All How-To Topics
Chalk the Line
Opinion: Questions for the Man with the Big House
comments (46) February 8th, 2010 in Blogs
Charles Bickford, senior editor
19 users recommend
50,000 square feet of living space. Photo by RICHARD MESSINA / HARTFORD COURANT / February 4, 2010 on HartfordCourant.com.
Fellow editor Rob Yagid passed me this recent news item that showed up in the Hartford Courant. (see screenshot above)
It seems that a Mr. Arnold Chase has built himself a house of rather sizable proportions and as the article describes, will pay the princely sum of about $100,000 into the town coffers every year for property taxes. Great for West Hartford, I guess. But I'd like to pose a few questions to Mr. Chase about this edifice. Here goes:
1. Is this where the phrase "pile of bricks" comes from?
2. When was the first time you got lost going from your bedroom to the bathroom?
3. Will you qualify for your own zip code?
4. Was the construction of the house an attempt on your part to singlehandedly reverse the local building slump?
5. Is it true that you've invited the entire city of Port-au-Prince to come spend the weekend while their place gets put back together?
6. Did you think you were going to save money by not hiring an architect?
7. True or false. All those bricks are tiny photovoltaic panels that produce all the electricity that your house consumes.
8. True or false. This is just the model home for a really swell development.
9. How much of the house will you never visit?
10. Are you going to sell Christmas trees to offset your property taxes?
Editors Note:
Read the three responses to this commentary from Arnold Chase in the comments section below. Mr. Chase highlights the "extraordinary energy-saving measures" that went into the building, which includes geo-thermal systems, R-values greater than 50 in the exterior walls, underground earth-mass HVAC utilization, and total DDC operation of all valves and air handlers. "For 2009, the property was carbon POSITIVE," he notes.
And read a follow up response from the author: "Thanks for clarifying the information, Mr. Chase. My apologies to you and Mr. Greenberg. In fact, I’m not in the habit of judging a house from one photo, but in this instance I did because it was the only shot in the Courant’s article. Before I read the article, I didn’t know your house existed. And no, this wasn’t an attempt at a balanced look at your house; it was an attempt at humor. (Okay, comedy may not be my strongest suit.)"
posted in: Blogs, green building, energy efficiency, architecture, a whopper of a mcmansion
Sign up for the Fine Homebuilding e-letter.
Find us on 
Comments (46)
I for one would much rather FineHomebuilding actually do research and feature you house and all of it's construction. After all that is what readers of FineHomebuilding do we build homes.
And not simple cheap homes it is called FINE Homebuilding not CHEAP Home building. You would not see Architectural Digest undercutting the very industry and those that support it like those writing this blog.
Many of the technologies and features in this house can be applied to more modest homes. I for one find nothing wrong with building this house.
Maybe the blogger should start a blog on the The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement site
http://www.vhemt.org/
Not FIne Homebuilding.
Posted: 10:04 am on March 9th
My particular argument was simple, and has less to do with this specific house than it does with homes in general. The homes we build, and the way in which they are built, matter. They have a local impact, and collectively our housing stock has a significant global impact (economically, socially, environmentally etc). That is the discussion I was hoping to see here. I wondered if anyone else agreed with that statement, or not. I wondered if there were some cultural parameters as to what’s acceptable in a home based upon social values. (Not right or wrong, just accepted) I know, I know, perhaps too deep a discussion for the time and place. It’s my fault for not conveying that message clearly and initially blanketing it in a rather subjective perspective.
I’m glad that Mr. Chase thought about some of the consequences of his building decisions. He seems to have made some very good choices. Does the amount of resources used to construct the home—and the impact of that consumption— contradict some of its attributes? Maybe, and it’s fair for each of us to consider the answer to that question.
Though it may be uncomfortable, a discussion of such topics is nothing to shy away from. While I may not agree with all of them I respect each of the positions posted here, including yours Mr. Chase.
