marketing, the media, and millionaires, oh my!

I spent a few hours today researching Ray Kappe and LivingHomes as per a reader's recommendation. After gleaning all the info I could from Livinghomes.net (which turned out mostly to be marketing hype), I found my way to LexisNexis and did a few searches on "green houses," "sustainable homes," and the like in US publications. (Livinghomes turned up more than a few times, unsurprisingly.)

I'm finding that the way that green homes are discussed in the press and blogosphere and marketing materials supports my initial hypothesis, that by and large, the philosophy behind sustainable architecture (or at least, sustainable residential architecture) is tied more into economics than ecology.

Reading all these articles and browsing the LivingHomes website, I am confronted with catchphrases like "casual comfort," "sleek elegance," and other hackneyed lifestyle descriptors. It seems that green homes are more about ego than awareness: owning one would certainly give anyone a sense of moral superiority, material self-indulgence, and a hefty "cool factor." But it would hardly give me a sense of why it is important, in the first place, for green homes to exist: ecological balance, environmental justice....

On a completely biased, highly opinionated note: while watching the LivingHomes tour of Steve Glenn's home, I actually got a little disgusted with the product placements and continual featuring of consumptive excess. It's great that he has a home media center by Microsoft and some nice vintage furniture pieces, but it begs the question, "What foundations are this company really built on?" Is it built on a love born of understanding for nature and a sense of honest stewardship for the earth, or is it built on a fetish for energy-saving hot tubs, exotic materials, and "dumplings and soy milk lattes"? (Yes, that also came from the tour.)

I admit that there will always be a little bit of the latter, but I really get no sense of the former from the online tour... or does it not matter as long as a decently well-to-do public can be seduced into gobbling it up, because, in the long run, it IS better for the environment?