Sngle Fmly Dtched 56' mstr 35,440 SF Cleveland
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 03.29.07
Seth recently said that zero was the new black, we say less is the new more, but clearly the message has not reached Cleveland, where some guy named LeBron James is building a 35,440 square foot house complete with a theater, bowling alley, casino and barber shop. Oh, and a recording studio, aquarium and a sports bar. The master suite has a two storey tall walk in closet and is forty feet wide and fifty-six feet long. According to the Akron Beacon Journal:
'A place like this does not have a ``dining room.'' It has a dining hall (roughly 27 by 27). It not only has a ``great room'' (34 by 37), but a bigger, two-story ``grand room.'' The ``family foyer'' off the six-car garage -- near the elevator -- is inconsequential compared to the ``grand foyer'' inside the front entrance, complete with a sweeping, divided staircase leading up to four second-story bedrooms.'
Most of the Akron commenters think that it just great that he has stayed in his home town, and think that he can spend his megabucks any way he wants. Many TreeHugger commenters get mad at me when I complain about rich people enjoying themselves. But surely in this day and age there is a happy medium between comfort and a house with a carbon footprint the size of Ohio. ::Akron Beacon Journal
SIZE DOESN'T MATTER
Its not the sq. ft. that posses the problem of green or sustainability; its WHAT the structure is composed of. Would you be complaining if the entire structure was composed of reused materials? The concept that BIG = Bad is untrue when taking only the size as the defining force of its sustainability. I do not agree with the design of the monster home, but its not the size that bothers me. Its the use of obviously vast energy embodied materials that bothers me. Let the rich build their monster homes, but make them build these homes to be responsible to the reality of energy and materials of todays world, and use materials, systems and techniques to create a NetZero home. Go look at http://www.sui-toronto.com, these are multi million dollar homes, yet have NetZero energy consumption.
Size certainly will matter, if thought is not put into insulation and natural light considerations. Buildings consume an enormous percentage of the nation's electricity in heating and lighting, etc.
Or, will every guest that enters these vast internal spaces be offered an environmentally friendly overcoat for the duration of their visit?
I take issue with the idea that size doesn't matter, it certainly does. The invested energy that it takes to make, ship and install all the materials in a 35K sq. foot house is 35 times greater than the energy it took to build the materials in my 1000 sq. foot condo, all other factors being equal.
It also takes 1/35th the energy to light, heat and air condition my home. What kinds of resources are going to be wasted cooling in-home movie theaters and barber shops that will likely be rarely used? Let's be real, the guy is big but who realistically needs this amouth of space?
You could argue that your definition of "big" technically could include a massive rammed earth home with geothermal cooling and heating, but that's kind of playing symantics, isn't it? When people start building mega-mansions out of all recycled materials, I guess "big" won't technically refer to the energy-hoarding, materials-wasting projects that it currently refers to. But in the meantime I'll continue to frown on these giant projects for the energy they waste, reglardless of size.
mad at you? i agree it's pathetic. i just think it's disappointing that you continually choose to skewer individual choices in such a public forum when the overall impact of a rich person's home is relatively small. if you were to write a letter to lebron, that might be constructive but you seem to be passing judgement without dialogue. it would also be easy to argue that your own lifestyle is awfully indulgent when compared to the majority of the human race. aren't our values relative? or should they all be relative to you? what you're doing paints us environmentalists as holier-than-thou commies who get off villifying others. a stigma that is already hard enough to lose.
There are two big problems with these huge celebrity mansions. First, if they are going to spend tens of millions of dollars on huge houses, couldn't they cut back on their budget a little and spend some money to make the house greener? Second, this house will end up on a show like MTV "Cribs" and influence millions of young kids that this is the cool thing to do. Can you imagine if a big idol like LeBron showed his solar powered green house to a bunch of kids on MTV?
I wonder what the combined square footage of Al Gore's various homes -- in different parts of the country -- would be?
He seems to be one rich person beyond your criticism, for some mysterious reason, Lloyd.
And I don't think anyone has gotten "mad" at you, so much as been bemused.
Well said Dug!
Personally, I consume energy far in excess of that of my neighbors. Yet my environmental footprint is far less than my conservative friends in the States. Am I a glutton or a good example? Don't aswer as I'm quite comfortable with myself and my impact on the planet.
Just FYI, this building is most definitely NOT in Cleveland. Cleveland is a reasonably progressive city and it is extremely misleading to suggest that is where this is taking place.
The "house" is in Bath Township, an ex-urban zone well outside the Cleveland City limits. It is a non-place, an "any-zone-USA" place... it is not Cleveland.
Don't forget this!!!
Also - you gotta read the article, this "some guy" Is a basketball player.
This is typical behavior for people who grew up poor and uneducated and find themselves suddenly rich, without the education and experience to understand what good taste is.