Enough with the SUV arguments...what about McMansions?

[Atman]

We can make many arguments for owning an SUV, and several have (check out this thread). But it all seems rather misguided, as you really don't know why anyone is driving what they're driving. Sure, you can make the arguement that a soccer mom going to the grocery doesn't need a Hummer. But, really, who the hell knows. BUT..what about their McMansions? This "housing boom" caused many people to trade-up their homes as well as their vehiles. As a result, how many are now living in 4500 sf homes -- and HEATING THEM AND ELECTRIFYING THEM AND COOLING THE AND MANUFACTURING THE MATERIALS FOR THEM -- just for Mom, Dad, Muffy and Biff (and the dog and three hamsters)? It is downright impossible to argue that anyone "needs" this much space, unlike the SUV discussion, wherein any one of us could actually have a "need" for lots of cargo room or hauling power. But who the hell "needs" 4500 sf of living (heating/cooling) space for four people and a dog? Oh, did I mention the McLawn which much be watered and covered with Chemlawn pollutants?

My point is this -- stop looking to scapegoat or label people based upon what they drive. It would be far more productive to lambaste people for buying bulk-packs at the wholesale club, which wrap seven layers of plastic around six layers of cardboard around five more layers of plastic, so you can save $3 on a 12 lb. package of Twinkies. WTF? Pay attention, people. SUV's may be an easy mark, but the argument against them has too many angles, to many variables, to treat with such a broad brush.

However, if you can find any justification, beyond tax implications, for owning a "gas hog" McMansion, I'd love to hear it!

[MadHound]

1. So, how big an SUV do you own?

:evilgrin:

[lukasahero]

3. Beat me to it. :) eom

[Atman]

2. Read the thread

Linked to in my post above.

[ultraist]

4. How many square feet are we allowed to live in and still be a Democrat?

If it's under 4,000, you might as well wipe heavily Dem, Westchester county,much of CT and CA, off the list of Democrats. ;)

[Atman]

I understand, but that isn't the point

Really, I understand completely. I'm not making this a republican/democrat thing. But DU frequently has threads (today among them) wherein the poster derides people for what they drive. But I've never heard anyone offer similar condemnation for purchasing a status house. Houses don't run themselves for free. Usually, when you'e graduated to one of these McMansions, you're no longer opening windows, you "climate control." Where is all this electricity coming from? Magic?

My point is simply that the SUV argument may be misguided. Hell, maybe it isn't. But look at the responses here so far...more shoot-the-messenger than address-the-point. Is your house a gas hog? Simple as that. Fine, live in 4500 sf house. But, do you solar heat? Have a rainwater collection system for your lawn? I see very little fundament difference between living in a 4500 sf house you don't need just because it is "status" and you can afford it, and driving a gas-sucking Hummer.

I'm open to hearing the rationalizations, though. Does anyone have any?

[kestrel91316]

16. Yeah, but the house doesn't burn exclusively petroleum.

[Atman]

18. What is generating that electricity?

Smoke and mirrors?

Perhaps coal? Probably oil. Don't kid yourself. And don't forget about the extra fuel needed to produce the materials for a 4500 sf house as opposed to a more modest 1800 sf house.

[kestrel91316]

I don't have a source right handy, but IIRC most of our electricity in

the US is generated by burning natural gas. Lesser amounts are produced by coal, then oil, nuclear, hydro, solar, wind. Oil is most definitely not our primary source of electricity.

Since the concern here is comparing autos to home electricity, I felt it was ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE AND CORRECT to point out what I did: that the home does not burn exclusively petroleum, unlike the car.

I hope you do not have a problem with those pesky things called facts.

[One_Life_To_Give]

54. 51% of Electricity from Coal

EIA.doe.gov

For 2003 51% of electricity obtained from Coal, 20% from Nuclear and 17% from Natural Gas.


Unfortunatly we would all have better health if we generated with oil instead of coal. But that is not likely anytime soon. While your electric use does not contribute to the rising cost of oil. It does contribute to global warming and other environmental problems.

[kestrel91316]

151. I stand corrected. Now mind you, I am a major opponent of the

conspicuous consumption lifestyle wherein folks own the biggest SUVs, the biggest houses, take the most expensive vacations, and waste the most energy, while whining about taxes and failing in their responsiblities to society as a whole.

I just don't think you can compare houses to cars when it comes to direct dependence on oil. My house doesn't burn oil. It burns natural gas and uses electricity.

[IrateCitizen]

22. Maybe not -- but it does burn a lot of fossil fuels...

It takes a tremendous amount to harvest the raw materials and then manufacture them into building materials, and then haul all of them to the site for construction.

Then there is the cost of heating a cooling these places. As a resident of Westchester County, NY -- I'll tell you that most McMansion owners don't open windows to keep cool, but everything is climate-controlled. Furthermore, cooling costs go way up when the house is placed on a clear-cut lot in a cul-de-sac development.

Finally, these homes are never built in a "town", where the owners can walk or bike to meet most of their immediate travel and errand needs. No, they're built in places where you have to DRIVE everywhere you want to go -- even if it's just to the local library to check out a book or to pick up a cup of coffee.

In short, the profligate use of fuel ties in directly with the way in which we fail to PLAN our communities, and instead simply let developers take over planning boards and maxmize their short-term profits. And then we scratch our heads and wonder why our existences are so atomized, and how our neighborhoods have no sense of community.

[tamtam]

48. Yea, but they are cutting down those pesky trees

They are clearing out quite a bit of forest to build these developments in my area. I guess when the mountain lions start crossing I15 looking for food they will stop cutting down their homes to build housing developments.

[BR_Parkway]

24. Well, occasionally houses have a use just like SUV's - we are

building a 14,000 sq ft 12 bedroom, 14 bathroom with a commercial kitchen. But it's use is a B&B. And we're heating with Solar for domestic hot H20 and radiant floor heat system and installing a 20KW wind turbine to produce our own electric. We also raise meat and vegetables using organic practices (not paying for certification).

Part of our goal with this project is that we can educate people that they can live in ways that are much more environmentally friendly, without having to cut back on every single luxury that they've gotten used to. As it stands today, most people who haven't taken the time to educate themselves a little about what is available here 'sustainable living' and think they would be in a 500 sq ft straw bale hut with no TV. We'd like to open their eyes.

[IrateCitizen]

32. Good for you -- but your home is a business, not single-family...

That's a big difference. Where I live, there are multitudes that have 5,000 sq ft single-family homes. That's wholly unsustainable, IMHO.

[Rockholm]

131. Just read your profile...

I LOVE Blowing Rock. As a kid, we used to spend Labor Day there. There was an awesome dinner theatre restaurant that I used to love. I feel madly in love with many of the waiters (although I was probably 10 at the time).
We have often discussed moving to Asheville. I am from Charleston originally.

[Rockholm]

128. Thank you for saying that.

Here in Massachusetts, drive thru Weston, Milton, Winchester, Wellesley, Newton, Cambridge, etc and see not just "McMansions" but honest to goodness really BIG houses on large estates and guess what...DEMOCRATS!
I am so frigging sick and tired of feeling the need to apologize (or rationalize) here on DU for having a big house, big car, big dogs and the money to pay for it.

[Walt Starr]

5. Fuck that shit.

fuck it. I WANT muy SUV and I WANT a McMansion and fuck anybody who has anything derogatory to say about it.

I earned them with the sweat of my brow.

[IrateCitizen]

11. No, cheap energy provided them for you Walt...

You just happened to by lucky enough to have been born at a time in which "the sweat of your brow" wasn't the sole resource you had for scraping out a living.

[Walt Starr]

58. Actually, my current home is incredibly energy efficient

and I get 20 MPG in my SUV.

[IrateCitizen]

79. You totally and completely missed my point...

You said you "earned these things with the sweat of your brow". My point is that this is hardly an accurate statement, as none of these purchases you made would even be available without the proliferation of cheap fossil fuels that made industrialization possible.

Saying you "earned them with the sweat of your brow" is a fallacious statement. People back in the middle ages earned things "with the sweat of their brow" much, much more than either you or I have -- and for most of them, their reward was eeking out an existence at nearly a subsistence level.

It's cheap energy that made your big house and SUV possible -- not your "hard work".

[Walt Starr]

81. Bullshit

I worked HARD. I earned the money. I bought the goods.

Fuck moralizing over progress. It sounds like fundie crap to me.

[IrateCitizen]

88. Typical response from you, Walt...

Thanks for reminding me of why I try to stay away from GDF. Any challenge to your perceptions is automatically shut out with proclimations of "bullshit" while completely failing to address the base premise of my argument, instead writing it off as "fundie crap".

Have a nice day. :hi:

[Walt Starr]

90. Laters

:hi:

[smoogatz]

104. My response, too.

Zzzzz.

[IrateCitizen]

106. Ooooh! Ooooh! It's a backslapping moment...

Can I join up in ganging up on that poster with you?

Oh, wait... that poster is me.

Never mind.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

99. 20 mpg is TERRIBLE!

