I feel I must put forth a disclaimer: I love green homes and buildings. Hooray for sustainability! I truly appreciate the effort towards a building and maintaining a green building. However, I do feel that it’s healthy to question the direction of the industry at times.
Sitting in the waiting room of the surgery center, waiting for my significant other to finish his paperwork, I flipped through Coastal Living Magazine which featured an article about an eco-friendly home. At over 3,000 square feet, it touted reclaimed wood, a tin roof and, of course, a myriad of energy efficient features. While I applaud the effort of the architect and residents—who seem to really embrace the eco-living lifestyle—I admit I winced when I saw the size of the house.
The issue is a hot debate in the environmental community, with the biggest target on homes, specifically large homes that tout energy efficient appliances, low VOC paint and other ‘green’ features. We covered the story in the July issue, discussing the sustainability of “green” mansions. The essence of the debate is: how can a large house be considered “green” when its physical footprint is huge and its eco-footprint is (probably) comparable to a traditional home? It may use less energy, but isn’t it a wash if it uses the same as the average 2,500 square foot home?
According to Martin Holladay on the Green Building Advisor blog, and reiterated by Lloyd Alter on Treehugger, what’s important is the energy consumption of the building. This got the wheels in my brain turning—is a large home like a hybrid SUV, great in theory but if you’re concerned with fuel efficiency and being ‘green’, just drive a sedan? A large 4,000 square foot home may feature the latest in energy-saving green technology, but if it’s total energy consumption is equal to that of an average home, where’s the eco-savings?
Another component that should be considered is the distance of the home from the rest of the community. Another blog, by Kaid Benfield of the NRDC, criticizes a net zero community outside of Chicago. Though the development is built using technology that makes it fit into net zero guidelines, it’s located on farmland 40 miles away from Chicago. Residents still have to drive to their homes, places of work, shopping malls, etc. every day. While this reduces their overall footprint, wouldn’t it just make their footprint equal to mine—an individual who lives in a non-energy efficient small apartment close to where I work and play?
According to Holladay, it’s greener to not build a new home at all, but instead retrofit an old one. There are lots of homes on the market now—why build a new home when you can buy a used one and add green elements that fit your fancy? While the debate rages on, it’s commendable that more people are integrating green elements into their homes. However, without a total behavioral change—in habits and expectations, it may all be a wash.
