I saw this survey on Re-Nest and didn’t participate because there wasn’t an option for what my response would’ve been. I’m all about second homes. I’d have third and fourth homes if I could afford it.

Re-Nest on second homes: “They take more stuff to build; more energy to heat and to cool; and you have to get to the second home somehow, too — and that usually means time in a carbon-spewing car.”

I totally agree with this reasoning, but at the same time, second homes don’t have to be wasteful. In our case, our second home is a multi family house in Brooklyn. The tenants live there, so the house isn’t exactly sitting empty. There is a zoned heating system which means our apartment is not heated when we’re not there. Furthermore, if it wasn’t a work in progress, we might be renting it out as office space so it would be getting use all the time.

As far as country homes…yeah, been there, done that too. Let’s not even talk about building a new home. I’m totally against that! But if the home already exists, we should put aside the “materials” argument.

Two, second homes do exist in walkable towns along public transportation lines. I try to mention these factors when focusing on weekend retreats because it is important to many people. Not everyone needs a car. Until they allow large dogs on buses and trains, I need a car.

Heating and cooling. Only when you’re there. Otherwise, it should be turned off along with the water! If it’s only a weekend retreat, nothing wrong with chopping wood for some heat. That’s romantic as long as it’s only on weekends. We never needed an a/c for the Kingston house in the woods. And believe me, I like my a/c. (sorry)

Lastly, the house doesn’t have to sit there taking up space when not in use. You can always rent it out to other weekenders.

I know that urban footprints are much more subtle than rural footprints. I just feel like there has to be a happy medium. Everyone should be able to enjoy the country from time to time. Especially my dogs.