Great big green monster mansions

Environmentally correct housing has never been more popular. But even the most eco-friendly home may do more harm than good when it is super-sized.

By Linda Baker

Jul 7, 2004 | En route to a Vancouver, B.C., conference on recycled products a couple of years ago, green-building consultant Kathleen O'Brien struck up a conversation with her Bangladeshi cab driver, who wanted to know what kind of green features to incorporate into his house. "He asked, 'Should it be wood, should it be steel?'" said O'Brien, who helped create Built Green, a landmark residential green-building program in Washington state. "I said: 'If you do one thing, build it small.'"

Green building is one of the fastest-growing sectors in the exploding market for environmentally friendly materials and technologies. According to the National Association of Homebuilders (NAHB), in 2002, programs such as Built Green certified more than 13,000 homes in the United States. Next year, the U.S. Green Building Council will pilot its Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Homes program, certifying state-of-the-art green residences. States and municipalities also continue to strengthen residential codes for energy efficiency, indoor air quality and water use.

But there's an elephant in the living room of most of these green homes. Call it square footage -- lots and lots of it. Fifty years ago, the average house size was 1,100 square feet, and the average household size was 4.2 people. Today, the average house size has increased to 2,150 square feet, while the average household size has declined to 2.3 people.

"That's a killer combination," said Mike O'Brien, a program manager in the Portland, Ore., Office of Sustainable Development. "In the space of 50 years, we've reversed the equation completely."

Here's what the green residential landscape looks like in the 21st century. In the United States, advances in green-building technologies have to compete with the proliferation of 3,000-square-foot-plus homes -- simultaneous trends that underscore one of the key paradoxes of sustainable development in the United States.

"In spite of everything we've done to make the building envelope more efficient," O'Brien said, "we're still using more energy in our homes." Nadav Malin, the editor of the monthly newsletter Environmental Building News, agrees. Most of the green features people are incorporating into their homes represent ecological improvements in the 10 to 50 percent range, he said via e-mail. But even a 50 percent reduction in the ecological footprint, Malin noted, "would be totally offset by a doubling of the house size."

The American proclivity for living large does more than raise questions about whether a 4,000-square-foot single family home should ever qualify as a "green" residence. It also calls into question one of the fundamental tenets of sustainability -- that market demand for green products and technologies will save us from environmental apocalypse. If we all go solar, if we install rainwater catchment systems and use sustainably harvested lumber, so the logic goes, then there's no need to deprive ourselves of the luxuries that space -- and the furniture and accessories to fill it -- affords. But the issue of consumption, not to mention overconsumption, is curiously absent from the sustainability discourse. And in an era characterized by unprecedented consumer wealth, this could be the movement's fatal flaw.

Next Page: "Our belief is that if it is solar powered, you can have all the hot water you want"

• View blog reactions