Posted: 9:24 am on February 19th
Socialism is the antithesis of Capitalism. That doesn't make either "better" or "worse." It depends on your view of the world. But to be clear, Socialism can only work long term in a police state. So absent ivory-tower discussions after holiday meals, there is no way to get to a Socialist society without Big Brother. And that is "worse."
As to the comment, "the morality of such a decision (building a big house) is open to debate" is absurd. It's a house. Morality has nothing to do with it!
But the writer misses the point. When he says, "While Mr. Chase is legally entitled to build this monster house..."
That, dear reader is exactly the only thing that does matter. It was legal. The zoning board, (made up of locally elected or appointed members of the community) said it was ok, so it was ok. If it was a steel mill, odds are it would have been rejected because it was not zoned for industrial use. And, although I can't be absolutely sure about this, if the approval process was like every other community I've lived in, abutting neighbors and/or neighbors within a certain distance from the lot lines would have had to approve (usually a majority) the building.
I find it amazing that there are so many people who feel that others should live like they do. "We couldn't afford to build that house, so they shouldn't be allowed to either."
Just nuts. I'm reminded of that stupid period in our (U.S.) history called Prohibition. Or people who tell other people they can't have guns, or shouldn't work on a certain day of the week.
And if you think this house is "immoral" what do we think of Biltmore?
Finally there is the original article in USAToday. The reporter states, "There are homeless people. There are impoverished people. There are serious social concerns, and we are not addressing that."
Do you realize, on so many levels, how idiotic those statements are? They suggest that if Chase hadn't built his house, people wouldn't be homeless - or impoverished. Or maybe that he should be (forced to?) give most of that money to the homeless and impoverished. That's Socialism. That's what it is, plain and simple. When someone else tells you what to do with your money, your time, your efforts, that's Socialism.
Here's what I suggest. Next time one of the those bloggers who feel that Chase had no "right" to build a house that big, decides to buy anything - anything - they should look themselves in the mirror and ask their reflection, "Could I buy cheaper." A cheaper car that still gets you to point B from point A, no Starbucks Vente, Macchiato with extra foam, (just buy a cup of jo at the corner diner) no big screen HD TV, (sit closer) and on and on. Then take all that money and give to the homeless. Why? Because it's yours to do with what you want. Just a suggestion.
Meanwhile, I need to go back to my FHB pile and decide if I want to build up or out...or both...
I'm still recommending a 20 page spread...with all of his different rooms and all the amenities, infrastructure ...Can't wait...
Posted: 7:48 pm on February 17th
Unfortunately, it is not practical in this forum to enlighten the cynics and misinformed point by point. Not that I have any obligation to do so, but in the hope that a few examples will make people think a little more insightfully about the world not being either “black or white”, I will address a few areas:
1) Conventional wisdom might imply that the larger the scope of a project, the greater the environmental harm that must result. In many cases I’m sure this is true, but to make a blanket statement regarding my project without asking a single question is just plain wrong, as well as uncalled for. Had ANY fact checking been done, you would have found that this project to be a marvel of environmental stewardship through material recycling and educated re-planting. Case in point: the decision to place the majority of the house underground necessitated the blasting of millions of pounds of trap rock. By itself, that had the potential to be environmentally negative. By bringing in material processing equipment on-site, however, ALL the processed stone needed for my project was created right there, with zero transportation needed. The real environmental bonus, however, was the fact that my house required only a small fraction of the total produced, with the majority of materials subsequently used for homes, commercial buildings, and a state roadway within a few miles of my home. Since the energy used is the same regardless of where the rock processing is done, the environmental key was the savings of literally thousands of truck miles that would otherwise been used to bring the processed material for all these projects in from remote locations. To the people who bemoaned the acres of clear-cut ‘forest’, did they bother to do their homework to discover that my property was originally “farmers woodlands”, i.e., a completely clear-cut mountaintop that was a late 1800’s source of firewood. As a result, a ‘forest’ of poor condition new growth trees trying to get a foothold on surface rock grew. My property is immediately adjacent to 3,500 acres of protected watershed land. The size and purpose of that land is obviously extremely beneficial and important to the environment, but what is the incremental value of ‘more of the same’ on my property, versus properly planting hundreds of complementary species trees, acres of clover and wildflower, etc? Experts will tell you that numerous species of birds, small animals, etc. depend on open spaces to watch for predators. This is something that would not have existed without doing what I did. The increase in biodiversity, from the enhanced bird and butterfly population speaks for itself. The clover and wildflower fields are considered the most ecologically responsible way to go, requiring no fertilizing, weekly cutting, etc. Given the fact that one of the most worrisome biological events happening right now is the bee Colony Collapse Disorder, I ask what environmentally would you suggest to better address this than what I did?
