|
Dear Folks on the GBList,
I'm a design writer. My work gets published
in "style" magazines, newspapers, etc. (I write as "green" as I can; for
example, a couple of years ago I did a solarization article for Log Home
Illustrated Magazine, and I've serveral articles on the solar home tour for
the local newspaper here in Cleveland, OH.)
Here's a question for us to mull over:
With regard to the 14,000 square foot home
that's been the object of some discussion on the list, is it homeowners
demanding bigger and more luxurious and more resource-consuming homes for
themselves or is it architects (who want to "leave something for posterity and
make a living"), builders and interior designers/planners (ditto the above), and
product manufacturers (who just want to make a living) who present people
who want to buy and build their own homes with only the bigger-is-better
options/products/materials?
Homebuilders are only going to be able to want (OK,
maybe it's lust-after) what they are shown. In other words, they
aren't going to be able to imagine/envision a resource-consuming, trophey home
if they have not been presented with it as an (sometimes the only)
option.
I'm not beating up on builders and architects and
interior designers (and "style magazines, too) with this question. I
really wonder where the "homeowners' wants/needs/desires and the
designer/builder/decorator's need to make a living (and ego, too)
intersect.
Oh well, this is another one of those food for
thought questions.
Eileen Beal, MA
Writer - Editorial
Consultant
3205 Meadowbrook Blvd., Apt. 7
Cleveland Heights, OH
44118
(216) 320-1358
eojb@visn.net
| 
