How Green Is Your Mansion? The New York Times

We've had a few discussions on square footage and green mega mansions, and today an article in The New York Times revisited the topic. The question remains: regardless of the LEED rating, is there a point at which the square footage of a home trumps all its other environmental initiatives?

As you know, LEED certification relies on a point system and, according to Scot Horst, the Green Building Council's VP for LEED, points are "reallocated" for larger homes, but this reallocation doesn't prevent large homes from receiving LEED certification, so long as they still include enough green features.

This system upsets many environmentalists, who claim that a 10,000-square-foot house requires four times the resources of an average new American house under 2,500 square feet.

The architect of one such mansion, William H. Harrison, says that "it's about socialism, not sustainability." Regarding one of his clients: "He’s a billionaire, and he drives a Prius, for God’s sake... He wants to do the right thing, environmentally. And now he’s being told, 'You’re not good enough, because your house is too big.'"

Read the whole article and then come back and tell us where you stand on this issue. Should there be limits on a home's size if it wants to achieve LEED status? Or is it wrong to insist that the owner reduce the home's square footage, even if they want to make everything else as green as possible?

(Image: Flickr member Cavalier92 licensed under Creative Commons)

Comments (7)

If LEED wants to stay relevant, they need to address this. the most sensible way would be to have a sqft to occupant ratio that affects the score.

Having huge homes for few people is not sustainable. I applaud the billionaire in this story for wanting their extravagant lifestyle to be lower impact, but it's still that, extravagant.

If you want your 10,000 sqft home to actually be green, get 9 or so housemates and turn it into a co-housing collective.

I think the next generation of LEED for Homes and EnergyStar certification is looking at this (that's what our environmental efficiency consultant told us, anyway). If I'm not mistaken, they're bandying about 5,000-6,000 SF as the max. Bear in mind that this is third-hand knowledge, so I might not be correct...

There wasn't really enough information in the article for me to have a clean opinion on how LEED works with house size.

However, I think large houses should be able to get certified. By telling people building large houses that they can't get LEED certified will discourage them from building energy efficient houses. If a house that large costs 4 times as much as average house size, then image how much it costs if it isn't energy efficient. Isn't the whole point to make sure whatever is build, is build as efficiently as possible?

The article says nothing about what energy sources are going to be used for heating and electric. If it is a net-zero home, then the only energy cost to society is the creation of solar panels, wind mills, whatever they are going to use.

I also don't think LEED should get involved in trying to figure out what should be considered green. Green is a big umbrella term for a bunch of things. When green first started to become big, I didn't hear much about living with less. And many green sites show you products you don't need. If you are remodeling something that isn't falling apart, you are wasting supplies! What you had is still good! You just might find it ugly. And cupboards can be repaired instead in replaced, but then they might not be coordinated. We can save energy be giving up TV entertainment. Do you need to paint your walls? Is there anything wrong with plain drywall or plaster? How many people are willing to give up replacing objects they dislike, giving up their TVs or computers, and giving up decorating?

I'm definitely not always green. I pick and choose what I'm willing to change. And something I'm unwilling to change might someday be changed, but I'm not changing it now. I recently bought a house and moved from an apartment. The house is bigger then the apartment. It takes more energy to heat. Should I be scorned for this?

Now 6500 sq ft is huge for the average person, but people use to that size consider it normal. People can't really expect people to change in day. I think telling him his house is bigger then it needs to be or that size of house isn't very green is fine. But taking LEED certification away from him? It's an energy efficient house even if it is large. I think pressure for getting houses smaller should be social.

Why should a billionaire be penalized for trying to do the right thing? There should be a weighted scoring system to allow for different sized homes like that.

If the home is energy efficient, why would size matter?

-R. Howard
<a herf="http://www.whitmirehomes.com">Whitmire Homes</a>
"Building custom homes since 1978"

LEED stands for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. There is no way, with any justification, under any circumstance, that a 10,000 square foot home for one person/family represents any level of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. People with so much money they need to build the "greenest" mansion imaginable should find some other, constructive, more original ways to blow their $$load - like funding clean water in a developing nation, or funding a seed bank of our endangered food seeds, or investing in any of the amazing start-up non-profits making a real difference in the world. LEED certification has so many issues. It's already problematic. Sq feet per occupant should be a standard expectation for responsible energy use and environmental design.

Am I missing something here? Why is it so important for these millionaires to get LEED certification on their mansions? Can't they just be satisfied with buildling as green a mansion as possible?