Let’s end the obscenity—no more huge houses
Commentary by GREG MOORE
In 1987 I wrote an article for this paper titled "The Big House
Phenomenon." It examined the then-recent trend of people who made their money
elsewhere migrating to the Wood River Valley and building huge houses--defined in the
article as those in the 5,000- to 13,000-square-foot range. Since then, the trend has only
escalated. The unnecessarily large have been overshadowed by the grotesquely humongous. A
Seattle couple is building a house in Gimlet that measures 20,800 square feet—the
current record holder, according to the Blaine County Building Department.
Anyone who has lived here for more than a few years has no doubt seen
the impact these oversized dwellings have had on the character of the community. What used
to be an unobtrusive town with its attendant resort is turning into a giant country club.
Worse, the owners of these monstrosities have a disproportionate impact
on the environment. I’m sure those people come here to enjoy central Idaho’s
beautiful natural surroundings. Meanwhile, they trash the natural surroundings someplace
else by having four times the number of trees felled that they really need. While it was
being framed, the Gimlet house looked like a forest of two by sixes (used even for the
interior walls, which could have been two by fours). That and other huge homes will need
far more than their share of natural gas, electricity and water.
Nobody needs 20,800 square feet to live, even luxuriously. It is
wanton, obscene waste, and it affects all of us.
It’s time to say "No more." It’s time for local
municipalities to put a cap on the permitted size of new dwellings. Say, 7,000 square
feet. Nobody needs more than that to live well.
No doubt, there will be objections. There will be those who contend
that such a cap would be an unreasonable, and perhaps illegal, intrusion on people’s
private property rights. To them, I would say that the right to build a monument to
one’s ego should not be allowed to trample over the well-being of the community. I
would point out that we already limit the floor area of commercial buildings and the
heights of residential buildings. Why not add a limit on the floor area of residential
buildings? The purpose and manner of enforcement would be the same. No additional
constitutional "takings" issues would be involved.
The Idaho Local Land Use Planning Act, which grants planning authority
to municipalities, provides at least one legal rationale to set a size cap. The act states
that one of its purposes is "To ensure that the important environmental features of
the state and localities are protected and enhanced." A limit on the size of houses
would protect both the rural character of this locality and the state’s forests. ( I
like the "enhanced" part. Could we tear down some of the really big and ugly
houses? Probably not.)
Some opponents will claim that the construction and maintenance of big
houses brings jobs and wealth to the community. They’re right. But I doubt that
building really huge houses brings much more money to the area than if we built only
reasonably large houses. Only a few architects, builders and landscapers would suffer from
a limitation, and not by much. For most people in the community, I think the tradeoff
would be worth it. It’s nice to be able to earn more money, but I hope most of us
haven’t forgotten why we came here in the first place.
There will be others who say it’s too late—the huge houses
have already spread across the landscape. They’re right, too—we should have put
a stop to this cancer 10 years ago. But the phenomenon is likely to accelerate over the
next decade just as it did during the past one. The Aug. 15 New York Times Magazine contains
a story about an architect whose clients ask for homes in the 20,000- to
60,000-square-foot range. Those people will be here soon.
For models where house-size limitations already exist, we can look to
communities in Colorado—always ahead of us in land-use planning. The town of
Telluride has set a maximum of 4,000 square feet on new houses. The town’s planning
director, Steve Ferris, told me there have been no constitutional challenges to the
limitation during the 10 years or so of its existence.
"It’s based on a community character issue," Ferris
said. "There’s a side benefit of conserving resources."
Ferris said there are still "trophy houses" being built
outside of town, but that Telluride is negotiating with San Miguel county to set a limit
there, too, perhaps of 5,000 square feet.
In Aspen, residential zones have caps on house size relative to lot
size. In the city’s Moderate Density Residential Zone, for example, if you own a
one-acre lot, you can build up to 6,600 square feet, not counting garage and basement. As
lot size increases, the rate of increase in allowed additional floor space decreases. Even
so, in theory, if you own a big enough lot, you can build a gigantic house. However, the
city’s zoning officer, Sarah Oates, told me that since lot sizes are all limited, the
practical effect is a cap on house size of about 22,000 square feet—in my opinion,
way too big. But on the vast majority of lots, that size can’t even be approached. In
fact, Oates referred to huge houses in Aspen as those in the 10,000-square-foot range. (I
resisted the temptation to tell her that around here, we call that "affordable
housing.")
Blaine County should look at both the Telluride and Aspen models. The
simplest solution would be an absolute cap, a la Telluride. But if we wanted to
adopt something like the Aspen ordinances, we could make even more stringent reductions on
the amount of additional floor space allowed per increase in lot size. In fact, we could
use a mathematical formula that allows a lot owner to approach, but never reach, a certain
house size.
I ran the idea of house size limitations past one Blaine County
Planning and Zoning commissioner. He didn’t sound entirely opposed, but said he felt
uncomfortable acting as the "morality police." I understand that feeling, but I
think it’s time to take a bolder approach against what I’m sure many people here
consider an immoral trend. Why should we stand by idly and watch this valley become
something most of us don’t want?
Ironically, one local group that would probably applaud a size
limitation is the people who already own huge houses. An end to the construction of even
bigger houses would leave them at the top of the heap in the competition to build the most
pretentious dwelling. They could declare themselves the winners, and the rest of us could
enjoy a more pleasant environment.
Greg Moore is a copy editor and writer for the Idaho Mountain
Express.
