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.)”
Fine Homebuilding Recommended Products
Fine Homebuilding receives a commission for items purchased through links on this site, including Amazon Associates and other affiliate advertising programs.
8067 All-Weather Flashing Tape
Handy Heat Gun
Reliable Crimp Connectors
50,000 square feet of living space. Photo by RICHARD MESSINA / HARTFORD COURANT / February 4, 2010 on HartfordCourant.com.
View Comments
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?
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.) You have to admit that if you build a house like yours, you have to expect a few off-color comments from the peanut gallery.
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?
Is it a house or a convention centre?
Either way it will never be a home!
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.
In my opinion, because we live in a capitalist society, it's really no ones business to judge the merits of size or cost of the structures we inhabit. As large as this home is, remember there are many, many others that make this home look like a pied-a-terre.
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.
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.
I found the tone of the original article completely inappropriate to Fine Homebuilding.
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...
Mr Chase,
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.
It saddens me that Fine Homebuilding even gave a nod to this Gatsby era mansion, built in modern times. The cost per square foot, the comsumption (and I know, we are all entitled to make as much money, using any means possible and to spend that money in any way we want) even in the unoccupied areas, is just gross. Please continue to focus on the homes that are really built with intention and care for our planet. Please continue to educate homeowners and fine homebuilders about what constitutes creating a home with the best systems to lessen our footprint and impact, and leave this type of home to celebration in Architectual Digest.
Nice house!!! MR. Chase- you have done more spreading of the wealth than Obama could every do. I'm just thinking of all the craftsmen you hired to build your home. Oh the taxes- You have singlehandedly paid for at least 10 children to go to school this year. Good Job!!!
A smarmy article like this has no place in Fine Homebuilding Magazine.
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.
This is Fine Homebuilding, no? And clearly, this is a well-built home. As a Fine Homebuilding reader, it would be much more interesting to follow this tongue 'n cheek "article" with an invitation to Mr. Chase and Mr. Greenberg for a formal interview. While it is my preference to live modestly, I am more interested in how this home was developed in its design process, and further information about its carbon positive intent.
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.
It is nice to see diversity in types of houses being built. I - as an Architect - would love another chance to be commissioned to design a larger home, as i have in the past, really showcased my talent in a way where budget is not a program requirement. Furthermore i can explore more classical forms of Architecture and bring my experience living and studying Architecture in Italy to the table.
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
The energy consumed in the construction of such a structure negates the fact it may be carbon positive.
I am trying to find a way to put this in perspective and do it with the fewest words.
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.
i realize that writers may not always have an easy time coming up with something to write about. I also realize that, considering this is an op/ed piece, the author has a right to his opinion as we all do. However, there are many more situations in the building industry that deserve ridicule more than Mr. Chase. For instance, I find it appalling that in today's world, there are still many thousands of contractors/developers producing the same inefficient cracker box houses that were erected in the 60's. I also find it amazing that there are still thousands of log homes built every year. I had to assemble one that was about 2500 sq which contained enough lumber that almost four homes of equal size could have been built.
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.
Even when wearing lipstick, a pig is still a pig!
I'm a young aspiring architect w/ visions of grandeur. I think this residence hearkens back to the times when a wealthy family could establish an estate for themselves which could then be passed down for generations. i think it epitomizes the american dream. excessive, yes. but, well designed in comparison to the homes in the area, yes. i say congratulations on your accomplishments. i can only dream of having a house like that and holding black tie affairs, of the great gastby-ean era.
You kinda got flamed in these comments. In the effort of reminding people that you can poke fun at large and small houses alike I can't resist telling this anecdote about property taxes and my Very Small House.
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.
OK, I have to add another comment in response to the one about the American Dream of passing down an estate from generation to generation. Familial attachments should be to the land, not buildings. My grandmother did the research and paperwork to get her John Wind designed ancestral home listed on the National Register in the 1970's. Then her brother sold it because he couldn't afford the maintenance expense. But he only sold it with 40 acres of land. What my family still treasures and protects is the thousands of acres of undisturbed forest that my great-great grandfather bought in 1891.
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.
Amazing to think that a young architect thinks that there is any merit to this building!
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.
easy guys, I don't think that charles' comments were to be taken seriously. in my incredibly humble opinion a house like this is just aching for a few humorous shots, and if mr. chase takes this stuff seriously or anyone else who has a strong interest in building and architecture does then i suggest you sit back, take a load off and pretend that this is the beginning of a four or five day weekend and your popping that beverage of choice while reclining in that lounge chair by the pool that you dream of owning. this is just fun stuff not to be taken seriously. when i heard 50,00 sq ft i wanted to know how many electric golf carts he had or if he drives around on a segway scooter. all extremes are going to have a little fun poked at them, so just relax and and enjoy your beverage by the pool.