[NickB79]

109. Exactly. Our expectations are far too low for vehicle mileage

My Scion gets 40 mpg driving highway speeds (I still keep it under 70 mph to save gas), and does 32 mpg in stop-and-go city driving. For 95% of my needs it is fine. For the 5% of the time I need to haul bigger things, I either have it delivered or rent a van. A $25 delivery charge for a new mattress, or $75 to rent a cargo van to move to a new apartment is far cheaper than $25,000 for an SUV and $2.50/gal gas.

Since the majority of driving in this country seems to be stop-and-go city driving, why do we focus so much on the highway ratings of a vehicle when that isn't its primary use? Is 20 mpg a highway rating, or combined city/highway average? City driving alone is most likely below 20 mpg. When the oil crunch hits, 20 mpg is going to be cold comfort indeed.

[Walt Starr]

110. I think it's pretty damned good!

That's city mileage.

It does much better on the highway, but we drive about 60 miles each week, so it's rearely ever highway driving.

[Selatius]

116. I get 26+ in the city of Orlando

But I drive a '95 camry. Old technology. I get 31 on the interstate. You should find a more fuel efficient vehicle. 20 is atrocious, but that's from my perspective. Ultimately, it would save you more money. It's not just for your own wellbeing but for the wellbeing of the planet and the health of your neighbors as well. Of course, it is entirely up to you. That's free choice. It is YOUR responsibility. But keep in mind that we're your neighbors, too.

[Walt Starr]

120. If I bought a car that got 30 mpg in the city

over a year I might save a $200.

I'll take the load carrying capability over tht $200, thank you

[Selatius]

134. That's true, but the cost of pollution is tremendous on human health

The reports are clear. The pollution in urban areas leads to increased incidents of asthma, cancer, and other ill effects in the population. While you may choose not to save 200 dollars, you end up contributing to a problem that collectively costs us much more than 200 dollars, including me your proverbial neighbor. Everything is connected and there is a consequence for every action.

While you are free to do whatever it is in the privacy of your life, the simple fact is there are decisions that not only affect just yourself in your life but others like me as well. In that case, I as well as others also have a collective interest as well.

The point is that you at least give some thought to others around you. We're sharing the same planet together, too. But ultimately, I can't force you to do something you don't want to do. That's free choice, but with free choice comes responsibility not just to yourself but those around you.

[Walt Starr]

136. Ohkay, I thought about it

I'm kleeping the SUV.

Want to stop me? Make them illegal.

The first Democrat who tries, will lose bigger than any candidate in u.S. history, David Dukes included.

[Selatius]

139. You just totally missed the point of my post

I never even once came close to advocating the abolition of SUVs but rather appealed to your intellect to help you better understand that the consequences and responsibilities that come with free choice on the matter. It is your responsibility. Either you take it up, or you don't.

If you use your SUV for commercial/industrial purposes or live out in the wilderness with few paved roads, I wouldn't mind because that's the necessary situation, but if you were simply using it to haul groceries and kids and lived in a big city, I can't stop you from having it, but I am perfectly within my rights to question it, especially since it comes to health and the environment, an issue that affects us all.

That's the difference between a libertarian leftist and an authoritarian one, and I have a libertarian streak a mile wide.

[Walt Starr]

143. And like I said, I considered the consequences and repsonsibilites

My stance remains unchanged. I keep my SUV. I don't give a flying fuck what other people think about it.

[Selatius]

144. Well, I'll let your statement stand for what it is for others to see

Have a nice day. :)

[Walt Starr]

145. You bet!

Have a nice day, too.

[smbolisnch]

153. 20 MPG?

That's hardly efficient. :shrug:

[smoogatz]

17. Yep.

I hate that lefty control-freak bullshit. What's with this holier-than-thou impulse to tell people what kind of car to drive, what kind of house to live in, what kind of food they should eat, for chrissakes? How is it any different from the right-wing control freaks who want to tell us who we can and can't have sex with? It really riles up my inner libertarian.

[Cats Against Frist]

77. I think you have it wrong

Libertarianism is precisely the ideology within which this discussion is appropriate. Not many people here -- at least, myself -- are advocating for the government to step in, and ban these things -- quite the contrary, in fact -- people are using more of a method of social shunning, which is apropos to many anarchist societies, such as the Amish.

The problem is, it's a role-reversal, in much the same way that the Christians complain about being 'persecuted.' See, the bigger! better! more! culture is actually dominant, and it's we organic food-eating, small-house building, non-name-brand buying people who are actually shunned by the larger marketplace.

Not to mention that, as a geo-libertarian, I believe that all this waste is DIRECTLY harming me and my family -- but that's a whole 'nother story.

[smoogatz]

91. Libertarianism: You do your thing, I'll do mine.

If you step on my toes, we'll have a talk about it. If you're not bothering me, I leave you the fuck alone. That kind of libertarianism.

[IrateCitizen]

98. Oh, the "I'm a Republican who likes to smoke dope" libertarianism...

That's what that sounds like to me. :shrug:

[txaslftist]

39. I'm with Walt.

Sure there are ecological reasons why a person should not consume gluttonously, not to mention theological ones, but really, Walt has earned the right to live in a big house and drive a big car with his own hard labor.

Whatever the incidental cost variable might be between his 4500 square foot house and my 1800 sq foot house, his contribution to the economy (as legitimately measured by what his employers pay him) is great enough to offset it.

Additionally, this is a political board, not a theological one. Political discussions must admit of political solutions. I would submit that any political solution (such as a law banning new construction of homes larger than, say 300sq feet unless you have so many kids per 1000 sq foot) would be laughed out of congress, and would represent the kind of rampant 'nanny-statism' that EVERYONE except the most ardent socialists decries.

Aside from political infeasibility, such a plan would run directly counter to the very positive economic incentives that are realized in giving people the freedom to earn increasing rewards as their wealth increases. You may consider a 4000 sq. foot home to be a 'wasteful McMansion', while in some communities (such as the wealthy parts of Cape Cod), such a home would be modest.

[Cats Against Frist]

72. LOL, as my smart-ass son says:

Walt Starr, I love you, but I don't love you.

I understand that you "earned" what you've bought, but, like the poster above, there's no harm in letting people know what they can do to conserve, and not be so wasteful. I've seen the schematics for your house, that you've posted here -- and it's nice. But, there's no reason why one can't get an almost-as-nice house, with a solar-power/wind-turbine system, that has other economical features. In fact, if you have enough money to buy that much house, I'd say you have little excuse not to...

[Walt Starr]

89. Actually, you've seen the chematics for a house we were considering

We never built it.

Looking at another house now.

[spinbaby]

6. There seem to be an awful lot of them for sale

Maybe the fad for cheaply-build monster houses is almost over.

[Southsideirish]

7. There is one behind my house - 5 bedrooms, 6 fireplaces, 3 floors

-over 1.5 million dollars - for 2 people and from the look of it, they are rarely home.

[1932]

20. They're spending all their time working and commuting to pay the mortgage.

[Carni]

30. Do they have any furniture?

Most of my McMansion relatives don't have furniture.

They try to play it off as they just can't decide on the *right* decor or find the exact *right* items to buy.

They are so full of crap.

[merbex]

113. My inlaws own a moving company - McMansions come only 2 ways

fully loaded with furniture or completely bare (kitchen set, yes bedrooms have Harvard frames on which to put the box spring and mattress - no dressers, and that's it)

[MemphisTiger]

8. Your logic is off here

"My point is this -- stop looking to scapegoat or label people based upon what they drive. It would be far more productive to lambaste people for buying bulk-packs at the wholesale club, which wrap seven layers of plastic around six layers of cardboard around five more layers of plastic, so you can save $3 on a 12 lb. package of Twinkies. WTF? Pay attention, people."

What do you think the grocery store gets the twinkies in? Answer, six layers of plastic. It is not going to make any difference. BTW, I agree with you on the McMansion. And yes I do own an SUV. One of the dumbest purchases I ever made. I try to drive it as little as possible. Who would have thought gas prices would go this high. When my boy was in the WH, I can remember $0.99 gas. I'm just sayin'

[Atman]

13. Uh...wrong.

The twinkies in the grocery store come in individual boxes of twelve or whatever, to be resold. When you buy triple that amount at the wholesale club, they don't simple pack triple the amount in a bigger box...they put three of the original boxes into a larger box, and wrap them both in non-degradable plastic. They do the same whether you're buying DVDs, ink cartridges or Twinkies. Breakfast cereal is another good example...the huge boxes at the Club usually just contain three smaller boxes. You're creating more waste, for what end goal?

It is really all just about THINKING before you purchase ANYTHING, be it a house or a case of Twinkies. I see a lot of animosity already building in this thread. I sense a lot of dems are posting from the den of their 4500 sf house. No problem. I don't hate you and won't egg your house. I'm just pointing out that when people dis me because of a car I purchased because of specific needs, while ignoring so many other fuel-use issues (such as McMansions and mega-plastic packaging), they're just fooling themselves. If we all traded in our SUV's tomorrow, the impact would be merely symbolic. But, if we all took these conservation measures to heart every day, in our real world decision making, THEN we'd stand a chance of seeing some real change.

Hey...it's all I'm saying. You people getting defensive need to ask yourselves "Why?"

