NYC saves energy because of small apartments

[George Conklin]

It has been argued that density saves money because NYC uses less energy
than average. But why is this? This NY Times finally comes clean and
writes:
---

"The main reason that New Yorkers use much less electricity is that our
apartments are so much smaller" than homes in other cities, said Rohit
Aggarwala, the director of the Long-Term Planning and Sustainability Office,
part of the Mayor's Office of Operations.

---

[[e-mail]]

Post by George Conklin
It has been argued that density saves money because NYC uses less energy
than average. But why is this? This NY Times finally comes clean and
---
"The main reason that New Yorkers use much less electricity is that our
apartments are so much smaller" than homes in other cities, said Rohit
Aggarwala, the director of the Long-Term Planning and Sustainability Office,
part of the Mayor's Office of Operations.
---

Oh, George is showing his extreme super stupidity again. I guess he
is decrying the fack that there are so many small apts in NYC. Boy I
will tell you NYC should start an immediate program of tearing down
those buldings, I mean who needs them, and replacing them with single
family homes on 1 acre lots like in beautiful and so very wealthy
Raleigh, NC.


I can see it all now, Brooklyn and Queens transformed into such a
suburban development.

Hey George, will you be the first one to buy? Maybe you could become
a sociology prof at Queens College.

You would be making a hell of a lot more then you do down there in
dirt poor NC.

And George, I would love to see your furnishings and the other things
that go into your two or three million dollar house.


Randy

[William]

George didn't even really state an opinion and you start raging on
him. He just said "It has been argued that density saves money because
NYC uses less energy
than average" Your sorta starting to sound like a straight up hater
man.

[george conklin]

Post by William
George didn't even really state an opinion and you start raging on
him. He just said "It has been argued that density saves money because
NYC uses less energy
than average" Your sorta starting to sound like a straight up hater
man.

You left out the quote from the New York Times about NYC saving energy
because of small apartments. Simple FAct. Small apartments mean you love
man? By the way, I love women, not men.

[William]

Post by george conklin

Post by William
George didn't even really state an opinion and you start raging on
him. He just said "It has been argued that density saves money because
NYC uses less energy
than average" Your sorta starting to sound like a straight up hater
man.

You left out the quote from the New York Times about NYC saving energy
because of small apartments. Simple FAct. Small apartments mean you love
man? By the way, I love women, not men.

George, I'm starting to have doubts of weather you know what the
modern definition of "Hater" means
Whatever, keep in mind I was just defending you but I guess your
too heartless to realize it...

[William]

Post by george conklin

Post by William
George didn't even really state an opinion and you start raging on
him. He just said "It has been argued that density saves money because
NYC uses less energy
than average" Your sorta starting to sound like a straight up hater
man.

You left out the quote from the New York Times about NYC saving energy
because of small apartments. Simple FAct. Small apartments mean you love
man? By the way, I love women, not men.

George, I'm starting to have serious doubts of weather you know what
being a "Hater" means, because it has nothing to do with love.

[Pat]

Post by george conklin

Post by William
George didn't even really state an opinion and you start raging on
him. He just said "It has been argued that density saves money because
NYC uses less energy
than average" Your sorta starting to sound like a straight up hater
man.

You left out the quote from the New York Times about NYC saving energy
because of small apartments. Simple FAct. Small apartments mean you love
man? By the way, I love women, not men.

George, what we find in the multifamily industry isn't that size saves
money, it is proximity. An 800 s.f. apartment will be cheaper to heat
than a 800 s.f. house. With a garden-style apartment, you typically
have 3 or 4 shared surfaces -- with 3 being quite common. With a
larger building, you typically have 5 shared surfaces (or, 1 outside
wall). That's a huge savings because your heat loss is your
neighbor's heat gain, so to speak. If everyone heats to 70F, then the
only heat loss is to the outside wall. That why many apartment
complex don't even bother to put heat in the hallways (unless they are
trying to create positive pressure, but that's another story).

A building only loses heat at it's exposed surfaces, so as the number
of square feet of exterior walls fall, per unit, you save energy.

There is a drawback, though. Urban areas tend to be hotter in the
summer and therefore require air conditioning. In many suburban or
rural areas, it is still possible to live without AC. But almost all
cities need it. I've only run my AC about 5 days so far this year.

It is interesting that the largest electrical loads -- which used to
be in the winter due to heating -- are now in the summer due to AC.

There is also a large savings from hot water system in large
buildings. Most of the energy you use for hot water is consumed
keeping the heat up while you're off at work. You use a little hot
water at dinner time and the rest for bathing, but for 22+ hours per
day, you don't use it. That's why tankless heaters are so efficient.
With an apartment buildings, someone is always coming and going, using
water, etc. so the amount of hold-time is much less. Plus the tanks
are more efficient. There's a pretty big savings on hot water.

In apartments, you also have to keep in mind that there there is
hallway lighting and parking lot lighting (okay, not much parking lot
lighting in NYC) that is not included in your electric bill.

Apartment dwellers also don't tend to use domestic hot water for
washing cars, etc. and their hot water for laundry isn't necessarily
on their utility bill, even if they are individually metered.

Heating savings is one of those places where you do save money by
being densely inhabited. AC, on the other hand, is where you lose
money. All in all, I'd guess that you are ahead of the game with
density.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by William
George didn't even really state an opinion and you start raging on
him. He just said "It has been argued that density saves money because
NYC uses less energy
than average" Your sorta starting to sound like a straight up hater
man.

You left out the quote from the New York Times about NYC saving energy
because of small apartments. Simple FAct. Small apartments mean you love
man? By the way, I love women, not men.

George, what we find in the multifamily industry isn't that size saves
money, it is proximity. An 800 s.f. apartment will be cheaper to heat
than a 800 s.f. house. With a garden-style apartment, you typically
have 3 or 4 shared surfaces -- with 3 being quite common. With a
larger building, you typically have 5 shared surfaces (or, 1 outside
wall). That's a huge savings because your heat loss is your
neighbor's heat gain, so to speak. If everyone heats to 70F, then the
only heat loss is to the outside wall. That why many apartment
complex don't even bother to put heat in the hallways (unless they are
trying to create positive pressure, but that's another story).
A building only loses heat at it's exposed surfaces, so as the number
of square feet of exterior walls fall, per unit, you save energy.
There is a drawback, though. Urban areas tend to be hotter in the
summer and therefore require air conditioning. In many suburban or
rural areas, it is still possible to live without AC. But almost all
cities need it. I've only run my AC about 5 days so far this year.
It is interesting that the largest electrical loads -- which used to
be in the winter due to heating -- are now in the summer due to AC.
There is also a large savings from hot water system in large
buildings. Most of the energy you use for hot water is consumed
keeping the heat up while you're off at work. You use a little hot
water at dinner time and the rest for bathing, but for 22+ hours per
day, you don't use it. That's why tankless heaters are so efficient.
With an apartment buildings, someone is always coming and going, using
water, etc. so the amount of hold-time is much less. Plus the tanks
are more efficient. There's a pretty big savings on hot water.
In apartments, you also have to keep in mind that there there is
hallway lighting and parking lot lighting (okay, not much parking lot
lighting in NYC) that is not included in your electric bill.
Apartment dwellers also don't tend to use domestic hot water for
washing cars, etc. and their hot water for laundry isn't necessarily
on their utility bill, even if they are individually metered.
Heating savings is one of those places where you do save money by
being densely inhabited. AC, on the other hand, is where you lose
money. All in all, I'd guess that you are ahead of the game with
density.

However, even if the smaller SF claim is true, what's so wrong about
achieving efficiency by using only the space you need?

[Pat]

On Jul 16, 11:01 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by William
George didn't even really state an opinion and you start raging on
him. He just said "It has been argued that density saves money because
NYC uses less energy
than average" Your sorta starting to sound like a straight up hater
man.

You left out the quote from the New York Times about NYC saving energy
because of small apartments. Simple FAct. Small apartments mean you love
man? By the way, I love women, not men.

