A modestly sized home is definetly the way to go. Back in the 50s and 60s, a family of 5 could comfortably live in a 900 sqft home. Add a basement for safety and you should have all you need.

I have no pity for those who live in a 3000-4000 sqft home and complain about gas + electric prices or property taxes. Hopefully some of these people are involved in the construction of these monstrosities and request the 6 inch studs (for more insulation), steel roofs, ground source heat pumps, and possibly passive solar design. The best thing for society would be for these people to find an existing home that is vacant to prevent the waste of resources building a new home on much needed farmland.

I applaud small green homes however I dont feel that one need to completely sacrifice a full lifestyle to be green. I personally do not need a 3000 square foot home but some people may want that and when there is a drive and desire in the market people will build and buy such items for perceived resale. I imagine there are new homes (athough few and far between) that use less vigin content and are more energy efficient than certain conventional small traditional homes.

Building styles and lack of functional architecture have made many people consumption driven. Many old homes with large porches and 9-10ft ceilings with transom windows to internal rooms were developed for functional living. Styles were partially created for looks and partially for function. Lack of function in design has caused the culture of energy consumption. Perhaps regulation in the building industry could resolve this then again perhaps not.

In the summer if you dont have a large covered porch perhaps you will sit inside and run the air more perhaps you wont. Either way lifestyles and choices in mass have not been choosing energy function. The other portion of the equation is the majority of available homes are subdivisions and builder selected plans. The incentive for most builders is square footage and mass appeal for max profits.

Although I agree in theory, in practice I'd suggest that we all look at this one case at a time.

Does the average American need a home that's greater than 2500 square feet? Nope.

But there are a few other considerations to take into account.

Like people like me and my family (unusual) with a two parent household BOTH of whom work from home, and our child is cared for AT home. Our home needs to be larger than average, but on the flip side we don't spend the same amount of energy as the average American commuting. So even though our footprint is bigger and our energy use higher, it all equals out to be better than average.

Secondarily - we have to acknowledge that as much as we'd like the world to change and stop building huge mcmansions - they won't become enlightened over night and just do it. We need builders to be able to build even the big box homes to a higher standard of quality. It still impacts overall energy use and environmental impact.

Stacy

To me it is necessary to find

Sure affording green may be a smaller square footage for some.The average home owner may well stay longer in their house, after this housing market crash and the face of what housing will be in future years. Much wiser for doing that. So the cost effectiveness of going home green may become a reality for those who do, especially with the added savings being able to buy less square footage. The Federal government is persistent in implementing this idea.
However, for those of us with certain types of disabilities that command larger square footage(as with us, just under 2,500 sf for two adults in their final home with ADA requirements particular to their types of disability) anything under a certain sf is not practical, nor safe. Bathrooms must be large enough to accomplish that wheelchair turnaround radius, rails jutting outwards from walls for large hand gripping, access bars mounted outside tubs in the floors. Similar for other rooms.Elimination of hallways, foyers, other similar can cut back the square footage. Perhaps one central room can have direct access to all other rooms, one level.It becomes a question if the money for a final home purchase should be used to equip it for ADA needs or for energy savings and green savings. Not everyone has the money for either, let alone both. Retrofitting costs are prohibitive for many.
If we can't realize money for green, then would a substantial break in price for purchase be the solution? The installation of green and solar/wind energy saving is very costly for the average new buyer(retiring or not-not too many have that money, let alone the costlier hired maintenance of green and energy saving installations for disabled people). I'm not ruling 'green' out, for I believe this is part of the new face of the future's housing. But the money to do it will not be there for us nor many like us. For years I saved every plastic food and non-food grade bag, paper bag, tin foil, much,much else. But can not longer do those things being disabled. We had to let go of a huge home garden and 400 jars per annum of canned goods well over six years ago, bringing our food costs up. There is no relief, no merit with disability for those added costs on our budget. We can only hope for quickly found monetary relief to build green in the form of large tax incentives to us and others like us passed by Federal, State, County, local Municipality or some substantial part of them.
I still foresee for mid-century(we will be gone) most people living in multi-family housing rented or owned units, attached single family.Detached single family will be a dinosaur.
Hopefully, much obsolete and decayed housing will have long been torn down and replaced by these units,green.So the builders must have tax incentive,also. A very small percentage,even here in Arizona, new homes are built real energy efficient and green; the priviledge of that belonging to the option of the rich or wealthy only at this time. So the face of housing goes on.

