What's location got to do with it?

What happens when green homes are suburban?

E­very day brings another announcement from a developer or business owner about a new green building. From coffee roasters such as Peet’s Coffee & Tea (Nasdaq: PEET) to big-box stores such as Best Buy (NYSE: BBY) to single-family homes in just about any location, green building is reaching all corners of the nation’s built environment.

While the profusion of buildings that use at least 15 percent less energy and reduce water usage as well as other non-sustainable resources is good news for a country searching for energy independence and a planet combating a variety of environmental ills, some are starting to think more needs to be done. Top of the list: Considering whether sprawling architecture and 4,200-square-foot McMansions can truly be considered “green.”

While U.S. Green Building Council’s (USGBC’s) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system is heralded for bringing green building to the masses, some claim “the masses” are missing the point. The number of new homes and commercial buildings labeled as “green” is growing. But as they get built in locations far from public transportation, bike lanes and pedestrian-friendly shopping centers, critics of such architecture say it amounts to nothing more than “green sprawl” that muddles the message groups such as USGBC have spent years working to build.

Street of Dreams raises concerns

It is not unheard of to call a 4,200-square-foot home “green.” At the summer 2007 Seattle Street of Dreams, an annual showcase of luxury spec homes built in new rural developments, three homes more than 4,200 square feet were certified by Built Green’s King and Snohomish counties chapter. But not everyone felt the buildings were green because of their size and location: Critics ranging from concerned neighbors to environmental activists gained media attention for speaking out about the homes.

When the homes were first announced, a group of area residents voiced concerns that the homes’ septic systems would damage wetlands needed to protect an aquifer used by 20,000 people in the area. That dispute was settled, but it was only the first, and by far the least, destructive argument over the homes.