George, what we find in the multifamily industry isn't that size saves
money, it is proximity. An 800 s.f. apartment will be cheaper to heat
than a 800 s.f. house. With a garden-style apartment, you typically
have 3 or 4 shared surfaces -- with 3 being quite common. With a
larger building, you typically have 5 shared surfaces (or, 1 outside
wall). That's a huge savings because your heat loss is your
neighbor's heat gain, so to speak. If everyone heats to 70F, then the
only heat loss is to the outside wall. That why many apartment
complex don't even bother to put heat in the hallways (unless they are
trying to create positive pressure, but that's another story).
A building only loses heat at it's exposed surfaces, so as the number
of square feet of exterior walls fall, per unit, you save energy.
There is a drawback, though. Urban areas tend to be hotter in the
summer and therefore require air conditioning. In many suburban or
rural areas, it is still possible to live without AC. But almost all
cities need it. I've only run my AC about 5 days so far this year.
It is interesting that the largest electrical loads -- which used to
be in the winter due to heating -- are now in the summer due to AC.
There is also a large savings from hot water system in large
buildings. Most of the energy you use for hot water is consumed
keeping the heat up while you're off at work. You use a little hot
water at dinner time and the rest for bathing, but for 22+ hours per
day, you don't use it. That's why tankless heaters are so efficient.
With an apartment buildings, someone is always coming and going, using
water, etc. so the amount of hold-time is much less. Plus the tanks
are more efficient. There's a pretty big savings on hot water.
In apartments, you also have to keep in mind that there there is
hallway lighting and parking lot lighting (okay, not much parking lot
lighting in NYC) that is not included in your electric bill.
Apartment dwellers also don't tend to use domestic hot water for
washing cars, etc. and their hot water for laundry isn't necessarily
on their utility bill, even if they are individually metered.
Heating savings is one of those places where you do save money by
being densely inhabited. AC, on the other hand, is where you lose
money. All in all, I'd guess that you are ahead of the game with
density.

However, even if the smaller SF claim is true, what's so wrong about
achieving efficiency by using only the space you need?

Nothing. You don't want to heat a football field if you only need a
small home.

[george conklin]

Post by Pat
On Jul 16, 11:01 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by William
George didn't even really state an opinion and you start raging on
him. He just said "It has been argued that density saves money because
NYC uses less energy
than average" Your sorta starting to sound like a straight up hater
man.

You left out the quote from the New York Times about NYC saving energy
because of small apartments. Simple FAct. Small apartments mean you love
man? By the way, I love women, not men.

George, what we find in the multifamily industry isn't that size saves
money, it is proximity. An 800 s.f. apartment will be cheaper to heat
than a 800 s.f. house. With a garden-style apartment, you typically
have 3 or 4 shared surfaces -- with 3 being quite common. With a
larger building, you typically have 5 shared surfaces (or, 1 outside
wall). That's a huge savings because your heat loss is your
neighbor's heat gain, so to speak. If everyone heats to 70F, then the
only heat loss is to the outside wall. That why many apartment
complex don't even bother to put heat in the hallways (unless they are
trying to create positive pressure, but that's another story).
A building only loses heat at it's exposed surfaces, so as the number
of square feet of exterior walls fall, per unit, you save energy.
There is a drawback, though. Urban areas tend to be hotter in the
summer and therefore require air conditioning. In many suburban or
rural areas, it is still possible to live without AC. But almost all
cities need it. I've only run my AC about 5 days so far this year.
It is interesting that the largest electrical loads -- which used to
be in the winter due to heating -- are now in the summer due to AC.
There is also a large savings from hot water system in large
buildings. Most of the energy you use for hot water is consumed
keeping the heat up while you're off at work. You use a little hot
water at dinner time and the rest for bathing, but for 22+ hours per
day, you don't use it. That's why tankless heaters are so efficient.
With an apartment buildings, someone is always coming and going, using
water, etc. so the amount of hold-time is much less. Plus the tanks
are more efficient. There's a pretty big savings on hot water.
In apartments, you also have to keep in mind that there there is
hallway lighting and parking lot lighting (okay, not much parking lot
lighting in NYC) that is not included in your electric bill.
Apartment dwellers also don't tend to use domestic hot water for
washing cars, etc. and their hot water for laundry isn't necessarily
on their utility bill, even if they are individually metered.
Heating savings is one of those places where you do save money by
being densely inhabited. AC, on the other hand, is where you lose
money. All in all, I'd guess that you are ahead of the game with
density.

However, even if the smaller SF claim is true, what's so wrong about
achieving efficiency by using only the space you need?

Nothing. You don't want to heat a football field if you only need a
small home.

Yes,planners and Al Gore both agree we only need a small home, a very small
home. Al Gore, on the other hands "needs" a huge home and the ability to
use 10 times the average amount of electricity. The Hair Shirt Party (aka
democrats) want you to have a small house, but the rich to have mansions we
can tour on vacation, like in England.

[William]

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat

Post by Amy Blankenship
However, even if the smaller SF claim is true, what's so wrong about
achieving efficiency by using only the space you need?

Nothing. You don't want to heat a football field if you only need a
small home.

Yes,planners and Al Gore both agree we only need a small home, a very small
home. Al Gore, on the other hands "needs" a huge home and the ability to
use 10 times the average amount of electricity. The Hair Shirt Party (aka
democrats) want you to have a small house, but the rich to have mansions we
can tour on vacation, like in England.

Okay, take a deep breathe George. Now, what did Pat *really* say?
He said "You don't want to heat a football field if you only need a
small home." Did he say that everyone only needs a small house? No,
he said *If* you only need a small house.
C'mon now this is getting silly George.

[george conklin]

Post by William

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat

Post by Amy Blankenship
However, even if the smaller SF claim is true, what's so wrong about
achieving efficiency by using only the space you need?

Nothing. You don't want to heat a football field if you only need a
small home.

Yes,planners and Al Gore both agree we only need a small home, a very small
home. Al Gore, on the other hands "needs" a huge home and the ability to
use 10 times the average amount of electricity. The Hair Shirt Party (aka
democrats) want you to have a small house, but the rich to have mansions we
can tour on vacation, like in England.

Okay, take a deep breathe George. Now, what did Pat *really* say?
He said "You don't want to heat a football field if you only need a
small home." Did he say that everyone only needs a small house? No,
he said *If* you only need a small house.
C'mon now this is getting silly George.

Planners posting here over the years have willingly interpreted what we
need. It is 800 square feet maximum. They will determine what you "need,"
not you.

[Stephen Sprunk]

Post by george conklin
Planners posting here over the years have willingly interpreted what
we need. It is 800 square feet maximum. They will determine what
you "need," not you.

OTOH, you want to do the same, saying everyone "needs" a 3000+ sf
single-family house and that dense housing should be banned. That's no
better than the folks you rail against who supposedly (completely
unsubstantiated accusations, as is usual for you) want to ban large houses
and force people into apartments and condos.

Let the market decide. Developers are quite capable of going around
"planners" (and do regularly) to build what people want.

S

[george conklin]

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by george conklin
Planners posting here over the years have willingly interpreted what
we need. It is 800 square feet maximum. They will determine what
you "need," not you.

OTOH, you want to do the same, saying everyone "needs" a 3000+ sf
single-family house and that dense housing should be banned.

What is being banned is the single-family house. Planners are upfront
about that. Like defining low density development with lot sizes smaller
than the old city lot size. It is all open dishonesty.

[Pat]

Post by William

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat

Post by Amy Blankenship
However, even if the smaller SF claim is true, what's so wrong about
achieving efficiency by using only the space you need?

Nothing. You don't want to heat a football field if you only need a
small home.

Yes,planners and Al Gore both agree we only need a small home, a very small
home. Al Gore, on the other hands "needs" a huge home and the ability to
use 10 times the average amount of electricity. The Hair Shirt Party (aka
democrats) want you to have a small house, but the rich to have mansions we
can tour on vacation, like in England.

Okay, take a deep breathe George. Now, what did Pat *really* say?
He said "You don't want to heat a football field if you only need a
small home." Did he say that everyone only needs a small house? No,
he said *If* you only need a small house.
C'mon now this is getting silly George.

What is interesting is that I'm a Democrat. In fact, I'm on my county
committee. But never have I heard housing size discussed. If the
Democrats "want you to have a small house", it must be some other
Democrats.

Meanwhile, I think I'm the only one here who believes in the following
two things: (1) I don't give a darn what size house someone has.
That's there business, not mine. If they can afford it, they can have
it. People have free choice and they should be able to choose their
house size/condition/location etc. Smart Growth and all of the other
fads only work if they provide better/more desirable housing choices.
(2) Items like sidewalks and unit sizes, and unit configuration, and
parking should be left to developers, not planners. The developers
know what people want. They know what people will pay for. How dense
it too dense: It is when people won't buy or rent. If people keep
buying or renting, then it's not too dense. How many parking spaces
do you need? Need should be based on what's really needed, not some
artificial number. The developers know the market quite well and are
risking a lot of money to build something, so let them address the
market. The tenants, after all, have the power of the purse.

Granted, within this you need to address certain health and safety
things: fire access, utilities, etc. But in general, let the market
prevail.

William, this is why your hated suburbs thrive. Whether or not you
like it, there are a whole lot of people out there who want just
that. Sure, you could stop all building out past some certain point
to make yourself feel good and to ensure that downtown is viable. But
you're taking away what people want and forcing them to like
downtown. That's a horrible though. It is just like some planner
saying that the city is dead, tear down the downtown and force YOU to
go live in the suburbs. You wouldn't like it a bit. Why force your
views on someone else?

