged.

and here's an honest question...what if that larger home used only FSC certified wood, ensuring that the forest was sustainably harvested. or say the owners went even beyond FSC standards...and ensured workers were treated even more equitably and forests managed even less intensively than what FSC requires. or say that home produced more renewable energy than it consumes, and provides this energy to the neighborhood? purifies its wastewater instead of merely reducing it?

It's still a new home, so no matter how "sustainably" all those resources were gotten, they still were gotten. Better to reuse existing materials if possible. There's no way to make a better/worse assessment without much more detail.

i'm not advocating equal shares. to the anon right above, you seem to be arguing for a relatively pure form of environmental utilitarianism, i.e., in your claim that "The planet doesn't care about the components of contribution to emissions, but rather the sum total."

nevermind discussing concepts of wilderness relative to your utilitarian approach since in some scientific ways, the planet or at least certain of its species "cares" about the components. any release brings related impacts. consider the difference if i cut a 1000 year old redwood...or 100 smaller, new-growth trees with the same net emissions effect. in no way, except its purest form (i.e., in quantifiable carbon/other emissions), could those two actions be considered an ecological wash.

i believe we may agree on the david / US president example. my claim stands, i think, that if a person achieves huge reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, that's no justification to construct a 50,000 square foot house. to me, that's hypocrisy of the worst sort, "do this but don't ask or expect me to do what i'm telling you to do." that principle in no way relies on some "communistic" impulse of equal shares. more persuasive is a rule where you expend carbon to reduce carbon, a natural capitalist sort of logic where you invest to achieve greater savings. under this framework, it's irrelevant how much carbon you've offset when it comes time to build your home...because that home itself produces no greater emissions benefit, unlike the plane ride to the speech that convinces 1,000 people to reduce their footprint.

so, to me, it is conflicting (again, i'm not aiming at David here) to advocate reducing emissions while building a mega-home, or owning multiple properties...unless as you write, you adopt a utilitarian view to emissions. but that would lead to perverse results, ala economists' concept of perverse incentives.

unless we move to my last question. i can go into that detail if you'd like, but assume that home achieves a true "cradle to cradle" approach. it: "runs on the sun" and generates surplus solar power for the surrounding community (and consumes as much energy as a home two or three times smaller due to its passive solar design, superenergy efficient foundation, HRV, envelope and superwindows);its green roof, natural landscaping, and Living Machine purifies 100% of its water, making all discharges quantifiably cleaner than its inputs; grows its own organic foods; naturally cleanses its own indoor air, etc... it also uses only rapidly renewable, agricultural waste (strawboard with FSC veneers, etc.) or reclaimed/recycled materials wherever possible.

suddenly the paradigm would seem to shift, where size becomes a function of environmental benefit, instead of environmental harm. so instead of low-flow fixtures that reduce water consumption (on the assumption that water outputs are "waste")...your water becomes quantifiably cleaner than, say, pre-1900 levels.

essentially assume that consumption cleanses, purifies and restores... so that arguably puts the whole zero energy concept on its head, where you're always trying to reduce harm, slow degradation, minimize impact...

thoughts?

meaning, those resources were "gotten" in a manner that creates a benefit not a harm. that's basically your argument re: building a huge house based on all the good you've done because that home is insignificant relative to the benefit you produced. beyond that, the home itself produces a benefit...it remediates, purifies and cleanses locally, while restoring wherever it buys. so it could contribute to sustainable indigenous cultural economies, replant tropical forests (i.e., by replanting 10 trees for every 1 it consumes during its construction), uses "green" energy during its construction, etc...

if those materials were gotten in a way that creates a bigger benefit, why would that be any different than the person who creates a bigger "net" benefit? i think these arguments are separate, but there's some interconnecting logic there...

OK, I see what you're saying.

With respect to Ms. David and/or the theoretical "large stage" person who uses a lot of resources (relative to the average) in order to save even more -- I was under the impression that the discussion was about her carbon footprint, not the complex web of effects and impacts of her lifestyle.

The reason I try to get beyond this sort of talk is that I don't know Ms. David personally, nor am I really interested in the minutiae of her life -- the size of her house, the car she drives, who made her clothes... whatever. Even if I did know, it's not up to me to decide how to live her life, and I trust people (especially those who care and are informed) to do the best they can, not only in their "personal" life (however one wishes to put boundaries on that) but in their work life.

For example, maybe Ms. David has a big house. I'm sure she does. Maybe her husband isn't on the exact same page as her and wanted a big house. Maybe she throws a ton of parties to help various causes. I have no idea. But if some CEO of a "green" company has a weekly even in a big auditorium, no one questions the size of the auditorium, do they?

The point is is that I simply don't find it productive to judge individual people and how they choose to live their lives. Most of the time, the person just gets pissed off at you for judging them, and oftentimes they then feel empowered to start judging you. You certainly end up making them feel bad, and so they tend to want to return the "favor". I just have never found it to be a very useful approach to things. And when someone is using their considerable financial resources and connection to people with power for the good of the environment, then I definitely give them the benefit of the doubt, because it would be really nice if more people in that position did as Ms. David does instead of just self-indulging.

As for what I'm arguing, I think it could be more accurately referred to as "negative utilitarianism", meaning the reduction of the maximum amount of bad, as compared to basic utilitarianism which posits maximization of happiness. The reference to communism was a question as to this notion that somehow we all have an equal personal footprint that we all need to adhere to, regardless of what we do with our lives. If you're not saying there's a notion of "equal shares", then I'm not understanding you, because then where's the arbitrary line that Ms. David is crossing with her consumption? It sure seems like you're saying she's consuming "more than her fair share".

