Thanks for the heads-up, Lisa.
Susanka's 1998 book may have been inspired in part by the excesses of the '90s and the book may have informed some builders of tiny homes, but Sarah apparently has little interest in tiny homes. Here's Sarah, interviewed in 2011 talking about a home she built in Libertyville, Illinois.
"The size [2,450 square feet] was very intentional. When downsizing comes up, the press goes to the far end of the spectrum and talks about tiny houses. A minute segment of the population is ever going to live in tiny houses. A big segment of the population is looking at 3,000- to 5,000-square-foot houses. They don’t want to go much smaller. I’m trying to show that if you eliminate the spaces you rarely use, you can actually have a house that lives large. I like to show a really, really comfortable 2,300- to 2,500-square-foot home. You make that home by eliminating formal living spaces, by having an “away room” where you can go to be quiet and get away. You have the home be accessible. You have it be close to downtown so you can age in place." http://www.residentialarchitect.com/green-…
Historical note: She might as well have been talking about her own house. Built in the late '90s, it's over 2,400 square feet, slightly above the average American home built at the time.
In my view, mentioning Sarah Susanka in an article about the tiny house movement is like mentioning Richard Nixon in an article about the back-to-the-land movement.
Thank you Lisa Sorg.
DPD manager of property and evidence is robbed in her home of $6,000 cash. hmmm...
This just in: Durham does not have a stormwater system that "sends [water] directly into rivers and streams" as your article states. Durham has a stormwater system, consisting of curb grates and culverts, that sends water directly into open ditches. You can readily see these open ditches running parallel along Durham's streets. The city of Durham claims to "maintain the drainage system in the city right-of-way." Where does all that water collected in grates and ditches go? Often it is channeled into other open ditches coursing through vacant lots and back- and side-yards, depositing pollutants (as well as abundant litter) along the way. So you see, Ms Sorg, it makes little difference to the health of rivers and streams where you wash your car in the city of Durham when you take the reality of the conditions into account.
I have a question for Ms Sorg and for the city of Durham. If washing your car over a gravel driveway presents little or no danger to streams and rivers, why does the city of Durham count gravel as an impervious surface when calculating your stormwater bill? For example: My gravel driveway (with grass growing in it) is, according to the city, just over 800 square feet. This added to the approximately 1200 square feet of my roof puts my property just over the second tier's 2000 square feet of impervious surface threshold for billing purposes (2043 square feet exactly, according to the city). Is gravel an impervious surface? The city seems to say yes with its stormwater billing and no with its recommendations for car-washing. If I wash my car over the grass growing in my gravel driveway while keeping the gravel dry am I helping to protect streams and rivers from pollution or am I just playing along while the city pretends to have a handle on its affairs?
ceceliam's comment about Whole Foods winning best outdoor dining is right on; it is indeed shocking. The theory, however, that Independent readers confused Whole Foods in Durham (or Chapel Hill) with Weaver Street Market in Carrboro bestows upon said readers a measure of undeserved stupidity. A more likely explanation for Whole Foods' shocking win is a severe case of old-fashioned ballot-box stuffing. If this the case, SHAME ON YOU! Whole Foods.
Make sure you're signed up so we can inbox you the latest.
Login to choose your subscriptions!
Indy Week • 201 W. Main St., Suite 101, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation