Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nope, not much wasted space at all (unless you coun't the open greatroom), no hallways to speak of, no enormous closets or huge bathrooms...
Very efficient design when using a woodstove though.. The family room / loft upstairs was 14x20 and was kept nice and cozy in the winter when that wood heat would rise..
I'd say smaller (and smarter) is definately the way to go.
That's what I love about my little house. Its only 1500 feet on one level, but the front room and kitchen are huge for a house this size. Instead of squeezing in the maximum number of bedrooms and baths, the area was given to real "living" space which makes the house feel as big as many 3000+ square foot homes.
Let's assume for the moment that our hypothetical family can "live in" 1500 sq ft but, would be much happier and more comfortable in 3000 sq ft. Would you support government restrictions to require / mandate this family live in the 1500 sq ft home v building a 3000 sq ft?
Why do you keep trying to make this about the evil gummint instead of about efficiency?
You can easily fit twice the small homes in the same land that may be sub-divided for larger homes.
Another way in which larger homes are less eco friendly - they use up the same amount of a finite resource that could be used to house more people. This forces even more land to be taken away from other uses for housing - uses that can include farming, lumber production, habitat preservation and watershed protection.
Another way in which larger homes are less eco friendly - they use up the same amount of a finite resource that could be used to house more people. This forces even more land to be taken away from other uses for housing - uses that can include farming, lumber production, habitat preservation and watershed protection.
Is wood finite? hm.... last I saw trees regrow, and logging companies are required to replant once they clear an area.
Is wood finite? hm.... last I saw trees regrow, and logging companies are required to replant once they clear an area.
The way I read it it sounded like he was referring to land being finite, and if less land were wasted for homes, it could be used for other purposes including timber production...
And, just to comment, while most logging companies may plant trees after cutting trees, the trees they plant frequently aren't generally what kind they cut (but rather, the cheapest they can get or fast growing trees that will be more profitable sooner). This leads to a lack of biodiversity in forests and damages habitat among other things.
I did not twist his words, just answered quickly and did not read fully. I am not worried about running out of land anytime soon. I have driven to almost every corner of our country, and there is Plenty of land.
(I am quickly trying to get our House ready for 37 people to celebrate America)
I did not twist his words, just answered quickly and did not read fully. I am not worried about running out of land anytime soon. I have driven to almost every corner of our country, and there is Plenty of land.
(I am quickly trying to get our House ready for 37 people to celebrate America)
We are already a net importer of food and our population could double in the next century. A fairly large portion of land, particularly in many Western states, is government held/public land. Land is certainly a finite resource. With each new development, frequently land that could be farmed or used to preserve wildlife/plants/etc. is lost.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.