2) Much effort has been expended around the question of “why” build something other than what serves our basic needs? The answer revolves around the requirements of the restoration and display of 100 year old orchestrions (look it up), and the commitment to the various charities to open our house up several times each year for critical fund-raising. The reality of fund-raising is really simple math: the more people you can attract and bring to an event, the more you can raise. Across the country, similar large events that raise several HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS in a single evening will typically need at least 100 guests. The last time I checked, a 1,500 square foot home that was proffered by the bloggers would have a REAL tough time doing this. To accommodate 100+ people properly, space needed to be provided for coats, bathroom facilities, seating, etc. Before you respond, “well, just give the money to charity”, don’t loose sight of the fact that that would result in a one time donation, versus decades of fund raising potential and exposure for the various causes.
3) One question I keep asking myself is if those bloggers who find what I built a “monstrosity”, what if they had been living in earlier times when the “average” home size was considerably smaller than today. Would they have admonished Thomas Jefferson for building the 11,000 square foot Monticello, or John D. Rockefeller for building Kykuit, or any of the Newport Mansion families? My bet is that those same bloggers have studied, visited, and admired what they profess to hate.
Posted: 6:47 pm on February 17th
FHB inspires me to build a better more efficient home.
With only the internet, and home improvement shows to turn to, here's why.
I'm a Marine SSgt, forced to retire just 90 days after Hurricane Katrina flooded my 30+ year old, 1800 sq ft home here in New Orleans, (didn't meet the race quota to make GySgt even though I was #1 on the list and 4 times more qualified then the all the competition. but that's a whole new blog).
To make matters worse, the home owners insurance expired while evacuated, I was left with little funds to repair or rebuild. Since they look at your previous year's income I didn't qualify for much assistance.
I'm still fighting foreclosure on a monthly basis. (6% rate matured to 10.75% since I was stuck here and didn't rotate as planned before it matured) And by the way, the house flooded again with Hurricane's Rita and Gustav which ruined what little I salvaged and purchased after the first storm.
Since I couldn't afford paying for repairs, I gutted the home and searched for work while living in the gutted home. (Easy to do by myself, since the now ex-wife refused to return to this god forsaken city)
I also volunteered with agencies between jobs and weekends, such as Habitat for Humanity to learn how to repair my home by myself to save on cost. And frequent the Habitat's Rehab store for great deals.
I cut coupons to save money; why not better insulate to save on future utilities?
Friends, neighbors, and relatives marvel at the workmanship I've done and suggest that I start building homes!
They also keep asking why I ensure that it's above and beyond current code, and continue to repair the home using the best quality and energy efficient materials that I can afford? And wonder if I do it because I plan on living here forever? (I never planned on being here this long, I'm from Michigan and planned on living in Knoxville Tn as soon I as can find a job there and hopefully sell this one without a loss).
I just say I'm doing it right, the best I can, with the best that I can afford. And that it will increase the value, and will leave me with the knowledge and confidence that I didn’t screw over the next family that buys the house.
