September 17, 2009

“If the City of Boulder railroads their home size limits, we may have to move.” Is the regulation of house-flippin’ McMansioners (and a few folks who just want big homes) un-American?

The complete tweet that inspired this post: “@PQBoulder If the City of Boulder railroads their home size limits, we may have to move. Too bad ego and insecurity play such big roles.”

Is it a case of Big Brother—or good ol’fashioned green common sense—for Boulder to limit the construction huge homes?

Boulder, Colorado and the Case of the Ever-Expanding Home.

Why do we need huge homes? In 1970, only four years before I was born, 1,400 sq ft was America’s national average. My green-renovated Victorian, “Hotelephant,” in downtown Boulder, Colorado, built in 1904, is 2,100 square feet—it feels big, and yet is less than half the size of your average “McMansion.”

Do we need super-sized homes? Why? If you got five dogs, two parrots and a Kennedy-size family, okay. But if not…why don’t you give a go at giving a care about the next seven generations? Hear about this thing called “green?” It’s not just a fad: it’s about living a good life that also happens to be good for others, and our planet. Living a responsible, yet meaningful and fun life. You can do that in 2,100 square feet, I promise you—and studies have shown that, no matter the size of your home, the vast majority of your time is spent in just one or two rooms.

Disagree? Fine. Let me know why in the comments section, below. Always happy to have a dialogue!

Via the Daily Camera:

Read 8 Comments and Reply

Read 8 comments and reply

Top Contributors Latest

Elephant Journal  |  Contribution: 1,510,485