apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

wouldn't it be nice if you didn't have to be wealthy to build a home like this?

It would be nice if you didn't have to well off to afford this kind of home. We bought in a subdivision about 18 months ago. The rules here can be irksome (we actually have to get permission if we want a trellis for our garden!) but around here, subdivision homes are the most affordable, even if they aren't creative.

Yes, it's beautiful... but how is having a second home green?! By definition it's greedy.

I would echo sammigb's comments. This continuing green building movement seems to have lost it's soul. A second house is by definition wasteful. A large house with green materials is wasteful.

Part of the problem with building is the volume of products used. The home in this article still built on virgin land. It still used energy to create the materials. It probably sits for days empty while other around the world sit in the cold.

Green building materials are only part of the solution!

But, as it sits empty, what resources is it using?

Aren't you confusing "green" with "humanitarian"?

I don't think so. Or possibly I have expanded the notion of green. Green is not simply about how much energy it uses but how much was used to create. A substantial amount of energy was used to build this house. Far more than will ever be used by the house itself.

We have somehow been hoodwinked into believing that green is simply about our lights and our gas consumption. It is more than that. Space that sits unused all week is wasteful. It has to be maintained, more energy, and it has taken materials out of the earth that can never be replaced, again more energy.

So I would challenge you Patrick to expand your notion of green. And besides, I think the general thrust of the environmental movement is humanitarian. Saving our own lives. The lives of future generations. The lives of others on the other side of the plant who's land will be swamped by rising seas.

Hi, Lizzy C from Portland, Oregon here. I think some of the comments regarding "I wish you didn't have to be rich to afford this" are a bit off the mark. I'm not sure where y'all are located but land in Oregon is cheap. I did a quick search on the RMLS real estate data base and came up with several mutli-acre properties within 60-90 miles of Portland that were under 30k. I'm not sure how much their house cost to build per square foot (I have a feeling not that much really), but even if it cost 200K, that is just not that much for a house, period. Besides, trust me, the salaries for two architects in Portland isn't all that.

And ok, humans are bad. we pollute and use up land. Um, yeah. But what are these people supposed to do? check into a hotel (the biggest wasters of natural resources ever) anytime they want to go out to the country? Are they supposed to camp in a yurt? Or, are they just supposed to sit at home in Portland in the dark eating low-impact on the earth bugs?

Development will happen as long as people are living. I personally would rather see some best building practices happen (which this one is), rather than just divide people further against the environmental movement by making it a "no growth or nothing" hard line mentality. Sure a lot of the green building movement has turned into nothing more than a marketing ploy, but I would also much rather see a building like this one rather than an easily flooded 3000 sq foot ranch house, which is what we are seeing a lot of instead out here in the west.

The article states that the homeowners use it most weekends and sometimes rent out the house when they're not there, so it's not empty all that much. And, the fact that they have a 2nd home doesn't directly correlate with others around the world who "sit in the cold." It's true that wealth is not spread evenly, but these people a small, low-impact building on what was basically swampland. I realize that because of the high living costs in New York City, many residents struggle to afford to live in very small spaces, but I am continuously amazed at some of the sanctimonious, negative, have versus have-not comments of some posters.

In the interest of full disclosure: we own a second home. It's big; it's 150 years old; it's in disrepair. We could have torn it down, but we are renovating it. This will take a long time, but it is no longer the unsafe, neighborhood eyesore that it was for many years. We consider it an improvement to the neighborhood, the town (we pay higher taxes now) and our lives.

Was it swampland for a reason?

Lesley - London,

The land is in a flood plain - not really the same as a swamp I guess.

Nice thread.

I think the problem is this. Much of the green housing movement has turned into green washing. Add solar, a tankless water heater and bamboo flooring and the house is green.

This is simply not true. Lumber is still uses, glass, aluminum, concrete, land etc. The entire structure needs to be looked at.

And I echo Lesley's comments. Nature created the land as such for a use. This structure inhibits that use.

I am not a radical about this. We live in a small 900 square foot house in a downtown area. We live three blocks from work. These are choices we made. When we want to go to the country we drive about a hour north and stay at a hotel. And yes, the do use LOTS of water but the impact of that water use is certainly not offset by having a second home.

We could have higher incomes to live larger but why. We at most 30 hours a week. Again, we make choices so that we don't have to work lots. Have a small car, etc. Sure we want more room. But for what, more stuff.

Again, coming back to this house. Why? The vanity of architects. Yes. Green? Sort of but essentially no. And will not building one house matter? No but taking 100 out of the system will.

A complicated and frustrating subject. One I would like to see AT tackle. How to live nicely ... no well, but nicely. Ah well, we Americans already do.

Well Bud Smith,

Your second comment sounds more reasonable. Perhaps though, we could say that the owners of this home did choose more sustainable options from among their options.

PS: I think you meant that you echo Lizzy C's comments.

Paul McKean and Amy Donohue are perfectly entitled to have two homes if they so desire. They are not, however, entitled to applause from the rest of us for being "green". Two people with a baby do not need two houses, period. No matter how environmentally friendly the second house is, it's wasteful. And let's not even go into the amount of pollution they must be generating driving out to the country every weekend.

In a free country they can do as they like, but we shouldn't be encouraging them in their greenwashing.

My dexlecia always seems to show through in my typing. Ah well.

Blandwagon, I would not say they are entitled to two dwellings. They have the legal right in the US but entitled? I'm not sure. I think for the green movement to make further inroads it is going to need to move beyond greenwashing, into use reduction.

I really would have no problem with higher fleet mileage requirements for cars. We can achieve this today. I also would not really have a problem with higher taxes to be used to improve the infrastructure of this country and help offset the reduction in consumer spending.

And with freedom comes responsibility. For myself at least. I am not free to do things that harm others. And I have a responsibility to you, and others, to try to prevent harm where ever possible.

And I think this couple have harmed. They have harmed the profession of architecture by building to there vanity. They have harmed it my greenwashing there project. The paper that ran this story harmed all of use my not challenging the land use and building of the structure. And the pollution used to create this structure has harmed that planet.

Will all of the, here I sit on a laptop writing this response. The irony is not lots on me! But I am comforted to know that the windows are open, the house is small, there is 30 MPG car and a bike in the garage.

Tough choices we face.

Yes, my point is the same whether we call it swamp or flood plain.

Lizzy C, according to the article, "they ended up with a $216,000 loan from another bank, which barely covered construction costs". And that "a real estate agent has since put the value of the house at about $375,000", so I'd guess they spent around $250-275k, possibly more.

Dusty in Ohio here.

Having two homes is obviously wasteful. The only way that makes sense for me to think about the question of wastefulness is whether or not a particular practice (i.e. having two homes) is a sustainable thing for every other person in the world to do.

If having two homes, even if one of them is green, is something that wouldn't be sustainable if every person were to do it, then doesn't that mean that some people (the people with two homes) would be using resources that the other people (the people who can't have two homes) are living wastefully?

Yes, it's no big deal for one family to do it. Just like it's no big deal for me to drive one gas-guzzling Hummer towing one ATV throwing one McDonalds wrapper out the window. The issue about waste isn't about whether it's ok if one person does it, it has to be a question of what if EVERYONE does it.

Having two houses is by it's very nature a wasteful thing no matter how green either of the houses are.

If you actually read this whole post, thanks.
-Dusty