Community› The Bump Message Boards› Eco-Friendly Family
Eco-Friendly Family
New Discussion

Which house option would you consider more EF? Clicky poll.

OneSimpleMomOneSimpleMom
in Eco-Friendly Family

For about the same price we could buy a big (2850 sq ft), old (think 1930's) house in town OR buy 5 acres outside of town and build a smaller house (1350 sq ft).

Some might automatically consider building a new house to be non - EF, but there's really more than meets the eye. The new house would be much more energy efficient. The acreage would also enable us to grow food organically and have chickens (eggs), a cow (milk), etc.  

The amt of time to work for DH would be about the same. We'd spend a little more time driving each week if we lived on the. acreage (longer to church, the store, etc.)

What do you think? 

[Poll]
Report Reply to Post

Re: Which house option would you consider more EF? Clicky poll.

  • pixy_stixpixy_stix member

    New house is still developing undeveloped land, creating a larger carbon footprint, building more reflective heat surfaces (driveway/roof/outbuildings), etc.  Not to mention using new materials for building, and depending what your sewer system would be, possible contamination of ground area.

    Building new is *never* the better EF option.  Even if you try to be as green as possible.

    Report Reply
  • Loading the player...
  • SoyagerSoyager
    Although the new house is using new resources, at this point in time, it would be providing much-needed work to someone, which, for me, would be a factor, too. Over time, the new house would be more energy efficient, outweighing the initial use of resources. Additionally, a smaller house = less space for stuff, which is an EF practice! I think the opportunity for growing your own produce is ideal, too. Good luck! I"m getting excited for you!
    My Little Tree Hugger
    <a href="http://s1103.photobucket.com/albums/g471/HealthfulMama/?action=view
    Report Reply
  • smurfetteinredsmurfetteinred
    I would say that the older house is the better option (although I would wonder about how easy it would be to properly heat/ cool a very large house like that) but I personally would pick the acreage option because it would fit the lifestyle that I am aiming for (ability to have your own livestock, large garden for homegrown, organic produce/ canning, etc). If you are going to base your decision on efness of the house alone then go for the already existing house but I think sometimes you have to weigh more than just the ef of things and go with other factors that impact your life. If the larger farmier property is more in keeping with what you want to be doing and will allow you to be more ef in other areas of your life then I think it may be worth making that choice.
    Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
    Report Reply
  • ElloPoppetElloPoppet

    I'm not voting quite yet - I would think 5 acres and farm animals and gardening would basically only work out if one of you stayed home and did that stuff all day. I think the small house & farm situation sounds pretty nifty, but I would not want to wake up at 5am to milk a cow before work. 

    Basically...if you think you can manage the home & land maintenance of the smaller house, I pick that. If not, I'm also a sucker for 1930s architecture and for very short commutes to work.

    Report Reply
  • SoyagerSoyager

    imagesmurfetteinred:
    I would say that the older house is the better option (although I would wonder about how easy it would be to properly heat/ cool a very large house like that) but I personally would pick the acreage option because it would fit the lifestyle that I am aiming for (ability to have your own livestock, large garden for homegrown, organic produce/ canning, etc). If you are going to base your decision on efness of the house alone then go for the already existing house but I think sometimes you have to weigh more than just the ef of things and go with other factors that impact your life. If the larger farmier property is more in keeping with what you want to be doing and will allow you to be more ef in other areas of your life then I think it may be worth making that choice.

    I tend to think along these lines, too. Plus, health is a huge factor. I would be concerned with lead paint, asbestos, and mold issues with an older construction (which, ultimately, would need to be replaced and disposed of...). And although Pixy has a point about developing undeveloped land, unless you're going to the zoning commission to have the land changed from residential to "protected," there isn't much that could be done to stop it from eventually being developed. Someone building a small home with a farm is better than a contractor building a community!

    My Little Tree Hugger
    <a href="http://s1103.photobucket.com/albums/g471/HealthfulMama/?action=view
    Report Reply
  • pixy_stixpixy_stix member
    Unless its an existing older development, 5 acres in the country is a significant impact to the environment.  It's the definition of urban sprawl.
    Report Reply
  • pixy_stixpixy_stix member

    imageSoyager:
    And although Pixy has a point about developing undeveloped land, unless you're going to the zoning commission to have the land changed from residential to "protected," there isn't much that could be done to stop it from eventually being developed. Someone building a small home with a farm is better than a contractor building a community!

    Yes, but you as the individual wouldn't be creating the change if you chose not to develop.

    On a smaller scale its the argument of, "If I don't buy the bottled water, then someone who doesn't recycle will."  Which we all know is a fallacy.  The proper choice is to not buy it at all and find other alternatives.

    (Also, I'm looking at this as an intellectual argument, not as an attack and I hope no one thinks it is!)

    Report Reply
  • smurfetteinredsmurfetteinred
    imagepixy_stix:

    (Also, I'm looking at this as an intellectual argument, not as an attack and I hope no one thinks it is!)

    I don't think of it as an attack and I'll admit my first choice would be to find a larger piece of land that already had a house on the property. 

    Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
    Report Reply
  • OneSimpleMomOneSimpleMom
    Sorry I had to post and run earlier! I really enjoyed reading everyone's responses. Smurfette I think you're right in that sometimes you have to make a choice also based on the lifestyle you want to have. The land is definitely raw and we would have to pave a driveway and dig a little pond in the low area. I guess ideally we would buy the land and leave it untouched to save it from the developers... and then live in town... but who has money for that? not us :) And I hope no one gets the wrong idea - real estate around here is ridiculously cheap. Acreage is about 5k per acre and the preexisting house in town is under 135k. 
    Report Reply
This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards
"
"