A couple I read and later wrote about owns a huge cottage in the Muskokas (5,000 sq. ft. plus) and the wife said two things related to its size that caught my attention.
And I quote:
“Sometimes I’ll visit a room and just sit in it for an hour so I can say I use it.”
And:
“It’s probably too big for the two of us.”
I conclude that it is. Anyone who has to visit rooms has their head on backwards.
Many other individuals, couples and families have similar unreasonable-sized homes across North America and though every other ‘huge homes and gardens’ magazine proclaims the glory of life in a castle we could easily live quite comfortably in 1,000 sq. ft. or less.
[Click here: photo in context]
We need to see a few examples, however, of small, energy-efficient homes to get the bigger picture.
ASAP, all levels of government need to sponsor and demonstrate the building of such homes because most home builders won’t do it.
Costs associated with this type of public education will be quickly returned through the many physical, environmental and social benefits.
Am I on the right track?
.
8 comments:
I would argue that home builders would build those types of houses if thats what people wanted. Just like builders would do more infill development if thats what people want, but as sad as it might be, most people want to live in the "burbs" and want their monster house.
good comment, john.
most still want the burbs - though their desire may be somewhat fueled by what they already know and see.
i think more people would opt for a smaller home if they saw sterling examples of same.
i think our city could be a leader in wise, small, energy-efficient home development but needs to take a bigger step toward public education by building 6 - 10 sample units, perhaps in co-ordination with a local home builder, Fanshawe and UWO.
cheers,
gord h.
Honestly I could do quite well with under 1000 sq ft. The "dream house" I'll build one day is a converted "garage-in-a-box" that may include a sleeping loft if I can find the right configuration. I've seen designs for such, and with a little ingenuity they can be quite comfortable.
Assuming, of course, that you can find a place to build it. This is not always the easiest of tasks. You'd think that you could simply buy a pice of land, and build what you want on your land, but it doesn't work that way. Between restrictive covenants, local ordinances, zoning restrictions and all manner of other red tape, you have to look pretty hard for a place you could build something that small on.
Added to that, most such places are outside the city proper, meaning no city services -- and probably a longer commute.
But the McMansion quotient is nearing a saturation point in my area. The houses that were originally built here in the 60's or 70's -- or even the 80's -- are systematically being gobbled up by developers who knock them down and replace them with a 5000-7000 (or more) sq ft atrocity. In their defense, they're having to pay a premium for the real estate, so in order to turn a profit, they have to build something spendy.
But where does it end?
I went to JH Kunstler's talk in London this summer and he pointed out that the age of the McMansion is over.
Have you read "A Pattern Language" by Christopher Alexander?
Mr H, you've finally got me to pull my finger out - nearly anyway. I'm this close to signing up with Terrapass and Bullfrog. If I can convince myself they're not some kind of scam. I can't quite understand how buying credits is a good thing, I think it's about creating a "tipping point" to making "greener" ways of generating power more mainstream.
I've enjoyed Leslie Garrett's book, The Little Green Handbook, not so much.
mojo, though my wife and I live in a 1,050 sq. ft. house (not incl. basement) I have a smaller dream house in mind as well with two sleeping lofts.
Unfortunately, getting a suitable building lot is a concern.
As are other items you mentioned e.g. restrictions, red tape etc. (The lot I like facing Lake Erie has no services).
However, if governments are involved in the building and demonstration part of the process for 6 - 10 sample units then perhaps they'd find a way to make a buyer or builder's life easier.
I'm going to call a contact at City hall to see who I should talk to about rolling the ball farther. Even shrugs and refusals from city staff make a good story, at the very least.
cheers,
gord h.
hi jesse,
I have Kunstler on my book list and I'm overdue for a trip to Chapters with 5 bucks in my pocket (for coffee and a bargain book); I'll take more money just in case i spot C. Alexander's book too.
does Leslie's book read better than the Ecohilic? I trudged through Adria's book but had no trouble marching through leslie's. (Thanks for mentioning her name; I owe her a coffee and an interview).
i know several folks who would quickly recommend Bullfrog; well organized operation. and you're right re creating a tipping point. they're raising awareness re benefits of wind-powered hydro generation.
for a good educational trip re wind-power venture toward Port Burwell via Port Stanley (directly south of London on Wellington Rd.) and stop at turbine educ. centre one mile west of Burwell - on your left at big curve in the road.
cheers,
gord h.
I finished Leslie's book with a "yes I *can* do more" attitude, compared to Ecoholic when I felt paralysed by how polluted my life is and how many changes I have to make.
I am disappointed about Bullfrog, it's going to end up doubling our bill once you add up the increased charges from Ontario Hydro with the increase in electricity payments.
hi jesse,
that's a big jump, even for a bullfrog.
my sister must have got in early.
conservation of hydro may be the best route for now. as new turbine farm projects in Chatham-Kent and Lake Huron come on line perhaps Bullfrog will become more realistic.
cheers,
gord h.
Post a Comment