[smoogatz]

37. Actually, my house is about 2400 sq. feet, if it's any goddamn business

of yours. And I'm not getting "defensive," I'm getting pissed off. Who the hell are you to tell anyone what kind of house to live in, or where they should buy their fucking twinkies? You're just trying to make yourself feel better about owning an SUV by pushing some of the guilt off on other people. Well, fuck that. If you feel so guilty, sell the goddamn thing or seek counseling or whatever, but spare me the holier-than-thou bullshit. Mm-kay?

[Atman]

43. "but spare me the holier-than-thou bullshit. Mm-kay?"

N'kay, because I didn't give you any holier-than-thou bullshit...mm-kay? The fact that you DID get defensive, despite your rant to the contrary, says a lot about you...mainly that you couldn't simply read my post for what it was. I wasn't attacking you or anyone else, regardless of the size of their home. I was asking YOU and anyone else reading this, what the * the difference is between and "excessive" house and an "excessive" SUV. You seem to get real defensive when I talk about large houses, but don't seem to want to allow me the same defensiveness when someone lumps my small SUV in with Escalades and Excursions. Excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me, Mr. Perfect.

I don't feel guilty in the slightest. I bought the car I bought because I needed it. It is small (S-10 size). It offers a great combination of space (rear folds completely flat for more storage, AND we can (and do) use it as a "camper" on occasion, and toss a futon mattress in back for long getaways.) It is admittedly a "luxury" SUV, with full leather, automatic mirror dimmers and defrosters, sunroof, power everything. We bought it that way on purpose. We didn't want a truck, but needed the space...so we compromised and bought a very nice "truck."

I am truly sorry you cannot read a post without internalizing it, and taking it so personally. You could easily have figured I wasn't even talking about you, as I never mentioned anything smaller than 4500 sf. Maybe YOU'RE feeling guilty that you can't provide for your family better? Okay, OF COURSE YOU'RE NOT. You just wanted to make your point, right? So please allow others to do the same, without taking it as a personal attack. I don't even know you, and have no reason to impugn your life choices. I was speaking to broader issues, not to YOU.

Ease the fuck up.

[smoogatz]

44. My--or anyone else's--"broader life choices" are no business of yours.

I didn't take your post as an "attack"--I took it for what it was: a picky little critique of other people's home-buying decisions. Tsk, tsk--look at those tacky McMansions! I don't own one, so I'm morally superior to all those conspicuous consumers who do! Well, fuck that shit. I hate the whole snotty eat-your-peas ethos that the "I'm better than you" wing of American liberalism seems determined to embrace.

[IrateCitizen]

46. Perhaps our motivation is not one of moral smugness...

... but rather a concern that many aspects of the "American way of life" that we've taken to be a God-given right is wholly unsustainable, in an ecological sense.

Perhaps some of us would prefer if our children did not have to pay the price of dealing with an ecological collapse due to our gluttony.

[smoogatz]

49. The dream of affluence IS the American way of life.

And McMansions aren't the problem. If you guys knew anything about the history of the housing market in this country, you'd know that new homes ALWAYS get bigger during good economic times, and smaller during bad times. Market forces are what drive the housing market, not a lot of moralising about "gluttony." McMansions aren't going to cause ecological collapse, for Chrissakes. You just don't like them because you think they're ugly and you think the people that live in them are despicable social climbers.

[Atman]

60. Well, you've solved the whole issue. Case closed.

You just don't like them because you think they're ugly and you think the people that live in them are despicable social climbers.

What a waste of time this all was. For the record, though, I think many of them are quite beautiful. We just got back from Sedona, AZ, and saw some of the most beautiful, large homes I've ever seen. I'd gladly live in one if I had a few extra million lying around -- and was a glutton who didn't take "larger issues" into account when making such decisions. And since several of my friends live in McMansions, it is also wrong to make the assumption that I find such people "despicable social climbers."

I was making an observation about energy usage, related to the "needs" of people rather than their wants. Period. I didn't dis YOU or Yo Mommaa or anyone else. I was trying to spark a discussion, and perhaps cause a few people to *GASP* think and view things from a slightly different perspective.

I will point out, however, that unlike the SUV thread, virtually no one here has offered any defense of owning a McMansion beyond telling me to shut the fuck up because it's none of my business what home you choose to buy. To which I suppose I could offer any number of similar replies about what type of car I drive.

Again, this thread was about the larger issue of waste and consumption balanced against need and want. Sorry you got your knickers in such a twist, but virtually everything to you've offered me in your replies is simply, flat-out, wrong. And wrong headed. I don't care where you live or what you drive, as YOU moving to a tarpaper shack and riding a bike would do NOTHING to help address the larger point of the thread.

And the larger point of the thread is the point of the thread, not YOU or ME.

[smoogatz]

80. "no one here has offered any defense of owning a McMansion"

Right. My point entirely. They shouldn't have to. If they can afford it and they want/need the space and they don't mind the generic quality a lot of these places have, I don't see what the problem is. As to your energy argument, a big new house with new, energy-efficient appliances is likely to use less energy than a medium-sized, older house with old appliances.

As for your pronouncement that you don't care where I live or what I drive--good. But you do seem to have an issue with "those people" who live in "those houses." My reponse to that is the same--why is it your business? Who are you to judge people and call them gluttons?

[Atman]

87. AARRGGGHHHH!

I really don't care if you listen or not. Or get it. You don't seem to be even trying.

I DON'T CARE. I was making a point, and I think I've made it quite well...the same people who bitch about me driving a car I need have absolutely nothing to say about a family of four living in a 4500 sf house, which is not a "need" by any standard. It is a want, it is something you can afford, it is nice, it is close to school, it is a lot of things. But no one NEEDS that much space. The fact that someone chooses to live in such a house is absolutely their chose, and I have never said otherwise.

I have merely asked over and over again why a large, oversized fuel-hog of a house is given a pass while owners of SUV's are demonized, regardless of the size of the SUV or of the owner's needs. Really. That was all I asked in my original post. You and Carni just don't seem to get that part...I'm not condemning anyone or pointing fingers or anything of the sort.

I started a discussion. Period. Sorry its premise offended you.

[smoogatz]

96. Apology accepted.

And I personally don't have a problem with SUVs. I like mine a lot--though I'm going to dump it in favor of something more efficient. So there.

[IrateCitizen]

73. You're the one who needs to do some research...

McMansions aren't going to cause ecological collapse, for Chrissakes.

By themselves, possibly not. But their spread is certainly a contributing factor, taking away wildlife habitat and the considerable energy and materials spent in building them -- not to mention the outrageous energy expenditures in maintaining them.

But hey, like you said before, nobody here is going to stop you. And I'm just a Luddite who believes that the "American way of life" is an unsustainable pipe dream born out of abundant resources and short-term exploitation of fossil fuels.

[smoogatz]

86. More power to you.

If I could afford it (and the climate here would allow it), I'd convert my house entirely to solar or geo-thermal, too. And I'd drive a bio-diesel powered car, just like you. I'm glad there are people like you around who can serve as an example for the rest of us. Thank you!

[IrateCitizen]

97. Sure, anytime!

Now, if you're ready to put down your tar-covered brush, perhaps you could allow me to refute the fallacious assertions you've raised about me...

First, I don't have solar panels, as I live in a co-op. But I do spend an extra $30 per month to get all of my electricity from hydro and wind power through a program offered by my power company.

And I don't drive a biodiesel car, although I'd like to. I own a 1996 Honda Civic, but rarely drive. My wife has a 2001 VW Cabrio. We live in a town, so we rarely drive for local errands -- instead we walk or ride a bike. I commute to the city by light rail.

The only example I'm trying to serve is one of examining the areas of my life that cause considerable ecological harm or help encourage the push for war in order to maintain a disproportionate amount of the world's resources, and change them. If that's a path some more people try to take, then all the better. If others want to instead try and put me down for raising these issues -- that's their problem, not mine.

Have a nice day. :hi:

[smoogatz]

100. Could you be a little more smug?

You've just proved my point, in spades. This kind of crap is what gives liberalism a bad name.

[IrateCitizen]

105. I'm not a liberal.

I'm a critical Marxist. And before you go tarring that characterization, read a little bit of Horkheimer, Adorno or Marcuse to understand where my perspective is coming from.

IMHO, liberalism is a failed cause, because it operates on the same framework as conservatism. I'm a believer in dialectical materialism as a reference point, which liberalism ignores completely.

But that's another discussion for another time. :D

Oh, and if my "smugness" has bothered you so much... I really couldn't give two shits about it.

[Carni]

70. What is this a freaking commercial for GM?

You started a thread which attacks owners of large homes and warehouse shoppers and then you respond with all this gibberish describing your SUV.

Speaking of WTF? A description of how your futon fits in your S10?

I guess the rationale of starting a thread like this which you had to know at some level would be flame bait and then whining about being attacked when people get pissy...completely escapes me.

[Atman]

74. Carni, you and I are done

You apparently don't want to actually read any of my posts in their entirety, and instead like to pick out keywords around which you are making these absurd connections. If you aren't going to even try to do anything but flame me and take everything I say out of context, then wtf is the point? This thread has gone all over the place, and the "NEED" for a vehicle was addressed. You asked me if I had an SUV (although I had clearly stated that I did, several times), so for some reason I thought I owed you the courtesy of a response. I pointed out one of the things that I liked about my choice of vehicles, and how it filled one of my "NEEDS"...I can camp in it, too. Period. No WTF about it, unless you're deliberately just trying to stir up shit.