Conspicuous consumption is just that. I have lived (not always by choice) in some of the largest and grandest homes around the world and on the flip side have stayed with some of the poorest people in grass shacks on the beach in foreign countries. Presently I live in a single story 1100 sq ft conventional home on an acre built in 1985 wherein through modest modification I have upgraded the structure and appliances to allow for a comfortable total energy bill of $80 on average per month with no restriction on convenience. I may add solar water heating and photovoltaic down the road but that only if energy prices continue to rise. Having experienced more than 50 homes in as many years and in as many locations I have found that in general happiness or contentment are inversely related to the size and grandeur of most all homes/houses. The balance of my funds, time and efforts are more rewardingly spent helping others, which I find brings me more pleasure than worrying about 500 odd acres and 15,000 square feet of housing in three separate locations at any given time. Too bad more people don't care about "people" more than "things" which they don't really need but only think they do.

I currently live in a mcmansion.....I am a do it yourselfer and i understand first hand the quality or lack there off in these houses built over the last couple of decades. I have spent hundreds of hours redoing the builders work that with a little more effort could have been done right and i would not be redoing it in a 12 year old home....This is by far the largest(highest maintenance) home i have ever owned and don't buy one unless you have 4 or 5 kids. The only areas we use on a consistence basis are the deck, kitchen, office, family room, 2 bedrooms. or about 950 square feet of 2800....

Now that i am done complaining to reduce energy usage i am considering adding solar/wind source I am in michigan..... any one recommend any resources?

Any advice appreciated

Thanks

What's an URL? I'm a 72 year old retired Draftsperson/Designer. I regret all the homes I designed, including my own, that were not energy efficient 30-40 years ago. I'd like as much information on them NOW as possible to help people plan new or remodel older homes. I just offer suggestions like...plan your home for the handicapped. You will get old and maybe disabled. We are all just one accident or illness away from being disabled. Wide inside doors, not too high or too low of cubbards or cabinets. A walk-in tub, everything on one floor. Few or better yet NO steps. Etc....

The reason we have these giant wastes of materials spitefully dubbed McMansions is because the less affluent always want to have what the affluent have. I remember as a kid driving around the millionare neighborhoods of the North Shore outside Chicago with my parents. They would "ooh" and "ahh" at all the mini-estates that a 6-figure income could buy. Well, now alot of American households have 6-figure incomes. Of course $500,000 in the 80s is alot different than $150,000 now, but they basically feel they have earned the right to have what they coveted growing up.
Frankly speaking, McMansions exist because of assumed entitlement. From what I have been reading, the sense of entitlement will be getting worse with future generations, so the only way to stop this epidemic is to change the behavior of the role models. Thankfully it has already started, with the likes of Cameron Diaz driving a Prius, but it needs to be more pervasive.
Imagine if being wealthy - OK, stupid rich - meant living not in monster-sized homes that rival the local grocery store in square footage, but instead in perfectly-designed homes that maximized utility for the needs. Basically, neo-cozy. It is realistic for the wealthy to accept living quarters that were approximately 750-1000 sq.ft. per permanent occupant, plus additional space for gatherings. That means that CEOs and self-made millionares could safely inhabit 3000-5000 sq. ft. homes, not the 20,000 sq.ft. homes you see in Arch. Digest.
With that model FIRMLY established, the lemming masses would fall in line so quickly Suzanne Susanka would swoon. Soon, people would actually realize that an average family really only needs about 200 sq.ft per person, plus another 1000 or so for common spaces.
Oh, and on the subject of "average," people like the poster Stacy would also realize that they actually are, in fact, average, and would not feel the need to justify their family of 3 from the formula, since hobbies, lounging, home businesses, etc, all take up space, but should adequately fit inside that 1000 sq. ft. coomon space allowance.

What we really need is someone to design homes with a universal floor plan that are energy efficient. Nice 1200 to 1800 sq. ft. homes that make use of a basement or second floor for the additional living space/storage families need. Bring back attic storage in the garage. Frank Lloyd Wright had the right ideas, just wish there were more architects like him.