I cringe whenever I hear someone boast about how “green” their 5,000-plus-square-foot home is. I say your home can’t be environmentally friendly when it gobbles up that so much space, and when it requires so much raw material to build.

A new report from the American Institute of Architects found that the buyers of custom homes are now more interested in energy-saving “green” features such as extra insulation, tankless water heaters and sustainable flooring than they are in extra rooms.

I’ve written about this before, but it bears repeating: You can’t really call a home environmentally friendly if it’s the size of a small country.

I’ve seen far too many “green” houses that are anything but friendly to the environment.

For years, the size of the average U.S. house has grown. But a story by Stephen Gandel on CNNMoney.com, which you can read here, says that a combination of rising fuel costs, an aging population and a growing environmental movement may result in the opposite: Our average homes may soon be getting smaller.

Doesn’t building a mansion automatically leave a big impact on the environment?

Maybe I’m old-fashioned, or maybe I expect too much out of green building, but to me, green doesn’t mean you can build the largest house possible as long as it has Energy Star-rated windows.

Crossroads, in Oakland, is perhaps the nation’s first green homeless shelter built from scratch.

When it comes to green building, I always ask one question: Does building environmentally friendly residences and commercial properties bring any benefits to developers and builders? There’s more evidence than ever suggesting that yes, it does.

A 711-acre redevelopment of an old municipal airport in Austin, Texas, ranks as the top green housing development by Natural Home magazine.