 On Point Vincent Carroll, editor of the editorial pages, writes his On Point column most weekdays. He is also an author and freelance writer. Reach Vincent Carroll at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com. |
Carroll: No big homes
The phrase “live and let live” might as well be Greek for all the respect it gets from Boulder County planners.
“It’s clear in our view that this ever upward trend in consumption, consumption, consumption is not sustainable, and we don’t think it’s unreasonable to put some checks and balances in place,” says Peter Fogg, a county land-use planner, as quoted by the Boulder Daily Camera.
Fogg was explaining the rationale for a proposal to limit home size in unincorporated Boulder County: no more than 4,000 square feet on the plains or 2,600 in the mountains.
Unless you’re very rich. Then you could build a larger house by way of what amounts to an officially sanctioned bribe: the purchase of hugely expensive development “rights.”
At a hearing Tuesday, county commissioners tried to reassure critics that the proposal was still in flux — meaning, apparently, that it may not be quite so oppressive when a final version is likely to be approved in the fall.
We hear many complaints these days about “McMansions” — a sneering term meant to suggest, among other things, that those who dwell in them share an aesthetic taste as undistinguished as a cheeseburger. “Why do those people need all of that space,” the critics wonder.
The answer, of course, is that they don’t need the space, any more than many of the critics “need” every room in their more modest dwellings. Most Americans, including most McMansion opponents, live in homes of extravagant size in comparison even with the average of a half-century ago. But why should they feel bad about that?
According to the National Association of Home Builders, the average new single-family house in 1950 was 983 square feet. It is now closing in on 2,400 square feet. At one point in the 1960s I shared a single bedroom — hardly unusual then — with three brothers. Today, naturally, each of my kids has a separate room.
And don’t forget: The 1950s and ’60s were a time of growth and prosperity. Living arrangements were often a good deal more cramped in earlier eras.
In medieval England, the historian Christopher Hibbert tells us, “the cottages of the villagers were squat and dark. They had no chimneys, the smoke from the fire being allowed to escape as best it could through the partially open door or the small window apertures . . . The interiors were commonly divided into two rooms, one for sleeping, the other for eating, animals frequently grunting or clucking in both. . . . Light when required for some essential task was provided by flickering rush-lights that momentarily dispelled the gloom. Furniture was rarely to be seen. . . . ”
Now there’s sustainability for you and a carbon footprint to match the greenest dream — minus the smoky fires, of course.
If Fogg is so worried about “consumption, consumption, consumption” and the “price to everyone of land impacts, energy use and construction materials,” as he went on to say, he and his fellow planners really might consider mandating the two-room cottage of the English peasant for all future construction. It might sound extreme at first blush, but in proper historical perspective it would be no more arbitrary than the limits that have actually been proposed.
Vincent Carroll is editor of the editorial pages. Reach him at carrollv@RockyMountain
News.com.
What else do you expect from the planet of boulder?
Posted by on June 7, 2007 11:40 AMVince derides a "sneering term"!
If it weren't for sneering, VC wouldn't have a literary style.
Since when is "live and let live" a consitutional principal?
Providing for the common good is.
Anyone who feels they need a bigger house is free to live somewhere else.
Municipalities are free to write the laws they want to preserve the character of their community.
Posted by Carroll's a putz on June 7, 2007 02:39 PM"Putz", I seem to remember the right to the pursuit of happiness being a constitutional principle, however. The "anyone who doesn't like it can move" principle is ridiculous. It's ridiculous when it's used to combat war protesters, and it's equally ridiculous when you use it here to justify harmful and anti-expansionist growth policies. It is precisely these policies that have turned Boulder into such a classist little hamlet where no one who can pay the entry fee has to be bothered by looking at the poor.
Posted by Tyler on June 7, 2007 04:35 PMMore socialist agenda items from the peoples republic. They also just sent us an "informative" brochure on why they are going to probably (will) require us to upgrade our septic systems if they don't meet 21st century standards.
Let's see, New Septic system = More fees to the county = money in th abnk to pursue further social agendas. I'm moving from this freak show.
This is from the same people who tried to combine landowners lots without their knowledge when they didn't build on them. They did this to prevent those landowners from additional residential building.
Boulder is the king of NIMBY'ism and elitist regulations.
If the pursuit of happiness is so precious to conservatives, why doesn't it apply to gay people? Isn't who you love a pretty big part of the pursuit of happiness?
Posted by Hey, Tyler! on June 8, 2007 08:48 AMI am Boulderite and I am quite happy with the law. I am glad that my City and County make laws that the people of the City and County support. I am also happy that Boulder isn't in danger of turning into another Highlands Ranch.
Posted by benn on June 8, 2007 09:01 AMA municipality has every right to zone how it deems fit. And instead of having the typical knee-jerk conservative reaction, maybe Mr. Carroll could spend some essential critical thinking time, and acknowledge there might be some actual city-planning and zoning concerns outside of "Flower Power".
Is Boulder being pro-active in concerns to water and power usage? What about traffic infrastructure—quick McMansion development over large plots of land means more or wider roads. What about sewage use and limitations? Would 4,000 foot McMansions be easily accessible to fire departments with the resources they have, or would new firehouses need to be built? Would there be new forest fire safety concerns, and would the properties be insurable? Planning and zoning for 4,000 foot houses is vastly different than 2,400 foot (or smaller) houses.
The city and county of Boulder has every right to zone its municipality however it deems fit in accordance with its resident's wishes and future growth plans. Mr. Carroll is free to comment, of course, but it only solidifies his reputation as a whiny, materialist conservative who consistently misses the bigger picture.
Posted by Dan on June 11, 2007 01:43 PMThere's lots of confusion here between the city of Boulder and Boulder County. The limitations are being proposed by Boulder County and would apply to residences built outside of the "municipalities" that are incorporated in the county. For individuals that have already purchased a building site but not received county permission to build, the limitation could represent a taking of personal property.
Posted by DRM on June 17, 2007 11:06 AMAll you have to do is pull the plug on tax dollars for the liberal reeducation camps popularly known as public education, and all the useless hippys like Ward Churchill will dry up and blow away.
Posted by Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) on September 21, 2007 09:46 AM