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

["Ralph Bicknese" <ralph.bicknese@christnerinc.com>]

I too shudder when I hear a 12,000 or 14,000 sf house called green because
they tend to be inherently wasteful despite some green attributes.  But, I
do not think the answer will be found by determining an optimal minimal
square footage of dwelling unit per person. It is one method of reducing
waste but I fear can be a very crude one.  Yes, it is possible and noble (in
some ways) to reduce the average size of our dwellings but most people who
live in small dwellings do so because they have to not because they want to.

Two reasons houses in the US have increased in size is because as a whole
the population is more affluent.  Second people are doing more with their
houses.

The answer to successful waste reduction is to find ways to do what we want
and need to do with less.   There are many that make a strong argument we
can do with 1/4 to 1/10th to 1/25th of what we use now.  I am not suggesting
we live in a house 1/4 or 1/25th the size we do now.  We must look across
the board at fundamentally different ways to redesign virtually everything
we produce and every service we provide to accomplish this.  As a whole we
green proponents; designers, producers, retailers, educators, consumers,
etc. will not be satisfied doing with less. But we will be satisfied doing
more with less.  How much less remains to be seen. If buildings can be made
to accomplish this they can be smaller and more successful. But smaller
should not be the driving force.

Cheers,
Ralph Bicknese

-----Original Message-----
From: deumling@socrates.Berkeley.EDU [mailto:deumling@socrates.Berkeley.EDU]
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 4:00 PM
To: Aimee Houser
Cc: greenbuilding@crest.org; deumling@artistcommunities.org;
deumling@rprogress.org; pollicino@igc.org; sfischer@uclink4.berkeley.edu
Subject: [GBlist] monster houses (swelling/shrinking)

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
______________________________________________________________________


______________________________________________________________________
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
______________________________________________________________________