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

[deumling@socrates.Berkeley.EDU]

On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Aimee Houser wrote:
> They are more around 500 sq ft but I think they go down to 150 sq ft.

I am relieved to learn that not-so-big includes dwellings substantially
smaller than 2,000 square feet.  What materials of hers I had perused (I
don't recall which book) didn't seem to yield any.  I trust your memory
and stand corrected.

> 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.

An admittedly crude effort on my part to invoke sustainability, but
not I think absurd, either.  Shouldn't we (green builders/enthusiasts in
US) be trying to achieve this?  If not us, who?

> it is equally ridiculous to throw out an arbitrary number based on
> your experiences.

I meant it as a number worth discussing, not an edict.  Perhaps it is
unhelpful to specify a number or a range.  Perhaps, as others have argued,
Americans wouldn't go for it.  But I am not satisfied yet that we've
thought this through, tried to persuade our fellow citizens (or list
subscribers) and have failed.

> 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.

It was not my intent to claim virtue for myself or my suggested number of
per capita square feet, but to get a discussion going on whether a
number or range might be worth thinking out loud about.  Hearing
wealthy people (in places other than this list) invoke Susanka's work in
rapturous terms expecting to be lauded for their contribution to
sustainability was what first got me thinking about virtue in the context
of residential swelling.

> 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.

Not at all.  I live in an 80+ yr. old uninsulated 2-story house divided
into three apartments on a busy street with a lot of subwoofers that
rattle the single pane windows during rush hour.

> I think homicides would go up if a bunch of Americans were forced to
> live in tiny spaces with one another.

You may be right, but I think our rate of homicides is among the highest
in the world right now with all that extra big house so unevenly
distributed among us.  We have plenty of national house to go around as it
is.  It is just not distributed very well.  This situation is not much
improved by building more 2,000+ square foot houses which those who live
in cramped quarters now wouldn't be able to afford anyway.

> 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.

I gave two other reasons.  Perhaps you didn't like them either.

> 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 you would suggest some we could get on with the matter of square
footage in yet-to-be-built US houses.


Reuben Deumling



______________________________________________________________________
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
______________________________________________________________________