If you want to control growth, there are lots of ways that are more
effective than zoning. To start with, try utilities.

[William]

Post by Pat

Post by William

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat

Post by Amy Blankenship
However, even if the smaller SF claim is true, what's so wrong about
achieving efficiency by using only the space you need?

Nothing. You don't want to heat a football field if you only need a
small home.

Yes,planners and Al Gore both agree we only need a small home, a very small
home. Al Gore, on the other hands "needs" a huge home and the ability to
use 10 times the average amount of electricity. The Hair Shirt Party (aka
democrats) want you to have a small house, but the rich to have mansions we
can tour on vacation, like in England.

Okay, take a deep breathe George. Now, what did Pat *really* say?
He said "You don't want to heat a football field if you only need a
small home." Did he say that everyone only needs a small house? No,
he said *If* you only need a small house.
C'mon now this is getting silly George.

What is interesting is that I'm a Democrat. In fact, I'm on my county
committee. But never have I heard housing size discussed. If the
Democrats "want you to have a small house", it must be some other
Democrats.
Meanwhile, I think I'm the only one here who believes in the following
two things: (1) I don't give a darn what size house someone has.
That's there business, not mine. If they can afford it, they can have
it. People have free choice and they should be able to choose their
house size/condition/location etc. Smart Growth and all of the other
fads only work if they provide better/more desirable housing choices.
(2) Items like sidewalks and unit sizes, and unit configuration, and
parking should be left to developers, not planners. The developers
know what people want. O, yea because if the people want it then that means they should get it and thats best for them right?

William, this is why your hated suburbs thrive. Whether or not you

Post by Pat
like it, there are a whole lot of people out there who want just
that. Sure, you could stop all building out past some certain point
to make yourself feel good and to ensure that downtown is viable. But
you're taking away what people want and forcing them to like
downtown. That's a horrible though. It is just like some planner
saying that the city is dead, tear down the downtown and force YOU to
go live in the suburbs. You wouldn't like it a bit. Why force your
views on someone else?

Well it depends on what suburb. I would definitely rather live in Oak
Park Illinois then Chicago Proper.
The reason why I don't like modern suburbs is the same as me
not liking fast food. I prefer quality to quantity.
If downtowns were composed of hundreds of cheap ugly buildings then I
would dislike them too. Even if it may appear so, I'm not prejeduced
against suburbs.

Post by Pat
If you want to control growth, there are lots of ways that are more
effective than zoning. To start with, try utilities.

[[e-mail]]

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat
On Jul 16, 11:01 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by William
George didn't even really state an opinion and you start raging on
him. He just said "It has been argued that density saves money because
NYC uses less energy
than average" Your sorta starting to sound like a straight up hater
man.

You left out the quote from the New York Times about NYC saving energy
because of small apartments. Simple FAct. Small apartments mean you love
man? By the way, I love women, not men.

George, what we find in the multifamily industry isn't that size saves
money, it is proximity. An 800 s.f. apartment will be cheaper to heat
than a 800 s.f. house. With a garden-style apartment, you typically
have 3 or 4 shared surfaces -- with 3 being quite common. With a
larger building, you typically have 5 shared surfaces (or, 1 outside
wall). That's a huge savings because your heat loss is your
neighbor's heat gain, so to speak. If everyone heats to 70F, then the
only heat loss is to the outside wall. That why many apartment
complex don't even bother to put heat in the hallways (unless they are
trying to create positive pressure, but that's another story).
A building only loses heat at it's exposed surfaces, so as the number
of square feet of exterior walls fall, per unit, you save energy.
There is a drawback, though. Urban areas tend to be hotter in the
summer and therefore require air conditioning. In many suburban or
rural areas, it is still possible to live without AC. But almost all
cities need it. I've only run my AC about 5 days so far this year.
It is interesting that the largest electrical loads -- which used to
be in the winter due to heating -- are now in the summer due to AC.
There is also a large savings from hot water system in large
buildings. Most of the energy you use for hot water is consumed
keeping the heat up while you're off at work. You use a little hot
water at dinner time and the rest for bathing, but for 22+ hours per
day, you don't use it. That's why tankless heaters are so efficient.
With an apartment buildings, someone is always coming and going, using
water, etc. so the amount of hold-time is much less. Plus the tanks
are more efficient. There's a pretty big savings on hot water.
In apartments, you also have to keep in mind that there there is
hallway lighting and parking lot lighting (okay, not much parking lot
lighting in NYC) that is not included in your electric bill.
Apartment dwellers also don't tend to use domestic hot water for
washing cars, etc. and their hot water for laundry isn't necessarily
on their utility bill, even if they are individually metered.
Heating savings is one of those places where you do save money by
being densely inhabited. AC, on the other hand, is where you lose
money. All in all, I'd guess that you are ahead of the game with
density.

However, even if the smaller SF claim is true, what's so wrong about
achieving efficiency by using only the space you need?

Nothing. You don't want to heat a football field if you only need a
small home.

Yes,planners and Al Gore both agree we only need a small home, a very small
home. Al Gore, on the other hands "needs" a huge home and the ability to
use 10 times the average amount of electricity. The Hair Shirt Party (aka
democrats) want you to have a small house, but the rich to have mansions we
can tour on vacation, like in England.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

William, I am going to appoint you the master of the Conk high revving
shredding, slicing and dicing super efficient high revving model.

Here we will begin the operation. ZOOM ZOOM ZOOM.

Ask Conk what planners and Al Gore and the Dems have to do with this.

MAYBE IT IS THE MARKET.

Maybe it has soemthing to do with high land costs, high energy costs.
Just maybe????

Also maybe it has something to do with wages stagnating. People just
cannot afford what they could afford 20 years ago.

There you go William, the high revving slicing and dicing Conk
shredding machine is all yours.

Who might be the next operator???

Randy

[William]

Post by ***@yahoo.com

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat
On Jul 16, 11:01 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by William
George didn't even really state an opinion and you start raging on
him. He just said "It has been argued that density saves money because
NYC uses less energy
than average" Your sorta starting to sound like a straight up hater
man.

You left out the quote from the New York Times about NYC saving energy
because of small apartments. Simple FAct. Small apartments mean you love
man? By the way, I love women, not men.

George, what we find in the multifamily industry isn't that size saves
money, it is proximity. An 800 s.f. apartment will be cheaper to heat
than a 800 s.f. house. With a garden-style apartment, you typically
have 3 or 4 shared surfaces -- with 3 being quite common. With a
larger building, you typically have 5 shared surfaces (or, 1 outside
wall). That's a huge savings because your heat loss is your
neighbor's heat gain, so to speak. If everyone heats to 70F, then the
only heat loss is to the outside wall. That why many apartment
complex don't even bother to put heat in the hallways (unless they are
trying to create positive pressure, but that's another story).
A building only loses heat at it's exposed surfaces, so as the number
of square feet of exterior walls fall, per unit, you save energy.
There is a drawback, though. Urban areas tend to be hotter in the
summer and therefore require air conditioning. In many suburban or
rural areas, it is still possible to live without AC. But almost all
cities need it. I've only run my AC about 5 days so far this year.
It is interesting that the largest electrical loads -- which used to
be in the winter due to heating -- are now in the summer due to AC.
There is also a large savings from hot water system in large
buildings. Most of the energy you use for hot water is consumed
keeping the heat up while you're off at work. You use a little hot
water at dinner time and the rest for bathing, but for 22+ hours per
day, you don't use it. That's why tankless heaters are so efficient.
With an apartment buildings, someone is always coming and going, using
water, etc. so the amount of hold-time is much less. Plus the tanks
are more efficient. There's a pretty big savings on hot water.
In apartments, you also have to keep in mind that there there is
hallway lighting and parking lot lighting (okay, not much parking lot
lighting in NYC) that is not included in your electric bill.
Apartment dwellers also don't tend to use domestic hot water for
washing cars, etc. and their hot water for laundry isn't necessarily
on their utility bill, even if they are individually metered.
Heating savings is one of those places where you do save money by
being densely inhabited. AC, on the other hand, is where you lose
money. All in all, I'd guess that you are ahead of the game with
density.

However, even if the smaller SF claim is true, what's so wrong about
achieving efficiency by using only the space you need?

Nothing. You don't want to heat a football field if you only need a
small home.

Yes,planners and Al Gore both agree we only need a small home, a very small
home. Al Gore, on the other hands "needs" a huge home and the ability to
use 10 times the average amount of electricity. The Hair Shirt Party (aka
democrats) want you to have a small house, but the rich to have mansions we
can tour on vacation, like in England.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

William, I am going to appoint you the master of the Conk high revving
shredding, slicing and dicing super efficient high revving model.
Here we will begin the operation. ZOOM ZOOM ZOOM.
Ask Conk what planners and Al Gore and the Dems have to do with this.
MAYBE IT IS THE MARKET.
Maybe it has soemthing to do with high land costs, high energy costs.
Just maybe????
Also maybe it has something to do with wages stagnating. People just
cannot afford what they could afford 20 years ago.
There you go William, the high revving slicing and dicing Conk
shredding machine is all yours.
Who might be the next operator???
Randy

George, does 50 cent need a gas sucking pollution creating escalade?
No, but does he still have one?
Hail yea he does. Is this an okay thing? I mean he wants one so he
should be able to get one right?
And also, Pat what is up with your super realativistic I'm okay your
okay attitude?

