I’ve been hearing a lot lately about how “the greenest building is the one already built.” This is a good reminder to view adaptive reuse as a sustainable practice. There is also a growing consensus that when it comes to “greening” our new buildings, especially homes, size matters.
The EPA is proposing changes to it’s guidelines for homes that may qualify for the ENERGY STAR rating. Among the changes is a “size-adjustment factor” that compares qualifying homes to a standard and requires more energy effecient construction for larger homes. The suggested size is 600 sq. ft. multiplied by the number of bedrooms and adding 400 sq. ft. For example, the standard for a three-bedroom home is 2200 sq. ft. A larger house will need to increase energy efficiency measures (over those of a smaller home with 3 bedrooms) to meet the standards.
The EPA isn’t the only entity to take a home’s size into consideration when judging it’s “greeness.” The EarthCraft House program awards 2 points for a house of 2500-2100 sq. ft., 4 points for a house of 2100-1800 sq. ft. and 6 points for a house under 1800 sq. ft. USGBC’s LEED for Homes program is a little more strict than ENERGY STAR (and it’s scale isn’t linear). LEED sets it’s floor area benchmark at 900 for a 1 bedroom home, 1400 for a 2 bedroom, 1900 for a 3 bedroom, 2600 for a 4 bedroom. LEED for Homes states that a 100% increase in home size yields an increase in home energy usage by 15% to 50% and an increase in materials usage by 40% to 90% depending on the design, location, and occupants of the home.
It’s well documented that average house size in the U.S. has more than doubled since the ’50s. But, with the economic crisis and sustainability on the brain, that trend has reversed in the fourth quarter of ’08 and is expected to continue.
The numbers above seek to set standards for quantities, namely square footage and number of bedrooms. What ENERGY STAR, EarthCraft House, and LEED don’t do is prescribe the qualities of homes (and they shouldn’t). But, the qualities of a house can also make it sustainable. Money that is not spent on building a larger volume can be channeled towards many other beneficial aspects of “home”. The “feel” of a house, character-giving elements, room layout that fits our lifestyle, and quality construction that will last, all lend themselves to home that is more efficient and enjoyable to live in. The more enjoyable a house is, the more likely it will stand the test of time and these things can’t be quantified and formulated.
This isn’t a new idea. I’m sure you’ve heard of Sarah Susanka who brought the size of homes back into the public conscience in 1998 with The Not So Big House. Painting “McMansions” as cold, uncomfortable and too formal for our contemporary lives, Susanka argues for quality over quantity and a re-prioritization of what is important.
We need to ask how we can use less, but do more with it (it really is possible), and value quality over quantity. This isn’t a sacrificial step, it’s a step forward.