So, I think you and I have nothing more to say to each other unless you wish to actually respond to my actual points, and not make up your own tangents.

[Jersey Devil]

121. Plus when you buy the big packages at Costco you get no bags

They don't bag anything in paper or plastic. You either find a box they are going to recyle (and then recycle it at home) anyway or just throw everything you your trunk and bring it home.

[MemphisTiger]

125. I throw everything in my trunk and take it home

or I use one of the complementary carboard boxes to keep it from sliding around in my trunk. These can easily be resused by just keeping it in your trunk. :)

[Atman]

127. Since we can't seem to let go of the Costco angle...

Of course you don't get bags. It saves them money, which they ostensibly pass on to you, Joe Consumer. But what I was saying, literally, to OP was to look at the packaging you bring home (in those boxes, without bags). Sure, you don't have a .001 mil plastic bag do deal with (like, re-using for a bathroom wastebasket, perhaps?), but look at the twin pack of ink carts you just bought...you have the original packaging blister-packed in another heavy plastic display, which also includes cardboard backers. You don't have a tiny little .001 mil plastic bag to carry home, but you know have a super-thick, uncrumplable hunk of heavy-duty plastic to contend with. Do you know the PET codes for all your various recyclables, or does your town take anything you throw on the curb? Or do you *gasp* merely throw the plastic in the trash can?

What have you saved? A couple dollars and a .001 (reusable) plastic bag in exchange for twice as much packaging which is a pain to open, a pain to dispose of, and consumes ten times more energy to produce.

The OP can laugh off my remarks about Costco, as they were originally intended to be nothing more than a challenge remark, about consistency, but the FACT that they seem to wish to ignore is, the warehouse clubs waste huge amounts of resources in their bulk packaging. Don't whine about my SUV, which I need, while claiming that Costco is angelic. No big company is angelic. I am glad Costco balances out their karma with good treatment of employees, but that doesn't lessen the amount of packaging it uses. Period. Nothing the OP wants to throw at me will change that.

And that is all I was saying, no matter what OP heard. Be consistent.

[kittenpants]

129. Why do you hate Costco....

and America, and puppies? puppy-kicker! ;-)

[MemphisTiger]

132. The puppy kicker is funny

:rofl:

[lukasahero]

9. How about we just "stop looking to scapegoat or label people"?

You are being just as judgemental about the size of people's homes (and equally arrogant suggesting that "It is downright impossible to argue that anyone "needs" this much space". Seems it's ok with you to "label people" for one thing as long as it's something that doesn't affect you.

I say we just stop trying to label people period.

[Atman]

15. *sigh*

You are being just as judgemental about the size of people's homes (and equally arrogant suggesting that "It is downright impossible to argue that anyone "needs" this much space". Seems it's ok with you to "label people" for one thing as long as it's something that doesn't affect you.

I'm sorry you so totally missed my point. I'm not dissing or labeling anyone. I was making an illustrative argument about why the labeling of people is misguided. Merely offering an example is not in and of itself "labeling" anyone.

[ultraist]

28. I agree. I'm tired of this judgmental, labeling BS

It's one thing to have a discussion about American's consumer habits, it's another to engage in calling people stupid based soley on what car they drive or the square footage of their home.

Stupid is voting Republican. Stupid is voting for anti-envio acts, pro war resolutions, anti-working people legislation, and other selfish, greedy, destructive policies that have world wide, broad sweeping implications.

Enough of the cliche stereotyping. And to those who say I'm "stupid" because I drive a SUV (I do need a truck for work) and live in a house over "1800 square feet," fuck off.

I'm a far left Democrat who donates not only to Dem causes, but to other charitable causes. I volunteer, I mentor, recycle, have less vehicle gas usage than the average, and I vote AGAINST my personal financial best interests, as well take other liberal actions.

[catmandu57]

10. Excess is excess

whether we're talking about vehicles or houses, or eating. Excess seems to be an american way of life, one that I don't agree with, but I'm not going to go burn down houses or carslots and such.
When people go past the point of affordability it usually comes home and bites them in the ass, like people now crying when they fill their tank, and pay their utility bill.
Sometimes pain is the best teacher.

[IrateCitizen]

12. SUV's and McMansions are by-products of an autocentric landscape...

... combined with the longing for the days of "frontier freedom" etched into the American experience.

If we want to stop the negative effects of SUV's AND McMansions, then we need to radically change the way we push development. As it is now, everything is geared toward oversized single-family homes and auto-dependence. However, it doesn't have to be that way.

Two good books to read on this are James Howard Kunstler's The Geography of Nowhere and Home from Nowhere. Personally, I find Kunstler to be rather arrogant, but these books do an excellent job at describing how we got to this point of a landscape of cul-de-sac developments and strip malls without an inkling of community, and what we can do to arrest it and create more livable spaces.

dcfirefighter also started a recent thread on the Land Value Tax, which is an excellent way to reverse the negative effects of sprawl. Essentially, it is a shift from taxing buildings to taxing land -- which would make the single-family suburban house or shopping mall much more expensive than the downtown boutique or rowhouse within town limits.

[Walt Starr]

147. You know, I live in a blue state, but any politician here who spoke like

that would lose huge.

sorry if you don't like it,m but then again, Marxism is a failed philosophy relegated to the dustbin of history.

[Mr.Green93]

14. We could solve homelessness

if these HOGHOME owners were forced to subdivide and provide some space to the needy. They wouldn't miss the lost sq. footage. How much do they need?

[1932]

19. Some stats about McMansions:

- the size of avg. family has decreased from 3.15 to 2.64 people from 1970 to 1997, but the size of the average home has increased from 1500 sq ft to 2,150. So the avg sq ft per person has increased from 478 to 814.

- in 2002, 30% of houses sold were over 2400 sq ft, up from 18% in 1986. The average size of their garages (700 ft) is bigger than the homes that were built in Levittown.

McMansions drive up the price of land (they take up more land, decreasing supply, making it more expensive for everyone else).

Even if you wanted to buy an enviornmentally and socially responsible house, many suburbs forbid it with regulations requring minimum sq feet or restrict multi-family dwellings.

In addition to zoning exclusions for housing for lower income people, many governments subsidize construction of housing through tax breaks. In 2000, 18% of housing subsidies went to households with incomes of 9000 dollars or less and 63% went to families with average incomes over $123,000. Those are subisidies that support McMansion building.

Complaining about SUVs and McMansions shouldn't be an either/or thing: McMansions require land that is usually far from where people work out in the exurbs. As the size of our houses grow, people's commutes grow too -- 7% from 1983 to 1990. From 1970 to 1989 the number of cars on the road increased by 90% while road capacity only increased by less than 4%.

From 1990 to 1992, a ten mile LA commute increased from 20 to 35 minutes.

The amount of time spent commuting rose from 2.7 billion vehicle hours in 1985 to 11.9 billion vehicle hours today. That's great for oil companies, cell phone companies and Clear Channel, Sirius and other radio stations, but, according to a study in 1997, commuting causes a loss of about 100 billion dollars in annual productivity. It's also time that would be better spent with your family, if not working.

So, the more people try to escape the congestion of the city, the more they confront congested traffic.

Another study showed that for every ten minutes people spend commuting, they reduce their community involvement (bowling leagues, League of Women Voters membership, volunteering, etc.) by 10%.

Want to read more? This is from The Health of Nations by Kawachi and Kennedy.

[Cats Against Frist]

93. Awesome stats, thanks!

:hi:

[Fescue4u]

21. Im an American

I don't "need" a reason.

yea, your plan will certainly flood the ranks of the Democratic party.

NOT

[Sgent]

23. Here's an easy one

Require your McMansion to meet EPA/DOE Energy Star Guidelines for new home construction.

You'll save a lot in the long run -- but it may cost 5% more for construction in the short run.

[IrateCitizen]

35. But that 5% cuts into a developer's profits...

That's why developers are into putting up the biggest houses they can in the most inexpensive (I say "cheap") manner possible.

[SmokingJacket]

25. I hate waste of all kinds.

Heating/cooling unused rooms, driving around unused and unnecessary cargo space, pouring fresh water on a lawn no one ever sits on or enjoys.

WASTE is the culprit. Real human pleasure is worth paying for, but waste is not.

Frankly, I think most people would be just as happy living in one of these houses, if not more happy (less to clean!): http://www.tumbleweedhouses.com/houses.htm

[Mr.Green93]

33. Interesting link

Thanks.

[greendog]

45. Here's another link to check out...

...these are a little bigger than the "tumbleweeds", but still much smaller than what most people have become convinced they "need".



http://www.cottagecompany.com/cctscgallery2.html

[Carni]

26. Oh please...too much plastic wrap at the food warehouses?

I drive a sedan and I live in a 1400 sq foot house--I don't eat twinkies but I DO buy other things in bulk because it's cheaper.

Lately I need to save that 3 extra bucks so WTF?!?! right back at you.

[Atman]

31. Yes, too much plastic at the food warehouse.

I understand you're needing to save $3, believe me. It changes nothing about the way Costco and BJ's package their wares. Think about it next time you unwrap your purchase from them. Virtually everything at the wholesale club is double-packaged. At least.