And if you can afford to build a mansion, it's your money. Enjoy it while you can.
I'd love to be able to build a home to withstand what ever the world threw at me. Which has been quite overwhelming.
It's now 4 years later (yes FOUR and counting), and the house is finally 3 feet above the flood zone area with help of the "repetitive loss program".
Which unfortunately spent more to raise the home, then its worth. (Got to love those wasteful government programs) Wish they would have just bulldozed it and let me rebuild it higher and much more efficient, but again was not eligible because I'm not on government assistance, and it had to be over 50% damaged. My came it at only 45%.
Good for Mr. Chase and his family. One lucky guy!
Posted: 12:26 pm on February 17th
It is not socialist to suggest that we consider the effects of our actions on others before deciding to commit those acts. Just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should.
Posted: 12:16 pm on February 17th
Posted: 7:37 pm on February 16th
The house, by itself proves nothing. Jumping to conclusions is dangerous. I am reminded of the Ox-Bow Incident. Analysis should always be considered over "common-sense" or "it's obvious that" or "it's only reasonable to assume that..."
Resonate? What resonates with me is thoughtful, careful analysis and a respect for other points of view. Yur initial questions, although appearing to be tongue-in-cheek suggest that, if given the chance, you would have prevented this fellow from building his house.
Yes, sure make note of the house, but not to poke fun, but an article on how it was build, how it was designed, its infrastructure, its layout. I for one would read that article.
But that's just me....
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts. Green often isn't.
Posted: 6:42 pm on February 16th
I fear that you missed the point of my argument. My point was that all too often people build homes as if it didn't affect anyone else in their community or any other land beside the one in which the house sits. Our homes, and the way we build them resonates beyond property lines. Now it's your freedom to not care about anyone, or anything else "downstream" of your home. But, at least admit that you don't care.
This entire idea of "it's my right to build however and whatever I want" despite the greater implications on the community and the environment is just downright scary.
And by no means am I suggesting government to control the issue. That's not the answer. I just hope that one day I see a cultural shift towards a more responsible and sensible way of building. There are a lot of people on that path, and I think we’re making good progress.
Posted: 5:17 pm on February 16th
Learning of your disdain for Mr Chase and his large house comes as no surprise to this reader of Fine Homebuilding Magazine. Although you claim your stance does not represent FHB, I see it in the pages of every issue. Each time a new magazine arrives, I must again face the question of whether I am repelled enough by the ever-present "green preaching" to finally cancel my subscription.
From my perspective, you are doing no favors to FHB with your curerent approach. How many other subscribers like me have you also alienated? IMHO opinion, your personal beliefs about environmentalism should be kept personal. FHB should not be used as a vehicle to promote your individual causes.
I will never understand why the green crowd feels they are uniquely qualified to tell everyone else how they should live. This nation was founded on principles of personal freedom and the God-given right to pursue happiness. But I guess such liberties do not apply to Arnold Chase (and anyone else who offends your environmental sensibilities).
In a previous post, I referred to the green movement as a religion. Most people do not appreciate being told what to believe and how to live based on the personal religious views of another. The same applies to you and your green religion. Please keep your self-righteous, condescending, and judgemental attitudes to yourself - and away from the pages of Fine Homebuilding Magazine.
Posted: 3:52 pm on February 16th
Posted: 2:37 pm on February 16th
I sent the Courant article around the office in an e-mail entitled "Your daily vomit" (I thought it was catchy). The truth is that the article, and the house it profiled, made me a bit sick.
My issue has less to do with the house itself, than with the premise upon which it was built. The argument has been made. Why build such a big house? The answer (for many), because he can. Well, in my opinion that's not good enough and I'll judge you for it. There are a lot of things we can do as a society, and a lot of things we do simply because we can. That, however, does not make them right.