"I don't give a darn what size house someone has.
That's there business, not mine."

Recently in Minneapolis people have been tearing down there nice 100
old houses and building McMansions in replacement. This may benefit
the owner of the newly built McMansions who obviously does not
appreciate history and old hand built architecture, but to the
community and the city as a whole, it does not. There ugly, they don't
fit with the beautiful old houses around it, they tower over the whole
block and stick out like a sore thumb and it's like destroying the
history of the city. Here are the policies the city is making to fight
back.
http://www.planetizen.com/node/25252

[Pat]

Post by William

Post by ***@yahoo.com

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat
On Jul 16, 11:01 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by William
George didn't even really state an opinion and you start raging on
him. He just said "It has been argued that density saves money
because
NYC uses less energy
than average" Your sorta starting to sound like a straight up hater
man.

You left out the quote from the New York Times about NYC saving energy
because of small apartments. Simple FAct. Small apartments mean you
love
man? By the way, I love women, not men.

George, what we find in the multifamily industry isn't that size saves
money, it is proximity. An 800 s.f. apartment will be cheaper to heat
than a 800 s.f. house. With a garden-style apartment, you typically
have 3 or 4 shared surfaces -- with 3 being quite common. With a
larger building, you typically have 5 shared surfaces (or, 1 outside
wall). That's a huge savings because your heat loss is your
neighbor's heat gain, so to speak. If everyone heats to 70F, then the
only heat loss is to the outside wall. That why many apartment
complex don't even bother to put heat in the hallways (unless they are
trying to create positive pressure, but that's another story).
A building only loses heat at it's exposed surfaces, so as the number
of square feet of exterior walls fall, per unit, you save energy.
There is a drawback, though. Urban areas tend to be hotter in the
summer and therefore require air conditioning. In many suburban or
rural areas, it is still possible to live without AC. But almost all
cities need it. I've only run my AC about 5 days so far this year.
It is interesting that the largest electrical loads -- which used to
be in the winter due to heating -- are now in the summer due to AC.
There is also a large savings from hot water system in large
buildings. Most of the energy you use for hot water is consumed
keeping the heat up while you're off at work. You use a little hot
water at dinner time and the rest for bathing, but for 22+ hours per
day, you don't use it. That's why tankless heaters are so efficient.
With an apartment buildings, someone is always coming and going, using
water, etc. so the amount of hold-time is much less. Plus the tanks
are more efficient. There's a pretty big savings on hot water.
In apartments, you also have to keep in mind that there there is
hallway lighting and parking lot lighting (okay, not much parking lot
lighting in NYC) that is not included in your electric bill.
Apartment dwellers also don't tend to use domestic hot water for
washing cars, etc. and their hot water for laundry isn't necessarily
on their utility bill, even if they are individually metered.
Heating savings is one of those places where you do save money by
being densely inhabited. AC, on the other hand, is where you lose
money. All in all, I'd guess that you are ahead of the game with
density.

However, even if the smaller SF claim is true, what's so wrong about
achieving efficiency by using only the space you need?

Nothing. You don't want to heat a football field if you only need a
small home.

Yes,planners and Al Gore both agree we only need a small home, a very small
home. Al Gore, on the other hands "needs" a huge home and the ability to
use 10 times the average amount of electricity. The Hair Shirt Party (aka
democrats) want you to have a small house, but the rich to have mansions we
can tour on vacation, like in England.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

William, I am going to appoint you the master of the Conk high revving
shredding, slicing and dicing super efficient high revving model.
Here we will begin the operation. ZOOM ZOOM ZOOM.
Ask Conk what planners and Al Gore and the Dems have to do with this.
MAYBE IT IS THE MARKET.
Maybe it has soemthing to do with high land costs, high energy costs.
Just maybe????
Also maybe it has something to do with wages stagnating. People just
cannot afford what they could afford 20 years ago.
There you go William, the high revving slicing and dicing Conk
shredding machine is all yours.
Who might be the next operator???
Randy

George, does 50 cent need a gas sucking pollution creating escalade?
No, but does he still have one?
Hail yea he does. Is this an okay thing? I mean he wants one so he
should be able to get one right?
And also, Pat what is up with your super realativistic I'm okay your
okay attitude?

I've always felt that way. You go live your life (and please, stay in
your city) and leave me alone.

The market is the market. It does as it pleases. The government
should allow people to do as they please, not force them to do
something else.

You get this way when you've sat through as many planning board, city
council, etc. meetings as I have. They are generally comprised of
people who are forcing you to do something because they can. It's all
power and ego, not policy and safety. If you try to deal with
government on a routine basis, you get pushed around, extorted, and
worse. Figuring out private-agendas is the worst part of it. It's
not all wholesome and good like you think it is. Planning is a pretty
corrupt process.

Post by William
"I don't give a darn what size house someone has.
That's there business, not mine."
Recently in Minneapolis people have been tearing down there nice 100
old houses and building McMansions in replacement. This may benefit
the owner of the newly built McMansions who obviously does not
appreciate history and old hand built architecture, but to the
community and the city as a whole, it does not. There ugly, they don't
fit with the beautiful old houses around it, they tower over the whole
block and stick out like a sore thumb and it's like destroying the
history of the city. Here are the policies the city is making to fight
back.http://www.planetizen.com/node/25252

[William]

Post by Pat

Post by William

Post by ***@yahoo.com

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat
On Jul 16, 11:01 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by William
George didn't even really state an opinion and you start raging on
him. He just said "It has been argued that density saves money
because
NYC uses less energy
than average" Your sorta starting to sound like a straight up hater
man.

You left out the quote from the New York Times about NYC saving energy
because of small apartments. Simple FAct. Small apartments mean you
love
man? By the way, I love women, not men.

George, what we find in the multifamily industry isn't that size saves
money, it is proximity. An 800 s.f. apartment will be cheaper to heat
than a 800 s.f. house. With a garden-style apartment, you typically
have 3 or 4 shared surfaces -- with 3 being quite common. With a
larger building, you typically have 5 shared surfaces (or, 1 outside
wall). That's a huge savings because your heat loss is your
neighbor's heat gain, so to speak. If everyone heats to 70F, then the
only heat loss is to the outside wall. That why many apartment
complex don't even bother to put heat in the hallways (unless they are
trying to create positive pressure, but that's another story).
A building only loses heat at it's exposed surfaces, so as the number
of square feet of exterior walls fall, per unit, you save energy.
There is a drawback, though. Urban areas tend to be hotter in the
summer and therefore require air conditioning. In many suburban or
rural areas, it is still possible to live without AC. But almost all
cities need it. I've only run my AC about 5 days so far this year.
It is interesting that the largest electrical loads -- which used to
be in the winter due to heating -- are now in the summer due to AC.
There is also a large savings from hot water system in large
buildings. Most of the energy you use for hot water is consumed
keeping the heat up while you're off at work. You use a little hot
water at dinner time and the rest for bathing, but for 22+ hours per
day, you don't use it. That's why tankless heaters are so efficient.
With an apartment buildings, someone is always coming and going, using
water, etc. so the amount of hold-time is much less. Plus the tanks
are more efficient. There's a pretty big savings on hot water.
In apartments, you also have to keep in mind that there there is
hallway lighting and parking lot lighting (okay, not much parking lot
lighting in NYC) that is not included in your electric bill.
Apartment dwellers also don't tend to use domestic hot water for
washing cars, etc. and their hot water for laundry isn't necessarily
on their utility bill, even if they are individually metered.
Heating savings is one of those places where you do save money by
being densely inhabited. AC, on the other hand, is where you lose
money. All in all, I'd guess that you are ahead of the game with
density.

However, even if the smaller SF claim is true, what's so wrong about
achieving efficiency by using only the space you need?

Nothing. You don't want to heat a football field if you only need a
small home.