[Carni]

36. Oh well let me boycott Costco then

Perhaps I will just become a naturist and go around nude so that I don't waste any natural fibers or cause the death of any plants while I am at it.

Then I will quit my job and go live in a commune somewhere.

So you're telling me you find the wasteful nature of plastic wrapped products that people buy at Costco because they want to save three bucks, more offensive than some yuppie driving a gas guzzling SUV?

As someone said earlier in the string...so how big is your SUV?

[Atman]

56. Where did you read THAT?

So you're telling me you find the wasteful nature of plastic wrapped products that people buy at Costco because they want to save three bucks, more offensive than some yuppie driving a gas guzzling SUV?

Jesus, is there a reading comprehension problem on DU today? Where on earth did I even remotely indicate that Costco's bulk packaging is more offensive than some yuppie driving a gas-guzzling SUV? Please, I'd love to know. I never said any such thing, however, I DID point out that warehouse clubs use excessive packaging, as part of a thread about consumer waste and energy waste. Did I miss something somewhere? What is this thing about me trying to compensate for my SUV? So few people in this thread have actually addressed the issue I raised it is amazing. That issue, btw, is that of energy-hog McMansions as opposed to energy-hog SUV's. Consumer packaging was thrown in as an aside, and certainly was never used to lessen the impact of SUV's.

Jesus H. Christ...I thought this was DU. I thought we were supposed to be more in tune than the average bear...yet I feel like I'm trapped in a freeper thread with some of the bizarro responses being offered!

Can't we focus on the topic, and NOT on me or my personal choice of vehicles? This isn't about ANYONE'S personal choice of anything...it is about the broader issues of waste and conservation. A LOT of defensive people in this thread!

[Carni]

61. SO...Do YOU or DON'T YOU own an SUV?

Simple question isn't it?

I have already qualified the fact that I own neither a large heat sucking McMansion, NOR an SUV.

I do however contribute to the gluttonous consumption of plastic wrap promoted by lazy, selfish, ignorant people at food warehouses
(per your implied *WTF??* statement about twinkies and bulk shoppers)

You started the thread not me. You are the one who made the smart assed remark about food warehouses (Costco BTW is a totally blue company which is part of the reason I shop there and put up with their criminal use of plastic wrap)

[Atman]

65. Take a Xanax, for Christ's sake!

I have stated more times than I can count so far that, indeed, I do own what is considered a "light truck." In the other thread, I also spoke of my problem with the term SUV to denote all vehicles that are apparently not passenger "cars" or "minivans." My small SUV is considerably smaller than a Chrysler Minivan. It is not even in the same world as an Expedition, yet bot the Expedition and my S-10 class are both considered "SUV's." That is what started this whole thing...people will happily bash "SUVs" without giving a moment's thought to what actually consitutes and SUV. Is a Hyundai Tuscon the same, in your mind, as a Cadillac Escalade? Both are SUV's. As is the new Subaru wagon, the Tribeca. Where to you draw the line?

With a vehicle, as opposed to a house, it is far more a matter of need vs. want. While I might NEED to haul a lot of stuff, and therefore NEED a light truck, you simply cannot tell me that any family of four NEEDS a 4500 sf house. Period. There is no rational explanation for "NEEDING" such a home that is not rooted in tax issues. Which, of course, are not "NEEDS," except to your accountant. They're investment choices.

Back to the car, I already have a very small car which I use MOST of the time -- a 1995 Ford Escort. I NEEDED a larger car to replace our minivan, because we travel and haul stuff. The SUV fills several needs with one vehicle, at a reasonable cost. If I could afford it, I'd also own a California Emissions Civic (gets nearly as good mileage as a hybrid, an is considered "zero emissions"), but I cannot take on more debt, more do I want to. So there.

As for your hang-up on Costco...why are you so focused on this ridiculous aside? I never claimed you ate twinkies; I never claimed you or any warehouse club shoppers were fat and lazy. If you can point out where I did, I'll apologize. I merely pointed out, in a thread concerning waste, that warehouse clubs double and triple wrap most of the products, and that this is an unnessary contributor to the overall WASTE proble. Hell, I shop at Costco. But I try to be quite careful about what I buy.

Relax, Carni. Shop till you drop. But stop putting words in my mouth, and just listen to the ones I'm actually saying instead.

[kittenpants]

85. now we're supposed to feel guilty about shopping at Costco?

I recycle the packaging for God's sake! I love the idea of posting a supposed "don't judge others" thread based on the premise of judging others?!:crazy:

[Atman]

95. Just read the posts, dammit.

Carni made the absurd Costco remark, not me. I think it is stupid, too, but Carni seems to insist on taking individual remarks out of context in order to stir up shit which was never said. I challenge you, also, to find anywhere where I said "don't shop at Costco." I mentioned the double and triple-packaging, which, if you shop at Costco, you simply cannot deny without lying. It is a fact of life with warehouse stores. Sorry my pointing it out derailed your thought processes. But my thread is not and never has been about Costco in any way shape or form.

[kittenpants]

102. You said it's more productive to judge people for shopping

at a warehouse store in your original post. I was mostly joking to begin with, but your condescending tone is pretty annoying. You didn't "derail my thought" process; you just didn't make you point very clearly. You are saying don't judge, but pointing out that if we ARE going to judge, let's judge people who live in big houses or shop at warehouse stores. Don't try to defend your point. I GET IT. We're not stupid. You're just inarticulate.

[Atman]

108. You were "mostly joking," so then, you were part "not joking."

My tone comes more from the continued misuse of my remarks. You seemed to pile on even after I addressed the Costco non-sequitur many times. Your comment seemed totally pointless, and just added to keep the flames going. If I'm wrong, then read back through the other ridiculous statements attributed to me, and cut me some slack for copping a 'tude.

I honestly don't know how otherwise smart, thinking people could read my post and claim I was judging anyone, or advocating boycotting Costco.

Ever heard phrases like "You might as well be selling ice cubes to Eskimoes!" Having heard it, did you jump on the person for how stupid they are for suggesting that Eskimoes need ice cubes? Same goes for the Costco remark...it was an aside, it was not the central point. Yet you and Carni and so many others seemed to want to make my thread about Costco. Christ! Even after I repeatedly said it was NOT about that...so, when you jumped in after the fact, sure, it ticked me off.

Again, again and again, I am not judging anyone. I wrote my post after several posters blasted all SUV owners as assholes who hate the environment and want to show off. Why is my small SUV as bad as an Excursion, but a huge house is not a waste when only four people live in it? That was it. That was the entire point of my post.

And I've still yet to receive one single answer to that question, just a lot of flames from people thinking I'm telling them how to run their lives. Jesus H. Christ. Some days it just doesn't pay to post.

[Carni]

111. Oh yeah? Explain what THIS means then?

Your original warehouse shopping comment:

"My point is this -- stop looking to scapegoat or label people based upon what they drive. It would be far more productive to lambaste people for buying bulk-packs at the wholesale club, which wrap seven layers of plastic around six layers of cardboard around five more layers of plastic, so you can save $3 on a 12 lb. package of Twinkies. WTF? Pay attention, people."


Your direct reference to Costco here:

"Yes, too much plastic at the food warehouse.
I understand you're needing to save $3, believe me. It changes nothing about the way Costco and BJ's package their wares. Think about it next time you unwrap your purchase from them."

I'm twisting your words? Yeah right--you started an inflammatory thread against owners of large homes and people who shop at bulk food warehouses asking them to *justify* their behavior and now you're all bent out of shape because you have poked a hornet's nest.

BTW don't start with the "I must be at freerepublic" bullshit again either because it's totally inane.

[Atman]

114. No.

You've obviously not listened to one word I said, and are not about to. I am sorry we couldn't have an intelligent discussion. I was speaking very literally. Think about all the wrapping you are throwing away next time you shop at Costco. Period. Literally. Nothing metaphorical, no deeper point. Costco, BJ's, Sam's, all of them...warehouse stores double and triple package. Period. Fact of life. If you see it as some sort of slap to you, I'm not sure what I can tell you. I was only point out a fact. As I said -- LITERALLY -- it changes nothing about the way Costoc and BJ's package their wares. Honest. Re-read the thread and then make a trip to Costco...everything will STILL be double and triple packaged. Nothing will have changed.

Amazing thing about words...they often simply mean what they say.

[HereSince1628]

27. McMansions, often being new are better insulated and more

efficiently heated than much smaller older homes.

So, a similar argument can be made there too. I have a large appearing new house based on Frank Lloyd Wright's D.D. Martin house that many would call a McMansion, primarily because it has extensive wrap-around porches that give the roof a rather large square footage.

BUT, even though it has twice as much glass (mostly from the floor to ceiling contribution of glass in one room with an 17 foot ceiling) as my SO's 1939 30 ftx 28 ft brick Cape Cod of similar square footage living space. My house uses much much less energy to heat, because her home's windows are the traditional single sheets of glass, and she has almost NO insulation in walls with 4" thick cavities. My new home has nominally 6" thick walls filled with foam and the windows are double paned with a heat reflective membrane in the middle. The basement is foam insulated inside and out to provide R-25 on the walls and there is foam under the basement floor.

My point is none of these comparisons is simple. Equipment that seems efficient may not be, and lifestyle differences that impact a person's energy intensity make generalizations difficult.

