The human body can only occupy 14 sq. ft. at any given time, and that is lying down stretched out. Why on earth do we need 100 times that to live in? How many couches and chairs can be sat in at the same time? Rooms occupied at the same time? Isn't it absurd to have rooms like dining rooms that are so single purpose?
>> It requires more energy to heat or cool than a smaller place.
>
>Are you sure? Even if the smaller place has a less efficient
> heating system (mine is very new, very efficient, very cheap to
> run)? Even if the smaller place doesn't have any passive
> heating/cooling features (mine has both)? Do you have any idea
> what my house is like or what it's energy profile is?
If the same fuel efficient designs were made for a smaller space, the consumption would be proportionally less. You can't deny this.
>> It ties up excess resources that larger groups could use more
>> efficiently.
>
>This sounds bogus. If you could actually assign the "use of
> resources" to a physical space (I don't think you can), I'm
> convinced that more people in my house would consume more resources
> (and generate more trash, more car trips, etc.).
It would be far less than the trash generated, car trips, etc, than if they each had separate homes, where appliances, water pumps, water heaters, sinks, bathrooms, kitchens, furniture, space, and other resources were duplicated instead of shared in common.
>> It required more materials to build, will be more to
>> dispose of when it finally fails.
>
>Now you're really stretching it. You said you have 4 empty rooms in
>your 1200 ft^2 place; I have 4 rooms TOTAL in my place.
So that means you can't even shut down four rooms and avoid heating or cooling them and are instead forced to keep comfortable temperatures in more space than you need.
>You've
> probably got way more building material in your place than I do. I
> have like three interior walls. I have no attic, basement, or
> garage. Again: this is arbitrary, you have no idea what my house
> is like.
Greater square footage means the box is bigger. You will have a very hard time arguing that 2000 sq. ft. homes don't use more material to build than 1000 sq. ft. homes.
>> It is more time consuming and expensive to clean and maintain.
>
>Says who? It's easier and cheaper to clean and maintain than the
> 1200 ft^2 loft I moved out of three years ago. And it's way easier
> and cheaper than any of the sub-600 ft^2 places I had when I lived
> in Manhattan.
All things equivalent, the larger building has more windows, more floorspace, more ceilings, more walls, more roof, etc. You are trying to compare apples and oranges.
>Unfortunately, not at this point. But I'm doing my part to keep
> various airlines out of Chapter 7 :-)
Like we need to help the large corporations more than our taxes are providing in corporate welfare and marketing opportunities provided by war. Bah humbug. Better to promote small business.
>Yeah, it doesn't consume much resource for someone to live in
> Manhattan.
More resources aren't consumed by living in Manhattan. One just pays alot more for them. If anything far less resources are consumed in Manhattan because the living spaces are smaller and cars are an encumbrance to own, and completely unnecessary. Manhattan is one of the most efficient cities to live because everything is usually within walking distance, including work places, schools, and shopping. I'd venture to say no other area in this nation can claim the resource efficiencies of Manhattan on a per capita basis.
--tully