It's crafty all right

Is this a green home? 21

lyon-houseI’m thinking about reporting on this house as an example of sensible environmental design reproducible for the masses. Can anyone help me decide? This is a press release (emphasis mine):

We handle parenting author, environmentalist, and “The Crafty Mom” Mary Lyon who recently built her 6,700 square foot spectacular “green” home in Brentwood, California. Below is some info on this amazing house, which Mary describes as “The Jetsons meets the Flintstones.” …

Parenting author, environmentalist, and “The Crafty Mom,” Mary Lyon recently built her “green” house. The 6,700 square foot three-story passive solar home (including a basement) is equipped with solar photovoltaic panels that generate electricity (9 kilowatts will be generated to run the house), eliminating the need for a generator and offering energy security, and solar heated hot water, which is integrated with an in-floor radiant heating system. One hundred percent of the roof tiles and resilient flooring are made out of recycled tires. The self-sustaining home is “designed to last 200 years,” says Lyon. The environmentally conscious Lyon wanted to have a house “tailored to the family and who we are. The house doesn’t force us to give up anything—it is up to us to fulfill its purpose.”

Insulation (Ultratouch) for the home is made from post-industrial blue jean manufacturing, and woods are composite wood products—palm wood for flooring and bamboo for the ceilings. Bamboo is a fast-growing renewable resource and palm wood is taken from crops of already chopped down palm trees (otherwise, trees are cut and the wood is left to rot on beaches.)

A trapezoid-shaped water wall artwork by artist Blue McRight measuring close to 18 feet high greets those entering the home for a feeling of immediate tranquility. An automated lighting system with motion and pressure sensors is set up throughout the house so that the lights will follow a person throughout the home. Lights will dim and eventually turn off after sensing no one is in the room, thus saving electricity. The system can also be set to the manual mode if guests prefer using light switches. This “smart house” is able to be controlled to the family’s preferences.

“My husband wired the whole place electronically so it’s a ‘smart house’ and he can almost literally play it like a keyboard—more energy conservation and savings. The solar power provides us some tax breaks and save us money on our utility bills, allowing us to ‘bank’ energy for later use,” says Lyon.

A complete home reverse osmosis water filtration system is installed so every faucet in the house will run clean drinking water. Laundry gray water will be recycled and used to water the lawn and gardens.

Each room is fitted with a skylight, which can be controlled electronically to exhaust hot air out and passively cool the house as needed, allowing the house to breathe and save on air conditioning (only two rooms will be air conditioned).

In addition, the great room features a 9’ x 20’ telescoping glass wall that opens to the patio/outdoor yard allowing the beauty of the outdoor gardens to flow into the home. The living room displays a vintage Douglas fir wood column that Lyon and her husband found and salvaged from an old torn down building. A unique charging station specifically built to recharge the family’s electronic equipment (i.e. cell phones, cameras, etc.) sits in an area of the great room.

Other features include a recording studio with cork wood flooring built partially underground for natural cooling and soundproofing; a three-level elevator to accommodate Lyon’s husband, who has a wooden leg; Lyon’s art studio has a large curved window to allow for a view outside, and the outside is clad in copper panels; a multipurpose room that can double as a guest room for their two remaining elderly parents; and a cat room that can keep their pet away from allergic guests. Lyon personally designed tiles for the back splash of her art studio using dichroic glass fusing techniques.

According to Lyon they wanted a house that was a “blend of the Jetsons and the Flintstones. “We’re looking to be as cutting-edge as we can, and maybe to set an example, that you don’t have to build some barren dome in the wilderness somewhere to have an environmentally friendly home. It can look as nice and beautiful and inviting as any of them out there.” This ambitious project has already attracted many neighboring homeowners who stop by and ask to learn more about the alternative environmentally friendly resources the family is using.

Jonathan Hiskes is a Grist staff writer. He reports, tweets, eats, asks questions, self-promotes, looks out windows, and wonders if it could be like this.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. Al Breingan Posted 5:14 pm
    29 Jul 2009

    No I don’t believe any home this large can be a green home, unless it has 10 people living in it. Simply the amount of stuff and energy that was used to build it would make that difficult. While the ideas in the home may be green, and it is difficult to be sure on the basis of the information given, it seems to be yet another example of conspicuous consumption masquerading as Eco-friendly. Better than an average mansion but no cigar.

    Permalink

    1. funkendub Posted 9:05 am
      30 Jul 2009

      I agree with Breingan - a "green" house uses not only environmentally smart materials but caps square footage per person, too. And the Sustainable Building Advisor program, along with other LEED-like orgs, says that geographical placement is crucial. Brentwood, in overcrowded, water-hogging southern California, is by definition unsustainable. This house, no matter how smart the design, is incorrectly situated to win any sort of seal of approval.