Hmmm....looks like another "Too big to fail" institution. I can see the artistry required in the design of these and the craft necessary to construct, but there is a point where this kind of over indulgence just reflects a serious lack of concern for its impact on our dwindling resources.
To those of you who have the right to your opinions and defend this monstrosity, shame on you. You search for good reasons to support this mess -- like: it creates jobs, it harkens back to The Great Gatsby, etc. Phooey. It's ostentatious waste - pure and simple. We could create more jobs by having more car accidents too. And making kids sick. And using poor construction materials in our bridges. If you Google this home you'll find that: The basement is so large it has it's own "home" within it with bedrooms, baths and a kitchen. That there's a place for a 'concession' and .... oh why bother? Pure and simple it's way over the top and stupid. Mr. Chase and family don't need an overblown show-off castle of these dimensions and we all know that much of it will go unused. And some day it will have to be torn down or turned into condos to support it's huge costs. (Just visit Newport RI to see how this works!) No one has spoken to the imbedded energy in constructing it and the effect on foreign oil. This is a monument to middle eastern oil and the sheiks luxuriating in their income from it. It's all well and good to lean on it's green 'features' but there are huge environmental costs in all those PV panels and the miles and miles and miles of wiring, 13 bathrooms worth of fixtures, and huge inverters and what-all. The heat pumps will have to be replaced one day at big imbedded costs (manufacturing, shipping, waste disposal). Consider the amount of fuel used just to excavate the place, and then the fuel used to import all the materials. No ... methinks, the Chase family could have done a damn site better than this in spending their huge sums of money that was earned on the backs of the working class. It's just plain pathetic and a clear message as to the insecurity of the owners.
It addition to having the money to built and maintain this house I bet he has the money to pay a lobbyist to defeat any legislation to role back the tax cut given to the rich by Bush.
Mr. Chase has his right to do whatever he wants, and the taxes to pay for his huge show case (three times more than my two job income combined) is his own business. I have honestly worked my butt out to meet my family needs, and I trongly think honest is the key here. If Mr. Chase is honest or not to make his living, no cheating by any means, then the taxes he pays help some poor ones (depending on the way the goverment has spent it). Otherwise, it sucks.
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.
Are the editors of Fine Homebuilding truly incensed at Mr Chase's extraordinarily large home or have they seized upon the Courant article as yet another opportunity to plug their obsession with Sarah Susanka and the Not-So-Big House (which they publish, and, like any publisher, hope to profit from)? None of us will probably ever come remotely close to building a home like Mr. Chase's. But small houses are not the panacea for all housing, social, environmental and architectual woes that the small-house movement would have us believe. Nor are people with larger homes as socially irresponsible and as architecturally obtuse as the folks designing and building Not-So-Big-Houses portray them.
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.
I think anyone here who has a house larger than 100 square feet should be ashamed for all the resources they're wasting. No one needs more than that. 100 sf is plenty of room for a cot, a TV, a dorm fridge, hot plate, and a toilet and sink, all in one room. If you think you need the luxury of having a separate bathroom, then you're just a greedy dirtbag. In fact, I think the dorm fridge is a luxury, and people need to do without it.
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.
Well. . . somebody touched a nerve! If I could - I too would live I what I could afford>
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!!
I'd like to add that anyone who spends any money on "green" technologies is also a greedy bastard. That money could be given to the poor instead. You don't need solar heating, geothermal heat pumps, solar electricity, or anything like that. Just get a blanket to keep you warm, and instead of wasting electricity watching TV, just read a book or stare at a concrete wall. All this "green" technology is just a flimsy excuse for people to waste money on themselves instead of giving it all to the poor.
I helped organize the first Earth Day event in my county as a high school senior and began college as an environmental economics major. Somewhere along the way I came to realize that most environmentalists I met are self-loathing, self-centered, envious, meddling, mean-spirited, anti-social SOBs and in their own way are just as greedy as the worst capitalists in the world. I finally woke up and realized that my crusade to spread misery wasn't going to make the world better and was making me a depressive miserable SOB myself. I don't envy Mr. Chase nor do I begrudge him his success and lifestyle. I'd be willing to go to war to defend his right to it as long as he doesn't care how I live my life. A pox on all you nannies and the government that lets you impose your sad outlook on the rest of us. Mr. Chase, enjoy your new home and thank you for all the employment you have made possible.
You want to know why Mr. Chase built such a large house? Because he had the desire and the ability to do so. And the last I checked, that's pretty much all you need as a citizen of this great country we live in to make your dreams come true.
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.
50K X $250/sq ft equals 12.5 million. Wow. Google earth shows about 50 vehicles on the property. I bet this house REALLY helped out the local economy! I like it.
