Revitalization of existing urban landscapes, elimination of greenfield developments in favor of rebuilding on in-city lots, requiring passive solar and high R-value for all new construction, tightening zoning and habitation laws to help landowners prioritize and maximize energy, water, and heat efficiencies, setting up neighborhood composting and rainwater caches... These and many other good ideas on this thread must make their way from conversation to public policy everywhere people live. We need local groundswells to make this happen. We need political candidates to express and push these views. We need economic support for these policies by city, county and state governments. The sense of urgency to develop and implement comprehensive and locally based solutions must inform threads like this. We all have to step up and be leaders in our local forums.

socflww--Underground power transformers aren't actually underground themselves, only the power lines feeding into them are buried instead of overhead. I should have mentioned that I worked in an electric company storeroom and know that not only do the transformers cost more, but so do all the associated parts needed for them when compared to their overhead counterparts.

MetalDog said:
"Here's a thought so simple and likely to be effective that you know it will never be adopted: Base tab renewal fees on a vehicle's MPG. Here in MN, the fee to renew your car's tabs is based on the value of your vehicle. I say the fee should be inversely proportional to the vehicle's fuel consumption."

That would be waaay too simple to ever be used here in the
USofA. When I was stationed in Germany in the 60's, the
cost of tags was based on engine size (HP) I believe. It
made sense to me. Having a SUV that seats nine is about
as necessary as having a house with 5,000 sq feet of
living area with three or four people occupying it. I've
always wondered why people raise their families, then build
a McMansion when they retire. I always suspected it was the
"look what I can afford" factor.
I've noticed that most of the houses they show on TV
that people are "losing" are those $300,000+ type. Could it be that some people just stupidly bought more than they
could afford? I learned many years ago that if your credit
is good, banks will loan more money than you can afford to
repay. Just because some credit card company sends you a
check for $5,000 doesn't mean you should go shopping.

Goggle the falling dollar, housing crisis, credit crisis,
In weeks to come america is going to see the real economic
results of a recession-depression that will make these
excesses as obviously disgusting and criminal as they have always been. Immorality has consequences.

MetalDog's ideas about having people pay proportionate to the extent that they pollute is excellent. But some of the biggest polluters are the affluent ones, who also happen to be the influential ones, so the idea is not likely to get anywhere.

Goebbel's ideas of planting food is excellent, but in some places local homeowners associations forbid it. My homeowner's association forbids outdoor clotheslines and solar panels. And ofcourse entire states forbid rainbarrels, as in Colorado, the rationale being that the rainwater belongs to the local ecology.

BigMoney's idea to redo an 'old leaky house' is also excellent. But like most things of value, it requires a substantial invetment of effort (mental & physical) as well as resources (money &/or materials). If I were in that situation, I might have opted for the easy way.

And with reference to sharing by Jan Steinman, this matter is addressed quite nicely in Dimitry Orlov's Post-Soviet Lessons for a Post-American Century which was posted to many sites including (the now defunct) From the Wilderness, and the Energy Bulletin etc. The direct link:
http://www.survivingpeakoil.com/article.php?id=soviet_lessons

I spent an 'age' (7+ years according to the Jewish and Hindu traditions) in a 2000'(-) foot rental house in San Jose (CA - that is the land of nuts & fruits, not Canada), upto 1998 and had a 48+ mile one way commute to work in a rice-burner (the fourth one that I had owned). The only other occupant was my father who was in his mid 80s then. But prior to my occupancy there was a tribe of Mexicans there, at various times upto 15 people, and 5 dogs. When I first moved in, there were hungry dog-fleas jumping all over the place. Fortunately dog fleas seem to have a low opinion of humans and did not bite.

"Look at the power transformers sitting outside the McMansions–they are much larger, usually underground and feed fewer homes in the huge-lot neighborhoods."

Uh ... if they're underground, how do you know how big they are? Or how many homes they feed?

