|
Size matters when you go for “green” bragging rights |
|
|
|
|
Written by MONIQUE COLE, Writers on the Range
|
|
Thursday, 11 September 2008 |
I was reading the Boulder County Business Report recently when an article about
the “greenest home in North America” caught my eye. The house was being built to
fulfill the dream of a businessman who specializes in renewable energy.
At first glance, Ronald Abramson’s project, now breaking ground 10 miles north
of Boulder, Colo., seemed to live up to his lofty goal. The house harvests the
sun’s energy through passive and active solar design; it utilizes carefully
selected, earth-friendly materials. But then I noticed the elephant in the room
– the house covers 6,500 square feet.
That’s nearly three times the
median size for new homes in America, according to 2007 census data. For the
past decade, super-sized homes have spread like dandelions across the West,
testament to the outmoded consumer ethic that bigger is better -- especially if
it's bigger than the Joneses. A host of derisive monickers have followed --
McMansions, Hummer homes, prairie castles, and my favorite --
humungalows.
But how can size not matter when it comes to green
building? The resources required to build and furnish a larger home need to be
factored in, as well as the fuel expended and pollution created to transport
those resources to the site. Big homes like the Abramsons’ often are built far
from urban centers. The rulers of these prairie castles must therefore burn fuel
to get to work or an airport. Bigger homes also require more upkeep -- think of
the landscapers, housekeepers, window cleaners and dog walkers who have to
commute to service the home and its occupants. Adding solar panels and cork
floors to one of these mansions is a nice touch, but is this going green, or is
it green-washing?
The US Green Building Council has recognized the
inverse correlation of square footage and greenness, adding a new home-rating
system this spring to its popular LEED (Leadership in Environmental Design)
certification programs. Its system includes a “Home Size Adjustment” formula to
compensate for “the over-arching effect of home size on resource
consumption.”
A decade ago, the term “mansionisation” didn’t exist. Now,
a national movement against it is gaining traction in the West. This May, the
Los Angeles City Council passed new rules limiting most remodels in the city
to 3,000 square feet. Seattle’s planning board is currently grappling with its
own home-size rules in response to a public outcry against the loss of
neighborhood character.
Boulder County, where the Abramsons are
building, has passed new zoning rules to limit house sizes. But, there’s a
loophole. Developers can exceed the limits by purchasing transferable
development credits that will preserve vacant land elsewhere in the
county.
In this case, Boulder was following the example set by
pioneering Pitkin County, home to Aspen’s bazillionaires. In 2000, the county
limited the size of new homes to 5,750 square feet. Of course, for those who can
afford a new home in Aspen, the $300,000 for every extra 2,500 square feet
turned out to be only a minor deterrent. Mega-estates were still being built,
causing Pitkin County to set an absolute maximum of 15,000 square feet a few
years ago.
Transferable development rights are like the carbon offsets
of the construction industry. They allow the rich to buy indulgences to ease
their guilt while continuing to commit sins against the environment.
Yet
a small part of me feels bad about criticizing people like the Abramsons. They
are, after all, helping to advance the sustainable building movement by paying
an 8-to-15 percent premium to make their mansions greener. As in the case of
organic foods, as green building materials become commonplace, prices will come
down, and the rest of us will be able to afford them.
Still, if they’re
striving to be the “greenest,” I can’t understand why the Abramsons couldn’t
make do with a more modest house, say 3,500 square feet. That would still be
twice the size of the median home in America 35 years ago.
I think that
the “green” McMansion symbolizes what’s wrong with how Americans have faced
climate change and resource devastation. Everyone’s looking for the silver
bullets that will allow us to carry on our consumptive lifestyles just as we
always have. But to be truly green, some sacrifices have to be made, such as
giving up the home theater or that fourth bay in the garage.
Monique
Cole is a contributor to Writers on the Range, a service of High Country News
(hcn.org). She writes and tries to live small in Boulder, Colorado.
 |
|
Last Updated ( Thursday, 11 September 2008 )
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed