Re: [GBlist] monster houses (swelling/shrinking)

[Aimee Houser <hous0088@tc.umn.edu>]

Exact numbers would help, but I'd like to note that my recollection 
of the books are that they are not 2,000-3,000 sq feet on average. 
I'll have to take another look at them. Anyway, I was actually 
thinking more of the community of small cottages she had written 
about in Creating the Note So Big House. They are more around 500 sq 
ft but I think they go down to 150 sq ft. The plans for one of the 
larger ones is at: http://www.creatingnsbh.com/plans.html I don't 
have my book nearby to look up the exact sq footage. Also, I do not 
think any of the houses in the book were guest houses. I think 
instead that one or two were built originally as vacation houses but 
then were taken up as year round residences because the owners loved 
how efficient the space was laid out compared to their 'regular' 
residences.

Indeed, it would be ridiculous to suggest that "everyone everywhere 
could build a house to Susanka's specs and that the earth could 
support so much responsible consumption." I never ever did suggest 
it. Now, just because the sq footage does not meet your guidelines 
does not mean that there is not something to learn from the books. 
They do attempt to change the way people think about laying out 
space, i.e. in better ways than your admittedly "poorly laid out" 
unit yet using smaller sq footage (I'll be one or two of those 
cottages would meet your approval in sq footage and yet be, indeed, 
"exceedling attractive and well built" and, I'll add, more useful.

I will agree that appliances are frustratingly NOT built for small 
spaces and small households, unless you have the $$ to shell out for 
a Jade Mountain fridge, which I don't. But while we are at it, why 
not banish the idea of appliances all together, after all, do you 
REALLY need to cook food over a stove--why not use a fire? Don't you 
live in an adobe?

I say this because as ridiculous as you may think it is to suggest 
that the not so big house is "virtuous" (a suspect word, to my mind) 
it is equally ridiculous to throw out an arbitrary number based on 
your experiences.

There are a lot of different aspects to culture. You can't simply 
say, these people live this way and you should too, if you are 
virtuous. If Americans didn't insist on drowning out every other 
being with their music playing at full blast, with subwoofer at full 
level, I could handle living in a 350 sq ft space with my husband. 
You must have lived in a very well built, very thick-walled place. 
Either that or lived on a great expanse of land, but then, if 
everyone everywhere lived on their own acre of land, the earth 
couldn't possibly sustain us either. Does anyone you know support 
that idea? The culture of America has to be taken into account. I 
think homicides would go up if a bunch of Americans were forced to 
live in tiny spaces with one another.

I'd like to know how many people on this list have lived in 200 sq ft 
units. And what other reason there is for proposing that number other 
than one person's personal experience. If we are talking pure 
theoretical numbers, then surely there are better ways to gauge sq 
footage the green American should expect to live in. If we are 
talking trying to effect change, than Susanka's way works much, much 
better than this discussion. Because the average American would laugh 
at this discussion altogether. No, its not a pretty reality, but it 
is reality.


>Susanka's houses strike me as exceedingly attractive and well-built,
>probably even well-designed, but I wouldn't consider any of them small.
>Perhaps _not-so-big_ isn't the same thing as _small_, but in my
>recollection the majority of houses she features in her books were between
>about 2,000 and 3,500 square feet. This would put them above the mean for
>new houses in the US, and seems to beg the question of what exactly is
>not-so-big about them.  There will always be something bigger, surely, but
>how interesting is that as a premise?  I do recall one house in her book
>which was 800 square feet, but it had been commissioned by a single adult
>as a guest house, to complement the far larger dwelling he already
>inhabited--by himself.  Hm.
>
>I still think it wouldn't hurt if, following John Salmen's point earlier,
>
>"Perhaps we have too much flexibility in terms of space usage and can
>afford to set some limitations that begin to modify how we use space."
>
>we spent some time deciding/discussing a priori what kind of square
>footage we could probably do fine with as "green" Americans.  200 square
>feet per inhabitant?  300? 400?  I think we could also afford to spell
>out why such a number might be either appropriate or out of the question.
>It just might be revealing.
>
>My reasons for tossing out 200 square feet per person is based (1) on
>living for the past ten years, first in 46 square feet (by myself) and
>then sharing 350 (rather poorly laid out) square feet with my wife.  Most
>people who visit are surprised how small it seems, but also note that all
>or almost all functions seem to be taken care of, and that it is cozy to
>boot.  (2) on the fact that the vast majority of the world's people now
>and in the past have managed quite resourcefully to carry on with a
>fraction of the space we have been discussing here, including the 200
>square feet per capita number.  (3) that no one I know is willing
>to seriously argue that everyone everywhere could build a house to
>Susanka's specs and that the earth could support so much responsible
>consumption.  To be sure I am not suggesting we tear down big existing
>houses, just that we reconsider adding to that stock along the lines of
>Susanka's books and then presenting that choice as virtuous or beneficent
>or, by implication, worthy of emulating everywhere.
>
>Houses don't come in all sizes and can't be expanded or shrunk at will
>when someone moves out or joins.  But then we also don't build for the
>day when the household size will invariably shrink--only, it seems, for
>the day when it is expected to grow.  I know from personal experience
>how common this is, having helped build and expand many a house.  However,
>I submit that this could be handled differently.  Nor are appliances
>available in sizes or configurations that well match single or two-person
>households, which represent the majority of households in today's US (26%
>& 33% respectively, for a combined total of 59%, 2000 U.S. Census).  Most
>of us don't seem to live with a lot of other folks anymore, and the trend
>is toward fewer and fewer people per dwelling unit.
>
>If we don't talk numbers here and now, then (if present trends continue)
>what would keep subscribers to this list in 2025 from arguing over
>whether 5,000 square foot houses are not-so-big/green/adequate/etc. for
>what may then all be one- and two-person households?
>
>Reuben Deumling
>
>On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Aimee Houser wrote:
>
>>  Take heart: some architects in America do recognize that square
>>  footage is out of control. Please check out this web site:
>>  http://www.notsobighouse.com/  Susanka has put out two beautiful
>>  coffee-table books on the subject. The site lists architects who are
>>  enthusiastic about building the not so big house.


-- 

______________________________________________________________________
This greenbuilding dialogue is sponsored by REPP/CREST, creator of
Solstice http://www.crest.org, and BuildingGreen, Inc., publisher of
Environmental Building News and GreenSpec http://www.BuildingGreen.com
______________________________________________________________________