Tom Brady & Gisele Bunchen have finished building their environmentally friendly California mansion. The 22,000 square foot masterpiece features solar energy, recycling programs and sustainable building materials.
Pictures and full story available via the Daily Mail:
Nothing says eco-friendly...like a 22,000 sf mansion with a place to park 6 cars....and the french provincial mansards seem to blend right into the rolling California hills. well done, kids...good for you!
the carbon expended to build that trash will never be recovered no matter how many solar panels they have or rain water catchment schemes they dream up.
just a regular run of the mill house built 30% more efficient than standard practices takes 40 years to balance carbon expenditures.
and people wonder why the 1% should pay higher taxes. They put much more strain on the environment and its infrastructure. I would like to see a study of the proportion of carbon footprint of the 1%ers to the proportion of tax they pay.
Donna's comment really illustrates the disconnect between most "ordinary people" and the architecturally trained design community. most people see these houses and just think that they are beautiful.
it may not be their fault though because sometimes it is what they are feed by some builders and real estate agents, they tend to trust the professionals? and over time these designs become the standard for status and opulence.
Yeah its tricky. Ive known and worked with some stupendously wealthy people, some are incredibly down to earth and modest, and others are have been a little full of themselves. Honestly the ratio doesnt seem much different than for people in any other tax bracket, I think the opulence just seems more obvious when people can afford to show it. Some of it is greed and just not knowing when enough is enough, some of it seems driven by insecurity in how their peers will perceive them at cocktail parties. At the same time though Ive known billionaires who live in little farmhouses and send their kids to public scool, multi-millionaires who give nearly everything they earn to charity and seem barely willing to remodel their apartment. Its easy to sneer at this stuff, it is sort of sad people cant think of anything better to do with the opportunity theyve been given, but theres a lot of waste at all income scales.
I never thought 'sprawl' could apply to a single family house until now. This looks like Architectural Digest on anabolic steroids. Got to love the moat and turrets near the entry though. Maybe I'm missing it, but for some reason I don't see a flagpole??? Maybe we should withhold judgement until we see the interior.
In my experience appreciation for the work is inversely proportional to wealth. I have one only one exception on the wealthy side, and it is a pleasure to work with him.
You're absolutely right, of course, about this masquerading environmental disaster, and your point is made powerfully concrete by citing some numbers (i.e., 'it will take 40 years to balance the carbon expenditures').
Wondering if you had a specific reference for that--it'd be great to be able to use this kind of jarring statistic in the future.
OK, we know what's gross. So offer up some conceptuals of what a 15K+ square feet could look like? The Gates mansion is mostly buried. Anyone, anyone, Beuller?
They put much more strain on the environment and its infrastructure
With the exception of electricity, two people living in a 1000 square foot house or a 100,000 square foot mansion will use roughly the same amount of water, produce the same amount of garbage and generate the same amount of traffic.
I would, however, like to see a house that can over-encumber a 13kV power line though. Think of how hideous it must look to have a house with transmission pylons and a substation next to it.
The biggest complain, ignoring aesthetics, would be the amount of run-off a property this size would generate. But considering that basic rainwater sewage does not seemed to be offered and that Brady and Bunchen have went out of their way to mitigate run-off hazards, there's little left to complain about.
Like the house frac just linked too, for every 2-8 story high noveaux-baroque mansion that's pu up around the world, there's plenty of equally sprawling single-story open-plan modernist creations. Ten-thousand square feet over one or two stories is a lot more harmful to the environment than 10,000 square feet over a 5-story building.
The most hideous thing I find about this project isn't the horrendous waste of resources or the effect on the environment... it's the pastiche. And not just the phony encrusted stone or poor detailing.
My god. Those roofs. THOSE ROOFS.
I have no idea why anyone would even bother with expensive and challenge of using mansard roofs when not even going ahead and making actual roofs! What is seriously the point of using a flat roof and then just gluing a fake mansard all the way around it?
They could have made this house another 5,000 square feet and had a really cool attic and extra floor space!
i got the carbon information from an AIA 2011 convention course called Quantifying the Value of Building Reuse here is a link . click on view the course
the course outlines a study that was commissioned by the The National Trust for Historic Preservation. i have been in contact with amanda pike and ralph dinola two of the principles of the study and amanda has sent me a link to the completed study ,which they just now finished
to me it all boils down to common sense. there is nothing free, even in green building. my take away from all this is that from a carbon footprint point of view it makes way more sense to preserve, retrofit and upgrade existing buildings as opposed to a tear down and build new. now for the rub. from my personal experience a lot of times it is cheaper to tear down and start over; so in the real world what wins money or carbon. here is an excerpt from one of my letters to amanda.