The majority of this house is a waste. I say that because if you're not going to live in it, then how else would you classify it? Can someone honestly say that a family will live in every bit of a house this size? This award winning architect could have surely figured out how to design all of Mr. Chase's luxurious requests into a house half the size, correct? I get it; the house was built to stand as a symbol of wealth and power. To folks that are not impressed by such things, the house stands as a symbol of what's wrong with the current housing industry. (It may even draw back the curtain on some of the social problems in this country.)
The truth is that the way you build a house has an affect well beyond the borders of your property. SAMinOK states, "As long as I don't ask you to foot the bill for my family through government assistance, it is absolutely none, zero, zip, nada of your business." It is our business. You live within the fabric of a community, and the way you build has an impact on that community whether you choose to accept it or not. If you don’t care, then that’s another issue, but at least it’s a legitimate argument.
I once worked for customers who lived in a 6,000 sq. ft. house overlooking a lake in Connecticut. They brought in consultants and discovered they only truly lived in about 1500 sq.ft of the house. So, they sold it and built a smaller home (1500 sq.ft.) that was more in tune with their lifestyle. They could afford the 6,000 sq. ft. house. Truth be told, they could afford to live in a house 4 times that size, but their moral compass took them in a different direction.
Mr. Chase's home was built to send a message. Unfortunately, that particular message is all too clear.
Posted: 12:37 pm on February 16th
A friend once lamented to me that his wife was redecorating another room that nobody spends any time in. We both smiled and shrugged.
The fact is that most people who could, would. Note I said most. That's just the way it is in this-here U.S of A. Warren Buffet, last time I looked, still lived in the same smallish house he has lived in for over 40 years. And it is legend that Getty, one of the richest men in the world, brown-bagged it. And Walton drove a pickup truck.
But they're the exceptions, not the rule.
Thank the Great Pumkin, that these envious, angry, holier-than-thou types rarely get into political office.
I recently decided to buy my own little piece of the world. Lots of trees, a preserve abutting the property and a smallish house that I dared to enlarge. I'm no spring chicken, kids are grown, just me and my dogs. So when my brother asked why am I moving when I live in a very nice, recently renovated (by me, thank you FHB)house, my answer was simple: Because I can.
I don't begrudge Mr. Chase. I only wish he lived closer...maybe I could get invited to one of his pick-up baseball games...indoor field, of course.
Larry
Oyster Bay, NY
Posted: 12:53 am on February 16th
Posted: 7:17 pm on February 15th
For those to criticize anyone for having over their alloted 1.5 children, and then have the audacity to turn around and suggest that Mr. Chase could have taken 10,000 sq/ft of his house and given that amount to habitat for humanity,who are you to judge what he should do with his money? Guess what? I have four kids. Know why? Because I have the desire and the ability and I live in America and I can. As long as I don't ask you to foot the bill for my family through government assistance, it is absolutely none, zero, zip, nada of your business.
Then for anyone to imply that the creation of jobs during the construction of a house this size could somehow be put in the same category of job creation through children with cancer, debilitating car wrecks, or catastrophic bridge collapses...well...that just dosen't even make sense. I'm pretty sure that the jobs created during the construction of this house was not at the expense of another person's mortal peril. (Yes...I hear it now...but Mr. Chase is destroying mother earth. All I can say is if you feel so strongly about it, why are you using the electricity to read this on a computer? Shame on you.)
I would also like to say that I have read and enjoyed all the Not So Big House Books. I have also read several books on green building and enjoy reading Fine Homebuilding. (However I can honestly say that if I have to read any more op ed pieces like this, I will very likely reconsider that last remark.) For those of you who haven't taken the time to read any of the Not So Big House books, let me ask you this. Do you have a formal dining room? If so, how often do you use it? If only twice a year, would that not also qualify as wasteful space? See...who's to say?
I am a fan of home construction both small and large. (Heck, I would probably give $20 just to tour this home and see how it was put together.) I may not be a fan of large homes and I may not be a fan of geodesic domes or underground homes, but I really don't have to worry about living in any of them.
