Comments on: Argument: McMansions can’t truly be green http://legallysociable.com/2012/10/04/argument-mcmansions-cant-truly-be-green/ Pleasant musings on sociology, law, cities and suburbs, housing, and miscellaneous errata. Mon, 20 May 2013 22:01:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1 By: Solar panels are not just only for McMansions | Legally Sociable http://legallysociable.com/2012/10/04/argument-mcmansions-cant-truly-be-green/comment-page-1/#comment-20625 Solar panels are not just only for McMansions | Legally Sociable Sun, 04 Nov 2012 21:38:40 +0000 http://legallysociable.com/?p=9739#comment-20625 [...] only find solar panels on wealthy houses, like McMansions. (There might also be room here to debate whether McMansions could truly be green, even with plenty of solar panels.) Thus, we need to look at the example of Habitat for Humanity [...]

]]> By: Dick Platkin http://legallysociable.com/2012/10/04/argument-mcmansions-cant-truly-be-green/comment-page-1/#comment-19704 Dick Platkin Thu, 11 Oct 2012 22:59:39 +0000 http://legallysociable.com/?p=9739#comment-19704 Since I wrote this, let me reply. I have since talked to architects at USC, who identified additional McMansion features that are energy intensive, in particular the high and vaulted ceilings, as well as the flat roofs that are used to reduce costs and maximize mass. They both require additional heating and cooling. In combination with the requirement that all transportation to and from these extremely large homes is by car, usually large SUV’s, I think the only mitigation is smaller homes.

In comparison, the amount of energy savings from more efficient HD tvs, microwaves, blue ray players, driers and washers, dish washers, pools, spas, and multiple bathrooms is minuscule.

]]>