      Permalink

    2. alicia8522 Posted 7:23 am
      02 Aug 2009

      Yes you are right. I too belive so. There are several crireias to be met to get declared as a green home.

      Permalink

  2. Tom Twigg's avatar

    Tom Twigg Posted 5:25 pm
    29 Jul 2009

    I would need to move in and try it on for a few months before I could say, can you arrange that Jon?

    Permalink

  3. spaceshaper's avatar

    spaceshaper Posted 8:16 pm
    29 Jul 2009

    "an example of sensible environmental design reproducible for the masses"You are kidding, right?

    Permalink

    1. Jonathan Hiskes's avatar

      Jonathan Hiskes Posted 10:07 am
      30 Jul 2009

      Most definitely. Perhaps I should have dialed up the sarcasm a bit more.

      Permalink

  4. MArntzen Posted 9:49 pm
    29 Jul 2009

    How many people live in this 6,700 sq ft home? As a graduate of architecture school "green" has become the topic du jour and especially with people with money. Look at Al Gore - he lives in a huge mansion, yet his utility bill is in the thousands - green credits - NOT. Former president George Bush’s home is more modest (10k vs 4k sq ft) and considerably more green than anything Gore could come up with. (http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp)

    Assuming this is your 'standard' California family of four then this is excessive. Doesn't matter how many 'green' things they've done to the home. Four people do not need 6,700 sq ft of space to live in. 1600 sq ft per person? I live in a modest 550 sq ft cottage (just me) and although it is a bit tight it works. And one must consider that that 1600 sq ft isn't all 'private' space - there is quite a few of those that are common areas.

    Like you said "another example of conspicuous consumption masquerading as Eco-friendly." Three level elevator? Couldn't have built a one-level home? Elevators consume lots of electricity.

    Considering this is in Brentwood, I'm sure the neighbors are oohing and ahhing over it. They are now going to strip their mansions and make them more 'Eco-friendly' as well.

    It's people like this that made me decide to go into commercial building design, once the economy builds up again. Rich and wasteful.

    Permalink

  5. Chris McMasters's avatar

    Chris McMasters Posted 11:43 pm
    29 Jul 2009

    Hmmm... I dunno... tough call...Is the wooden leg FSC?(Sorry - just kidding.)Does the cat use litter made from corn-husks? (Hey now, it's better than using corn for cow feed, high fructose corn syrup, or ethanol.)Drawing appropriate lines may be the biggest challenge facing enviros and policy makers. If this home were net-zero, is it okay to exist as an obvious behemoth? What if a family of ten did live here... How does 'having a family of ten' help the environment, even in a net-zero home? What do they eat? How big are their closets? Complexities like these will undoubtedly continue to be a burden for those searching for a path to a cleaner, sustainable world. What this home does illustrate is that despite our political woes, our cultural ones may be a bigger hurdle to clear.We may get regulations on carbon, but you still can't regulate integrity...(However, I do think LEED has some limits on square footage.)

    Permalink

  6. The smart one's avatar

    The smart one Posted 7:26 am
    30 Jul 2009

    Okay, the house is large, as is Al Gore's. However, you also have to take into account that both of these large homes ALSO house their businesses. Which in the case of the Gores is a pretty big deal because both Tipper and Al have offices there. Plus, Al Gore's home was retrofitted to be more green, since it's a much older home.You can make the case that combining a home and office space actually saves energy in several ways. First, it eliminates the need for a separate building/office/site, whatever. Secondly, it completely eliminates the need to travel between home and work, which can be a huge energy savings. Do you really want to argue that Bush's Crawford place, situated in the middle of nowhere, saved energy for him to get there? Especially as often as he flew back and forth when he was in office. And now they have moved to the city, so it's a moot point. The Crawford place was also built just before Bush took office, so the technology already existed, unlike the Gores' older home.Personally, I feel that consolidating home and business, if you can manage it, is a good way to save energy. Yes, some of the stuff they do was unnecessary, and the house is huge, but in general, I give it a "green" label.  

    Permalink

  7. Andrée Zaleska's avatar

    Andrée Zaleska Posted 8:28 am
    30 Jul 2009

    Wow, this is simultaneously my dream home (including so much of what we want for the JP Green House but cannot afford), and a total affront to my simplicity ethic. I don't believe anything like this can be offered to the world at large, and so it cannot be considered sustainable. Facinating example to use for discussion and debate though!

    Permalink

  8. jlbaerg Posted 8:53 am
    30 Jul 2009

    So you gave the monster Brentwood house the Grist "Green" seal of approval.  Should I therefore downgrade my opinion of Grist as a serious site for addressing climate change solutions?  What exactly does "green" mean to you? Next time could you use some kind of metric to evaluate houses.  Btu/sqft/year is most common, but in this case Btu/person/year would be more applicable.Your point about commuting to work is a good one.  The question remains, how many people will use the house.  If there are employees, how far do they commute?Please get serious.Jim 

    Permalink

    1. Jonathan Hiskes's avatar

      Jonathan Hiskes Posted 10:13 am
      30 Jul 2009

      Grist gives no "seals of approval," and if we did we'd reserve them for truly revolutionary items like the cap-sac.