I do live in America though, where my achievements in life are determined by my ability and my desire. I can live in whatever type of house I want and have however many children I want as long as I have the ability to sustain them.
So, for those of you who find these freedoms appalling, all I can say is that I'm pretty sure there are several communist countries on this planet that would be happy to tell you what type of house you can have, what you can do with your money, and how many children you can have.
Posted: 6:26 pm on February 15th
Posted: 5:09 pm on February 15th
Posted: 4:40 pm on February 15th
This is America and Achievers are what makes this place great. I have done work in CT on homes that are much too big, expansive, expensive with rooms of unknown use. Good for these people who kept me employed and allowed me to use talents otherwise wasted.
At the begining of the 1900's an ancestor builta dream house with industrial revolution money. Imported tiles, things from the Vaticanand looted from down on their luck Europeans who longed for the commerce. It quickly became a nunnery or girls school and the money we could have beentaxed on as inheritance was given away as charity. Life is wonderful that way. I never deserved better than I have worked for or earned.
But the article is funny. Given that Global Warming and Climate Change are now so thoroughly discredited, can't we go back to living OUR dreams as individuals rather than the dreams of the Commons?
I just bought a house in Santa Fe NM and will take the state subsidy for solar heating my radiant heated floor!!
Posted: 4:16 pm on February 15th
All the extra money that you have left over, after paying for a one-room 100 sf living space, can be sent to Haiti or given to other poor people. Spending your extra money on yourself is pure greed and vanity.
Posted: 3:51 pm on February 15th
Small houses are just that - small houses. In many instances, especially as families grow, they are too small, uncomfortable, lacking adequate storage and devoid of amenities that most of us wish we could afford. That's why millions of people, myself included, would like to have the opportunity later in life to build a BIGGER house.
It's one thing for bloggers to go to one extreme or another in stating their opinions. It is different, however, when the editors of a responsible magazine get so obsessed with an issue - especially one in which they, as publishers, may have a conflict of interest - that they in effect are demeaning the legitimate aspirations of many of their readers.
Posted: 2:08 pm on February 15th
67 % the poors in this country have full time jobs (I don't surely remember the number and the source of 67% or 76%), 38% of them work two jobs (I am one). I still work voluntee because I can't waste my resources (time, material left from job sites, I regard as respurces). Is 15,000 sq Ft of living space a waste? Homeless needs 10 Sq Ft and they don't even have it, Mr. Chase. The USA has more homeless persons than Haiti has, sir.
Posted: 1:36 pm on February 15th
Posted: 1:02 pm on February 15th
Posted: 12:38 pm on February 15th
Posted: 12:02 pm on February 15th
Posted: 11:40 am on February 15th
I saw part of a program on PBS last night about the restoration of Fallingwater.
To think that so many people have not advanced in their knowledge of architecture and that we are in 2010 and Frank Lloyd Wright designed Fallingwater in 1934.
That huge house is a monster in every way.
Proves yet again that money and sound taste don't necessarily go hand in hand.
Posted: 11:35 am on February 15th
If that big house guy wants to be really carbon neutral he needs to own enough forest for the annual growth of his trees to equal the weight of his house and all of his cars.
Posted: 11:20 am on February 15th
When got a permit to build my 12'x18' house in the country the property appraiser came out to do an assessment. When they got back to the county office they LOWERED the property taxes by $600 a year.
It turns out my mom never told the county that her house burned down in 1984. She'd been paying property taxes like this was improved property for 20 years. I saved her a lot of money when I decided to build my house near those ruins so I could use the same well and driveway and power lines.
Posted: 10:55 am on February 15th
Posted: 10:46 am on February 15th
Posted: 10:46 am on February 15th
My point being, there are crimes in the building community much worse than building an extremely large house.
