[GBlist] Not so big house? Who cares!

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

Putting it less kindly than Ralph, perhaps become I can't help but feel
defensive since I'm the one who brought up Susanka in the first place, I
have this finally to say on the matter...

So out of a relatively benign post from me, Susanka has emerged as
everybody's favorite whipping girl. Its getting ridiculous.

First, of all, who determined that "a priori" spending money on one's
home--on the details of the house, not its size, which was Suanka's
point--is antithetical to environmentalism? Is environmentalism the same
as marxism? Hey, I LIKE to have nicely wrought details on my furniture, on
my front door etc. etc. And so? What has that got to do with whether I
recycle, buy bulk, buy recycled building materials when remodelling,
refuse to wear leather, refuse to use chemical cleaners, etc. etc? 

Second, we can balk at the square footage of Susanka's home all we want,
but it only shows a very narrow way of defining sustainability, which
isn't going to help sustainability issues at all.
Instead, questions that should be asked are:

1) What is the footprint of Susanka's house? This is a much better
question than very roughly calculating total square footage as "about"
2500 sq feet.  And by pointing this question at Susanka, I do not mean to
CONTINUE until its deader than dead the thread about the Not-So-Big-House
book. Its become tired. Rather, I'm trying to show what is being left out
of discussions when we focus on sq footage alone. If sustainability is
about acreage, than obviously, sq footage is a ridiculously narrow
measurement.

2) What materials were used in Susanka's house? Again, if sustainability
is about natural resources, this is an important question. I doubt if its
made of tires and strawbale, but that's hardly my point. Again, the point
is to refocus this discussion about sustainability.

3) Is the house superinsulated? Again, an important question for
sustainability, if sustainability is a matter of energy resources.

You can't go to Susanka's book for answers to those questions, which is
why this is such a ridiculous line of discussion in the first place. The
book never  purported to be about environmentalism or sustainability. I
simply brought up the title in response to the monster house post--that
not every architect who caters to the rich is interested in the 'as big as
we can' way of thinking. And I brought it up because I liked the way it
sparked my imagination about reconfiguring my own 1200 sq foot house. In
other words, tar and feathering Susanka for not putting out a book about
100 sq foot abodes is rather like criticizing Firestone for making tires
that go on monster SUVS in the first place. 

______________________________________________________________________
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
______________________________________________________________________