Ms. Pike,
Below is a copy of a letter I sent to The National Trust and I thought that I would see if I could get a copy of your study easier from you. Great lecture in NOLA by the way and just from what I learned from that alone disturbed me regarding the usefulness of "new green" construction. If the payback is 35 / 50 years for the green technologies to eliminate the carbon footprint of a new building I am having a hard time justifying the effort. And after 35 / 50 years is that not the life span of some buildings? After that long of a time would not those buildings need upgrading or a remodel, especially a commercial building, for what ever reason further extending the carbon balance possibly to the point that there is no carbon recovery at all? Very troubling indeed.
Jan 29, 12 2:44 pm ·
·
"I have no idea why anyone would even bother with expensive and challenge of using mansard roofs when not even going ahead and making actual roofs! What is seriously the point of using a flat roof and then just gluing a fake mansard all the way around it?"
The point of the mansard is to hide the solar panels from view. That's what makes this house both environmentally friendly and classically beautiful, yo!
I looked at this and I thought two things: 1) ew, its way too big and way too gawdy, and 2) The leaves from those trees they planted in the back patio are gonna go right into that pool. So it kinda makes me wonder who was responsible for this, because architectural blight aside, there are some things here that are just bad design.
masterbuilder - it was designed and built by suffolk construction - they have architects in house, but they're typically known for building large complicated urban projects, not for their design or single family residential work. the CEO of suffolk happens to be good friends with the owner of the patriots, and Brady was probably too lazy to solicit proposals from other architects and builders.
IMO - this is a good example of a rich client not doing their homework.
Construction finished on a beautiful mansion.
Tom Brady & Gisele Bunchen have finished building their environmentally friendly California mansion. The 22,000 square foot masterpiece features solar energy, recycling programs and sustainable building materials.
Pictures and full story available via the Daily Mail:
That is one MEGA mansion! Tom Brady and Gisele Bundchen's $20million dream home is finally finished
Jealous, yo?
Terrible.....
That is grotesque even by Hamptons standards.
Nothing says eco-friendly...like a 22,000 sf mansion with a place to park 6 cars....and the french provincial mansards seem to blend right into the rolling California hills. well done, kids...good for you!
I like the 30' high retaining wall directly across from the front door.
and is that a moat?
Who cares, yo?
the carbon expended to build that trash will never be recovered no matter how many solar panels they have or rain water catchment schemes they dream up.
just a regular run of the mill house built 30% more efficient than standard practices takes 40 years to balance carbon expenditures.
but he does have a good looking ole lady
Really fucking gross.
I'd live there with Gisele, if I really had to
and people wonder why the 1% should pay higher taxes. They put much more strain on the environment and its infrastructure. I would like to see a study of the proportion of carbon footprint of the 1%ers to the proportion of tax they pay.
Donna's comment really illustrates the disconnect between most "ordinary people" and the architecturally trained design community. most people see these houses and just think that they are beautiful.
it may not be their fault though because sometimes it is what they are feed by some builders and real estate agents, they tend to trust the professionals? and over time these designs become the standard for status and opulence.
tell a lie long enough and well you know the rest
Yeah its tricky. Ive known and worked with some stupendously wealthy people, some are incredibly down to earth and modest, and others are have been a little full of themselves. Honestly the ratio doesnt seem much different than for people in any other tax bracket, I think the opulence just seems more obvious when people can afford to show it. Some of it is greed and just not knowing when enough is enough, some of it seems driven by insecurity in how their peers will perceive them at cocktail parties. At the same time though Ive known billionaires who live in little farmhouses and send their kids to public scool, multi-millionaires who give nearly everything they earn to charity and seem barely willing to remodel their apartment. Its easy to sneer at this stuff, it is sort of sad people cant think of anything better to do with the opportunity theyve been given, but theres a lot of waste at all income scales.
but folks, think about all the jobs this created...!
It looks like a mega pest control headquarters.
I never thought 'sprawl' could apply to a single family house until now. This looks like Architectural Digest on anabolic steroids. Got to love the moat and turrets near the entry though. Maybe I'm missing it, but for some reason I don't see a flagpole??? Maybe we should withhold judgement until we see the interior.
In my experience appreciation for the work is inversely proportional to wealth. I have one only one exception on the wealthy side, and it is a pleasure to work with him.
go do it,
You're absolutely right, of course, about this masquerading environmental disaster, and your point is made powerfully concrete by citing some numbers (i.e., 'it will take 40 years to balance the carbon expenditures').