Yes,planners and Al Gore both agree we only need a small home, a very small
home. Al Gore, on the other hands "needs" a huge home and the ability to
use 10 times the average amount of electricity. The Hair Shirt Party (aka
democrats) want you to have a small house, but the rich to have mansions we
can tour on vacation, like in England.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

William, I am going to appoint you the master of the Conk high revving
shredding, slicing and dicing super efficient high revving model.
Here we will begin the operation. ZOOM ZOOM ZOOM.
Ask Conk what planners and Al Gore and the Dems have to do with this.
MAYBE IT IS THE MARKET.
Maybe it has soemthing to do with high land costs, high energy costs.
Just maybe????
Also maybe it has something to do with wages stagnating. People just
cannot afford what they could afford 20 years ago.
There you go William, the high revving slicing and dicing Conk
shredding machine is all yours.
Who might be the next operator???
Randy

George, does 50 cent need a gas sucking pollution creating escalade?
No, but does he still have one?
Hail yea he does. Is this an okay thing? I mean he wants one so he
should be able to get one right?
And also, Pat what is up with your super realativistic I'm okay your
okay attitude?

I've always felt that way. You go live your life (and please, stay in
your city) and leave me alone.
The market is the market. It does as it pleases. The government
should allow people to do as they please, not force them to do
something else.

So if it's murder people like, the government should allow
that?

[george conklin]

Post by William

Post by Pat

Post by William

Post by ***@yahoo.com

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat
On Jul 16, 11:01 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by William
George didn't even really state an opinion and you start
raging on
him. He just said "It has been argued that density saves
money
because
NYC uses less energy
than average" Your sorta starting to sound like a straight
up hater
man.

You left out the quote from the New York Times about NYC
saving energy
because of small apartments. Simple FAct. Small apartments
mean you
love
man? By the way, I love women, not men.

George, what we find in the multifamily industry isn't that
size saves
money, it is proximity. An 800 s.f. apartment will be cheaper
to heat
than a 800 s.f. house. With a garden-style apartment, you
typically
have 3 or 4 shared surfaces -- with 3 being quite common.
With a
larger building, you typically have 5 shared surfaces (or, 1
outside
wall). That's a huge savings because your heat loss is your
neighbor's heat gain, so to speak. If everyone heats to 70F,
then the
only heat loss is to the outside wall. That why many apartment
complex don't even bother to put heat in the hallways (unless
they are
trying to create positive pressure, but that's another story).
A building only loses heat at it's exposed surfaces, so as the
number
of square feet of exterior walls fall, per unit, you save energy.
There is a drawback, though. Urban areas tend to be hotter in the
summer and therefore require air conditioning. In many suburban or
rural areas, it is still possible to live without AC. But
almost all
cities need it. I've only run my AC about 5 days so far this year.
It is interesting that the largest electrical loads -- which
used to
be in the winter due to heating -- are now in the summer due to AC.
There is also a large savings from hot water system in large
buildings. Most of the energy you use for hot water is consumed
keeping the heat up while you're off at work. You use a little hot
water at dinner time and the rest for bathing, but for 22+
hours per
day, you don't use it. That's why tankless heaters are so
efficient.
With an apartment buildings, someone is always coming and
going, using
water, etc. so the amount of hold-time is much less. Plus the
tanks
are more efficient. There's a pretty big savings on hot water.
In apartments, you also have to keep in mind that there there is
hallway lighting and parking lot lighting (okay, not much
parking lot
lighting in NYC) that is not included in your electric bill.
Apartment dwellers also don't tend to use domestic hot water for
washing cars, etc. and their hot water for laundry isn't
necessarily
on their utility bill, even if they are individually metered.
Heating savings is one of those places where you do save money by
being densely inhabited. AC, on the other hand, is where you lose
money. All in all, I'd guess that you are ahead of the game with
density.

However, even if the smaller SF claim is true, what's so wrong about
achieving efficiency by using only the space you need?

Nothing. You don't want to heat a football field if you only need a
small home.

Yes,planners and Al Gore both agree we only need a small home, a very small
home. Al Gore, on the other hands "needs" a huge home and the ability to
use 10 times the average amount of electricity. The Hair Shirt Party (aka
democrats) want you to have a small house, but the rich to have mansions we
can tour on vacation, like in England.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

William, I am going to appoint you the master of the Conk high revving
shredding, slicing and dicing super efficient high revving model.
Here we will begin the operation. ZOOM ZOOM ZOOM.
Ask Conk what planners and Al Gore and the Dems have to do with this.
MAYBE IT IS THE MARKET.
Maybe it has soemthing to do with high land costs, high energy costs.
Just maybe????
Also maybe it has something to do with wages stagnating. People just
cannot afford what they could afford 20 years ago.
There you go William, the high revving slicing and dicing Conk
shredding machine is all yours.
Who might be the next operator???
Randy

George, does 50 cent need a gas sucking pollution creating escalade?
No, but does he still have one?
Hail yea he does. Is this an okay thing? I mean he wants one so he
should be able to get one right?
And also, Pat what is up with your super realativistic I'm okay your
okay attitude?

I've always felt that way. You go live your life (and please, stay in
your city) and leave me alone.
The market is the market. It does as it pleases. The government
should allow people to do as they please, not force them to do
something else.

So if it's murder people like, the government should allow
that?

Ok, so if you decide that people need to save energy by having only very
small apartments, you feel free to force that? You will now "allow" them
more space?

[William]

Post by george conklin

Post by William

Post by Pat
The market is the market. It does as it pleases. The government
should allow people to do as they please, not force them to do
something else.

So if it's murder people like, the government should allow
that?

Ok, so if you decide that people need to save energy by having only very
small apartments, you feel free to force that? You will now "allow" them
more space?

I've said nothing about forcing anything on people, but public opinion
is very fickle. For example befor Minneapolis
finished building the light rail, the people were vey skeptical and
said it was a very bad Idea to build it how it was buil. Now
the light rail is ver popular for somereason and many people ride it.
If it was up to the people, we would have the light rail now would we?

[George Conklin]

Post by William

Post by george conklin

Post by William

Post by Pat
The market is the market. It does as it pleases. The government
should allow people to do as they please, not force them to do
something else.

So if it's murder people like, the government should allow
that?

Ok, so if you decide that people need to save energy by having only very
small apartments, you feel free to force that? You will now "allow" them
more space?

I've said nothing about forcing anything on people, but public opinion
is very fickle. For example befor Minneapolis
finished building the light rail, the people were vey skeptical and
said it was a very bad Idea to build it how it was buil. Now
the light rail is ver popular for somereason and many people ride it.
If it was up to the people, we would have the light rail now would we?

Your assumption that spending scarce tax dollars on light rail (and its
usual huge operating losses) is the best use of tax money despite all the
alternatives because you say so. Let the riders pay 100% of the operating
costs and see how popular it is.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by George Conklin

Post by William

Post by george conklin

Post by William

Post by Pat
The market is the market. It does as it pleases. The government
should allow people to do as they please, not force them to do
something else.

So if it's murder people like, the government should allow
that?

Ok, so if you decide that people need to save energy by having only very
small apartments, you feel free to force that? You will now "allow"

them

Post by William

Post by george conklin
more space?

I've said nothing about forcing anything on people, but public opinion
is very fickle. For example befor Minneapolis
finished building the light rail, the people were vey skeptical and
said it was a very bad Idea to build it how it was buil. Now
the light rail is ver popular for somereason and many people ride it.
If it was up to the people, we would have the light rail now would we?

Your assumption that spending scarce tax dollars on light rail (and its
usual huge operating losses) is the best use of tax money despite all the
alternatives because you say so. Let the riders pay 100% of the operating
costs and see how popular it is.

Shouldn't people using the streets also pay a share of the light rail, since
if there were no light rail the streets would be more congested and need
more maintenance?

[Joe the Aroma]

Post by Amy Blankenship
Shouldn't people using the streets also pay a share of the light rail,
since if there were no light rail the streets would be more congested and
need more maintenance?

No, not if they don't use it.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Joe the Aroma

Post by Amy Blankenship
Shouldn't people using the streets also pay a share of the light rail,
since if there were no light rail the streets would be more congested and
need more maintenance?

No, not if they don't use it.

Well, if nobody uses it and pays for it, the people who don't use it will in
fact pay for it in the end, in the form of more time and money spent on what
they DO use.

[George Conklin]

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by George Conklin

Post by William

Post by george conklin

Post by William

Post by Pat
The market is the market. It does as it pleases. The government
should allow people to do as they please, not force them to do
something else.

So if it's murder people like, the government should allow
that?

Ok, so if you decide that people need to save energy by having only very
small apartments, you feel free to force that? You will now "allow"

them

Post by William

Post by george conklin
more space?

I've said nothing about forcing anything on people, but public opinion
is very fickle. For example befor Minneapolis
finished building the light rail, the people were vey skeptical and
said it was a very bad Idea to build it how it was buil. Now
the light rail is ver popular for somereason and many people ride it.
If it was up to the people, we would have the light rail now would we?

Your assumption that spending scarce tax dollars on light rail (and its
usual huge operating losses) is the best use of tax money despite all the
alternatives because you say so. Let the riders pay 100% of the operating
costs and see how popular it is.

Shouldn't people using the streets also pay a share of the light rail, since
if there were no light rail the streets would be more congested and need
more maintenance?

