Where could I find the bar stools in the first photo?

It's beautiful, but if being eco-friendly was the goal it might have made more sense to build a smaller home.

Ha, Laura110, my thoughts exactly. That home is HUGE!

To achieve LEED Platinum on a house like that is... crazy. The real estate guy part of me is seriously impressed, as most people are content with any LEED standard, usually silver. This is way over the top in a totally, well, dull package.

I feel like I've seen those barstools at Z Gallery? Room & Board has a similar set, I think

Getting LEED Platinum, while not the be all end all measure of green building, is not an easy task. Just to clear a few things up, this family wanted to build the home of their dreams, but with thoughtful and green building techniques. Green can be done on many scales -- not just small -- to suit a variety of lifestyles and needs. The square footage listed includes all spaces, and a number of flex-use rooms. They are a growing family, need to have the house ready for a handicapped family member, and need to be able to work from home. They produce much of their own power, live in walking distance to most of their daily needs, used salvaged furniture, etc etc. I just wanted to point this out, because, yes, it is not small, but it is better than building a large suburban house without any thought. It might not be your taste, but that does not mean it's wrong.

@BRUINTOO Beat me to it. Regardless, it is a step in the right direction. I just don't like solar panels that are visible from the street level, especially when combined with a traditional building style.

I wanted to sign in and defend this family and their house and the effort to be green. First I read the article this is linked to... and, while I am happy to hear about anyone making the effort to be more green in their lifestyle. 5500 square feet.

5500, seriously?

I was a little disgusted by the 3600 square foot count of a couple highlighted the other day. Lady is an artist, works at home. But still, 3000+ square feet for your family's indoor space? Wow.

This is simply way way way over the top.

The Reason we need to be green and mindful of the earth in our lives is primarily due to how many of us there are on this rock. No family needs that much space for their home.

It's not defensible.

House looks lovely. Really does. But... it's a monstrous mix of waste and 'green'.

@Bruintoo, my home meets all those specs, too, even though it was built in 1979. I've just updated everything,

No-one "needs" that much space. In other countries multiples families would believing in a building that big. They might have done more than most to make their giant house energy efficient but living like that is not green.

Jeez, people.

Not everyone, especially in the US, is in love with the Apartment Therapy ideal of "just enough" space. Should those people not have the opportunity to achieve LEED status in their homes? How is this not helping advance the popularity of green building among people in less densely populated areas who like and are used to larger living spaces? They made an effort to build as green as they could while maintaining the lifestyle they wanted, and sure as hell came a long way from wanting "nothing green." But why bother if it's not good enough right?

And @tomathome, I guess they should have put the solar panels on a side of the house that got less sun exposure so you wouldn't have to see them, right? =/

Well, after all they were inspired by Al Gore, he of mansions and private jets.

I'm glad I see that they have imported sparkling water in their "green" kitchen.

I am all for anyone building their dream home, that is the beauty of a free society. But to put yourself out there and be all self-congratulatory about your morally superior building choices is a bit much.

@kkatmpls -- good catch on the Pellegrino. How easily one thing can represent the whole.

@OVERTURE Yeah, I know. Aesthetics over practicality, one of my many faults. If I were designing that house, I would spend God knows how long trying to hide them.

Ridiculous size of house aside, I for one am glad someone finally made a LEED house that is traditional instead of ugly, boxy and modern—as if LEED could not be achieved without it.

"How is this not helping advance the popularity of green building among people in less densely populated areas who like and are used to larger living spaces?"

If we're talking about minimizing total carbon footprints and not just looking green, LEED status can be a red herring. It's one part of the equation and probably not the biggest part for this family. It's great that the house is more efficient than it could be, but it's still an extraordinarily intensive way to live. Several examples, some of which others have mentioned, spring readily to mind. I don't want to nitpick over whether imported bottled water v. leather barstools v. 5500 ft^2 is worse--these are all tradeoffs we deal with--but I don't think we should pretend this is a straightforward case of a family going "green."

At least two typos in the photo captions, and the article says the home is in one suburb, the captions in another. Way to go Tribune!

Nice house if that's what you want, but agree isn't green just on the size of it.
As for being that size out of "necessity" that's just bs, sorry.
We live in a 1200 sq ft. town house, all six of us and our seven pets. I work from home and as it is a town house we have no property to speak of, no garage, no sheds or out buildings etc.

Treehugger had a great article on how LEED is more or less greenwashing. Its a step in the right direction, but a step is all it is.

You can read it here: http://www.treehugger.com/sustainable-product-design/the-four-sins-of-leedwashing-leed-green-buildings-that-perhaps-arent-really-green.html