Critics gave me a hard time for discussing a 2,988 square-foot home in Florida.  One loyal commenter, bruteforcecollaborative, responded:

"Panning a project on square footage alone is asinine. you don't know the client's programming needs – maybe the house is designed for the grandparents to move in. maybe one of their children is disabled and requires dedicated space. maybe the house is also a home office, thereby foregoing additional office space in another location … size alone isn't a function of how green or ungreen something is."

Mike Eliason, one of two contributors to the Brute Force Collaborative, continued in a subsequent email exchange: "I can have a 900 square-foot energy hog and a 3000 square-foot passivhaus that utilizes less energy than the 900 square-foot house. You know the drill."

I do, and I agree.  Square-footage bashing is easy to do, while other considerations get short shrift, if anything.  Which is why this site leans towards letting readers determine whether they think something is green or not, sustainable or not.  Hopefully, that determination translates into some kind of meaningful action going forward.

What do you think?