No. Light rail does not attract enough people for anyone to notice.

[Pat]

Post by William

Post by Pat

Post by William

Post by ***@yahoo.com

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat
On Jul 16, 11:01 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by William
George didn't even really state an opinion and you start raging on
him. He just said "It has been argued that density saves money
because
NYC uses less energy
than average" Your sorta starting to sound like a straight up hater
man.

You left out the quote from the New York Times about NYC saving energy
because of small apartments. Simple FAct. Small apartments mean you
love
man? By the way, I love women, not men.

George, what we find in the multifamily industry isn't that size saves
money, it is proximity. An 800 s.f. apartment will be cheaper to heat
than a 800 s.f. house. With a garden-style apartment, you typically
have 3 or 4 shared surfaces -- with 3 being quite common. With a
larger building, you typically have 5 shared surfaces (or, 1 outside
wall). That's a huge savings because your heat loss is your
neighbor's heat gain, so to speak. If everyone heats to 70F, then the
only heat loss is to the outside wall. That why many apartment
complex don't even bother to put heat in the hallways (unless they are
trying to create positive pressure, but that's another story).
A building only loses heat at it's exposed surfaces, so as the number
of square feet of exterior walls fall, per unit, you save energy.
There is a drawback, though. Urban areas tend to be hotter in the
summer and therefore require air conditioning. In many suburban or
rural areas, it is still possible to live without AC. But almost all
cities need it. I've only run my AC about 5 days so far this year.
It is interesting that the largest electrical loads -- which used to
be in the winter due to heating -- are now in the summer due to AC.
There is also a large savings from hot water system in large
buildings. Most of the energy you use for hot water is consumed
keeping the heat up while you're off at work. You use a little hot
water at dinner time and the rest for bathing, but for 22+ hours per
day, you don't use it. That's why tankless heaters are so efficient.
With an apartment buildings, someone is always coming and going, using
water, etc. so the amount of hold-time is much less. Plus the tanks
are more efficient. There's a pretty big savings on hot water.
In apartments, you also have to keep in mind that there there is
hallway lighting and parking lot lighting (okay, not much parking lot
lighting in NYC) that is not included in your electric bill.
Apartment dwellers also don't tend to use domestic hot water for
washing cars, etc. and their hot water for laundry isn't necessarily
on their utility bill, even if they are individually metered.
Heating savings is one of those places where you do save money by
being densely inhabited. AC, on the other hand, is where you lose
money. All in all, I'd guess that you are ahead of the game with
density.

However, even if the smaller SF claim is true, what's so wrong about
achieving efficiency by using only the space you need?

Nothing. You don't want to heat a football field if you only need a
small home.

Yes,planners and Al Gore both agree we only need a small home, a very small
home. Al Gore, on the other hands "needs" a huge home and the ability to
use 10 times the average amount of electricity. The Hair Shirt Party (aka
democrats) want you to have a small house, but the rich to have mansions we
can tour on vacation, like in England.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

William, I am going to appoint you the master of the Conk high revving
shredding, slicing and dicing super efficient high revving model.
Here we will begin the operation. ZOOM ZOOM ZOOM.
Ask Conk what planners and Al Gore and the Dems have to do with this.
MAYBE IT IS THE MARKET.
Maybe it has soemthing to do with high land costs, high energy costs.
Just maybe????
Also maybe it has something to do with wages stagnating. People just
cannot afford what they could afford 20 years ago.
There you go William, the high revving slicing and dicing Conk
shredding machine is all yours.
Who might be the next operator???
Randy

George, does 50 cent need a gas sucking pollution creating escalade?
No, but does he still have one?
Hail yea he does. Is this an okay thing? I mean he wants one so he
should be able to get one right?
And also, Pat what is up with your super realativistic I'm okay your
okay attitude?

I've always felt that way. You go live your life (and please, stay in
your city) and leave me alone.
The market is the market. It does as it pleases. The government
should allow people to do as they please, not force them to do
something else.

So if it's murder people like, the government should allow
that?

You've said that you're a practicing Catholic. Therefore from your
perspective the answer is "it has happened every day since Row v.
Wade". So yes, one can argue that if society wants murder, society
can get away with murder. Think abortion, capital punishment, Iraq.

I'm not saying that any of them are good or right, but it societal
murder.

[Joe the Aroma]

Post by William
So if it's murder people like, the government should allow
that?

Only if it's someone as dense as you.

[William]

Post by Joe the Aroma

that?

Only if it's someone as dense as you.

What have I said that displeases you so Master History Hater?

[Joe the Aroma]

Post by William

Post by William
if it's murder people like, the government should allow

that?

Only if it's someone as dense as you.

What have I said that displeases you so Master History Hater?

You made the jump from the people liking their houses to murder, that's
stupid.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Joe the Aroma

Post by William

Post by William
if it's murder people like, the government should allow

that?

Only if it's someone as dense as you.

What have I said that displeases you so Master History Hater?

You made the jump from the people liking their houses to murder, that's
stupid.

I think his point was that the government regulates all kinds of things, so
taken to extremes, objecting to all government regulations is objecting to
the government's right to protect you from murder.

[Stephen Sprunk]

Post by Pat
On Jul 16, 11:01 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship
However, even if the smaller SF claim is true, what's so wrong about
achieving efficiency by using only the space you need?

Nothing. You don't want to heat a football field if you only need a
small home.

Or cool. By far, the dominant part of my electric bill is my water heater.
Take that out of the equation, and heating/cooling my small (but sufficient)
place costs next to nothing, even at 70F year-round. My friends in the
suburbs pay three to five times as much to heat and cool all the empty space
in their oversized houses. (And small houses can't be found, since there
are minimum square footage zoning laws.)

S

[george conklin]

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Pat
On Jul 16, 11:01 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship
However, even if the smaller SF claim is true, what's so wrong about
achieving efficiency by using only the space you need?

Nothing. You don't want to heat a football field if you only need a
small home.

Or cool. By far, the dominant part of my electric bill is my water
heater. Take that out of the equation, and heating/cooling my small (but
sufficient) place costs next to nothing, even at 70F year-round. My
friends in the suburbs pay three to five times as much to heat and cool
all the empty space in their oversized houses. (And small houses can't be
found, since there are minimum square footage zoning laws.)

You have friends?

And you don't say what you pay, and you make up figures for everyone
else.

[Stephen Sprunk]

Post by george conklin

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Pat
On Jul 16, 11:01 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship
However, even if the smaller SF claim is true, what's so wrong about
achieving efficiency by using only the space you need?

Nothing. You don't want to heat a football field if you only need a
small home.

Or cool. By far, the dominant part of my electric bill is my water
heater. Take that out of the equation, and heating/cooling my small (but
sufficient) place costs next to nothing, even at 70F year-round. My
friends in the suburbs pay three to five times as much to heat and cool
all the empty space in their oversized houses. (And small houses can't
be found, since there are minimum square footage zoning laws.)

You have friends?

Of course; don't you?

Post by george conklin
And you don't say what you pay, and you make up figures for everyone
else.

If you want numbers, my electric bill last month was $36, though we're
heading into the hot season and I expect to pay $50-60 this month. The bill
for a typical house here runs $100-250/mo (depending on season). I've
talked to several friends and acquaintances in the area, since I'm looking
to buy a house soon (to build equity, not because I have any need for more
space), and every single one has warned me about how my electric bills will
skyrocket, with examples.

Shared walls really cut your heating and cooling bills, as does only having
the space you need. I'd love to buy a 1000sf house, but the smallest
developers are allowed to build now is 2500sf, and 3000sf+ is common.

S

[george conklin]

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by george conklin

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Pat
On Jul 16, 11:01 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship
However, even if the smaller SF claim is true, what's so wrong about
achieving efficiency by using only the space you need?

Nothing. You don't want to heat a football field if you only need a
small home.

Or cool. By far, the dominant part of my electric bill is my water
heater. Take that out of the equation, and heating/cooling my small (but
sufficient) place costs next to nothing, even at 70F year-round. My
friends in the suburbs pay three to five times as much to heat and cool
all the empty space in their oversized houses. (And small houses can't
be found, since there are minimum square footage zoning laws.)

You have friends?

Of course; don't you?

Post by george conklin
And you don't say what you pay, and you make up figures for everyone
else.

If you want numbers, my electric bill last month was $36, though we're
heading into the hot season and I expect to pay $50-60 this month. The
bill for a typical house here runs $100-250/mo (depending on season).
I've talked to several friends and acquaintances in the area, since I'm
looking to buy a house soon (to build equity, not because I have any need
for more space), and every single one has warned me about how my electric
bills will skyrocket, with examples.
Shared walls really cut your heating and cooling bills, as does only
having the space you need. I'd love to buy a 1000sf house, but the
smallest developers are allowed to build now is 2500sf, and 3000sf+ is
common.