[maxsolomon]

29. NO ONE IS TELLING YOU WHAT YOU CAN DO

the only person who should tell you what to do it YOURSELF.

your CONSCIENCE should not permit you you drive an H2 a mile to the 7-11 for a big gulp, let alone 30 miles each way to work.

your CONSCIENCE should tell you that a 5000SF, 5 bedroom home with a 3 car garage, heated by natural gas, filled with oversized furniture made in the third world, with a giant lawn that must be mowed, and inhabited by 3.5 people, 2 cats, and a lab IS NOT NECCESSARY.

people, we're taling about the future of the planet here. other countries want to live like us. if they do, the earth changes, and we all die.

speaking for myself, i would like to be able to see countryside within 50 miles of Seattle. not just cul-de-sacs of ticky tacky & golf course mcmansions.

[no_to_war_economy]

34. my point of the SUV thread is

read mark morford every wednesday and friday, he is funny as hell

:rofl:

[Seabiscuit]

38. You can't equate SUVs with McMansions with platic wrapping

And there's nothing wrong with bashing SUV's.

Plastic wrappings in bulk stores such as Costco - your objection here appears to be that plastic is not biodegradable - well that's what recycling bins are for - recycle plastics and they don't end up in the ground.

McMansions - 4500 sq. ft. is not that large these days. Sure there are people who buy such houses who arguably don't "need" this much space. But I own a house with 3700 sq. ft. in a community where if I had 3 kids instead of 2 I might need 4500 sq. ft. What I own is ideal for hubby, wife and 2 kids plus a guest room (we house guests on a regular basis) and home office. I would need an extra bedroom with a 3rd kid. And no, we don't run the gas heater constantly. Electricity, OTOH, consumes no gasoline, and does not pollute. And we don't use anything in the lawn or garden areas which pollute the ground or water base. Use of pollutants (beyond gas heaters which should be replaced as soon as non-gas heaters become available economically) isn't inherent with large houses. You've exaggerated the drawbacks of larger houses.

The biggest problems with SUV's are that they are gas guzzlers, getting on the average under 15 mpg (consuming an inordinate amount of a resource that will some day disappear, and contributing inordinately to air pollution and the green-house effect), and are less safe on the road to both driver and other drivers than are sedans. A while ago I saw a link on DU to an article that detailed dozens of reasons why SUV's should be banned. NO ONE *needs* an SUV. The world got along just fine without them before they were invented. You need hauling power? Get a small pickup truck with better gas mileage. You need more passenger room or cargo space? Get a station wagon or minivan, both of which get better mileage on average than SUV's on average (and most minivans have more cargo space as well as seating space than most SUV's). There is no exaggerating the drawbacks of SUV's - SUV's are totally unnecessary and cause a lot of unnecessary damage to the environment.

[IrateCitizen]

40. There is absolutely no way you "need" 3700 sq ft...

... of house for a 4-member family. Rather, you "chose" to purchase that large of a house because you wanted all the extra space.

Your use of the word "need" here is not much different from a child saying that they "need" a candy bar in the grocery checkout. You don't "need" it, you "wanted" it -- there's a HUGE difference.

If you choose to live in a house that large, that's your choice. However, don't try to portray it as a "need" and not expect to be called on your disingenuity.

[Seabiscuit]

47. Well, if there were a smaller house available on the market in the

general neighborhood I would have bought it, but there wasn't. We moved here to be close to one of the best public school systems in the state. In order for one's kids to enter it, you need to reside in certain neighborhoods. That was the first priority. We got what was available at the time. So size was not the first consideration.

Oh, sure, we could have rented a one bedroom apartment and lived in squalor, but oh, what the hell- we're such wastrels. ::heh heh::

And we contribute virtually nothing to the pollution problem (which is the subject of this thread). We don't own and never would own an SUV. And we don't buy Hostess Twinkies in any size. And we recycle. And we're planning on installing solar panels.

[smoogatz]

50. You shouldn't have to defend yourself.

It's presumptuous in the extreme for anyone to critique your choice of housing. You bought the best house you could afford in the neighborhood you wanted. End of story.

[Gormy Cuss]

59. Nope. We are responsible for our choices.

Buying the 'best house you could afford" is the reason for the proliferation of larger houses in this country. Seabiscuit stated the "need" for a 3700 SF house, and that's just silly for a family of four. Among the "needs" apparently are dedicated office and guest rooms. Those aren't needs, they're lifestyle choices. Seabiscuit suggested that a squalid one bedroom apartment was the only other choice, and that was begging for criticism.

I do appreciate that this size house was what the market offered in the area where Seabiscuit wanted to live and as such it was probably a smart investment. The question I have is, what would it take to recreate demand for smaller, more efficient housing?

[smoogatz]

67. Higher interest rates.

As to the first part of your post, you still haven't made the case against larger houses. They take up more space? So what? They burn more resources? Maybe, maybe not. A big, efficient house in a moderate climate would burn less fuel than a medium-sized, ineddicient house in a cold or arid climate. Besides, it's really not your place to decide what kind of houses the rest of us get to live in. Sorry.

As to the "reason for the proliferation of larger houses in this country;" it's all market driven. Low interest rates and pressure on older housing stock have driven the McMansion phenomenon; it didn't just wish itself into being.

[Gormy Cuss]

107. Pardon me, I wasn't trying to make that case in the post

A big house, no matter how efficiently built, no matter the climate, will have a larger impact that smaller one built to the same standards. Comparing a big energy efficient house to a smaller one with less efficiency does not address whether the great square footage is a need or a desire. If you feel justified in choosing a larger home, fine, but that doesn't make it need-based. As for my place to decide what you get to live in, this is a discussion board, and I am expressing my opinion, not telling you what to do. I object only to the notion that this amount of space is "needed." The reality is that average square footages are increasing as average household sizes are declining. Does each child "need" a private bedroom? Does a family of four "need" 3 or 4 baths? Do any of us "need" a 1000 SF master suite with dual walk-in closets? I don't think so. We may want it, we may have the income to afford it, but that doesn't make it a need.

In addition to the reasons you mentioned, the McMansion trend was driven by the strong economy of the 1990s, zoning and community planning decisions, dramatic shifts in mortgage financing strategies, cocooning, and a host of other factors. I don't believe I suggested it wished itself into being. I do believe that corporate and government actions can influence such trends, and my question was meant in that vein.

[smoogatz]

126. Depends on the definition of need.

I mean, what we NEED is a fire and someplace to get out of the wind. We WANT a place where we're a little more comfortable than that. I do, at least. So we're really all talking about varying ideas of what it's appropriate to want--because what we really need is, let's face it, pretty fucking basic. My feeling is as follows (and I'm posting it for the last time because I think what we have here is a pretty fundamental failure to communicate): it's mighty presumptuous for you (or anyone else) to tell me (or anyone else) what kind of house it's appropriate for me (or anyone else) to want. You want what you want, I want what I want. If you're impacting the environment more than a guy living in a lean-to under an overpass, we're just talking about matters of degree. Which means you're not taking a stand based on principle--you're just bitching because you dislike the fact that some people choose to live in bigger houses than yours. That said--would I personally choose to live in a McMansion? No. But I wouldn't presume to tell anyone else whether they should or shouldn't.

[Gormy Cuss]

137. Actually, we agree on need.

That is my point. We all make choices. We all make tradeoffs. I didn't intend to tell you what you want. That's the job of marketing departments.
Please remember, I'm voicing my opinion on needs vs. wants. Period.

[Atman]

130. Excellent post

Thanks. A voice of sanity, who seems to understand what the thread was about!

[Seabiscuit]

68. Please don't put words in my mouth.

You falsely state: "Seabiscuit stated the "need" for a 3700 SF house." I didn't say that.

What I said about "need" was: "I would need an extra bedroom with a 3rd kid." And I do not think that allowing each child to have his or her own bedroom is an unnecessary luxury, when you can afford it.

You further state: "Among the 'needs' apparently are dedicated office and guest rooms. Those aren't needs, they're lifestyle choices."

Bullshit. I work out of my house as a semi-retired lawyer. I *need* an office. In fact, I need not just one but two office spaces. So I converted a downstairs bedroom into one office, and the third garage of a 3-car garage into a second office. And I have *one* guest room, not "guest rooms". It happens to be a *need* in my family because my wife's family is dispersed and they visit often - e.g. most live in Peru and they stay with us when visiting relatives in the U.S. - so we're really in effect, most of the time, a family of 6, not a family of 4, because the one guest room is almost always in use by someone in her family.

You further falsely state: "Seabiscuit suggested that a squalid one bedroom apartment was the only other choice, and that was begging for criticism."

I didn't suggest that as "the only other choice". I was joking by making an extreme comparison.

At least you acknowledge that my choices were extremely limited and I chose the most reasonably priced and smallest house available in the neighborhood at the time we moved. It is by no means a "mansion". There are quite a lot of real "mansions" in the area, and I could have afforded to buy one but had no "need" for one. What I needed was a safe neighborhood for children in the public school district I chose for my children. Real estate prices happen to be relatively high in this school district, and with demand high for available housing, there isn't a lot of choice on the market at any given time.

Finally, you close with: "The question I have is, what would it take to recreate demand for smaller, more efficient housing?"