I think what's scary about some of the comments is that they are truly heartfelt....and obviously socialist.
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
This is by no means the stance of FHB, but it's certainly mine. So, if you're going to respond harshly direct it at me. Here it goes:
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.
Reminds me of Shrek's line, when he first saw Lord Farquardt's castle...."Do ya think he might be compensatin' for somthing?"
RYagid writes: This is by no means the stance of FHB, but it's certainly mine. So, if you're going to respond harshly direct it at me. Here it goes: 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 ... blah blah blah.
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.
Gblotter, this is a blog, not the pages of the magazine. This is where opinions and ideas are expressed. We disagree, that is fine. That's our freedom.
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.
To say that "Our homes, and the way we build them resonates beyond property lines," makes no sense. Resonates? What does that mean? Has an effect? Maybe, maybe not. Just because the house is large doesn't mean it will have a greater effect on the environment than a house that is much smaller and poorly built. Chase says he's using R-50 in the walls and using Geothermal. He says that a lot of out buildings happen to be inside the home's envelope instead of outside the envelope. It's clear to me that the "common sense" green approach is often not. Take for example my community's efforts to collect recyclables. The trucks they use, diesel powered, generate lots of particulate pollution, noxious gases and use up our dwindling supply of fossil fuel. And what do they collect? Paper, a product that is renewable and glass, a product that is a very significant portion of the earth's crust (sand). Yes, they collect plastic and aluminum which can be and should be recycled (it takes far less energy to reuse aluminum cans than to smelt bauxite - on the other hand, most aluminum is produced by means of hydroelectric power, so I'm not sure that even that makes sense. As to real waste and damage to the environment look at golf courses. They single-handedly generate enormous pollution of underground water supplies with all of the fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, petroleum products used to keep the courses manicured and so on. But I don't see lots of people pushing to close golf courses.
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.
Dear Rob, Your comments are quite inflammatory. I do not know if I would like to be your friend with you vomiting all the time. I have 11 children 4 which are paying taxes now. The green movement is not based on good principals of safeguarding the environment. Al Gore and the other East Anglia Frauds are taking you for a ride, like the Wizard of OZ. All this talk of CO2 causing horrific problems. CO2 is not a toxic gas. We breathe it out and it is what trees use to grow. Did you know that Al just bought himself another house on San Francisco Bay? These guys are into controlling minions like you. Talk about real energy efficiency, and I will want to buy your magazine. I like houses that are comfortable and well built. I am without a house having just sold my house, and I am trying to find a house that can fit my family and last. I am into things that are sustainable and last; that boys can not break. Can you find a new house built to last? It has been almost impossible. I like more articles on building with ICF's, finishing materials that last the test of time, and great house design and things on good building habits. Google -caught GREEN HANDED and you Rob might not be called a socialist anymore. Maybe you might want to be called just reasonable and respectful. Yours The Builder MOM PS How to build a beautiful and inexpensive Russian stove would be a great next article.
I find it disappointing that some of you would accuse Mr Yagid of being a socialist, simply because he points out that while Mr Chase is legally entitled to build a monster home, the morality of such a decision is open to debate. And such a debate has ensued here. The ad hominems or name-calling ("socialist, religious zealot" for example), however, are neither fair nor useful to a constructive dialogue.
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.
Even though the "green" movement is now considered a sham, what's wrong with making your home as efficient and as large as possible?
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!
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.
As to one of the bloggers commenting about Socialism being an insult, calling someone a Socialist is not pejorative. Socialism is both a political and economic view of the world which can be summed up by the line (made famous in the Star Trek movie, Wrath of Khan), "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
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...
To clarify a few points, in no way do I think this home represents "evil". The intent of my argument wasn't that we should all do without luxuries in life or live a life free of consumption. That’s nonsense (and impossible). For instance, while I wouldn't want a movie theater in my home, having one in a home is a fun idea for some people. Having a banquet hall or a museum for parties is a good idea if that’s something you do often. I don’t think anyone on my side of the fence is truly bothered by the amount of money spent on the project, or how that money was spent. (That really is no ones business).
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.
Mr Chase I hope you also read the comments on this blog that agreed with you.
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.
Mr. Chase has certainly defended his massive structure in his comments above, and while it's laudable to use geo-thermal, insulate, and recycle construction debris, Mr. Chase does not care one square foot about the environment.
He can claim he does, but while he pats himself on the back for his eco-friendliness, he is hosting a fundraiser for Republican candidate for Vice-President Paul Ryan at his mansion tomorrow, a man who is on the record as a climate change denier and an advocate of fossil fuel subsidies. Are these the types of "charities" Mr. Chase is serving?
It makes NO SENSE for a man who cares about the environment to be raising money for climate change deniers.
Arnold Chase, we are not fools.