arnoldchase

As a person who has managed and owned broadcast media for several decades, the first thing I learned was to fact-check BEFORE reporting or opining on a subject. I must say I am truly saddened by the all too prevalent tendency of people to spout off on subjects they really lack specific knowledge about. Just because one cannot fathom the “why” for something being built, does that justify the assumption there is no valid reason for doing so? In a similar vein, if something does not conform to the ‘norm’, should it be automatically viewed as evil?

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.

The actual "living" area of the space is about 15,000 sf. Large, yes, but not unlike many homes in the area. The reason the 'total' figure is so high results from the decision not to erect numerous 'out buildings' for the various collections, etc. throughout the property, but instead, they were all placed underground next to the living area.

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.

I'm sure Allan Greenberg, who was awarded the 2006 Richard H. Driehaus Prize for Classical Architecture in recognition for built work and scholarship that has enriched the American architectural and cultural landscape, would appreciate your comments about his work. Are you usually in the habit of judging a home by looking at a single picture of a side?

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?