Save Energy, Move in With a Friend
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto 
on 01.14.09
Paul Anka nailed it when he wrote "You are My Density"- A new study by SMR on "Consumer Energy Spending And The Demographics Of Over-Consumption" presents some pretty disturbing results about the subject. Basically, just about everything anyone does to save energy and build more energy efficient housing is overwhelmed by the consistently increasing number of square feet per person.
The study found that single person households grew by 350%, from 3.33 persons per household to 2.56 people per household. People who live alone use 18.4 % more energy than two person households and a whopping 52.8% more than three person households. SMR President Stuart A. Feldstein is quoted by the Urban Land Institute:
"People who decide to live alone, now more than one of every four households, and people who buy the McMansions, are those who squander our energy resources."
It isn't just that there are fewer people in the houses, it is the size of them.
Data show that consumer energy usage per capita is 29.6% higher today than it would have been in 1960, based solely on the sharp decline in the number of people per household.
The study also found that McMansions (defined as houses with more than ten rooms) use 18.8% more energy than eight room houses, and 31.3% more than seven room houses, regardless of the age of the house.
So we can talk about caulk, increase our building code standards, but if we don't deal with density it is all for naught. TH previously proposed making codes absolute rather than relative- giving a fixed quantity of energy consumption for each dwelling, regardless of size; thus a McMansion might need twice as much insulation as a small house. Or perhaps the marketplace is taking care of this issue on its own.....
via Planetizen
More on house size and population density in TreeHugger
Monster Homes: Enough is Enough
Quote of the Day: Monique Cole on Big Green Exurban Houses
The Net-Zero Energy Now House is Really Boring.
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- How to Cool Your Vehicle Quickly During the Intense Summer Heat and Reduce Your Carbon Emissions
- Forget Going Green Because It's the Right Thing to Do—Go Green to Make Your Neighbors Jealous
- Green Glossary: Bagasse
- Eat a Vegetarian Diet, Reduce Your Carbon Footprint by a Ton
- Get Behind Supreme Court Nominee Sotomayor—60 Green Groups Already Have
- Save Water in Your Garden: 5 Tips for Maximum Conservation
"Typically based around energy-saving measures within the home structures such as insulation, the study suggests that single-person households, which have grown at triple the rate of overall population growth since 1960, use 18.4 percent more energy per capita than two-person households do, SMR found. Singeltons use 52.8 percent more energy per capita than three-person households"
*** Per-Capita *** You left those very important words out of your regurgitation of the article. A bit dishonest, I think. Otherwise, it sounds like a household of 3 uses 10 units of power a day, and a single person household uses 18.94 units a day, which is not the case. It's more like, 1 person household uses 10 units a day, and a 3 person household uses 21 units - or 7 units per person, because they share utilities.
Of course singles will use more energy per person, they're the only ones paying the electric bill, regardless of how big the house is. Just like married people get tax breaks for being married, they also get the benefit of sharing the cable bill, the electric bill, the water bill, the mortgage, etc.
I dare say, that singles also aren't the people in the McMansions, those are the suburbanite nouveau riche families with 5 cars and 2 kids and 3 acre lots. What single person wants to live that far from the city? They live in smaller quarters where it's dense. Don't lump a small single person apartment in NYC or SF into the same energy usage category as the sprawling burbs, they aren't the same, by any stretch of the imagination.
I suppose singles (such as myself) could save energy by going flatting: three singles sharing a three-bedroom house or apartment are probably going to be more energy-efficient than if they were each in their own house. And I do know a surprising number of people whoe live on their own in stand-alone suburban houses, though often that is a result of a relationship ending rather than young people starting out in life.
But I'm not going to feel too guilty about my extravagant single life. I, in a 60 sq m (about 600 sq ft) apartment, probably compare well to each of three people in a 200 sq m+ house. Since there are ten floors in my building, there are actually ten people taking up 60 sq m of land, for an average of 6 sq m each. Then there's the fact that my building is a converted 60s concrete office block, with substantial thermal mass and other apartments on four sides, and my energy use is going to be pretty low overall. Plus, of course, I don't need a car because I'm in the centre of the city.
So the message ought to be not that living alone is bad for the earth, but that housing needs to be designed appropriately for single people. Building compact well-insulated apartments in the right places, with local amenities nearby, will be an important part of adapting to this demographic change. Adapting suburban free-standing houses from family use to single adults will be more of a challenge, and perhaps the messge to individuals should be this: if you feel that you absolutely must live in a house rather than an apartment, think about getting flatmates.
"The study also found that McMansions (defined as houses with more than ten rooms) ..."
What an inadequate definition of a McMansion. The number of rooms isn't the only or even the main factor in what I would consider a McMansion. That would need to involved being too big for the lot, having lots of unusable space (big hallways, foyer, etc.), and low occupancy for the size. Not a straight-up room count.