Quote:
Originally Posted by vid
You're far from being pro-environmental. Large houses consume more natural resources which makes them less environmental. It's basic math.
|
All things being equal the larger space will use more resources but not all things are equal when comparing living sizes. I think the amount of space is important but the type of construction is more important. In Philadelphia the new trend is to build zero impact energy housing. This new construction tends to be bigger then the existing housing. Does this make it worse then the housing it is replacing because they contain more sf?
I realize that in order to get an average of 2500 sf many houses need to be bigger then that but I think equating size of the dwelling to sprawl is a logical step but is something I caution against. Look at One 57 that is being built in NYC. The average size of those condo units are massive and far exceed the 2,500 sf that is the average size of a new single family dwelling in the US yet everyone on this site seems to be very supportive of the project on here. I agree that a lot of new development is not the most environmentally friendly but I do not think it is productive to automatically equate larger housing to sprawl.
Naturally as land prices rise for a developer to make money on new construction one of two things has to happen. The price per sf needs to increase at the same rate that land appreciates or the size of the house needs to increase to make up for the rise in land value. This means that new construction will either require more expensive housing for the same size dwelling compared to prior construction or new housing is going to get bigger. The developers have found it easier to sell a larger house as opposed to selling more expensive houses at the same size.