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but it's not going to happen in this school district.

My life right now is dedicated primarily to the welfare of my children, my wife, and her large family. I think my choices in that regard have been spot on, and I owe no apologies to anyone.

Since owning the house I purchased isn't harming anyone or anything (and I pollute the environment far less than the average American) I don't see why anyone would want to bitch about my choices unless it's out of sheer jealousy.

[Gormy Cuss]

135. I apologize if I misinterpreted your comment on space needs.

As I said, I am not criticizing your choice to buy a house of that size in order to live in the area where you do. You said you had a dedicated guest room. If it's mostly occupied than it's not really excess space. As for the offices, not all home offices are principal business locations. You made the choice to locate a business in your home and that created more space demand. It's probably a much more efficient choice than an offsite office, too. It seems that your choice for a house of this size was based on several factors not obvious in your earlier posting.
Also as I said before I appreciate that you bought a large house in an area of large houses because it suited your goal to locate in a good school district. Consider this: if the area where you desired to live had average house sizes of 2500 SF and zoning restrictions which would inhibit expansion, and the areas with larger houses were either too expensive or had inferior schools, would you find a way to make the smaller house fit your needs in order to live in the area with good schools? That is why I'm trying to address in terms of needs.

We all make tradeoffs. If I could buy a smaller house in my area without sacrificing resale value I would. Since one's primary residence is not just a home but a significant investment, it's hard to justify buying the tiny 2 BR ranch when the typical house is a 4 BR. My house is the average size house in average condition in an area with a top school district. That's my tradeoff.

[Seabiscuit]

148. OK. Answer:

If it were at all feasible, I would make the smaller house fit my needs. The school district is my paramount concern.

[Seabiscuit]

76. Thank you for stating what should be obvious.

[IrateCitizen]

83. Nobody's holding a gun to your heads forcing you to stay in this thread.

Saying that you feel like you have to "defend yourself" is a crock of shit. You chose to be in this thread, same as I did.

If you disagree with what some of us are saying, you have two choices -- leave and STFU, or stay and offer a counter argument. But this whining about having to defend the consumer choices you make is just plain juvenile.

Then again, I forget that this is GDF, where the juvenile reigns supreme.... :shrug:

[Seabiscuit]

92. Oh, brother. No one's forcing you to flame me, either.

"Saying that you feel like you have to "defend yourself" is a crock of shit."

What's a "crock of shit" is your phony claim that I ever said that.

I don't have to leave and STFU. I have given my counter argument to your bullshit distortions of my words by calling you on your BS and setting the record straight.

You're the only one "whining" here, hypocrite.

[IrateCitizen]

101. My response was to smoogatz, not you...

But if you have such a hard time with "flames", then perhaps you'd do better to just not get involved in the discussion.

I, for one, don't take it personally anytime someone who I don't even know steps on my toes on an internet discussion board.

From my perspective, you've set nothing straight -- you've engaged in rationalizations. But that's just my perspective, which is obviously different from your perspective.

[Seabiscuit]

115. Setting the record straight with the truth is just "rationalizations"????

Both you and Smoogatz were talking about me.

Since all you can do is lie and distort and insult, i.e., "flame", then this discussion is over. You're not worth the time of day.

[IrateCitizen]

118. Ahhh, no! Please come back!

Since all you can do is lie and distort and insult, i.e., "flame", then this discussion is over. You're not worth the time of day.

That really hurt my feelings, Seabiscuit. I won't be able to sleep tonight unless we can get past this animosity!

[IrateCitizen]

71. So, you run most of your errands by walking then?

And we contribute virtually nothing to the pollution problem (which is the subject of this thread). We don't own and never would own an SUV. And we don't buy Hostess Twinkies in any size. And we recycle. And we're planning on installing solar panels.

Do you walk or ride a bike for most of your local errands, or do you have to get into a car and drive? Something tells me that if you live in a neighborhood where the smallest available house was 3700 sq ft, you have to drive almost everywhere you go.

If that's the case (and I'm just assuming here based on converging factors), then it doesn't matter whether or not you own an SUV. In fact, a person that has an SUV but does most of their local errands by walking/biking contributes less pollution than someone who goes everywhere in their Toyota Prius.

Finally, you said in your previous post that a 3700 sq ft house was what you NEEDED, and that if you had 3 kids, you would have NEEDED a 4800 sq ft house. Your words, not mine. I was simply stating that a 3700 sq ft house was a WANT, not anything approaching a NEED, and I still stand by that remark -- regardless of school district considerations.

Solar panels are a good thing to do, without a doubt. If I had a house (I currently live in a co-op), I would get them -- along with passive solar heating/cooling and a passive solar water heater. Another thing you might want to consider to cut down on pollution (just a suggestion) is membership in an agricultural co-op. That way, you won't have to expend massive amounts of energy (along with attendant pollution) getting food some 1500-2000 miles from the farm to your plate, and you'll help a local organic farmer in the process.

[Seabiscuit]

82. Well, gosh, yes, I do drive a 30 mpg subcompact and I have been known

to fly places in airplanes. Gawrsh. My bad. I do not drive some gas guzzling SUV which gets 12 mpg, though.

You've also misquoted me about need. Reread my original post and read the post I addressed to the other person misquoting and mischaracterizing me about "need".

There are a lot of agricultural areas nearby, and there's an organic farmer's market about a mile from our house, where we shop. Two miles, round trip. 1/15 of a gallon of gas.

[IrateCitizen]

103. You're missing my point on vehicle usage...

In fact, you played right into it with the following:
Two miles, round trip. 1/15 of a gallon of gas.

Why do you have to drive it if it's only two miles, round trip? I myself own a Honda Civic that can get up to 38 mpg on the highway, but I don't drive it around town -- I walk or bike instead.

When the weather's nice, isn't it much better for you and your family to walk that distance instead of driving? It's much better for the environment, too. Those short trips actually burn MORE gas because your engine is not properly warmed up and gets terrible gas mileage while cold.

[Seabiscuit]

112. Try carrying 6 bags of groceries on a bicycle then tell me how to live.

I, for one, am not a Chinese acrobat.

So I shouldn't drive because my fuel-efficient car doesn't get quite the same gas mileage yours does????

This discussion is degenerating into the absurd.

[IrateCitizen]

122. Ever hear of a cart? Like people in cities use?

What about a radio flyer wagon?

If your kids are little, don't you think it's fun for them to go to the market being pulled in the radio flyer wagon that you use to carry bags of stuff on the way home?

I'm just throwing ideas out there -- the same kind of things that I think about in trying to reduce my own ecological footprint. It's your choice as to whether or not you want to pay them any mind.

[MemphisTiger]

52. I would disagree that electricity produces no pollution

When generated, weather it is a fossil fuel generation or nuclear it produces pollution. Unless it's hydro generated.

[Seabiscuit]

63. I was speaking of hydro generated electricity, of course.

[MemphisTiger]

64. Ahh, then some would argue that it produces other

ecological problems due to the damming of the water.

[Seabiscuit]

75. Well, let them bitch all they want. I don't personally give a rat's ass.

[MemphisTiger]

84. Okayyyy, I was just making a point

[Seabiscuit]

94. OK, point taken. :) n/t

[Booster]

41. You're right on the mark about housing. Here in L.A. it's extremely

obvious because in a middle income neighborhood, there will be several palaces that will take up their entire lot; no front yard, no backyard and the legal 5' between the sides. These houses look so out of place and every time I see one I say "who the Hell needs a house that big in a neighborhood like this. And the new developments springing up are all two story monsters that all look alike. These houses aren't cheap either, but to run the utilities in each one is going to be huge, not to mention the use of water, which in my opinion is going to be the next crisis just like oil. We really are a country of glutony and we need to start re-thinking what we really need and not just what we want.

[smoogatz]

51. Good point about the water.

I've spent some time in LA recently, and it's just amazing to me that EVERYONE has a pool (even tiny little bungalows out in the Valley) and a sprinkler system, in the middle of what is essentially a desert. Why we don't insist on grey-water systems for homes in arid climates is beyond me.

[MemphisTiger]

53. It depends on where you are

in my area, water is abundant without any end in sight. I'm not saying we'll never use all of it, but it will be quite a ways in the future at the current rate.

[Booster]

57. Yeah, I agree it depends on where you are, but out here we really

need to start working on using less water before our very lives depend on it. I totally agree about the "gray" water, but I promise you there are people out here who would say "yuk, I'm not watering my yard with that stuff". Hell, we don't even make an attempt to catch rain water; it's either feast (last year's rainfall) or famine (right now) with rain. Again, sigh, it's all about money.

[etherealtruth]

42. How about looking at estimates of our ecological footprint?

It's not about any one choice, it's about lifestyles ...

Check your impact out here:
http://www.mec.ca/Apps/ecoCalc/ecoCalc.jsp

I am a big fan of the sociobiologist E.O. Wilson, in his book "The Future of Life" he addresses Western (especially American) squandering of the planets resources and the impact on the future of all life on this planet.

