My Other House is Made of Straw
I just got around to reading an article from last month's New York Times about a recent trend among (presumably rich) folks: incorporating environmentally friendly features into weekend houses. The story, "Second Homes That Put Ecology First," is a bit more even-handed than that title might suggest. While touting the benefits of blue-jean insulation, recycled-concrete flooring (which is also "completely indestructible for the dogs and the kids"), and photovoltaic systems, the author makes room for concerns about the size of some of these homes and the fuel used to get to them. Says one critic, "The greenest second home is one that is never built." What do you think? Is a "green second home" an oxymoron?(Read more about living well and doing good in "The Green Life," a new section appearing in every issue of Sierra magazine.)
4 Comments:
I don't believe so. If built and maintained in a ecologically friendly manner the home could actually prove to be a inspiration for other, first, homes to built as such especially if the second home is rented out during away time so that others may be exposed to the technology available today. Also, their "green" home could inspire changes in their not so green home.
re: above. true, but size should matter when it comes to green building. people should factor that in just like they would other considerations such as what materials to use. otherwise, they're undermining a lot of the good they would otherwise achieve.
Yes, yes it is. Anyone who thinks otherwise is insane. Spoiled and insane.
it's an incorrect label at least, but then so is green home and gren architecture. maybe greener than it could be but it still has an impact. everything does.
Post a Comment
<< Compass Main