Secondly, guests can sleep on fold out couches or flex rooms that double as offices or other when visiting. I see no need for more than one dedicated guest room. Actually, I don’t really see the need for one. If your wealthy enough to build a zero energy, double McMansion, then you can afford to put your guests up at the local B&B. This would of course support the local economy which seems to be against all of the “logic” going into the justification for the large home that does not require financial support of the community…

I don’t have the answer as to what is the best balance of private vs public. If I did, I could probably be the next President. I would say that it is entirely up to you, how much you want to involve yourself in society. Just understand that everything you do has an effect on others. I could probably discuss this topic ad nauseum as to why I think more involvement in society is a good thing, but suffice it to say that you benefit from others involvement in society and they benefit from yours.

As for the investment aspect, I completely agree with Nic on this topic.

And there are plenty of houses much smaller than yours that use many of the same techniques to achieve a completely self sufficient home. The solar decathlon houses have been completely self sufficient in 800 sf, an incredible goal considering most have only roof space for their PV’s. The size of the house really does not effect the ability to be self sustaining. It is the design of the house and the spaces within that hold the keys to passive design and zero energy use.

I applaud you for you use of porches, verandas and cupolas to help with the passive design of your house. I am amazed that they increase the size of your house 28%! But this does point out that if you started with a smaller home then the extra passives spaces would add considerably less space.

Again, all things being equal, a 9000 sf house is irresponsible because is uses more material and land resources than a smaller house and it takes considerably more energy to construct 9000 sf (and normally it would consume more energy as well). All of this assumes that you can live comfortable in 3000 sf but that you choose to live in 9000 sf. If something changed (i.e. more inhabitants of this house) and you can now justify 9000 sf, then maybe its not irresponsible. But if nothing changed , and the 9000 sf is just because you want it, then in my opinion it is definitely irresponsible. This is just my opinion and I may not completely understand everything that is affecting your situation.

Should noone enjoy the convenience and privacy of a personal swimming pool, but rather support the public pool. Should noone buy home exercize equipment, but rather support the local gym? Should noone have a private library of books, but rather use such funds to support the public library? Should we all sell our cars and support public transportation for the masses???

What about those of us who are lacking quality in such public conveniences where we live? The theater is 20 miles away. The public gyms aren’t as nice as what I will build into my own home. The public swimming pool is not conducive to swimming laps and not open in the winter. We have “NO” public transportation except for a limited seniors program shuttle which I don’t qualify to use.

Until recently in rural Japan, private residences didn’t have baths. Instead you paid to visit the public “sento” bath house. Such sentos have become rarer with private baths in newer homes. Today, a visit to the Sento is seen more like a relaxing spa visit rather than a daily necessity. Should the Japanese have not built private baths in their homes? Should Americans switch to “public bath houses” to be more democratic with our plumbing expenses?

I recognize that this is taking the argument to extremes, but I just want to spark thought… Who defines “excess” and/or “irresponsibility?” Do we not decide that for ourselves? Do we really have the right to decide that for our neighbor?

“If” I build my 9,000 sf house plan, I will be nearly doubling my investment due to my relatively low cost of construction (I will be owner building with significant swear equity over time) versus appraisal value. The more house I build the higher my equity wealth becomes. I can then leverage that equity wealth to create much more wealth much faster. That is honestly hard to turn away from…

Additionally, because I do have the kind of resources/income that permits me to build such a house, building such a house with a tax deductible interest on my mortgage and with no capital gains on my equity, preserves that wealth from taxation better than any other available mechanism. That is being a wise steward of my wealth and not allowing it to be squandered by tax and spend government. “I” get to pick and choose how my wealth is used to give back to society.