[Cleita]

55. Well, I for one wouldn't want one.

Who wants to do that much cleaning? I'd rather have more yard, not for a bigger lawn but for plants including edible ones. My family and I live on two and a half acres. Their house is small by today's standards, being it was built in the early sixties. My house is a small one bedroom mobile. Mostly we have several gardens and have planted the majority with trees on two acres. The other half acre is part of a natural woods that extends up a ravine on the neighbor's property. It's home to a variety of birds. Trees are wonderful as shade, windbreaks and flood control. We don't water them at all when they are established as they get enough during the rainy season

[Hardrada]

62. Maybe "tear downs" are actually a good idea.

I see them a lot in Chicago suburbs. Two older presumably less heat efficient homes are torn down and a Mcmansion is put up. But usually neatly landscaped and not wrecking any more of the environment. If people could stay more within existing urban and suburban confines. And also continue converting old structures like churches and businesses originally for other uses. I think people could sensibly build out further if they could rely on light rail and interurban railways. I think some sensible nations like Sweden do put restrictions on size of house per number in the family. Just some thoughts I had. I know people bridle at not getting what they work hard for so I suspect we have to have more of a fuel pinch to bring about some of these changes.

[Roland99]

66. Went to a Homearama here last month...houses ~4500-5000sq.ft.

and costing from $540,000 to $820,000.

Some were using a geothermal heating/cooling system that claimed monthly utility costs of $50-60. I was a bit skeptical of that low of a bill but there are options. Newer a/c units are very efficient and can lower costs to well under $200/yr.


But, some of the homes had multiple a/c units. One even had three!

[ProfessorGAC]

69. What I Get A Kick Out Of. . .

. . .is the commercials for home builders that offer "bigger homes" for less money. Doesn't that just mean that they're using fewer materials and lower cost construction? So, you get a bigger house that isn't built as well, and will have inferior resale value. Huh?
The Professor

[jmowreader]

119. Not only "fewer" materials but worse ones

There's a developer here who is building a subdivision of $450,000 McMansions. Here's what he's done to "economize" on his materials so he can afford to put up 5000sf houses and make 40 percent profit on these places:

* He's using clearanced impervious tile flooring--he's got some ceramic, some porcelain and some natural stone. It's all good tile, but what happens when you break one?

* He's using hardboard siding on some of the houses and .040" vinyl on others. Hardboard siding rots and .040" vinyl cracks easily.

* He's got every light in the house on the same 15-amp breaker and pairs of smaller bedrooms on the same 20-amp breaker. This meets code (barely) but what happens if that lighting breaker kicks? Man, you better remember where your flashlight is.

* He's building on a slab foundation. There are two major problems with slab foundations--they're hard to insulate, and they make the plumbing almost impossible to repair. I don't think he's putting Bibles in them.

He also spent $10,000 to petition the city to change the zoning where he built them. He bought a 100-acre plot. The area it's in used to be zoned one house per two acres. According to this asshat, his project would not be economically viable (yes, he used that term) unless the zoning was changed to allow five houses per two acres. And they gave it to him! See, he used the magick word "tax revenues"; in this town, you could apply to put up anything from a pig-sty to a whore-house and get approval just by saying "this will increase tax revenues."

[ProfessorGAC]

124. Thanks

I knew the work had to be underdone to get "more for less". I just didn't know details. Everything you said makes perfect sense to me. There just has to be corners cut. I don't know building, but i do know economics. There is just no other way, unless nobody's making a profit, and how likely is that?
The Professor

[jmowreader]

140. A quote from David Pascoe says it all

David Pascoe is a marine surveyor--someone you'd hire to inspect a yacht you're considering buying. (You can read his words of wisdom at http://www.yachtsurvey.com)

For many years this guy has been bitching about boatbuilders churning out million-dollar ocean-going yachts that aren't fit to drive in the ocean. Says Mr. Pascoe, "everyone makes sure the boat looks good, but very few make sure the boat is good."

We can apply his lessons to homebuilding. Go into a new house and look close. I went to this year's Parade of Homes and walked into a house they were asking $285,000 for. I walked through the home and at the end of it all was a lady Realtor dressed in her finest power suit asking everyone if they were ready to make an offer on this home. "No, ma'am, not today." But why not? (She had that grating, condescending tone that exceedingly-rich Southerners adopt when they're trying to talk down to you.) "Well, ma'am, I'm glad you asked. This house has vinyl single-hung windows with clear insulated glass. It has hardboard siding. It has fiberboard mouldings. The crown moulding was installed wrong--there are big gaps in the corners and it's not nailed tight to the ceiling. It has vinyl flooring in the kitchen. It has Formica countertops sitting on pressed-wood cabinets. It has the cheapest appliances Lowe's sells in it. There's not an outlet or a switch in the whole building that's installed straight. The roof is covered with three-tab shingles. And the doors aren't painted. Sure, I'll make you a fair offer for this home. I'll give you one-forty-five-five for it right now, that's all it's worth." For three hundred grand, you'd think you'd at least get double-hung windows!

Apparently the guy who makes sure the house looked good was off that day; it looks like they hung all the moulding without making any test cuts.

[girl gone mad]

149. 145,500...

That's more than I paid for my house, an I've got all hardwood floors, wood moulding, reclaimed cedar siding, stone and wood counters and a pier and beam foundation. But, it's 'only' 1500 square feet, so a lot of people in the market for a new home probably wouldn't even bother to look at it.

[StayOutTheBushes]

78. You can be liberal and own a lot of stuff...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-03-22-kerry-homes_x.htm

[txaslftist]

117. I wanna McMansion!

I wanna sit my overweight butt down on a great big leather sectional, watch my cable tv on a big screen tv and eat greasy big macs until I fall asleep in my own drool.

I want a house so big, no one can hear me pass gas. I wanna bathe in a tub so deep it needs a lifeguard. I don't wanna SUV, I wanna 53' long limo driven by someone with a masters in economics.

I can't afford any of that now, but watch out when I can, mister!

[NickB79]

123. IMO, large houses are detrimental to families

My GF and I live in a 1-BR apartment, 775 sf. If we had a choice, we'd probably add room in the bathroom and kitchen, but no way we'd need more than 900 sf total. We were both raised in smaller homes, and want to purchase a smaller house when we have the chance. I've seen "families" that live in massive McMansions, and you know what I've observed? A family member spread out each in a different room with no interaction between each other, each doing their own thing for hours on end. Little discussion, little bonding time between each other. That's not how I would define a healthy family.

Besides, the larger the home, the smaller the yard. A yard full of flowerbeds, veggie gardens, shrubs and trees is both beautiful and beneficial for the environment and wildlife.

[Bragi]

133. People neeed oversize houses

I'm pleased to clear up this matter.

If people didn't aspire to and buy ridiculously oversized houses, then they wouldn't be buying all the Chinese crap that's sold in Wal-Mart, and they might take more than six days vacation each year, and western civilization as we know it would collapse.

Thank you.

Now please return to your desks. It's Friday, but we have another 90 minutes until go home time. Or you can leave now and come in for a few bracing career-enhancing hours on Saturday and Sunday. You'll still have enough time to go buy crap you don't need at Wal-Mart to fill up your oversize house you don't have time to enjoy.

Have a great weekend!

- B

[mccoyn]

138. I don't have a large house, suv or buy bulk.

Haha, I win this thread. I'm better than all of you! :sarcasm:

Actually I do run central air, while many people in my climate go without.

[StayOutTheBushes]

141. What is a buy bulk?

[Carni]

146. You go down to the corner and pick a fat guy up on the cheap

Then you ride him around town in an H2 to get him some twinkies.

[ignatius 2]

142. I agree and have talked with my friends about this very thing. Not only

are the homes so much larger, many have 3 and 4 car HEATED garages and high ceilings that suck up the energy bigtime.

A responsible energy policy would not only incent people to buy vehicles with better gas mileage but also to have more energy efficient home heating and cooling systems.

[Maat]

150. Uh-oh. Wonder what you DUers think of me ..

I've been a committed progressive donating and raising money for many, many progressive and civil rights causes for many years now.

Have been a committed DU member for a couple of years now.

Do I own a SUV? Yes, I still have the old truck - a '97 Expedition; this truck actually gets 22 miles per gallon. Do I drive it much? No, I drive my smaller fuel efficient car. It's there for an emergency, however (and I have transported progressives to events in it). We also had to use it for business purposes some time ago (it is nearly 9 years' old now). I'm planning on getting a Toyota Prius by the end of the year - have to pay down my Toyota a bit more - then I will be able to purchase the Prius.

Do I own a McMansion? Yes. It is 4,700 sq. ft. My husband perhaps work tasks out of our home. So do I. Yes, it is just me, my daughter, and my hubby.

Do I feel guilty? No, because we have done some innovative things. Our pool and our spa run off of solar power. What a success that has been!

We are planning a new home; it will also be a real estate investment. We are planning to expand our use of solar power.

Do I still feel like a bona fide progressive? Heck yes! I've volunteered for PFLAG. I've donated to Americans United for Separation of Church and State, People for the American Way, independent media, NARAL Pro-Choice America.

Am I learning how to help the Earth more? Certainly, but it is taking some planning.

So, in summary, there are two sides to every story. And, I'm not going to put someone down because of what they own. Just my two cents' worth.

Peace,

[Beausoir]

152. What a ridiculous topic.

Now we're going to start regulating the size of homes?

Find something constructive to do and stay out of MY YARD!