By the way, backing away from your comments by calling them a bad attempt at comedy is a little cowardly. You wanted him to feel shame, and to be a little insulted. If this home had been built the way many are today, it would have been justified. But, you've been caught. It happens to me all the time. You just have to research a little more next time. If the deadline is too close, pick another battle.
Posted: 10:25 am on February 15th
So here goes OK this is one big structure and even the residential areas is over 10,000sq feet that is a huge house. But to a slum dweller in India a 1200sq foot very modest American home is also a large house.
Mr Chase is very wealthy and now leads a very privileged life.
http://people.forbes.com/profile/arnold-l-chase/81981
Now his life and his needs in a residence is very different then most of us. He does own a lot of luxury items he has holdings in multimillion dollar companies he also funds the SANDRA AND ARNOLD CHASE FAMILY FOUNDATION a philanthropic organization that spends millions not on him self but others.
His residence will be used as much as a place to conduct business both for his money making ventures as well as his philanthropic organizations. So sure does he really need this huge building no maybe not but do we really need more then enough space for a bed a toilet and sink and a hot plate?
Everyone indulges their own excess to on degree or another.
Now most of us readers of FInehomebuilding earn a living building homes. The reality of that field is those with the money to hire us have more in common with Mr Chase then a slum dweller of mumbai india. It is simply a matter of degrees.
So I say lets do a more in-depth story about this structure I am sure it contains many features that most of us could use on a smaller scale. How many of you have put a home theater in homes you built? or remodeled? I have in fact that is the number one feature most people that hire me want in their basement renovations. The large number of sales of large Flat screen TVs is testament that even people of modest means want luxury.
This house uses many energy saving features has many state of the art technologies that would make a 2000 sq. foot home very efficient in comparison to the McMansions built through the 1990s. How many contractor's over the past 3 years worked on this house? and How many people have you kept employed during this economy?
Now I am all for building responsible homes and modest homes for those with much more modest incomes, I am very involved with Habitat for humanity. But if I am going to continue that work I also need to earn a living to support my family.
For each job I do for a wealthy person the more I can do for those less fortunate. To condemn those who have money for having it or how they spend it does not help anyone. Many of us need people to spend on luxuries so that we can provide are necessities for our families. To Condemn they for it is counter productive.
You know what I am not going to get hired to build a library of custom cabinets by a poor person But I can use the money I earn building it to help the poor. I for one do not feel Luxury spending is evil for each luxury purchase there is someone not as well off benefitting by that purchase. The reason most of us are struggling and people are loosing their jobs is not because of more luxury spending but because of less of it. If we are going to revise the very industry Finehomebuilding relies on we need more spending not less. We need more people to build homes to spend to remodel their homes.
No we do not want reckless spending beyond peoples means but we do need people with money to spend it so other people can get work. so they also can spend leading to more jobs.
I know the extremely wealthy are a easy target when you are struggling to keep your modest home and you feel they are rubbing your face in it when they have more then they need and you are loosing your home. Especially when they work for the very banks that want to take your house or are CEO of et very company that just laid you off. But before you get mad remember someone just like you is able to keep their family in a home because of that spending you are condemning.
Posted: 10:23 am on February 15th
Posted: 10:19 am on February 15th
This large project probably kept well over 100 people and even more supporting businesses employed and afloat. This does not even touch upon the fact - brought up in an earlier comment - that the taxes are keeping a lot of FAMILIES employed. Another benefit is that the introduction of the wealthy in any area expands growth for local businesses on a day to day basis.
Fine Home Building Note: Please concentrate on construction details and quality as well as materials and means and methods.
Zachary Schweter
Owner
ZS Design Architect, PLLC
Posted: 10:18 am on February 15th
Fine Homebuilding should not be limited to the modest, otherwise the journal should go under another name. I hope the Fine Homebuilding team will reconsider turning this debacle into an informative interview with the blessing of the architect and owner.
