Big Houses Are Not Green: America's McMansion Problem

Go for a bike ride around the biggest turn-of-the-century homes in any city or collar suburb and you'll find zillions of what were once mansions subdivided into town houses or condos.

Ask not for whom the Toll Bros ring, it rings for thee. Entry foiers in most of their monstrosities are big enough to subdivide for a 2 person home. And they've already got three car garages in most so they're good to go for at least three families per!

Town councils HATE subdividing and illegal apartments, but it's gonna happen, a lot. That or clandestine cathouses, as discovered today in New Rochelle NY.

My heart just aches every time I see these mosters being built at every corner. So much waste and needless impact on our enviroment.

How two middle aged people, my usual observation, can justify building something so large is beyond me. We are a family of six in a 3 bedroom 1800 square foot home and there are days that I think we could survive with even less space.

@ JL. - I agree that in years to come many of these will be converted to multi occupancy dwellings. The difference is that houses/mansions built at the turn of the century where built with solid walls that were better able to keep noise from travelling through walls.
McMansions today are poorly constructed with thin materials, so dividing them to allow several families to live in them will be more challenging.

What do you expect when our culture/media still promotes this nonsense,as a kid growing up in the uk i was convinced all americans had huge houses(thanks to tv)We need efficency to be the new goal not size!

It is really depressing to be part of the 0.1% of North Americans that understand environmental issues and are willing to make 'sacrifices' to minimize their global footprints.

We have to understand that the other 99.9% of people venerate 'wealth' generation and conspicuous consumption, eat piles of meat, drink bottled water, long for mcmansions and SUVs, and blindly work for unsustainable organizations.

Not wanting these things goes against our own instincts, and therefore only the most enlightened can fully restrain themselves. Humans are only glorified apes, violent and jealous.

We will send armies around the world to protect our disgusting consumption levels and prevent poorer nations from attaining them. It has already begun.

I'm heading for the hills.

Maybe we all should move into a unibomber cabin in the mountains. ;-)
I live in a 1400 sq ft home and I am in the prosses of down sizing. I am doing it because I want to, and no other reason.
I have no desire to spend money I do not have to buy things I do not want to impress people I do not like, in a vain attempt to find happiness where it does not live.

Green Homes are the way to go. If you are unsure of what these, are do some research by typing "green homes" into the search bar of your most favorite search engine!

Thanks...

Let's not forget that there is a HUGE difference between a 3000 sq. ft. McMansion built last year on an acre at the edge of the sprawl belt and a 3000 sq. ft. rowhouse built in 1884 in the heart of the city...

My house in Baltimore is 3,262 sq ft, and a part of me died when I heard about Dingell's well-intentioned bill to rescind the mortgage tax deduction for people that own such homes. I use CFLs, use very little water, take transit to work, etc., but if a law such as Dingell's is passed, I am completely screwed.

I assume there are many other Americans in the same boat, or at least all my neighbors...

Let's not forget that there is a HUGE difference between a 3000 sq. ft. McMansion built last year on an acre at the edge of the sprawl belt and a 3000 sq. ft. rowhouse built in 1884 in the heart of the city...
JWER

You are correct. Most row houses are packed in so tight that there is no place for a yard. The yard gives you a place to grow plant life. Plants process CO2 and with an acre or more you can offset your own footprint. My friend just built a 6000 sq ft home on 40 acres. He has a Geothermal heating and cooling system and rents out the land to a farmer to raise soy beans. Quite green if you think about it.

I believe big houses are generally bad for the environment. I also believe big cars tend to be bad. And excessive meat-eating. Excessive travelling. And a large number of other things. I usually feel that there are legitimate exceptions, such as a very big family needing a relatively large house, or a diplomat needing to travel back and forth to meet counterparts, etc., to these negative generalizations. However, it seems to me that way too many people who understand the negatives, of say driving an SUV, and understand that the vast majority of people who do drive SUVs, or own large homes, don't really have a socially-acceptable reason for doing so nevertheless find inappropriate excuses for protraying themselves as being one of those in the justified minority. Anyone with a little bit of imagination mixed with a lot of self-interest (usually monetary) and a pinch of self-delusion is able to whip up any number of the most specious and dubious of arguments to justify doing something ungreen while making it seem completely environmentally-acceptable.

None of us is going to have zero negative impact on the environment. We all will have an impact. We all have certain basic needs. And while we all have some shared common needs (e.g. water), we all have particular needs based on our individual contexts - special needs for disabled, special needs for the elderly, special for kids, special for large families, for diplomats, or firefighters, or police, or rural families, etc. But on top of that we all do things which aren't good for society - things that we WANT to do but don't NEED to do. All of us. Some more than others. Some big things while others small things. I have some habits that I am aware would be better for society if I reduced or eliminated. If and when people openly point out that such habits are inappropriate, what I should do is openly agree and commit myself to reducing or eliminating the bad habits - which I sometimes do. At the minimum, I should keep my mouth shut - which is what I usually do. What I do NOT and should not do is contrive some silly argument to convince myself and others that my situation is justifiably special and deserves to be 'excluded' from 'criticism'. Or 'attack' or 'regulation', etc.
But too many delude themselves and try to delude others that their inappropriate social behaviour stems from some particular need due to their special circumstance using arguments which stretch reality, common sense, logic or responsibility or some combination. And expect, or hope, that the rest of us will swallow such social poison en masse.

Big houses are detrimental to the environment and for society. Whether in the country or in the city. Whether they use only CFLs or geothermal or high insulaion or whatever else. It is simple. In terms of size, a small house is green and a big house definitely isn't. In terms of longevity, a house that lasts a very long time is green vs. one that doesn't last long. A house with CFL lighting is green compared with one that has incandescents. Lots of insulation green vs. little insulation. The fact that a house has CFLs doesn't take away the fact that big homes are NOT green. Just like the fact that a cocaine addict isn't an alcohol addict doesn't make it OK to be a cocaine addict.

A 10,000 sq ft. home made of recycled material, renewable material such as bamboo, and powered only by solar panel is a lot more green then a 1,000 sq ft. home that is made with chemically treated lumber, v.o.c. emitting materials, non-biodegradable materials, and powered by fossil fuels which pollute the air we breath. If a large home is completely organic, natuaral and chemical free with no use of fuel power, it is greener then the average small home. A 1,000 sq ft home can use more power to heat or cool their home then a larger house, it is the decision of those living there.

Once again the human race does the expected thing. Wait too long. Then try to impose restrictions on everyone (just like the rain). The minor minority opens its great mouth, and we must all bow down. I like lawns and grass; I like large houses. Very every person like me there are five who are the opposite. My brother has rocks and cement at his home of 40 years; he hates grass. I love it. I also love trees. My property is populated by several 60 footers that provide homes, shade and shelter. We back up to a wild life area. I enjoy it. I may be on this planet another 30-40 years if I'm lucky; I feel blessed to spend it in these surroundings. I've lived in large cities with countless acres of concrete and asphalt (doesn't it smell great in summer-the asphalt?) I love the people, the energy; I hate the use of sand, and water to make all that concrete. What is wasteful is people living lives of quiet desperation in homes they don't like in surroundings they hate because "somebody" "decided to do something about it." Lambast the elected officials-the venerable ones especially-who have lied and broken promises for the last 50 years. Make them mow your lawn and water it, and dig up the concrete.