Additionally, some of the passive measures I have designed into my home REQUIRE additional space to passively condition (heat/cool/dehumidify) the air. I need my basement conditioning chamber. I need my rear porch/solarium that shades the house in the summer and heats the house in the winter. I need my 20′ x 20′ belvedere with cupola on top to achieve the passive solar air flow through the house via the solar chimney effect. I need the vaulted ceiling in the foyer and great room to achieve the passive convection air flow circulation through the house. I need the shading of the wrap-around porches to protect against summer sun.

Such passive solar measures add over 2000 sf to my house design… I am on a sloped lot with the necessity of a walk-out basement. This basement will be unfinished space at first, but I will cost-effectively finish it over time to enhance my property value. Finishing the basement will add at least 2000 sq ft. Finishing the attic will add more sq ft.

The initial structure will be roughly 4000 sf, prior to finishing out the basement and attic. In a hot humid environment it is financially and environmentally smarter to have all conditioned space and not have an open air attic. The poured concrete wall systems and the metal SIP roofing systems don’t cost much extra in materials, time, or labor to create finished rooms… If I am going to condition it anyway, and it doesn’t cost much money or materials to finish the basement and attic, why not plan on finishing it over time???

To meet the appraisal requirements for this many square feet under roof, I NEED a certain number of bedrooms and bathrooms to qualify for the required mortgage. I WANT these rooms anyway so that distant relatives can all visit comfortably on holidays. Thus, the bloated square footage count…

So, with so many financial dynamics saying I “should,” it is hard to justify taking the admittedly “high road” of a smaller home with fewer amenities and no better energy efficiency.

The extra square footage is what actually enables this house design to become a Zero Energy Home. I can either pay forever for additional energy consumption, or I can build in some additional equity enhancing square footage to begin with, and in the process actually lower my energy consumption… And no that isn’t a non-sequitir.

I don’t think it would actually be possible for me to make a smaller home as energy efficient as this house design is going to be… Those extra square feet drive the passive cooling and dehumidification of the house in ways that would be essentially impossible to duplicate in a smaller home. The large closets on the west wall, are not only conveniences, but they buffer the temperature of the primary living areas further into the home. The basement provides passive cooling in the summer. The solar chimney provides passive dehumidification, passive cooling air flow in the summer, and assists with passive heating in the winter. The south facing solarium provides passive solar gain in the winter, while shading the house and cooling it in the summer.

The expanse of south facing roof is what enables effective solar hot water heaters for the radiant floor system, and still have enough room for the addition of PV panels to become ZEH. The use of solatubes to passively light the home in the daytime, and LED and CFL lights for nighttime illumination precludes major expense for lighting the larger home. High thermal mass and smart passive design together with an ERV system requires minimal energy to heat and cool even such a massive structure. All highly energy efficient energy star appliances will use no more electricty than those in a 100K home…

So, I am still not intellectually convinced that 9,000 sf is automatically socially irresponsible. Although I still “feel” like Rob’s points are valid and should be conceded.

The fact is, the economic value of building the bigger house is so overwhelming, that I probably will, regardless. (Once again, this 9000 sf won’t use much more energy than a 100K home…)

Take for instance a movie theater, if everyone goes out to see movies then the movie theater will stay open. If a certain amount people now have home theaters, they no longer go to the public theater and therefore it can no longer stay open. It is absolutely wonderful that some can afford home theaters, but they are in effect creating the demise of the public theater. And now those who cannot afford a home theater can no longer go to the theater.

A similar argument could be made for those who drive inefficient vehicles and therefore drive up this countries fuel consumption. The current gas prices have proven that lower demand will lower prices. If everybody was more efficient with there fuel consumption if would benefit EVERYONE, not just those who cannot afford high fuel prices.

What all of this means is that just because you can, doesn’t necessary mean you should. Each individual in society has an effect on each other individual. My actions affect you, and your actions affect me.

1) The typical modern exurban mcmansion is stupid. Office, living room, dining room, the pompously named great room, eat in kitchen, 4 bedrooms, AND the sitting room off the master bedroom overlooking the great room. I don’t know about you, but I only have one ass, and can only sit in one room at a time. For most people, some of these rooms should be omitted or merged with others. As-is these homes are very wasteful both in construction, furnishing, and heating/cooling.

