Is Your Home Too Big For Its Own Good?

American homes have been getting bigger and bigger. They have more than doubled in size since the 1950s; the national average was 2,349 square feet as of 2006. Barely a generation ago, it was considered perfectly civilized for a family to share one bathroom, and for siblings to bunk together in a single bedroom. Not so much anymore.

Our appetite for living large has big consequences for the environment, however. A 2,000-square-foot house requires 26,700 board feet of wood, which would take 102 trees (of 20 inch diameter), according to the Idaho Forest Products Commission. A 4,000-square-foot home would require 204 trees. Then there's the concrete, metals, plastics, stone, paints and so on, not to mention the disruption to soil, vegetation and wildlife habitat that results from construction.

True, green building techniques can go a long way to lessening your home's impact, from energy efficient appliances, climate systems and windows to good insulation and maybe even a green roof. A number of families, especially wealthy Hollywood types, have opted for mansions that are chock-full of energy and resource-saving features. While that's much better than conventional "McMansions," also remember that the more house you have, the higher your heating and cooling loads.

It's much easier to go green with something smaller, and you'll have a lot less to worry about in terms of keeping things clean and maintained.

• Which Is More Green, Old or New Homes?
• When A 2,866-Square Foot Home Is Just Too Small
• Will Going Green Help You Beat the Slow Housing Market?
• Poll: Should Cities Require Green Building?
• Poll: Would You Pay More For A Green Home?

COMMENTS ()