MetalDog is on the right track with the idea of higher energy costs for energy hogs. For years the poor have been bamboozled by electricity rates that start out high for the first couple of hundred kwh, then get cheaper as consumption goes up. The assumption has long been that the more you use, the cheaper the cost to produce power. I suspect that the inverse is true. Look at the power transformers sitting outside the McMansions--they are much larger, usually underground and feed fewer homes in the huge-lot neighborhoods. Clearly there is much more in infrastructure costs to serve these homes. Then their increased consumption drives up demand and creates the need to build more power plants--again a HUGE infrastructure cost.

Most electric companies have broken bills down into individual charges now. So all houses may have a standard service fee that covers the lines going to the house, the meter reader and service personnel, etc., and separate lines for power charges. It's time that those different charges are re-evaluated and adjusted to make the heavy users pay their share for driving up everyone's costs.

Good article. I've often wondered what if going to become of these oversized multimillion dollar houses in the suburbs (and places like Big Sky, Montana and other resorts and enclaves), once the cost of heat rises so much that it is not desirable to heat them or live in them.

Another issue associated with this housing bubble is the immigration issue. Now, many illegal immigrants I know of in my area work mainly in the service (food and cleaning) sector, but I've heard of many more in processessing plants and yes construction. We have an unhealthy enviroment that creates non-access suburbian hell holes, and the inner-city teardown-rebuild craze, both are encouraged through subprime lending (buyer), speculative lending (builder) and cheap(er) labor (contractor). If we actually enforced the laws currently on the books (and went after the people giving the jobs, not the immigrants... not to mention putting the teeth back into lending and mortgage regulations) we would eliminate many of the things that allow cheap and bloated industry- that bursts in our faces. The more I read about this, the more I hate Reaganites.

These big houses might be good for when all your children and extended family move in because rent and the cost of living are just too high.

It is still better to own than rent. In the long run.

Thomas More: one of the only equitable ways, imo, to legislate 'excessive footage' would be an increased homeowners tax on energy- along the same lines as carbon taxes and increased fuel taxes. That might be a worthy sacrafice.

Having just moved back into my 1400 square foot home, after a fire and rebuilding, I've been furniture shopping. It is difficult to buy furniture that fits a standard home, goes through standard size doors, and fits standarad size people. Remember the days when big families gathered in small homes, and there was room for everybody, when tv didn't take up a whole wall, and wasn't found in every room? It is not just one area, but the whole direction of modern life which must be called into question if we are to build a sustainable and bright future.

Remember also that lenders get it both ways. If you could only scrape together less than a 20%-25% downpayment on the amount you probably also have mortgage indemnity insurance enforced upon you (This is what happens in Canada.) This nifty little piece of criminality means you are forced to pay for the lender's risk yourself! If you default on your mortgage, yes the lender gets your house but they ALSO get a pay out on the indemnity insurance! Nice touch. It is like going to Vegas, betting on roulette and if your number doesn't come up you get your money back!

Another good reason to nationalise banks AND property.

LoL at Big_Money... :)

Recycle1

Good idea. If you are into "non-traditional" construction, check these guys out. Along the same vein as the geodesic dome, but monolithic "shot-crete" construction. These things are super efficient to heat, and for those in hurricane zones or tornado alley, they are usually the only houses left standing when the big one hits..

http://static.monolithic.com/

Big_Money also needs to note that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke earlier this week set things up so the big banks CAN off-load the sour securitized mortgages. Bernanke now allows the banks to use the mortgages-gone-bad as collateral for loans from the Fed.

Unfortunately, this action by the Fed will not end McMansion construction, it will only waste more US taxpayer money bailing out the banks so that bank executives and shareholders can buy more and larger McMansions that use even more energy.

Big_Money, check out the link about cob houses. They are built out of mud and straw and usually, those in BC are set in a natural environment where as little disturbance to the surroundings as possible is observed. Most have an outdoor cob baking oven and organic gardening is practiced and heating these cob houses uses very little in the way of energy. Probably much more economic and enviro friendly that fixing up an older, yet small, home. Besides, I am only in this big city for a two year commitment before I head home to a much smaller community.

I don't think human beings, by our very nature, are capable of comprehending the long-term consequences of our actions. We evolved to fear the unknown behind the next tree, not in the next century. We seek immediate emotional, material and sexual gratification. Eventually we'll die out when the living conditions change, just like the dinosaurs. But the universe is big, and there will be other intelligent life forms to take our place.

