Follow this blog:
RSS

Do Houses Have to be So BIG?

By | June 17, 2009, 11:55 AM PDT

In trying to be “the greenest custom home in America” as shown in the video below, what Paul Holland and his family have set out to do is commendable. The home will be off the grid and promises to use no fossil fuel. Indeed, this is a good thing.

But one thing strikes me. The home in the video looks massive and obviously will cost millions. I believe that he wants to inspire others to use passive energy sources such as heat exchangers, solar PV and lots of glass where presumably the sun shines most of the time. No doubt, this will be a spectacular place to live.

But if only the well-heeled can afford such homes, how can the common man identify with what he can ever hope to afford? Isn’t it the common man and woman we to trying convince? Without their buy-in, we won’t begin to put a dent in home energy usage.

While today we talk about inspiring others to be more energy efficient in their homes, the idea of zero energy homes is rapidly losing its optional status. As Paul points out, California mandates that all new construction use zero energy by 2020. Three cheers for California which leads in so many ways.

What will inspire the masses to get passionate about zero energy homes is to show how favorable the economics can be as with the Zero Energy Challenge in Massachusetts which I blogged about yesterday. The homes in this program are smaller than the typical family home and are often one story. The are also affordable and replicate-able.

It boils down to this: as a species, can we change our consumption habits? Last October, I heard a speaker at an energy conference declare that humans are “chromosominally” (what an energy hog of a word!) incapable of conserving. It’s human nature to want more and bigger so the speaker posited that the answer to present day problems is finding new energy sources that are less destructive.

That may or may not be true. I love nice homes and presently live in one approaching 4,000 square feet or about half of what my empty-nester wife and I need. But I think we should give some thought to house size and using space more efficiently.

Follow me on Twitter and friend me on Facebook.

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

John Dodge

About John Dodge

John Dodge was a contributing editor for SmartPlanet from 2009 to 2010.

John Dodge

John Dodge

Contributing Editor, Technology

John Dodge has written for the Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, PC Week (now eWeek), EDN, Design News, Electronic Business, Bio-IT World, Health-IT World, Lowell Sun, Haverhill Gazette and Newburyport Daily News. He is based in Massachusetts.

Follow him on Twitter.

John Dodge

John Dodge

John Dodge prides himself on completely independent journalism. His opinions, observations and reporting are not influenced by any financial holdings. He holds no shares in computer, electronics, software or Internet companies. He also has no business affiliations with organizations except with those for which he creates content as a freelancer.

He writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
5
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Do Houses Have to be So BIG?
John,
Why do you and your wide need an 8,000-square-foot home? You wrote that yoiu "presently live in one approaching 4,000 square feet or about half of what my wife and I, both empty-nesters, need."
Posted by Martin Holladay
18th Jun 2009
0 Votes
+ -
ssssss
We have been living in Montana for the past 5 years and I am not supri sexy shop to find it #3 on the "worst" list. Considering a sexshop move to Idaho to escapthe high cost of living a low income in MT. There may not be a sales tax here but they get you if you own property!

Where does Idaho rank? We have been living in Montana for the past 5 years and I am not supri sexy shop to find it #3 on the "worst" list. Considering a sexshopmove to Idaho to escapthe high cost of living a low income in MT. There may not be a sales tax here but they get you if you own property!
Posted by filhomarques
21st Jul
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Do Houses Have to be So BIG?
Martin,

Fair question. These are the reasons we stay here. We simply have not gotten around to moving which after 16.5 years in one place is a big undertaking. Second, we have two kids in college and one still come homes summers. We also like it here. We built the home at well under 3k sq ft. (a typical 4 BR colonial) and developed a home office above the garage where I work fulltime. We probably are couple of hundred square feet below 4k.

The house is well-insulated and that we burn about 750-800 gallons of fuel oil a year for heat and hot water is quite efficient comparatively speaking. My last electric bill was for a miserly 574 kilowatt hours (I confess, we're not always that good especially when kids are home). I cut and split every last stick of three cords of firewood each season and burn it a high-efficiency Hearthstone Heritage wood stove. Check it out.

http://www.hearthstonestoves.com/wood-stoves/stove-details?product_id=3

Let's look at it a different way. Which rooms do not get used or rarely? And how many square feet? The kids two BRs, a formal LR and DR. So there's 715 square feet right there. So there's no doubt we could happily live in a smaller house.

So now there's the question of where do we go and can we sell the house. I think we can, but someone else who will more than likely will be less efficiency-minded than us will probably move in. But we will eventually move.

Had we to build again, we'd build smaller for sure.


Posted by John Dodge
18th Jun 2009
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Do Houses Have to be So BIG?

We are presently adding 500 sq ft. to our home, after putting $40,000 into
tightening it up so it uses less energy. (It was built in 1921.) When we're
done it will be 2,000 sq. ft. We raised both our kids in 1,500 and were
quite comfortable.
Posted by DanaBlankenhorn
18th Jun 2009
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Do Houses Have to be So BIG?
My God! It's HUGE .

My wife lived quite comfortably for a decade in a house that was slightly under 900sq.ft. With a change in work, we moved and the "new" house, a hundred year old farm house, is slightly bigger at 980sq.ft.. We're planning on building ourselves the "Greenest House in Canada" when we have time and sufficient cash. In our area, it'll be hard to do. There is considerable competition in this area alone.

I have to say, Paul is already a long way from being the "Greenest House in America". It may yet become the greenest white elephant in America, but that waits to be seen. Certainly the house he is building will not only NOT inspire the many people he may hope, many like myself are TURNED OFF by the shear wastefulness of the design already.

Here's a recipe for a greener house.
1. Use strawbales, and build it Nevada style (i.e. load-bearing strawbales.). Staw is a waste product of the agricutural industry and is easily and usually cheaply available anywhere grass grows. Wood, on the other hand, uses a lot more energey and produces much more greenhouse gases in its cutting, stripping, transport, sawing, and pressing.
2. If you don't like staw, then use earth. Earthships which are made out of discarded tires filled with dirt are another viable construction technique which not only saves the tires from landfill, but saves considerable in building supply costs.
3. If an earthship is not to your liking, then how about earth-bag construction. All of those used plastic grocery bags need somewhere to go. Why not fill them up with dirt and pile them on top of each other to form walls? There's plenty of examples across America already.
4. Consider Adobe or papercrete for your foundations and ground floor.
5. Use in-floor heating. It's friendly to liquid-filled photothermal systems, and it can make a house feel warmer than it really is.
6. Passive solar, photothermal, photvoltaics, and so forth, are great ideas, but they can be augmented by wind, micro-hydro, and geothermal.
7. Consider a composting toilet. They use a lot less water and you can place them anywhere. Plus you don't have the huge expense of maintaining a septic tank or a sewage system.
8. Look into grey water reclamation to further save water.
9. Wash water doesn't need to be drinking water. Consider a cistern or a shallow well for your wash water, and a seperate system for your drinking water.
10. If you must pump water, build an above ground storage tank on top of a papercrete pillar above the main living floor of our house and use a low-volume pump which runs continously. Low volume pumps can run easily off of photovoltaic systems with out requiring large batteries. High volume pumps, designed to produce the desired water pressure, use much more energy both in the short term and the long term.
11. And for heaven's sake, go get yourself a copy of The Not So Big House by Sarah Susanka.

And yes, there's more you can do to make it even greener, but I figure that's just a start.
Posted by mheartwood
22nd Jun 2009
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!