You know, if you were really concerned about sustainability and your impact on the environment you could always, I don't know, just spitballin' here, but maybe not build a 6,000-square-foot vacation home?
Sorry, I don't know what I was thinking there. That would entail actual sacrifice as opposed to the performative kind of sacrifice it takes to build an opulent virtue-signaling beachfront home you can then parade in front of people on the pages of The New York Times.
When Michael and Jennifer Monteiro bought a house on Cape Cod, they wanted more than just a vacation home near the beach in Massachusetts: They were determined to own something that reflected cutting-edge sustainability.
But mostly, they wanted a vacation home near the beach in Massachusetts.
The resulting 6,000-square-foot structure isn't small,...
No, "small" isn't the word I'd use. In fact, I'm not sure if I added together the square footage of every house and apartment I've ever lived in as an adult that I'd get to 6,000 square feet (which incidentally is over two-and-a-half times larger than the average American home and over three times larger than the median home in the state of Massachusetts where the house was built).
And this is their second home.
...but it does have a small carbon footprint.
How can that be? Welcome to the wonderful world of greenwashing in which the wealthy can write a check and in return are provided dispensation from the rules the rest of us are expected to live by.
Using the BEAM estimator from Builders for Climate Action, Mr. Titrington determined that the house produces less than half of the carbon dioxide emissions of a conventionally built structure.
That's less than half the carbon footprint of a conventionally built 6,000-square-foot oceanfront vacation home.
See how that works? The Monteiros aren't to be condemned for more than doubling their carbon footprint by building a second house, they are to be lauded for reducing the carbon footprint of their second house to something that is still more than the single modest house most American home-owners can afford.
And to my knowledge, owners Michael and Jennifer Monteiro are not planning on permitting illegal immigrants to live in their vacation home when they are not there, meaning it will be sitting empty most of the year creating "less than half the carbon dioxide" of similar vacation homes built by rich people.
And in the future, it will be largely self-sufficient.
"Largely."
The house is heated and cooled by electric air-source heat pumps, and the solar array on the roof is designed to generate as much energy as the house uses.
Really? In Massachusetts?
Maybe if you use the right insulation, that would help.
European insulation, that is.
Hey, we're not animals, okay?
Many new houses are tightly insulated with spray foam for energy efficiency, but Mr. Monteiro was wary of the petroleum-based chemicals in those products. So when Kiko Thébaud, a friend who is an architect, told him about hemp-based insulation used in France, he was intrigued.
But there was an issue.
The only problem? Spraying is the most efficient way to apply the hemp-lime, but they couldn't find an American installer with the necessary expertise and equipment.
So Monteiro did what any environmentally conscience virtue-signaling millionaire eco-warrior would do.
He imported his insulation from France.
And the equipment to install it.
And the workers, too.
Their solution was to assemble a team of French, Canadian and American specialists and import the spray rig from France.
I don't know about you, but I imported my plumber from Guatemala.
Sort of.
Substack writer and Covid realist Alex Berenson notes that this article appeared as part of a regular feature called, "Living Small."
Twenty-six times a year, The New York Times shows its commitment to the environment by offering readers "Living Small."
No, Living Small isn't about the joys and trials of being height-challenged. It's "a biweekly column exploring what it takes to lead a simpler, more sustainable or more compact life."
To clarify, it's a biweekly column exploring what it takes for you to lead a simpler, more sustainable or more compact life.
Them?
Incidentally, this wasn't the first house to sit on that prime oceanfront lot.
After buying a second home as an escape in 2019 — a 1980s oceanfront house in the town of Harwich for $2.6 million — Mr. Monteiro began thinking about how he could renovate to make it more energy efficient.
As he dug in, he uncovered some problems: The house had been poorly built, which made him wonder whether it was worth investing in upgrades, and although it wasn't in a flood zone, he worried about how rising sea levels might affect it in the future.
Clearly, there was only one environmentally sound choice.
The solution, the couple decided, was to demolish the house and start fresh.
Not to worry, they demolished a largely sound house that had already stood for about 40 years in an ecologically friendly way.
By using more fly ash in the brand new foundation they also had built!
For the concrete foundation, they specified a custom mix with less Portland cement (which generates carbon dioxide during manufacturing) and more fly ash (an industrial byproduct) than would normally be used.
Ah, but there was more.
Demolition, however, comes with its own environmental concerns. So they began by bringing in GreenGoat, a nonprofit building-material reuse organization to salvage everything worth keeping, and recycled as much of the rest as possible. And they hired Estes Twombly & Titrington Architects to design a new structure: a modern, sustainable house disguised as a traditional shingled cottage.
And so, at 6,000 square feet and $1,200 per, you've got yourself a nice little guilt-free getaway for $7.2 million.
It might be worth noting that the average construction cost for a new home currently tops out at about $155 per square foot (it's about that here in Virginia) meaning that an average-sized house of 2,273 square feet would cost you $352,315.
What would happen were you to emulate the Monteiro's $1,200-per-square-foot environmentally conscious construction practices?
That average American-sized house would cost $2,727,600.
"I don't expect everybody's going to want to build with hemp," [Monteiro] said. "But I hope it causes people to think more about the choices that go into building a house."
Thank you, Mr. Monteiro, and thank you New York Times for selflessly providing us these useful home-building tips.
Meanwhile, in Reality World...
P.S. Now check out our latest video 👇