Posted: 9:48 am on February 15th
The "green" movement has become a religion to some (apparently including at least one Fine Homebuilding editor). The comments here reflect the self-righteous, holier-than-thou, judgemental, condescending attitudes sometimes associated with extreme religious fundamentalists.
Embrace whatever ideas you like, but please - keep your religious evangelism to yourself.
Posted: 9:13 am on February 15th
Posted: 8:52 am on February 15th
Posted: 8:32 am on February 15th
Do you think you should be praised for what you have done?!?
I find your home to be obnoxious and disgusting. Allan Greenberg? Who is is this guy? and who cares about his Richard H Driehaus award? If he designs homes such as yours, he should be put in jail.
Shame on you Mr Chase for justifying your excessive lifestyle through PV and geothermal. I have a novel idea... how bout a smaller home?
and to Mr Tusat....
Just because we live in a capitalistic society doesn't give us the right to rape the planet. Call me a hippy... call me a communist... at least Im not greedy, self-centered, materialist, and superficial.
Posted: 7:31 am on February 15th
After reading the comments here be Mr Chase, I wonder if Fine Homebuilding could benefit by hiring a few more Jr Researcher's ans a few less Sr Editors.
Maybe it's more appropriate to Mother Earth News, but then they have a reputation for well researched articles and after reading the news that this house has more PV and better insulation values than most "Green" projects, it would probably get a good write-up in MEN as well...
Posted: 5:32 am on February 15th
Nice house. Reminds me of the times when I've had someone offer up defense for having a brood of children. "Oh, they can afford them, they have lots of money." Right. Never mind the planet.
Money, "tread lightly" foot print, model of efficiency, big deal. 15,000 sq. ft. of living space is obscene. How about spending the money for that extra 10,000 sq. ft. toward something truly meaningful - giving a small energy efficient company a leg up.....seed money for a community "energy efficient transformation education" program........the charity of your choice? Foundation seed money for energy efficient, "green"design/materials for your local Habitat for Humanity? Anything you would consider socially redeeming would be better than 15,000 sq. ft. of living space.
Posted: 3:59 am on February 15th
Architecturally speaking, I think it works, evoking a sense wherein the master who lives there is a man of great wealth. However the decision to bring the collections inside is very interesting, as colonial-era plantation owners preferred to erect outbuildings to keep their "collections" as far away as possible.
Posted: 7:25 pm on February 10th
The building computer (DDC) keeps these spaces at 'below grade' ambient temperature year 'round (about 63 degrees). Unless commanded to 'occupied' mode. the almost complete lack of energy needed to condition these spaces, plus the elimination of additional building 'footprints' above ground made complete sense to do it this way.
Posted: 2:19 pm on February 10th
Either way it will never be a home!
Posted: 12:38 pm on February 10th
I think it’s great that you were able to employ the latest in energy-efficient technology. It’s pretty much what I would hope from someone who builds on this scale. It indicates a certain responsibility to lead by example. It’s the same principle that drives Fine Homebuilding to showcase projects and builders who lead the way in smart economic and energy-efficient choices. As popular as it may seem to some, the concept of good building practice (referred to as “green” in some circles) still has a long path to the kind of mass acceptance that will ultimately benefit us all. Even in the face of an impending energy crisis, homes are still being built as if it were still 1960. It’s a waste of materials, oil and money.
I do have one more question for you – why such a big house?
Posted: 12:34 pm on February 10th
While the bricks obviously do not generate electricity, the 17 Kilowatts of PV certainly do. If you bothered to really study the project you mock, you would find a list of extraordinary energy saving measures (geo-thermal systems, R-values greater than 50 in the exterior walls, underground earth-mass HVAC utilization, total DDC operation of all valves and air handlers, etc). For 2009, the property was carbon POSITIVE.
To accomplish all this in a home that is architecturally correct as to design, materials, and installation makes one wonder what you would consider "Fine Homebuilding" to be?
Posted: 5:33 pm on February 9th
You must be logged in to post comments. Click here to login.