More recently in ultra-green Berkeley, California, controversy has surrounded a prominent software designer / philanthropist who's donated millions to environmental groups and currently has plans to build a sleek 6,478-square-foot house plus an attached 10-car garage which comes in at over 10,000 square feet.
The proposed project has enough green features to score 91 on the Berkeley Scale that calls anything over 60 green, but the neighbors think it's too big to be green calling it “greenwashing” and "absurd" that a house that large could ever be classified as green.
Does size matter?
There is little basis for the claim that it is better to have a large house built with green materials than a small conveniently built home that uses more conventional materials. Energy modeling shows that a 1,500-square-foot home with poor insulation can still use less energy than a house twice its size with good insulation
According to an article in E-Magazine, a 3,000 square foot house uses 40% more energy than a 2,000 square foot house. So why is a 4,600 square foot McMansion considered green? Because it has an Energy Star rating that states it uses 15% less energy than a comparable conventional house. It's a perfect demonstration of the battle between two major trends in American housing. In the past few decades, houses have gotten greener, but they've also gotten bigger too, leaving lingering questions: Is super-sized housing defeating conservation efforts? Can McMansions truly be green?
1 comments:
All fooling aside, these larger homes should be provided and allowed "green" certifications. In many regards, the home is probably way more efficient than many track homes. It is commendable that this buying group engage very smart people to focus on these challenging issues. Think of them as “early adopters.” It will not be long until these ideas trickle down to the mass markets. Shouldn’t this make us ALL better off?
Post a Comment