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: 5, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday March 10 2020, @01:37PM (4 children)
So, rather than set square footage targets, how about carbon emissions targets per person. Oh, wait, there's that variable again: number of people. While we're not on a global exponential growth curve anymore, the linear growth of global population continues around 75 million people per year, set for another doubling of population in 100 years (as opposed to the previous doubling that took only 50 years), if we continue this "rate of slowing" we might then only double again in 200 years, and again in 400 years, but, wait - that means that by 2700 we'll be trying to cram 60 billion people probably just on to the Earth, because... space is just too expensive. Hell, if we can't afford more than 900 square feet for a family of four, how can we afford a Mars colony? /rant
New rant: let's look at the "total carbon cost" of housing, and by that I mean energy expenditure cost - if we start to get our energy from lower carbon sources that can pay a "housing luxury dividend" in the future. But, for now: what does it cost to build and maintain a house? If construction costs 20% more (money, energy expenditure, same thing really) up front but lasts 2x as long, that would seem to be something worth pursuing. Just swag that "baseline" construction of a 2000 square foot home costs US$200K, and this home costs US$250 per month for energy with an expected 30 year lifespan, so: $90K in energy across those 30 years. Seems like switching construction methods to something that costs $240K to build but lasts 60+ years (around here, that would be switching from wood frame to concrete construction) would have a greater positive impact over the following 60 years than cutting the energy consumption in half. Napkin math says: $400K construction vs $240K construction over 60 years, $160K savings, whereas 50% energy reduction would be $180K vs $90K, so $90K savings - durable construction wins by a factor of 178%.
Of course, better still would be to do all of the above: double lifetime for 20% increase in cost per square foot, decrease square footage by 20%, increase energy efficiency per square footage, eat veggie burgers and like them.
Meanwhile, I like my walls of windows in Florida, it's my life and I can afford the extra $50 per month they cost me. Arguably, if my wall of windows were a depressing opaque slab of energy insulation, I'd spend that $50 per month in petrol blasting around in my V8 automobiles instead to ward off the depression of a dark home. True facts: when I rented a 350 square foot apartment, I drove 20,000 miles per year. When I moved from there into a 1200 square foot home, my driving dropped by 75%. When I lived alone in that 1200 square foot home, my energy bills were negligible - $25 per month average usage. When a "cohabitant" moved in with me, an electric clothes dryer got installed, the A/C ran much more often, and the bills jumped to an average of $125 per month. Let's not talk about what happened after two offspring joined the pod.
Big houses, and even energy in-efficient construction, are not the culprits - it's how they're used. Though, I will say, new construction of any kind uses more energy and emits more net carbon than light rehab of existing structures.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 11 2020, @12:45AM (3 children)
Or transition to negative population growth. After all, the present stretch of linear growth indicates a dropping population growth rate.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday March 11 2020, @02:18AM (2 children)
Faith is a wonderful thing, and better still for the faithful on this issue they'll be dead before they're proved right or wrong.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 11 2020, @03:01AM (1 child)
(Score: 4, Touché) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday March 11 2020, @03:18AM
When you project the bad side, that's called cautious pessimism. The cautious pessimist isn't surprised as often by things going poorly. The cheerful optimist on the other hand can make Mad Max a reality.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end