Unfortunately, those terms have become stale from over-exposure, and attaching a proper definition to them can be difficult.
While based on an ethic that is noble and sincere, the green movement today bears little resemblance to the one that fostered the Wilderness Act of 1964, or Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, or even the soaring meditations of John Muir. In fact, practitioners today have become, at times, downright vapid and silly.
In the frigid depths of winter, at any Whole Foods in the country, one can find organic raspberries from Chile, flown in on a 747. We have “green” fashion, and fashion – as Paul Hawken points out – “is the deliberate inculcation of obsolescence.” We have $40,000 hybrids which still only get 22 miles per gallon. We live in 6,000 square foot mansions that nonetheless have recycled teak wood floors and Energy Star wine coolers.
The green movement today has become popular and pedantic, the darling of Madison Avenue, a market externality that people are willing to pay for but rarely spend much time exploring.
Which brings us to “green” home building. Like every other sector of the economy, the construction industry has been guilty of co-opting the green label, plastering it on everything from windows to paint to plumbing parts, and calling the resultant structure “earth-friendly.”
Unfortunately, they are not, and never will be. Paul Werenko, owner of North Star Construction, likes to say “the only truly green house is the house you never build.”
In an effort at full disclosure, and honesty at the expense of potential fame and fortune, we recognize that even the square house is not “green” in the way many people define the word, which is to say “carbon neutral.” Like any house, it consumes energy. It is made of parts which were manufactured using energy – in some cases, tremendous amounts of energy. Though highly affordable, they still consume a vast amount of monetary resources, money that could just as easily be used for more – ah-hem – humanitarian causes.
Despite what we insist is a concern for responsible and sustainable construction practices, the truth is that we are engaged in a business that does nothing to save the planet. Even an Earthship (http://www.sangres.com/newmexico/taos/earthship.htm ), made of recycled tires and cans, running on solar power and filled with good intentions, is not carbon neutral. No house is, and any builder or realtor who tells you otherwise is either deluded or lying. Or both.
So. That said I will now make an attempt to alleviate our agonizing guilt.
The square house is, first and foremost, smaller than the average American home, which weighed in at 2349 square feet in 2004. They’ve likely gotten bigger since then. In 1950, it was just 983 square feet. In our minds, size – for completely obvious reasons – is the greatest limiting factor to energy and material efficiency.
It is beyond the scope of this article to ponder the myriad socio-economic reasons for this increase, but suffice it to say: we don’t believe bigger is better. Square houses come in five sizes: 729, 900, 1225, 1267, and 1600 square feet, with garage and carport additions available.
Second of all, we have an almost fanatical obsession with limiting waste (see Limiting Waste in the Square House). We build with the materials in mind, which means you’ll never find us cutting a 10-foot 2x4 to fit into an 8-foot wall (and if you do, rest assured we have a use for that 2-foot drop). Massive scrap piles are conspicuously absent from our job sites, and the framing waste from a recent, 1400 square foot project could have easily fit into the trunk of a car!
Thirdly, our homes are built with materials that require little or no maintenance: steel, concrete, aluminum, glass, etc. While the up-front environmental cost of such materials (the “embedded energy”) is usually higher than, say, adobe or wood, the amortized cost over their useable life span is much, much lower. For example, a block of concrete might cost 10 times more than a block of wood, but it will last 10,000 times longer when exposed to the elements.
Fourthly, we make every effort to make our homes as energy efficient as possible. From a revolutionary foundation/slab design (see Advanced Slab Design),
to their passive solar orientation, 
to an ingenious heating and cooling system, to efficient on-demand water heaters, the square house is a study in conservation. While we do incorporate a few measures – like a generous amount of glass – at the expense of greater energy efficiency, it is done so in the interest of combining aesthetics, affordability and efficiency in an attractive package.
Finally, we all want to live sensible, productive, conscientious lives. We want to provide for those we love, and that includes reasonable shelter.
If you think a square house might be your form of reasonable shelter, please give us a call.