I’d love to be able to fit into a tiny house, but I don’t. My house is a bit large for two, but we do get very good use out of our space. We both work at home a lot, and this is a good balance for us on a personal level.

2) I love living in a village environment and being able to walk places that are worth going to. For a very long time, people who wanted to live in more traditional walkable areas (such as cities) had to endure lower quality of living, all the while subsidizing more wasteful living areas. It’s nice to see city/town living getting more popular.

3) Our homes have been marketed to us as our largest “investment”. Nic is right; that’s silly. It’s an expense.

Like all expenses, what you want to pay for is a personal issue. I choose not to have a house with a master bedroom sitting area. Isolating yourself from the rest of your house and your family seems silly to me. I do choose to have our laundry on the 2nd floor rather than in the basement, and that costs me something, which I don’t mind paying for.

4) I appreciate your decision on the front porch. It sounds like you made a well reasoned decision. One of the many reasons why I picked my old house is the front porch. For me it is usable living space. When we have parties, people tend to congregate there weather permitting. I have the only open front porch on my very small block, it would be preferable if others were open as well.

5) While I live in a densely populated urban neighborhood, I do not live walking distance to a gym. If I lived near one that had hours that were convenient for me, I probably wouldn’t have bought the bowflex.

6) I respect what you do Nic, and you wish you very well. Maybe a 100K brand house isn’t for me, well that’s OK. There are many for whom it is perfect. One size need not fit all. 100K is another great thing that makes me proud to be a Philadelphian.

7) Regarding your book collection, how about a series of continuous high shelves in several rooms? Assuming a 8 foot ceiling, if you put the shelves 6’6″ off the floor, it should be out of the way of most people and make sure of mostly wasted space. Hang a 3 step folding step ladder on a wall and you are solid.

There should be a balance between having no possessions and having too much junk. I have some rules I try to enforce, anything not worn in 12 months must go. Anything not handled in 3 years must go. I have been making exceptions for books.

I will say, as I have said before, that denser, more compact living is not going to appeal to everyone, but we are going to need it to appeal to a growing majority of us in the coming decades (for a wide variety of reasons beyond just energy efficiency).

Also, I believe there is a balance somewhere between the McMansion and the minimal, and that improvements in design can reduce the amount of space needed for the same “comforts”. Hell, I have always wanted a pool table. I like the comforts of a separate space to write and work. However, I find that simply tacking on rooms and space to address those “wants” lacks consideration and imagination.

What I really like about your comments and an area in which we might find much common ground is the connection the homes we live in have to the greater trends in society. It is not our houses and cars alone that are unsustainable. It is our lifestyle. It is the way we work and play. Real adjustments are beyond the scope of our meager efforts, but perhaps our efforts (both of ours) will be a sentence in a larger essay on sustainable change.

The examples I used were primarily confined to the comments in the original blog post (pool table, local pub, etc.). The public parks, walking trails, and gardens didn’t come up in the original post and obviously aren’t part of the “architecture” of a large home, although they can become part of the landscape.

And no, I did not intend for “wealthy” and “professional” to be synonymous. It is more likely “white collar” and “blue collar” and perhaps even more so “managerial” and “day laborer.”

The main issue was/is the significant difference in use of the home between those who of necessity bring their work home with them, and those who clock out and leave work at work. The proportion of Americans who leave work at work has declined considerably. And the relative pay for those who clock out and leave their work at work, is significantly lower.

In the past when smaller homes were more prevalent it was much more common for the “middle class” American to leave their work at work. The intrusion of work hours (for most middle class and higher Americans) into traditional “family time” and “personal time” have had a HUGE impact on what makes for an ideal home. That is what I was trying to get across. Not some kind of erudite class warfare.

