Okay... it's friggin' gorgeous and I am admittedly very jealous.

But someone's going to have to explain to me how THAT house can have an interior space of just 2,116 sq. ft.

LOVE... my new dream house.

@modtramp --

Did you miss the 1567 sq/ft of decks and balconies?

That's some nice Eldorado Stone. I think it's Cliffstone, Montecito. I like seeing it used in such a modern way. With a rustic twist of course.

No matter how much low-flow plumbing and earth-nurturing concrete was stuffed into this house, it'll never compensate for the fact that it's bigger than the Queen Mary and thus required a lot more material than a small house. The cedar may be sustainable, but given that they needed three times as much to clad all of that vast exterior I suspect the gains may have been negated.

I have no problems with the wealthy enjoying their money and having large, beautiful homes (and this IS a beautiful home). What I resent is them claiming moral superiority when they do so... especially when that superiority is a lie.

I have to say I agree with Blandwagon. Looks like a beautiful house, but how can you claim that it is "sustainable" to build a house that big and keep a straight face? I guess to accurately answer that you would need to know how many people were going to live there and whether it really needs to be that big. Any attempt to live more sustainably is to be encouraged, but more and more of what I see of "sustainable" contemporary architecture is little more than moral posturing by taste show-offs. Sounding a bit negative because it is a really nice place, but common sense needs to be used with the labels we put on this kind of architecture.

That house looks amazing, but I have to agree with Blandwagon and MidCenturyRusty.

It's just... so huge... so much house. I barely know what to do with two rooms and kitchen and a bathroom.

For the sake of argument, how should a large house be built? Without any nods to environmentalism? Or is the problem just with the size of the house? I can't really get behind disdain for any and all large homes. There's no line that can be drawn at which point a person's space becomes "excessive," which would not be totally subjective. I'm not arguing FOR mega-mansions, nor do I think the above house even fits in that category. But, it's humbuggish to fault this home's size. I think the whole point is that we are trying to move in a general direction of environmental awareness. I think they did a great job.

I had the opportunity to interview the owner/architect of this home awhile back and asked him the same LEED question (by the way, it is platinum LEED certified). Maybe this will answer some of your questions. Also, the first shot makes the home look MUCH larger than it actually is; it works with the hillside and topography:

Wow! I am guessing this house is relatively large, yet you managed to make it Platinum LEED-worthy! Please tell us about some of the details, materials, and systems that make this home sustainable.
"The house is really quite small by custom home standards. It's just 3 BR and 3.5 BA. We didn't want or need a large home. The 3rd bedroom is a guestroom suite and is detached from the main house so we don't really use it unless we have guests and therefore don't use energy to heat, cool, or light it unless we are using it. The house appears to be large from the exterior because of the variety of decks and terraces at all levels. I am writing this from the master terrace which makes the 12x12 master bedroom feel much larger. Efficient design and not building more than you need is very sustainable. From a system perspective we have employed solar hot
water, radiant floor heating, solar electric by Solar City, fresh air intake and exhaust to supplement the many operable exterior doors and windows, natural day lighting, high efficacy lighting in the form of LED and fluorescent, recirculating hot water loop, energy star appliances by Whirlpool, super insulated walls and roofs, super insulated doors and windows that are thermally broken by Fleetwood and Nana, reclaimed exposed roof framing, no VOC interior paint by Mythic, FSC Certified cabinet cores, engineered Walnut flooring, high fly ash content in all concrete, home automation system that controls lighting and sun shades, close proximity to services and public transportation to limit automobile usage, low-flow plumbing fixtures by Kohler, High recycled content in all concrete counters by Concreteworks, High recycled content in the exterior stone, drip irrigation and no lawn. "

As for the comments about LEED, well, it shows we are all getting more sustainable-saavy. We had to start somewhere and LEED certification broke new ground. I don't think many designers would even have tried for green standards if everyone had to live in a shipping container and poop in a composting bin. It is huge that so many designers are striving for this certification now, when 15 years ago not many could be bothered to consider sustainable architecture, or even define what it was.

[insert inappropriate joke about "warm, glowing wood" here]

...it's been a long week.

Pretty house, though, even if it's a tank.

P.S. If you look carefully at the facade, you'll see that both parts of the "L" that are facing out are almost all outdoor spaces (including an outdoor bathtub actually!), and you can see that the depth of the building is not very deep on either side. It is a very deceiving shot.

I can appreciate the desire for any architect to want to design and attain what seems to be the pinnacle of thoughtful and conscientious design. However, I cannot support the idea that this massive home should win an award for sustainability when a small ranch home built in the 1950's without all of these bells and whistles/ advanced technologies is more efficient and sustainable. It's unfortunate that we have not yet moved beyond the "Bigger & Newer is Better" mentality.

Okay, then for those who argue that the size of this house negates its claims toward sustainability, I want to hear where you draw the line at "too large." What's the square foot maximum?
This is a conversation I actually am interested in, not in some snarky anonymous-internet-comment-war kind of way, but as someone who cares about design issues and has lived in both miniscule new york apartments and multi-bedroom homes. I'm uncomfortable with what I feel is the "size police," because who are we to decide what any one family needs to live comfortably? As someone who works out of my home, I've had to turn the guest bedroom into my metal studio, and I'm telling you right now I wish I had an extra room. I like having friends be able to stay with me when they are in town. Would an addition to my home get me the shaky-finger from some of you? See, I just think it's too subjective to say what's too big, what's just right. We have no idea how other people use their private space and why assume the worst? You think they have spare rooms filled with hummers?

Dear rich people who may or may not care what others think:

If you're going to build a largish house, I'd prefer if you did it with sustainable materials. Like these people did.

Thank you kindly!

Households have different needs and resources. People may have kids/work from home. Northern homes must hold seasonal things, and so on. With so many factors, there's no one formula that can calculate the best home size for every one. Each person must figure it out for her own situation.