What you're arguing is the basic "authenticity" argument -- that she is only believable if she "walks the talk". Speaking as someone who has spent a great deal of time and effort to do that in his life, I can attest that it is a never-ending process, unbelievably difficult, filled with guilt, and that in the end, people will be out there who still will give you crap about one thing or another that you could be doing but are not. So I'm glad that Ms. David isn't caught in that endless loop of belly button examination and self-flagellation and rather tries to do the best she can with who and what she is to make the biggest difference.

As to the theoretical home you're positing, I don't see any reference as to where it's located, so it could do all these wonderful things with water, air, and so forth, but there's still going to be the resources used to make it, the human energy needed to maintain aspects of it (eg, growing organic food), and if it's far away from other things, all the energy and resources used to make and power the vehicle (as well as the transportation infrastructure) which connects it to the rest of the world. So it's like I was saying -- the details are always going to matter.

We bike everywhere and are car-lite...soon to be car-free, but in order to go all the way and get rid of the car we've decided to move closer to what we like to do (library, parks, coop, etc.). We live in a smallish house now, but the houses in the older/downtown area are all large 100 year old homes 2500 to 3000 square feet (no A/C and radiator heat if that matters). The other thing we've looked into is renting part of a building (apartment isn't an option because I own a business which I run out of my home), but again we're talking 4000 square feet. Isn't it more Earth-friendly to live in these old buildings without a car than continue to live in a newish subdivision where we use our car maybe once a week or every couple weeks?

If you're concerned about this, you should check out a series of books entitled "The Not-So-Big House" (see http://www.notsobighouse.com/).

Right-size your home. Don't let the builders just slap something together that is twice as big as you actually need, but talk to your architect and have them design a house for you that will actually work the way you need.

Regarding Susanka's "not-so-big-house" books... they give some mixed messages. The author makes a great argument for quality of space over quantity of it, and gives many fine design guidelines. But the houses in those books are often not small by conventional standards -- they are just smaller than the relevant well-heeled homebuyers would NORMALLY live in. For plentiful examples of houses that are actually small, you'll have to look elsewhere. There are some architecty/designy books about spaces less than 1000 or so square feet, and there's a new grassroots-oriented book out called Little House on Small Planet. I'm reviewing it on my blog sometime this week. Happy reading...

Single family homes may indeed generate ecological footprints that are unworkable on a planetary basis.

But working in my hometown neighborhood in Boulder, Colorado, where all the homes are single family, in 2005 I designed and built a zero energy home that we call Solar Harvest. This home has NO FURNACE, NO BOILER, and NO WATER HEATER powered by fossil fuels. There are no wood burning appliances. We are 100% solar.

It is the most comfortable home I have ever experienced.

Our PVs provide all our electricity and then some. On an annual basis, we will have zero energy bill.

Energy Star raters gave the home the highest rating of any Colorado home to date.

AND: Our home has 3,300 sf above ground and 1,400 sf in the basement, finished and conditioned space.

A McMansion? Well, at a glance, perhaps. But we had room for 80 people to gather for the annual membership meeting of the Boulder Green Building Guild. We have room for traveling activists, community and neighborhood meetings, and relatives to visit and stay comfortably. And the home will be viable and affordable 50 and 100 years from now, no matter what fossil fuels cost.

Only for the rich? We spent about 8% more than a custom home would have cost, for the renewable energy systems -- the zero energy Icing on the Cake.

The NREL / Habitat for Humanity House in Denver, occupied in October 2005, is also better than net zero energy (produces more than it consumes). This home is considered affordable.

Consider also the net zero energy development in Denver, to be built by 2008, which will have units that are "cost-neutral" -- that is, the renewable energy systems first costs increase your monthly mortgage payments, but you pay no energy bills. Your cash flow is the same or better.

Size does matter. We spent many non-renewable resources in building Solar Harvest. But we built with the ecologically soundest materials we could find (FSC lumber and non-offgassing materials, etc. etc. -- see www.ecofuturesbuilding.com) and intend the home to last a couple hundred years. And consuming no fossil fuels, Solar Harvest will indeed be worth keeping, I think -- and also pay its way environmentally.

We purchased a loft in a reclaimed shoe factory in coastal Maine – the developer is about as green as possible up here and we finished construction ourselves going green wherever possible
( www.MaineLoft.com – for anyone interested, click on a page for video or photos).
It's 1200 sq ft and we did use the Not So Big tricks to create a spacious feeling.

That said, careers dictate a move out of state and its now for sale and we'll probably be purchasing a small single family home - a little historic house of about 1000 square ft and the first thing we'll be doing is green renovation.

All that's to say is that square footage, single family vs. condo, and even “green” can create fairly complex outputs – why not go with a multi tiered approach, capitalize off a trend by using it as a gateway – just a thought.

We purchased a loft in a reclaimed shoe factory in coastal Maine – the developer is about as green as possible up here and we finished construction ourselves going green wherever possible
( www.MaineLoft.com – for anyone interested, click on a page for video or photos).
It's 1200 sq ft and we did use the Not So Big tricks to create a spacious feeling.

That said, careers dictate a move out of state and its now for sale and we'll probably be purchasing a small single family home - a little historic house of about 1000 square ft and the first thing we'll be doing is green renovation.

All that's to say is that square footage, single family vs. condo, and even “green” can create fairly complex outputs – why not go with a multi tiered approach, capitalize off a trend by using it as a gateway – just a thought.