You should be consciously aware that sort of like reverse-racism, there can also be a sense of reverse-socio-economic elitism, where class prejudices act in reverse, and things are intentionally “labeled” as “wealthy” as a means of attacking them. This is equally as offensive, and such prejudices disturb me!

Rather than trying to defend my own choices, as you misinterpreted, my primary goal was to provide more of a socio-economic explanation of the “shift” nationwide in what kind of a house has become prefered by the masses. The role of “parent,” in addition to the role of “bread winner,” has changed for both father and mother. These changes have led to “shifts” in how we use our homes. Modern homes reflect these shifts.

Modern society has fewer hours to spend with family and in the home. The home has “morphed” to maximize the hours available at home with family and to reduce the need to go elsewhere in the few hours available for family R&R. The additional rooms are an effort to keep a home livable and comfortable in the midst of the demands of our modern world.

Mom and dad each need quiet space to “work at home.” They don’t want to just exile the kids to a public park, or worse yet send them to the mall. So, kids’ dens and parental offices get built to meet the conflicting needs. Yes, this results in a reduction in parent/child interaction, but it is the required work that is the causative agent, and the rooms merely attempt to make less than ideal circumstances more livable.

We can “judge” those who bring work home with them and suggest they should find another job, but how many non-manual labor jobs that pay a truly middle class or better income, come with set 9 to 5 work hours and 40 hour work weeks, where you leave your work at work when you clock out??? Not many… If you don’t want to take your work home with you, you will have a hard time living a middle class or higher lifestyle in the America of today.

I tried to “downsize” from a 3000 sf house to a roughly 1800 sf house when we went from a family of 7 down to a family of 3. It hasn’t worked well for us. I have no place to work without exiling my wife and granddaughter from “shared space.” This daily problem is further aggravated by far flung relatives gathering for holidays with no place to comfortably stay.

We are ultimately going to go the larger scale house route, for many of the same reasons so many other Americans have done and are doing the same. But I see no reason to “defend” my choices. I owe no explanation for “my” choices to anyone. I was only trying to reflect and explain the socio-economic shifts that have created the trend towards McMansions.

You can argue, all you want, that we should go back to simpler, smaller homes with the requisite increase in family interaction. But for this to be feasible for and reasonable to the “masses,” the modern expectations of the work place have to also change. These days, it is rare to have a “managerial” job and not take our work home with us. We also have less hours at home than prior generations (mostly due to longer work hours not necessarily longer commutes), and the time we do have at home is precious, and we want to make the most of it and reduce the need to leave our homes any way we can.

And yes, teachers also take their work home with them, which is a great example of why this isn’t merely a wealthy versus “other” economic distinction. Additional rooms make these modern realities more “livable” for parents and children. While such a home is frequently not affordable on a teacher’s salary, in two income households, it often becomes within reach.

So what is “living responsibly?” This is a term that is heaviliy laden with “judgment.” Is your definition the only one?

Is a 9,000 sf “zero energy home” irresponsible merely because it consumes lots of materials and land to build? What if it is built with smart contruction technologies that allows it to be built with renewable/recyclable materials at a cost almost 50% lower than standard construction practices? Is it still irresponsible? What if it is built to last 500 years, whereas a 1200 sf home is only built to last 30 years… Which is more responsible then?

On a separate note, I would CERTAINLY argue with your assertion that your home is not an investment. My primary residences have been my BEST investment vehicle and have added more to my net worth than any other investment in my life. No house I have lived in has ever been an “expense.” So far, I have made a significant profit on all 4 primary residences that I have owned. I have made more money on my primary residences than on my so-called “investment properties.”

I am not talking speculative investment that led to the housing bubble and evaporation of paper wealth. I am talking about smart investing in a “hard asset” that also has practical daily use.

