Mainstream Greenhome
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 11.24.06
I am not going to be churlish. After all, the Mainstream Greenhome is "Designed to meet the requirements outlined by the LEED for Homes Pilot Project, it will also use 50% less fossil fuel than a conventionally built home; recycle or reuse 90% of all organic waste onsite; consume 50% less water than conventional homes; and include products having low or zero Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)". Personal Hero Bill McDonough says ""The GreenHome represents a new milestone in mainstream green construction...[it] provides the average homebuilder with a model for making a typical American home green." which surprised me- no house with a two car underground garage on a 100 foot lot with about 5,000 square feet is a model of anything. The "mainstream" subdivision is a dying model and this is just a green dinosaur. ::Mainstream Greenhome via ::Interior Design
So you DID go churlish! I'm glad. My first thought when I saw this was "hunh?!" Since one criteria for LEED certification is 'significantly smaller than the averag home size of 2000 sq ft' I'm confused about how this made it. And, I SO wish subdivisions were things of the past. They show no sign of it where I live.
Kind of like a hybrid SUV. Sure its great that it saves gas, but don't you wish it were smaller?
Which is greener: A brand-new, 5,000 square foot home in the 'burbs built with "green" materials or buying a 1,250 square foot, 100-year-old townhome within walking distance of a whole bunch of stuff?
If the picture is that of the house in question, then the size alone precludes it from being classified as green. Unless it holds the Brady bunch family plus the Cosby family combined.
Everyone can't live within walking distance of work and shopping, not affordably anyway. Simple laws of supply and demand have dictated the current American lifestyle, and anything that gets us closer to living sustainabily is a good idea. Mainstreaming "green" will only happen if it's framed in context to current consumer habits.
Everyone can't live within walking distance of work and shopping, not affordably anyway.
Of course they can.
Simple laws of supply and demand have dictated the current American lifestyle
Uh... no.
I agree to a point but I'm not sure that the suburban model is completely dead. I'm not sure it ever will be dead because nomatter how much people hate it (I really hate it because I grew up in it and trust me there's nothing for someone without a license to do in suburbia) it does allow people to have "space" whether that space be a simulated wilderness or just more then a firewall between you and your neighbor people want it. The reason that it might stay economically feasible is because of electric cars among other innovations (see article) that save energy.
I also agree that responsible, deliberate living may suggest more reasonably sized houses, but I still see this as a very positive step. The key here as that a conventional housing paradigm is being improved upon, 'transparently'. This transparency makes positive change much more palatable to the mainstream and, if it works, helps to bolster industries involved in green construction, which will also help those of us who are willing to go a little farther with this.
"Which is greener: A brand-new, 5,000 square foot home in the 'burbs built with "green" materials or buying a 1,250 square foot, 100-year-old townhome within walking distance of a whole bunch of stuff?"
It depends.
;-)
Which is greener: A brand-new, 5,000 square foot home in the 'burbs built with "green" materials or buying a 1,250 square foot, 100-year-old townhome within walking distance of a whole bunch of stuff?
I know people living the newly-fashionable urban lifestyle. The live close to work shopping and entertainment. So they drive out to the suburbs to shop in big box stores.
So they drive out to the suburbs to shop in big box stores.
Uh huh. And how many miles do they drive a year compared to the US average?