Wondering if you had a specific reference for that--it'd be great to be able to use this kind of jarring statistic in the future.
OK, we know what's gross. So offer up some conceptuals of what a 15K+ square feet could look like? The Gates mansion is mostly buried. Anyone, anyone, Beuller?
i see your 15k and raise you another 7K
lotta good comments here. j.arleo you bring up a really good point. that statistic has to be crazy.
They put much more strain on the environment and its infrastructure
With the exception of electricity, two people living in a 1000 square foot house or a 100,000 square foot mansion will use roughly the same amount of water, produce the same amount of garbage and generate the same amount of traffic.
I would, however, like to see a house that can over-encumber a 13kV power line though. Think of how hideous it must look to have a house with transmission pylons and a substation next to it.
The biggest complain, ignoring aesthetics, would be the amount of run-off a property this size would generate. But considering that basic rainwater sewage does not seemed to be offered and that Brady and Bunchen have went out of their way to mitigate run-off hazards, there's little left to complain about.
Like the house frac just linked too, for every 2-8 story high noveaux-baroque mansion that's pu up around the world, there's plenty of equally sprawling single-story open-plan modernist creations. Ten-thousand square feet over one or two stories is a lot more harmful to the environment than 10,000 square feet over a 5-story building.
The most hideous thing I find about this project isn't the horrendous waste of resources or the effect on the environment... it's the pastiche. And not just the phony encrusted stone or poor detailing.
My god. Those roofs. THOSE ROOFS.
I have no idea why anyone would even bother with expensive and challenge of using mansard roofs when not even going ahead and making actual roofs! What is seriously the point of using a flat roof and then just gluing a fake mansard all the way around it?
They could have made this house another 5,000 square feet and had a really cool attic and extra floor space!
position,
i got the carbon information from an AIA 2011 convention course called Quantifying the Value of Building Reuse here is a link . click on view the course
the course outlines a study that was commissioned by the The National Trust for Historic Preservation. i have been in contact with amanda pike and ralph dinola two of the principles of the study and amanda has sent me a link to the completed study ,which they just now finished
to me it all boils down to common sense. there is nothing free, even in green building. my take away from all this is that from a carbon footprint point of view it makes way more sense to preserve, retrofit and upgrade existing buildings as opposed to a tear down and build new. now for the rub. from my personal experience a lot of times it is cheaper to tear down and start over; so in the real world what wins money or carbon. here is an excerpt from one of my letters to amanda.
Ms. Pike,
Below is a copy of a letter I sent to The National Trust and I thought that I would see if I could get a copy of your study easier from you. Great lecture in NOLA by the way and just from what I learned from that alone disturbed me regarding the usefulness of "new green" construction. If the payback is 35 / 50 years for the green technologies to eliminate the carbon footprint of a new building I am having a hard time justifying the effort. And after 35 / 50 years is that not the life span of some buildings? After that long of a time would not those buildings need upgrading or a remodel, especially a commercial building, for what ever reason further extending the carbon balance possibly to the point that there is no carbon recovery at all? Very troubling indeed.
"I have no idea why anyone would even bother with expensive and challenge of using mansard roofs when not even going ahead and making actual roofs! What is seriously the point of using a flat roof and then just gluing a fake mansard all the way around it?"
The point of the mansard is to hide the solar panels from view. That's what makes this house both environmentally friendly and classically beautiful, yo!
What is seriously the point of using a flat roof and then just gluing a fake mansard all the way around it?
probably to get around height restrictions in the zoning code.
go do it - I saw that report too... also not sure how much it helps the case for preservation, though...
I looked at this and I thought two things: 1) ew, its way too big and way too gawdy, and 2) The leaves from those trees they planted in the back patio are gonna go right into that pool. So it kinda makes me wonder who was responsible for this, because architectural blight aside, there are some things here that are just bad design.
masterbuilder - it was designed and built by suffolk construction - they have architects in house, but they're typically known for building large complicated urban projects, not for their design or single family residential work. the CEO of suffolk happens to be good friends with the owner of the patriots, and Brady was probably too lazy to solicit proposals from other architects and builders.
IMO - this is a good example of a rich client not doing their homework.
go do it,
Excellent - thank you! It's high time they quantified this.
IMO - this is a good example of a rich client not doing their homework.
agreed - if they wanted a good historical thing they should've hired bob stearn or dick busch or someone like that
22,000 s.f and built for 3 ? downright shame.....!!!! and gaudy? fahgetaboutit.....!!!!!!
do uber rich or just plain rich folks build these kind of houses for tax purposes?
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.