      Permalink

      1. jlbaerg Posted 10:54 am
        30 Jul 2009

        Here's the quote:   Yes, some of the stuff they do was unnecessary, and the house is huge, but in general, I give it a "green" label.

        Permalink

    2. Tom Twigg's avatar

      Tom Twigg Posted 11:24 am
      30 Jul 2009

      JLBAERG: The quote that you reference was not from a Grist writer but from a reader/commenter like yourself (who like yourself is entitled to his/her own opinions). The only Grist writing here is the first paragraph, which only poses the question.

      Permalink

  9. spaceshaper's avatar

    spaceshaper Posted 9:18 am
    30 Jul 2009

    Indulgent elective choices do not need the endorsement of sustainability advocates whatever the volume of recycled this and PV that they may contain. Comparisons with other over-size homes are specious. This is not in any sense a model for sustainable green construction 'for the masses' and is an insult to the many that are.Work/live does not need huge: here's an example: 3-bed 2-bath home for merged family of five, 1,874 s.f. includes 320 s.f. studio for artist mom, 5 min walk to business of framer dad, traditional energy-efficient passive solar on 1/4 acre lot in well-resourced walkable urban community. No PV, no elevators, no planned-obsolescent electronic doodads. What it does have is warmth, color, personality, great daylight, and the integrity that only comes with simple ideas well executed. That's a model.

    Permalink

    1. splashy's avatar

      splashy Posted 10:51 am
      30 Jul 2009

      What if artist mom did large artwork? Would you think she would need a bit more room? Some do wall sized work, that is installed in places like large banks, community centers, and so on. A person needs room for those kinds of sizes, and a big door to get them out. :-D

      Permalink

  10. splashy's avatar

    splashy Posted 10:47 am
    30 Jul 2009

    If they work at home, as does Al Gore, then they need more room. Sounds like one is an artist, who needs room to create and store the artwork. That can take up a lot of room.
    Besides, if they generate all their own power in a way that doesn't add to the CO2 footprint, why not have more room? One doesn't have to be cramped to live green.

    Permalink

  11. katmainomad Posted 12:27 pm
    30 Jul 2009

    I own a 4-plex that is about 2.5 times less than this house (~2700 sf). In it are housed my family of 3, an artist who paints at home and his brother, a young couple, and a single woman. 8 people, one of which does his art in the home. I find my 2-bed, 800 sf apartment HUGE for the three of us (we all started out in one of the 375 sf efficiencies), lots of unused space even with the worm bin, home repair tools, canning equipment, etc. I could easily slide a home office in there if I didn't work a block away from home. I also live in Alaska where the outdoors is somewhat 'challenging' (dark and 20 below) over half the year - not so in sunny SoCal where one could practically live outside under a shade tree. So not green, unless 20+ people live or work there full time.One doesn't have to live cramped to be green, maybe, but there are good reasons to be efficient with space even if it doesn't suck extra dirty power or water - more materials used (and not just once - every time you paint, clean, repair, etc), less land to garden or leave for other people or species, etc, more money on construction, cleaning, repair, property taxes that could be donated or used for greener purposes.

    Permalink

  12. gregobad Posted 12:37 pm
    30 Jul 2009

    Point of information: Brentwood is in Northern california, not SoCal as some posters have suggested, and is one of the outermost fringes of exurbs of San Francisco. It was one of the places hardest hit by the recent foreclosure wave because of its remote location and lack of non-construction-related employment. Not exactly an auspicious place to build a "green" home.

    Permalink

  13. myaya Posted 4:50 pm
    02 Aug 2009

    The CA Building Standards Commissioners are to be congratulated for their leadership.

    It is always more work to set up a new system than to fit into an existing one.

    It would be easier to stand aside as legal buildings continue to waste resources and pollute the environment.

    But, in the face of deeply entrenched, powerful opposition, the
    commission is rising to the challenge of revising all California's
    codes to allow/ require better building systems.

    Besides its emergency approval of the new graywater standards
    yesterday, the BSC is also revising California's Green Building
    Standards.

    This is a historic shift towards considering all factors; not just
    occupant safety-- but also off site and future impacts--in developing
    building codes that truly protect our health and welfare.

    Maya Shoemaker



    First hand accounts from the building standards commission hearing, in depth analyses:
    http://www.oasisdesign.net/greywater/press/

    Greywater how-to- resources for homeowners, renters, landscapers, and contractors:
    http://www.oasisdesign.net/greywater/press/index.htm#howto

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement