Seeking Reader Opinions: Should USGBC Certify a 15,000-sq.-ft home as green?
Is that a good idea for USGBC? That’s my question to you. Obviously people are going to build big homes–and it is better if they have green features. But should USGBC single out such “eco-mansions” for positive recognition?
On the big side, the mansion has:
… eight bedrooms, 11 bathrooms, two elevators, two laundry rooms, two wine cellars (one for red, one white), a movie theater and guesthouse.
On the green side, the mansion has a:
… state-of-the-art air purification system and eco-friendly light fixtures that will reduce energy consumption by 90 percent.
Making this mansion green, probably tacked on additional costs of between 7 and 10 percent….
For instance, instead of using a rare Brazilian cherry for the home’s hardwood floors, he’s using reclaimed teak — thus sparing 7.5 acres of Brazilian rain forest….
The house will also have a massive solar panel system (price tag: $120,000), a water system that uses “gray water” from the showers and sinks to irrigate the lawn and gardens, as well as a series of pools, reflecting ponds and water gardens to cool down the 1.5 acre property by 2 to 3 degrees.
USGBC does take size into consideration:
The USGBC also factors in the overall size of the house. So the bigger a home is, the more points must be earned to score one of the USGBC’s four levels of achievement — certified, silver, gold and platinum.
So for mansions, balancing a low-environmental impact with a colossal construction is particularly difficult.
This is not the first USGBC certified green mansion — a puny 6,000-sq.-ft house built by Ted Turner’s daughter has that distinction.
When I emailed USGBC about this, they wrote back saying:
Stopping folks from building green is not going to stop them from building big.
Education and experience has to happen at all levels
That’s what they think. I think they shouldn’t lend their name to such homes. What do you think?
September 20th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Just a thought — maybe they could do large houses now while we are building the market for green products and builders, but have a scheduled draw-down on size so that interested parties would feel pressured to become early adopters?
September 20th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
I don’t think these large houses should qualify for the awards either. Apart from all the energy used for all the materials, these houses have to be far apart, which means more driving to get to and from things. What about a smamm apartment in a city, with everything close. That is energy conservation.
I’ve read about some houses that are 100-200 square feet big and obviously would not use to many resources to build. A measure of square foot of floor per residence should be high in the list of requirements.
But if it’s just publicity and desirablity that is wanted, the bigger houses will do a better job of that. The people deciding on the award are more in tune to promoting there award that what really is Green.
September 20th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
My first thought was, “Surely you jest,” but then…
Thinking in future tense, if that house isn’t located where it will eventually me submerged, then all of its green features will be worthwhile when it’s converted to a multi-family dwelling for South Florida climate refugees.
September 22nd, 2007 at 1:45 pm
I believe if a Mcmansion can meet strict stanards of energy use that would apply to an average sized home (that is, an absolute kW/BTU usage not “normalized’ for size and based on some realistic amount of square footage — say 3000 max) then they should be eligible for awards or green impramateurs. an even better metric would be to take the number of people living in the home, and allow a certain amount of carbon per capita — say less than 1 ton per person, and use that as the basis for defining what is “good”, “great” Silver, gold, or whatever. Embedded energy in the materials used would have to be a part of the calculaton, since the volume of materials used, their harvest, manufacturing and transport use a great deal of energy.
Of course, this means they will have to be super-efficient, using every technology and technique available, at considerable expense. But so what? If you can afford an ego home or McMansion, you can afford to spend a whole lot of money on efficiency and renewables.
Under no curcumstances, however, should we create a specific category of award that is normalized for ego homes with theatres, bolwing alleys etc. if they can provide those amenities within per capita carbon limits, fine. If not, they shouldn’t qualify.