We're doing something else: shared housing.

Yea, it's not in vogue. Yea, people want their privacy (unless it has to do with the government and their phone calls or email or financial transactions). Yea, you have to learn to actually get along with other people. But it makes a lot of sense.

It wasn't so long ago, four generations often lived under one roof. The family as the basic social unit has since devolved to the individual. But as we slide down the backside of the fossil-energy spike, the future is going to look more like the past. Families aren't so big any more, but you can make your own intentional family!

I think large homes may soon be in demand for co-operative living by those who are priced out of the small home market.

We have formed a co-op, and in its name, are purchasing two adjacent houses with nearly 4,200 square feet of living space. Four couples and a baby will share this space, which will also house two home businesses. The huge 13'x30' "game room" will become office, studio, and meeting room space. The huge 22'x34' kitchen/dining/living room complex will be rented out at $40/hour to the greater community for club meetings and such.

So don't write off these monster homes just yet. Sure, they're terribly inefficient on a per-capita basis for a couple or small family, but buy them co-operatively and fill them with people, and they're much more efficient that putting all those people in separate houses!

Yea, it's not the "American way of life." Things change. Prepare for change, or it will just happen to you.

TheLorax sez: "I don't have a well and have to tap off the water main to water the yard. Sometimes I feel that even with a well, the water consumption would be excessive."

Is the yard grass? Don't water. For part of the year it'll look dead, but it's just dormant and will come back.
Better yet, tear out the sod and plant food. Then you'll be able to eat some of that water. Finally - rainbarrels at your downspouts. Probably won't offset all the garden's water needs, but it can sure help.

Not meaning to lecture or be judgmental here, this just happens to work for us.

If you wanna make a bigger difference, A Voice Apart, don't add new cobs to the mess - buy a little old leaky house in a nice neighbourhood, and retrofit the heck out of it. Someone would be living in that house anyway, gushing emissions, you can pro-actively take a bite out of the Grand Total, rather than adding a tiny little bit... I actually lived in a tiny 1 bedroom house for a while, and it's been torn down to make way for some perverse 3-storey monster thing... Dumb-ass trend...

Big_Money: The visual IS funny, the possible reality isn't, unfortunately.

Sounds like North America is heading to be the next Easter Island.

I live in a one and a half (a bachelor suite to those outside Quebec). It is plenty big for my needs. If I had a house, it would not need be bigger (well, maybe a closed off bedroom would be nice). In fact, it would probably be a cob house and I would be back in BC, my favourite province.

http://www.alternatives.com/cob-building/what.html

Could be.

How about this?

Send correspondance to:

Big_Money
pearly white Escalade
Lot 6, row 12, spot 157N
Old Ford Plant
Ontario
Canada

I don't know why I think that's so funny...

BigMoney - yes, I can see government taking over the deeds to these properties but then doing nothing with them. In all periods of history but especially today all governemtns around the worl dhave access to huge amounts of empty buildings, and yet they NEVER house the workers in them. The opposite is true - social housing is generally being eroded by the rich elites. I forsee a time when all those houses are stood empty and the only way to get them used for housing will be for the poor to seize them - and the government with them.

When I read the title of this article, I did think it was going to be about pearly-white Escalades up on blocks with families of 4 living inside... With the seats taken out and circled around a campfire... And the engine block sold to the scrapyard... So now the family dog has room to sleep under the hood... And the wiring system hung up as a clothesline... Patio lanterns made from the LED brakelites... The tranny converted into an espresso machine on the fire... Fetchin' water with the windshield wiper tank... Bathing in the old gas tank with the top cut off... I guess I'm glad it wasn't about that.

I've got an idea, let's tax the rich

Here's a thought so simple and likely to be effective that you know it will never be adopted: Base tab renewal fees on a vehicle's MPG. Here in MN, the fee to renew your car's tabs is based on the value of your vehicle. I say the fee should be inversely proportional to the vehicle's fuel consumption. That way, a brand new Prius would cost way less to register than a 10-year-old Suburban, rather than much more. Property taxes could be structured in a similar way. Utilities, such as gas, electric and water, too -- the more you use, the more you should pay.

