Going green is more and more often equated with going shopping- throw out that nasty old environmentally unsafe stuff and buy new....is that really going green or just going trendy?

i dream of having a luxury home with room to move and perks the average home cant provide. maybe not 7 beds and 6 fridges, that is a little over the top. i prefer larger function room, huge garage to move, hotel style pool, not extesive amounts of what you rooms you wont make use of. but i would also want to be responsible in the making of the home and make a small footprint where ever i can. plus i enjoy the idea of just being independent of the utilities.

i dont think everyone should live in small homes cause their practical. i think ppl that can afford their dreams should be able to have them but be green as they can in doing it. not to mention its the ppl with money that break in alot of the technology that gets filtered down as it goes mainstream.

its urges building trends, its shows green can be very cool and you that all should do it. im all for luxury and green being together, no matter if its 5million or 50million.

Baiting and switching an environmental concern for an ethical one just makes us look more interested in ideology than science.

I don't see it as a problem that rich people spend lots of money on Mc-Eco-Mansions. Zero CO2 is zero CO2. Self reliant is self reliant. These things can scale up.

It's unrealistic to think that rich people will live in 4-room cottages to be green. The big picture as I personally see it for 4-room cottages to be green, mansions to be green, shopping centres to be green, cars to be green, etc.

Anyone who's read 'Cradle to Cradle' will remember the analogy to the cherry tree. We can live sustainably and prosper, if we do it right. Examples like this show that (some at) the top end of town are keen to try to be part of the solution too.

What does it matter how big it is, if someone can afford to be green why is that bad. I see this as envy...I wish I could have that big of house and still have a smaller footprint that what I do now....

What am I hearing?! Normally people from this group would be tearing these houses apart. They are an over indulgence. It is a blatant misuse of materials and resources. And don't forget about the energy that is going to be required to heat, cool and light the home. You are telling me you are willing to let your kids pay for this irresponsible use of resources.

I guess I live in a dilutional world. But I have given my heart and soul for the past two years to a project that is going to achieve a gold potentially platinum rating from the LEED for Homes Pilot project. And it is a mere 1500 sf and will sell to lucky homeowner for $130,000. This home is going to be used as a case study and model for local housing authority.

http://homebase07.blogspot.com/

One thing to keep in mind, even if you dislike the size of this house is that trends start on the high end houses and slowly work their way to the middle and then lower end houses.

Granite counter tops and stainless steel fridges didn't start the trend in $100k houses, but they sure ended up their eventually.

Hopefully this is a trend that will stay and work it's way down to all houses!

Go for it. Build big! The technologies used in their big homes will be developed and marketed to a point that they will become affordable to the have nots.

I personnaly would love to live by sending power back to the grid, carbon nuetral. But the monetary costs are to high for me to afford. Someday when the rich have paid the develpoment and making the products more mass marketable I will be able to afford the wind generator and solar panels.

I feel sorry for the teenage (or lower economic class) driver that is religated to the gas guzzling boat of a car that needs repairs daily and paying high utility bills becuase they can only afford the old houses that are not insulated and run by questionable landlords. They are the ones that need the technology to get by as gas and fuel prices rise.

There are two arguments here - the argument for green building and operation, and the argument about the distribution of resources. As much as I might agree with a push for smaller homes generally, I understand that this is my political perspective, and in terms of saving the environment, we are going to need people of all (or at least all the major) political perspectives to find common ground.

To play devil's advocate for the pro-market side, to insist that "green" means living in small houses (or to generalise, no conspicuous consumption) will for many people remove the motivation to excel. This motivation might well be a vital ingredient in driving the change and development that can save the environment.

Concern for the natural world and environmental stewardship are ethical concerns; though an exclusive green agenda often lacks analysis on the intersection of environment with social and economic sustainability.
The questions raised are important to the sustainability and reputation of green building standards. One can argue that population is the biggest issue facing the environment but a more compelling case can be made for consumption. The question was never whether it was a good thing that weathly people building large mansions are opting to incorporate green building principles and standards into the construction. Its obviously a "better" thing than conventional construction. As to whether these homes need to be singled out for recognition--definitely not. The greenest choices go beyond just reduce, reuse, recycle, yet these eco mansions don't even address reduction. How can one justify such extreme consumerism? Why is it envy to be critical of the process. When you close the space needed for reflection and analysis, green becomes another trend that will pass.

I am glad the rich are going green, but 2 people don;t need 15,000 square feet of home to be comfortable. There are so many who are homeless because they can;t even afford to rent a rat trap apartment on their salary. I think and live in a home that is the comfortable size for a family of three. 1600 square feet with 2 bathrooms and as green as I could go with it. That is the way it should be done.

Rob, as far as discussing ethics may make us look like we are idealogues not scientists...ethics are often what we use to maintain a good idea in our society when we can't figure out the scientific explanation.

Fortunately for you, we are starting to get a scientific understanding of how incredibly interconnected the living systems of our planet are. So, the science is starting to tell us that we consume too much, we are overexploiting ecosystems to the point that they will crash and not recover, and we will suffer because of that, through reduced supplies of building materials, food and medicine.

