Okay, this is Whaaaaat? Wednesday because I don't know exactly what to make of it.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123577193845697061.html
It is absolutely excessive, superfluous, pompous, unnecessary. Seriously, it's ridiculous. Let's dissect it:
> It's freaking huge! Unless you're the von Trap family, this is just huge! Seriously - how much space does one family need?
> It's on a beach. Not only is it huge, it is arrogant enough to say to the Florida coast, "Hey! Here I am! I am DARING you! You can't catch me! Neener neener!!" I say... House, meet Hurricane.
>This place claims to be green friendly, but the amount of wood used is enough to rescue over 105 acres of the quickly fading rain forests. So now, you can satisfy your ego and make yourself look good to the press. "Relax! It's totally green!!! Except for the fact that I decimated a rain forest, but hey... I saved a bit of energy, right? Am I right?"
> The place uses energy efficient lighting mixed with solar panels, but there are so many fixtures in this house that the advantage is completely offset. The place still uses more power than the average household.
> Let me share a ratio with you. 7:11. Now, in a house like this, you ask yourself. Is that the ratio of bathrooms to bedrooms? No, the opposite. There are 7 bedrooms and 11 full bathrooms. In case you need, you know, 1 for your bathing and 1 for your.... yeah. We won't touch this. And don't even say "4 guest bathrooms." Because chances are the guest will either be using 1 of the 7 bedrooms (complete with bathroom) for their stay OR the bathroom that is near to the in home movie theatre. No need for 4 guest bathrooms.
> The floors are made of water, trapped plant life, glass, and LED lights. What was that claim to be a green friendly house? Is that going up to smoke yet? Because right now would be a good time for them to claim insanity at the time that claim was made.
> In case the beach isn't close enough, the living room and floor to ceiling wine storage have built in aquariums, open glass, plant life, aquatic life, and - you guessed it - lots of light, so these creatures never get to sleep, and neither does that power expenditure.
> Oh yeah, the massively landscaped gardens outside, including stone bridges and low lights to reflect light off the water. Turns out, that water is suitable for swimming trips, so if you're too lazy to walk through the yard to the beach - good news! You don't have to! We won't discuss how much ecology had to be completely ripped up to make this yard possible, and we also won't mention the pitiful attempt at making it seem natural by adding a bunch of displaced tropical plants to the yard.
> Oh are you bored with the beach and your yard? Worry not. We've wasted even more space with a huge pool, complete with floating sun terrace! Because, by gosh, if you want to swim in the shade, or get out of the pool for that mixed drink the ot cabana boy serves, why the heck not!
> So how are they justifying this excessive amount of pools and ponds in the green plan? Well, naturally - having that much water makes the house 1 or 2 degrees cooler, which "reduces cooling costs." Funny, 1 or 2 degrees never made that much a difference in my house, and it's not anywhere close to this size. Give me a break - I'm not that dumb, guys. Not to mention, wouldn't that INCREASE heating costs in the winter, thus negating the benefits? Or have you installed heaters in all of these fixtures, making the house even less green friendly.
> Tacky interior. Now, sure, you can throw some extra money into it, sink another couple mill on top of its cost, and fix this, but the interior designer must have been out of his or her mind. It's so freaking tacky! Taffeta is so 3 decades ago!! Too much brightness, too much blue and white, and the dark stain of the woods doesn't go well with the brightness of the rest of it. The colors, at best, simply abide each other, and at worse are definitely not easy on the eye.
> LEED. Those people decide whether houses are green freindly or not. Thus far, they've been quite brilliant in not giving this monstrocity the certification. It would ruin the integrity of the LEED certification for everyone else! According to the LEED consultant, the house was penalized for its SIZE. Not the excessive wastes, the environment ruined, the huge costs of keeping a place this big and all its luxuries running, the negated energy savings, etc.... but the size itself. They are expecting certification any day now. While I'd very much like to say, "hah! keep dreaming!" I am worried, because, well... throw enough money at something, and you get whatever you want. Considering the house itself is tagged at about 30 million dollars, I'd say they're willing to toss some extra change to get that LEED certification so they can feel better about themselves.
