SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Downsizing the McMansion: Study gauges a sustainable size for future homes:
What might homes of the future look like if countries were really committed to meeting global calls for sustainability, such as the recommendations advanced by the Paris Agreement and the U.N.'s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development?
Much wider adoption of smart design features and renewable energy for low- to zero-carbon homes is one place to start -- the U.N. estimates households consume 29% of global energy and consequently contribute to 21% of resultant CO2 emissions, which will only rise as global population increases.
However, a new scholarly paper authored at New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT) assesses another big factor in the needed transformation of our living spaces toward sustainability -- the size of our homes.
The paper published in the journal Housing, Theory & Society makes the case for transitioning away from the large, single-family homes that typify suburban sprawl, offering new conceptions for what constitutes a more sustainable and sufficient average home size in high-income countries going forward.
The article surveys more than 75 years of housing history and provides estimates for the optimal spatial dimensions that would align with an "environmentally tenable and globally equitable amount of per-person living area" today. It also spotlights five emerging cases of housing innovation around the world that could serve as models for effectively adopting more space-efficient homes of the future.
"There is no question that if we are serious about embracing our expressed commitments to sustainability, we will in the future need to live more densely and wisely," said Maurie Cohen, the paper's author and professor at NJIT's Department of Humanities. "This will require a complete reversal in our understanding of what it means to enjoy a 'good life' and we will need to start with the centerpiece of the 'American Dream,' namely the location and scale of our homes.
"The notion of 'bigger is better' will need to be supplanted by the question of 'how much is enough?' Fortunately, we are beginning to see examples of this process unfolding in some countries around the world, including the United States."
Maurie J. Cohen. New Conceptions of Sufficient Home Size in High-Income Countries: Are We Approaching a Sustainable Consumption Transition? Housing, Theory and Society, 2020; 1 DOI: 10.1080/14036096.2020.1722218
(Score: 2) by toddestan on Wednesday March 11 2020, @03:18AM
That seems odd to me. Around here, it's the new buildings that I'm most comfortable in as a tall guy. Tall ceilings are all the rage now. 9' ceilings in houses, and I've been in office buildings where the ceiling is practically high enough that you could add a second story under it. The tall ceilings are admittedly nice as they make the rooms feel more spacious and open. Of course, doors are also scaled to match the ceilings so they are larger too. But ultimately they just add more volume that needs to be heated and cooled purely for aesthetics. It's worse in cold weather, since hot air rises into that empty space above your head, so you have to spend more to heat the air you're actually living in.
It's the old buildings with sub 8' ceilings, doorways that are too short, and various obstructions I always have to watch out for (light fixtures, ceiling fans, etc.) that I wouldn't want to live in.
Admittedly, it's probably the buildings built in the late 1960's through the mid 1990's or so that seem to be the most practically designed, even if they seem stodgy and not trendy today (build quality can also be all over the place).