This house is not Sustainable. It may be Green, but only because green has become meaningless due to its frequent application to monsters like this that everyone intuitively knows are not green.

I'm sorry, but I disagree with the majority of these posts. It IS about the size. And it is NOT about ethical vs. sustainable. You cannot have a green house of that size for that number of people. Based on the simple statics, each individual on earth should only have a footprint of 1 acre (6.4 billion sharing all the biologically productive land = 4.5 acres each, less 75% for all the other species out there = 1 acre). Granted, most Americans already exceed that, but what about people who live in homes this size?

This 1 acre includes the house and all the virtual impacts each individual has on the world to grow their food, produce their material needs, energy, and to absorb all wastes.

Because it's not just about whether or not they're "off the grid", but think of the impacts of all the materials used to build the house, the products to support the lives of the occupants (furniture, paint, carpet, fixtures, appliances), the water use (however efficient) to support the land. Yes, great, they built it efficiently. But it the house still has a huge, ongoing impact. Far more than a house more reasonably sized. What about all the food for those 4 refrigerators?

A huge home is NOT ever going to be eco friendly no matter how many solar panels they put on the roof, how much rainwater they are able to harvest, humanuer they compost, or food they grow 2 (even 5) people living in a 6 bedroom home is not a sustainable life style. How many trees were cut down to build that house, how many people were exploited, what animals were displaced? it's not just the final product that matters it's the entire process. It's not even that, there is enough land on this planet that everyone can use 4.5 acres to be sustainable how many acres do these mansions exploit, not just take up but where the materials came from and resources used driving into town & back home ect....the average american requires 28 acres. This more than likely requires alot more.
It is not the upper class that decides what is fashionable it's the middle class, that is dwindling away BECAUSE of the excesses of the wealthy. If you continue to live and strive for extravagence you are not and never will be an enviornmentalist you are a consumer, nothing else.....
Oh and technology usually comes from the friggin military not wealthy individuals, companies design products to sell to the military: phones, computers, radios, planes, cars, ALL for the military and from there trickled down.

Which is greener? A 15,000sf solidly built megamansion with LEED certification and enough solar panels to light, heat and cool the whole house (and then some), or a typical, poorly built 2000 sf tract home built with shoddy/disposable materials (e.g., vinyl siding), minimal insulation, cheap windows and lots of toxic vinyl/plastic finishes? The tract home I describe is VERY typical of new construction these days.

My feeling is that the megamansion is greener. Sure, it requires a lot more material and energy to build. But at least it was solidly built with solid materials that will endure; whereas the tract home will need new siding within 20 years, which will last forever in a landfill. The construction is a one-shot event, whereas the energy consumption occurs constantly in perpetuity. The megamansion is a self-sustaining energy plant that relies on no fossil fuels and produces no carbon. The tract home, with its inferior construction and systems, will require lots of gas or oil to heat and lots of electricity from the grid to cool.

It's the net energy consumption, stupid, not the size.

You'll also be happier in a smaller place. These huge homes just make you less connected to the people most important to you.

I think one thing that is missing in this discussion is to see the big Picture. Our world is not sustainable the way we live, we have to few countries that have the majority of the richness, consuming energy and resources in a rate that simple is not sustainable. The same happens with homes and rich people homes. If we could all have these kind of mansions there would simple not be enough resources to built it. Can we say that it´s sustainable to occupy 15000 square foot of soil (a very important resource) to just one family? And I think this is not an ethical discussion, it´s really the concept of sustainability, we have to use resources in a balanced way.
Although, I don´t want to be a fundamentalist and I think that is better to have these “environmental friendly” mansions then those that don’t have any kind of environmental considerations. And I do agree that these examples are a good way to disseminate sustainable technologies and solutions.
But, to me, there´s no doubt that a typical family home is much more sustainable then these big mansions.

Yes it is the military that spurs invention. But it is the wealthy that can first afford the items when the are available to the public.

Cell phones, VCRs, Satelite navigation in cars all started at an extremely high price and only the wealthy could afford them. A VCR was around $1000 in the early 1970's. Now you can get a DVD / VCR combo for under $50!

Solar started with the military and NASA. It is still high priced but now local government (Local and State) are starting to use solar panels for street signs, air quality montiors. Making the price drop that movie stars and other rich people (who are jumping on the green bandwagon) are buying them.

It then becomes basic economics. Increased demand allowing more production. Increased supply leading eventually a lower price for all to afford. In 30 years we may be going into WalMart (Yuk!) to buy a solar panel the size of a notebook to power our entire house.

Why? Because the rich bought it first. Status item! To be seen with that in gadget. Any iPhone buyers upset that the price dropped $200.00???? Buy more. Maybe I can get one for free when I renew my cell contract in 5 years. (Yes this is sarcasm.) I gave up my cell phone 3 years ago and have not missed it. It was the best thing I did.

Great point. This is a big home but big homes are going to be built no matter what. As long as we continue to work towards a better product and build better homes, we are building green. I'm glad to see this home is GREEN. Lets thank the builder for a job well done and a move towards better building.

Ray