Developers put up average sized houses. 1000 sqfoot houses are
single-wides. You can get tons of those quite cheap too.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by george conklin

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by george conklin

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Pat
On Jul 16, 11:01 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship
However, even if the smaller SF claim is true, what's so wrong about
achieving efficiency by using only the space you need?

Nothing. You don't want to heat a football field if you only need a
small home.

Or cool. By far, the dominant part of my electric bill is my water
heater. Take that out of the equation, and heating/cooling my small
(but sufficient) place costs next to nothing, even at 70F year-round.
My friends in the suburbs pay three to five times as much to heat and
cool all the empty space in their oversized houses. (And small houses
can't be found, since there are minimum square footage zoning laws.)

You have friends?

Of course; don't you?

Post by george conklin
And you don't say what you pay, and you make up figures for everyone
else.

If you want numbers, my electric bill last month was $36, though we're
heading into the hot season and I expect to pay $50-60 this month. The
bill for a typical house here runs $100-250/mo (depending on season).
I've talked to several friends and acquaintances in the area, since I'm
looking to buy a house soon (to build equity, not because I have any need
for more space), and every single one has warned me about how my electric
bills will skyrocket, with examples.
Shared walls really cut your heating and cooling bills, as does only
having the space you need. I'd love to buy a 1000sf house, but the
smallest developers are allowed to build now is 2500sf, and 3000sf+ is
common.

Developers put up average sized houses. 1000 sqfoot houses are
single-wides. You can get tons of those quite cheap too.

Notice George has no issues with government forcing people to build
unnecessarily large houses. He also knows trailers are not cheap, but the
worst of the cost is paid after the person is committed.

[William]

On Jul 16, 10:01 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by William
George didn't even really state an opinion and you start raging on
him. He just said "It has been argued that density saves money because
NYC uses less energy
than average" Your sorta starting to sound like a straight up hater
man.

You left out the quote from the New York Times about NYC saving energy
because of small apartments. Simple FAct. Small apartments mean you love
man? By the way, I love women, not men.

George, what we find in the multifamily industry isn't that size saves
money, it is proximity. An 800 s.f. apartment will be cheaper to heat
than a 800 s.f. house. With a garden-style apartment, you typically
have 3 or 4 shared surfaces -- with 3 being quite common. With a
larger building, you typically have 5 shared surfaces (or, 1 outside
wall). That's a huge savings because your heat loss is your
neighbor's heat gain, so to speak. If everyone heats to 70F, then the
only heat loss is to the outside wall. That why many apartment
complex don't even bother to put heat in the hallways (unless they are
trying to create positive pressure, but that's another story).
A building only loses heat at it's exposed surfaces, so as the number
of square feet of exterior walls fall, per unit, you save energy.
There is a drawback, though. Urban areas tend to be hotter in the
summer and therefore require air conditioning. In many suburban or
rural areas, it is still possible to live without AC. But almost all
cities need it. I've only run my AC about 5 days so far this year.
It is interesting that the largest electrical loads -- which used to
be in the winter due to heating -- are now in the summer due to AC.
There is also a large savings from hot water system in large
buildings. Most of the energy you use for hot water is consumed
keeping the heat up while you're off at work. You use a little hot
water at dinner time and the rest for bathing, but for 22+ hours per
day, you don't use it. That's why tankless heaters are so efficient.
With an apartment buildings, someone is always coming and going, using
water, etc. so the amount of hold-time is much less. Plus the tanks
are more efficient. There's a pretty big savings on hot water.
In apartments, you also have to keep in mind that there there is
hallway lighting and parking lot lighting (okay, not much parking lot
lighting in NYC) that is not included in your electric bill.
Apartment dwellers also don't tend to use domestic hot water for
washing cars, etc. and their hot water for laundry isn't necessarily
on their utility bill, even if they are individually metered.
Heating savings is one of those places where you do save money by
being densely inhabited. AC, on the other hand, is where you lose
money. All in all, I'd guess that you are ahead of the game with
density.

However, even if the smaller SF claim is true, what's so wrong about
achieving efficiency by using only the space you need?

Nothing. The reason why people are giving up there 1/2 acre property
with a back and front yard and garden for
a small sized downtown condo is well, purely because of
the veiw.
Loading Image...

[Pat]

Post by William
On Jul 16, 10:01 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by William
George didn't even really state an opinion and you start raging on
him. He just said "It has been argued that density saves money because
NYC uses less energy
than average" Your sorta starting to sound like a straight up hater
man.

You left out the quote from the New York Times about NYC saving energy
because of small apartments. Simple FAct. Small apartments mean you love
man? By the way, I love women, not men.

George, what we find in the multifamily industry isn't that size saves
money, it is proximity. An 800 s.f. apartment will be cheaper to heat
than a 800 s.f. house. With a garden-style apartment, you typically
have 3 or 4 shared surfaces -- with 3 being quite common. With a
larger building, you typically have 5 shared surfaces (or, 1 outside
wall). That's a huge savings because your heat loss is your
neighbor's heat gain, so to speak. If everyone heats to 70F, then the
only heat loss is to the outside wall. That why many apartment
complex don't even bother to put heat in the hallways (unless they are
trying to create positive pressure, but that's another story).
A building only loses heat at it's exposed surfaces, so as the number
of square feet of exterior walls fall, per unit, you save energy.
There is a drawback, though. Urban areas tend to be hotter in the
summer and therefore require air conditioning. In many suburban or
rural areas, it is still possible to live without AC. But almost all
cities need it. I've only run my AC about 5 days so far this year.
It is interesting that the largest electrical loads -- which used to
be in the winter due to heating -- are now in the summer due to AC.
There is also a large savings from hot water system in large
buildings. Most of the energy you use for hot water is consumed
keeping the heat up while you're off at work. You use a little hot
water at dinner time and the rest for bathing, but for 22+ hours per
day, you don't use it. That's why tankless heaters are so efficient.
With an apartment buildings, someone is always coming and going, using
water, etc. so the amount of hold-time is much less. Plus the tanks
are more efficient. There's a pretty big savings on hot water.
In apartments, you also have to keep in mind that there there is
hallway lighting and parking lot lighting (okay, not much parking lot
lighting in NYC) that is not included in your electric bill.
Apartment dwellers also don't tend to use domestic hot water for
washing cars, etc. and their hot water for laundry isn't necessarily
on their utility bill, even if they are individually metered.
Heating savings is one of those places where you do save money by
being densely inhabited. AC, on the other hand, is where you lose
money. All in all, I'd guess that you are ahead of the game with
density.

However, even if the smaller SF claim is true, what's so wrong about
achieving efficiency by using only the space you need?

Nothing. The reason why people are giving up there 1/2 acre property
with a back and front yard and garden for
a small sized downtown condo is well, purely because of
the veiw.http://openhousenorthwest.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/pianoview31.jpg

Oh, yuck. Ugh. Who'd want that.

This is more like it:
http://www.artisticphotography.us/Barn_at_Sunrise/
http://www.artisticphotography.us/Sandbar_on_Allegany/
http://www.artisticphotography.us/barn_with_corn_and_cabbage/

[William]

Post by Pat

Post by William
On Jul 16, 10:01 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by William
George didn't even really state an opinion and you start raging on
him. He just said "It has been argued that density saves money because
NYC uses less energy
than average" Your sorta starting to sound like a straight up hater
man.

You left out the quote from the New York Times about NYC saving energy
because of small apartments. Simple FAct. Small apartments mean you love
man? By the way, I love women, not men.

George, what we find in the multifamily industry isn't that size saves
money, it is proximity. An 800 s.f. apartment will be cheaper to heat
than a 800 s.f. house. With a garden-style apartment, you typically
have 3 or 4 shared surfaces -- with 3 being quite common. With a
larger building, you typically have 5 shared surfaces (or, 1 outside
wall). That's a huge savings because your heat loss is your
neighbor's heat gain, so to speak. If everyone heats to 70F, then the
only heat loss is to the outside wall. That why many apartment
complex don't even bother to put heat in the hallways (unless they are
trying to create positive pressure, but that's another story).
A building only loses heat at it's exposed surfaces, so as the number
of square feet of exterior walls fall, per unit, you save energy.
There is a drawback, though. Urban areas tend to be hotter in the
summer and therefore require air conditioning. In many suburban or
rural areas, it is still possible to live without AC. But almost all
cities need it. I've only run my AC about 5 days so far this year.
It is interesting that the largest electrical loads -- which used to
be in the winter due to heating -- are now in the summer due to AC.
There is also a large savings from hot water system in large
buildings. Most of the energy you use for hot water is consumed
keeping the heat up while you're off at work. You use a little hot
water at dinner time and the rest for bathing, but for 22+ hours per
day, you don't use it. That's why tankless heaters are so efficient.
With an apartment buildings, someone is always coming and going, using
water, etc. so the amount of hold-time is much less. Plus the tanks
are more efficient. There's a pretty big savings on hot water.
In apartments, you also have to keep in mind that there there is
hallway lighting and parking lot lighting (okay, not much parking lot
lighting in NYC) that is not included in your electric bill.
Apartment dwellers also don't tend to use domestic hot water for
washing cars, etc. and their hot water for laundry isn't necessarily
on their utility bill, even if they are individually metered.
Heating savings is one of those places where you do save money by
being densely inhabited. AC, on the other hand, is where you lose
money. All in all, I'd guess that you are ahead of the game with
density.

