If small is good, why is this so long?

[Strawnet@aol.com]

Just to throw in a couple of cents worth on the subject of house size...
I think looking at the number of square feet per person is revealing, and
though I don't have those stats at hand, it has been steadily going up for
years and in the US is MUCH higher, on average, than anywhere else in the
world.  

The design of space to serve multiple functions, and a really careful
analysis of what people need vs what they want is crucial to good
sustainable, resource efficient design.  The psychological "need" for more
space, more rooms, more separation is a symptom of a deeper problem in the
culture (IMHO).

It is also my observation, from many years of working with people in the
design and construction and remodeling of homes, that what "home" is to
people is very personal, very individualistic and very deeply embedded in
their emotions.  What we experience as home when we are small children,
patterns our thinking about what is "comfortable" and desirable.  I have seen
many couples shred their relationships in the process of designing and
building a house, when they have very separate ideas of what "home" is.  One
grew up in a dark cloistering house and the other in an open, airy, light
house.  The conflict is rarely brought to the surface and so the battles are
waged in irrational arguments about what is ok or not, what is wanted, what
each must have, or won't allow.  I'd love to see a counseling class developed
for couples and anyone for that matter that helps people get past their
emotional issues about this and working toward a rational and healthy, and
hopefully more sustainable attitude about shelter, and the way that the built
environment affects us and everything else.

One more observation before giving it a rest.  Lawrence H Smith posted a good
rebuttal (sort of the "it's not how big it is, it's what you do with it that
counts" school of thought) to the smaller is better thread.  Yet I still have
a very deep concern about the way we tend to personally ignore the real and
larger impacts of all of our actions.  We, those of us who have the luxury to
make these decisions about what we need and want, and fulfill, or at least
partially fulfill them, do so at more than the economic expense we can
"afford".

In the current issue of Whole Earth Review, J. Baldwin has a great article
about a favorite subject of mine - the unintended and unssen consequences of
our actions.  He uses as an example the manufacture of a pencil and takes a
cursory (and yet mind-boggling) look at what goes into making a pencil and
the processes, resources, impacts, that stem from something as simple as
that.  And there are millions of pencils being made and used and nobody
thinks about these things.  Take that to the next level and we see that the
billions of people on this fragile blue and green sphere don't all have the
luxury of having whatever we want.  And I'm fairly certain that my excess
consumption is at someone elses expense.  I'm not arguing for the 10' x 10'
box or getting rid of all your possessions.  I'm just observing that for the
most part we are unconscious of what we're really doing and the majority of
the consequences of our actions are unintentional.  So the best thing we can
do is work to minimize the unitended consequences - and I think that means
smaller is better, local is better, natural is probably better, and our labor
is much more renewable and lower impact than the technology we've become
addicted to to eliminate it.

I no longer feel the disconnection of my actions from the state of the world.
 I sense the pain and the cost that is happening beyond the scope of my cozy
little world and I can't disassociate myself from the causes of it.  I don't
go around depressed about it.  I try not to become preachy about it (yeah
right) and be judgemental of others.  But I know what I will and won't do for
myself and I know what I am compelled to work on, myself.  And I won't build
anymore mansions for rich people. I can't justify it in my personal value
system.  That's MY choice.

Jonathon Porritt, in his closing plenary talk at the EcoVillages and
Sustainable Communities Conference in October, responded to a question from
the audience about how to maintain the vision and focus in the world which
does not seem to care about these values.  Part of his reply was that there
are millions of people living today who only get through each day by denying
the reality of their existence.  He said that our openness to the knowledge
of this, our willingness to experience that pain, to know what is happening
to the ecosystems and to the people all over the world is what gives us the
power to go forth and do the work that needs to be done.  Denial of denial is
at the heart of it.  This isn't fiction and I don't believe it is an
environmentalist hoax.  This planet and its inhabitants and all of our
systems, manmade or natural are in distress.  We all have part of the
responsibility for it and part of the solution to it.

The beauty of straw bale is that it is a vehicle for so many of the right
things.  It is an opportunity to see beyond the "normal" way we view reality.
 What is a building?  How long should it last?  What should it do?  What does
it really cost - not just in our arbitrary financial terms, but in real terms
- hours of lives, destruction of other living systems, detrimental effects on
people and ecosystems elsewhere, etc.?  We need a wake up call, big time, and
straw bale is a nice nudge toward consciousness.

I slip so easily into these little rants, don't I?  Sorry.

Have a great New Years weekend.

DEsert Dave Eisenberg

Catherine Fletcher's post:
>Doing some post-holiday catching up, I had to toss in a justification of
>our promotion of smaller houses.  While Catherine is correct that larger
>houses are the most land- and material-efficient way to house more people
>(extended family, et al), the trend for the past forty years has been
>toward larger structures that house fewer people.  Average family size has
>decreased, and the number of households has increased at a faster rate than
>the population has increased.  Meanwhile, average home sizes have climbed
3>7% since 1971, and are now around the 2000 sq. ft. mark.  One need only
>ook at the mainstream building and design magazines to see that the number
>of 5,000-15,000+ sq. ft. houses for childless couples or two-child families
>is skyrocketing.  So, although larger SB houses for extended families can
>reduce net environmental impacts, most larger houses nationwide are being
>built for smaller families and fewer people--which is certainly an
>environmentally detrimental trend.