We really need to start paying now for the true cost of the resources we consume -- not just the price -- or we'll pay it later with interest.

I'm not the least bit concerned about 'saving the planet', by the way. Earth is going to be just fine -- especially once She shakes the virus that is humanity.

I have 1907 square feet I'm very happy with (so are the 3 others living there). I'm almost 100% Energy Star equipped (1 appliance short) and my home is situated North-South so the sunlight doesn't ever shine in the windows or mess up the climate control. All of my lights are fluorescent. My biggest problem is water management not power. (We're well under the average power requirement according to the statements) I don't have a well and have to tap off the water main to water the yard. Sometimes I feel that even with a well, the water consumption would be excessive.

Maybe people will start living in thier SUVs some of them are big enough.

Hemp for fuel and Hemp for House building, DUDE ! Now who's ready to be a winner and who's ready to stay the losing course?

Bigger, faster, louder: It's the American way, unfortunately.

www.madisonenvironmental.com is the direct link to the casa kit homes

sdw917:If anyone absolutely "has" to build and wants less sq. footage, google Casa Kit Homes and see a 700 sq. foot model. If I had to build, it's what I would choose.

Our home, built in 1989, is 985 sq feet, with 500 finished sq feet in our below ground basement. It is the smallest on the block and the cheapest to heat. And five us us live in it.

A quote from the prog-rock band RUSH, who hail from Scarborough, Ontario, where my own adolescence was misspent...

"Any escape might help disprove the unattractive truth, the suburbs lack the charms to soothe the restless dreams of youth"

Try finding a new house from any of these "home" builders that are less than 2500 square feet? It is nearly impossible, unless you want a trailer or a double-wide.

What ladybug said.
A big problem is where these jumbo homes are being built. When we were seeking a home in an exurban area of the Pacific Northwest in 2003, vast numbers of these were being crammed onto land that had previously contained small farms. Huge house, teeny little yard, and the vast majority for commuters who were going to drive alone 20+ miles each way to work.

I even know some of the people who live in these repulsive monsters. I don't know what they were thinking. I really think it is time the human species became extinct. Good riddance.

andrewr, yup. There's actually an economic mechanism to get that rolling. Hungry-eyed homeowners who can't pay their mortgages leave banks in a pickle. The banks need the money they were promised, but they don't want to sieze the homes and become "landlords". In comes the government, to take these "bad loans" off the hands of the banks. The goeverment swallows the bad debts, and essentially owns the collateral. Hasn't technically happened yet, but it could well. The homebuilders will be toast, but the forests will have a chance to regenerate.

I can't stand the suburbs, they kill my spirit with their horrible homes, strip malls, SUVs and lack of culture

Easy solution: these homes will be nationalised down during the revolution. They will be converted to apartments for people who actually contribute to society: the poor.

In Ontario, where I live, there are a great many "monster homes" from the roaring '20's. Very few of them are still just homes - most have long since been converted to multi-unit rental properties, medical offices, funeral homes, daycares, rec centers, law offices, optometrists offices, women's shelters, student dorms, homeless shelters, restaurants, bars, bike shops, etc. This has not only reduced the space-wastage, but has made the neighbourhoods in which they sit much more livable, walkable communities.

The punch line is that those houses were built from solid brick and plaster by home builders intent on building solid homes. The new batch described in the article are made from cheap plywood and drywall by MBA's all hot to maximize curb appeal. Will recycling their massive frames be feasible the way it was with the 80+ year old batch?

I chose another way. I have been mortgage free for ten years and have an adorable studio. I am debt free...that's worth a lot of square footage.

To meet that goal, one thing we will have to do is yank excessive square footage out from the tangle of current housing problems and declare it a luxury whose ecological costs we can no longer afford.

Frankly I'm not sure who is capable of determining what is excessive footage for another person. And no one may legislate that type of decision. As to SUV's, @$4 a gallon+ watch them disapper.

Never mistake a good idea for a reason to try to force it on others.