Yes, a larger home leaves you less money to invest in a retirement fund, but the equity in your home can make for a significant retirement fund in and of itself, and can be enjoyed everyday of your life until you “cash in” the investment by selling it. With a reverse mortgage, you can even continue to enjoy it after cashing in… My real estate investments, including my primary residence haven’t lost a dime in value as a result of the economic crash. Stock market investments haven’t performed nearly so well… As for me, I’m glad I “invested” more in my postive value home and less in a negative value 401K.

These socio-economic “realities” drive many Americans to “invest” in bigger homes with every “comfort” that they can “afford.” These investments yield excellent returns, as long as they are not in a “bubble market” that pops.

With your 100K Home, you are coming from an alternative, competing, and likewise valid paradigm. Smaller families in very expensive areas to live, such as inner cities, need to learn how to live well in a smaller and more affordable space. I applaud this effort. It certainly meets an under-served need. But I’m not sure that the masses entrenched in the realities of today’s world are going to choose this different set of decisions.

I certainly understand the motivations of those who choose to live big in a small space. I would ask that while you provide a much needed solution to the 100K Home set, that you try to also understand the valid motivations of others that lead them to a different set of decisions than you. Otherwise, using your own words, I am disturbed by your prejudices.

Don’t let your prejudices blind you to socio-economic realities. Housing today is different from the 1950′s because how we use our houses has changed substantially. I thought you did a reasonably good job explaining some of those dynamics in this blog entry.

But rather than merely a move away from shared public space and the implied de-emphasis on social interaction, I think one of the primary drivers of modern homes is actually an effort to keep families at home to interact with one another during their all too precious and fleeting “non-work” time. rather than family members going their separate ways to the gym, to the theater, to the restaraunt, to the pub, to the public swimming pool, etc. We build all of these things into our homes to keep family members closer to one another thereby generating more opportunities for all too rare family interaction. We build offices into our homes so that when we bring work home, we don’t have to unreasonably drive family out of the home.

I think the motivations are much more positive and not so much isolationist…

But maybe I’m just an optimist and don’t see as many “sinister” motivations behind the building of bigger homes.

I certainly agree that we need to work towards sustainability, control of life-cycle costs, and wise stewardship of limited resources that shares, rather than selfishly hoardes, wealth.

Your assumption that all public entertainment is bar related confuses me. Perhaps it is my own fault, but I assumed enough knowledge of various social opportunities that I could simply mention the few my social status and inclination lead me toward (with tongue firmly in cheek). Dense living environments, be they cities or towns, are full of opportunity for family related activity in the public space. Parks, museums, community movie nights, church events, public gyms, various athletic courts, etc. All accessible by foot, bike or public transit. Much of this needs to be built up and rejuvenated but it exists. Your characterization of the small home dweller as an irresponsible, absentee parent is absurd. If that was not your intent I apologize, but realize that this is the suggestion of your tone.

To move on . . . by professional, do you mean wealthy and if so, why not say so? There are many professions (teacher comes immediately to mind) that take plenty of work home, value education and live in relatively small homes (at least compared to the giant homes of your “professionals”). There are also many non-professionals that value education but sadly are unable to move to neighborhoods that have a monopoly on the best opportunities for learning. Your argument seems to suggest otherwise.

A home, as in a single house in which you live, is not a investment. It is an expense. Real estate beyond that home can be seen as a sound investment, and I would recommend it to those that can afford it. The home you live in, however, is an expense and a larger less efficient home is a bigger expense. It is difficult to argue the value of a bigger more expensive home when that belief has served, in large part, to plunge our economy into the current economic crisis.

Lastly, to briefly defend the exact types of homes we are building. The average American household is 2.6 people, meaning a very large number of households consist of two or less people. There is no reason 2 or even 3 people can’t live comfortably in 1200 square feet, yet no one builds these homes. Some of the reasons are those described above, some are economic as you mentioned, but if we want to live responsibly it has to change.

Again, I apologize if I misunderstood your comments. I understand your desire to defend your choices, but I would ask that you understand the opportunity for a different set of decisions.