However, even if the smaller SF claim is true, what's so wrong about
achieving efficiency by using only the space you need?

Nothing. The reason why people are giving up there 1/2 acre property
with a back and front yard and garden for
a small sized downtown condo is well, purely because of
the veiw.http://openhousenorthwest.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/pianoview31.jpg

Oh, yuck. Ugh. Who'd want that.
This is more like it:http://www.artisticphotography.us/Barn_at_Sunrise/http://www.artisticphotography.us/Sandbar_on_Allegany/http://www.artisticphotography.us/barn_with_corn_and_cabbage/

O Heil Na!
Time to wipe out my ginormas amount of downtown pictures!
THIS is more like it.
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...

[Pat]

Post by William

Post by Pat

Post by William
On Jul 16, 10:01 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by William
George didn't even really state an opinion and you start raging on
him. He just said "It has been argued that density saves money because
NYC uses less energy
than average" Your sorta starting to sound like a straight up hater
man.

You left out the quote from the New York Times about NYC saving energy
because of small apartments. Simple FAct. Small apartments mean you
love
man? By the way, I love women, not men.

George, what we find in the multifamily industry isn't that size saves
money, it is proximity. An 800 s.f. apartment will be cheaper to heat
than a 800 s.f. house. With a garden-style apartment, you typically
have 3 or 4 shared surfaces -- with 3 being quite common. With a
larger building, you typically have 5 shared surfaces (or, 1 outside
wall). That's a huge savings because your heat loss is your
neighbor's heat gain, so to speak. If everyone heats to 70F, then the
only heat loss is to the outside wall. That why many apartment
complex don't even bother to put heat in the hallways (unless they are
trying to create positive pressure, but that's another story).
A building only loses heat at it's exposed surfaces, so as the number
of square feet of exterior walls fall, per unit, you save energy.
There is a drawback, though. Urban areas tend to be hotter in the
summer and therefore require air conditioning. In many suburban or
rural areas, it is still possible to live without AC. But almost all
cities need it. I've only run my AC about 5 days so far this year.
It is interesting that the largest electrical loads -- which used to
be in the winter due to heating -- are now in the summer due to AC.
There is also a large savings from hot water system in large
buildings. Most of the energy you use for hot water is consumed
keeping the heat up while you're off at work. You use a little hot
water at dinner time and the rest for bathing, but for 22+ hours per
day, you don't use it. That's why tankless heaters are so efficient.
With an apartment buildings, someone is always coming and going, using
water, etc. so the amount of hold-time is much less. Plus the tanks
are more efficient. There's a pretty big savings on hot water.
In apartments, you also have to keep in mind that there there is
hallway lighting and parking lot lighting (okay, not much parking lot
lighting in NYC) that is not included in your electric bill.
Apartment dwellers also don't tend to use domestic hot water for
washing cars, etc. and their hot water for laundry isn't necessarily
on their utility bill, even if they are individually metered.
Heating savings is one of those places where you do save money by
being densely inhabited. AC, on the other hand, is where you lose
money. All in all, I'd guess that you are ahead of the game with
density.

However, even if the smaller SF claim is true, what's so wrong about
achieving efficiency by using only the space you need?

Nothing. The reason why people are giving up there 1/2 acre property
with a back and front yard and garden for
a small sized downtown condo is well, purely because of
the veiw.http://openhousenorthwest.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/pianoview31.jpg

Oh, yuck. Ugh. Who'd want that.
This is more like it:http://www.artisticphotography.us/Barn_at_Sunrise/http://www.artistic...

O Heil Na!
Time to wipe out my ginormas amount of downtown pictures!
THIS is more like it.Loading Image...

If you were trying to turn me off from cities, you have succeeded.

[William]

Post by Pat

Post by William
On Jul 16, 10:01 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by William
George didn't even really state an opinion and you start raging on
him. He just said "It has been argued that density saves money because
NYC uses less energy
than average" Your sorta starting to sound like a straight up hater
man.

You left out the quote from the New York Times about NYC saving energy
because of small apartments. Simple FAct. Small apartments mean you
love
man? By the way, I love women, not men.

George, what we find in the multifamily industry isn't that size saves
money, it is proximity. An 800 s.f. apartment will be cheaper to heat
than a 800 s.f. house. With a garden-style apartment, you typically
have 3 or 4 shared surfaces -- with 3 being quite common. With a
larger building, you typically have 5 shared surfaces (or, 1 outside
wall). That's a huge savings because your heat loss is your
neighbor's heat gain, so to speak. If everyone heats to 70F, then the
only heat loss is to the outside wall. That why many apartment
complex don't even bother to put heat in the hallways (unless they are
trying to create positive pressure, but that's another story).
A building only loses heat at it's exposed surfaces, so as the number
of square feet of exterior walls fall, per unit, you save energy.
There is a drawback, though. Urban areas tend to be hotter in the
summer and therefore require air conditioning. In many suburban or
rural areas, it is still possible to live without AC. But almost all
cities need it. I've only run my AC about 5 days so far this year.
It is interesting that the largest electrical loads -- which used to
be in the winter due to heating -- are now in the summer due to AC.
There is also a large savings from hot water system in large
buildings. Most of the energy you use for hot water is consumed
keeping the heat up while you're off at work. You use a little hot
water at dinner time and the rest for bathing, but for 22+ hours per
day, you don't use it. That's why tankless heaters are so efficient.
With an apartment buildings, someone is always coming and going, using
water, etc. so the amount of hold-time is much less. Plus the tanks
are more efficient. There's a pretty big savings on hot water.
In apartments, you also have to keep in mind that there there is
hallway lighting and parking lot lighting (okay, not much parking lot
lighting in NYC) that is not included in your electric bill.
Apartment dwellers also don't tend to use domestic hot water for
washing cars, etc. and their hot water for laundry isn't necessarily
on their utility bill, even if they are individually metered.
Heating savings is one of those places where you do save money by
being densely inhabited. AC, on the other hand, is where you lose
money. All in all, I'd guess that you are ahead of the game with
density.

However, even if the smaller SF claim is true, what's so wrong about
achieving efficiency by using only the space you need?

Nothing. The reason why people are giving up there 1/2 acre property
with a back and front yard and garden for
a small sized downtown condo is well, purely because of
the veiw.http://openhousenorthwest.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/pianoview31.jpg

Oh, yuck. Ugh. Who'd want that.

Well, considering the recent condo rage, a lot of people.

[[e-mail]]

Post by William
George didn't even really state an opinion and you start raging on
him. He just said "It has been argued that density saves money because
NYC uses less energy
than average" Your sorta starting to sound like a straight up hater
man.

William, I would strongly suggest you stay out of the Conk shredding,
slicing and dicing machine.

You seem like a decent guy. Believe me when I say, it is NOT a good
idea to get involved.

I don't want to have to shred, slice and dice you also.

Randy

[Joe the Aroma]

So living in NYC saves a bunch of money in energy costs but you'll pay
through your --- on the rent and cost of living expenses. No thanks.

Post by George Conklin
It has been argued that density saves money because NYC uses less energy
than average. But why is this? This NY Times finally comes clean and
---
"The main reason that New Yorkers use much less electricity is that our
apartments are so much smaller" than homes in other cities, said Rohit
Aggarwala, the director of the Long-Term Planning and Sustainability Office,
part of the Mayor's Office of Operations.
---

[george conklin]

Post by Joe the Aroma

Post by George Conklin
It has been argued that density saves money because NYC uses less energy
than average. But why is this? This NY Times finally comes clean and
---
"The main reason that New Yorkers use much less electricity is that our
apartments are so much smaller" than homes in other cities, said Rohit
Aggarwala, the director of the Long-Term Planning and Sustainability Office,
part of the Mayor's Office of Operations.

So living in NYC saves a bunch of money in energy costs but you'll pay
through your --- on the rent and cost of living expenses. No thanks.

I don't think you will save anything at all. Con Ed rates are about the
highest in the country. You can use half as much and pay twice as much.
Despite a cool July, the Con Ed rates went up as copied below:
Those bills reflected an increase from 17.3 to 24.5 cents per kilowatt hour.
(a direct cut and paste).

So, folks, you would go broke with NYC rates anywhere else.