Should Boulder Limit Homeowners' Ability to Build McMansions?

Tonight, in Boulder, the City Council gathers once again in an effort to come to a decision regarding an issue that inspiring environmentalists, neighborhoods and developers alike.

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 square feet 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:

Follow Waylon Lewis on Twitter: www.twitter.com/elephantjournal

Comments

[benjaminblue]

There are least three reasons why town councils should impose rules about intended construction:

1. Aesthetics concerns -- buildings should appear to be part of a coherent whole, to extend the sense of community; no one wants to live in a schizophrenic hodgepodge of a place.
2. Resale worries -- elephant-like monstrosities may prove to be, understandably, white elephants when the prospective builders move away; there may be little if any market for the homes they will eventually leave behind, and no community wants to have unoccupied properties, neglected eyesores that become a target for squatters or looters and a haven for weeds, tin cans and other refuse.
3. Power consumption -- even "green" construction sucks up a certain portion of the available public utilities, and larger homes, with more rooms to heat and light, can consume more than a fair share of the energy the current infrastructure may provide, thus reducing the power available to existing homes and limiting the number of new buildings that can be erected.