There’s a ‘World’s Largest, Most Opulent Green Mansion?’ Acqua Liana Says, ‘Yes’

Frank McKinney, known as the real estate “artist,” according to his Web site, has built a 15,000-square-foot “eco-mansion.” Is that possible? I am not sure whether to look in awe at all the sleek green that money can buy, or to recoil from the notion that 15,000 feet of excess is environmentally friendly.

Photos of the inside and outside of this $29 million Florida mansion are as wild for their “Lifestyles of the Rich & Famous” vibe, as for anything else. McKinney calls the property Acqua Liana, and has more plans in the works:

(He) will soon commence another masterpiece, “Crystalina,” a $30 million green home reflecting South Pacific influences.

He has designed and obtained permits for the world’s most magnificent oceanfront spec home with a 9-figure price tag, that’s right, Mr. McKinney’s new creation, The Manalapan Residence, will carry a price tag of over $135 million.

The London Daily Mail describes Acqua Liana’s list of features:

Inspired by trips to Bali, Fiji, Tahiti and Hawaii, the three-story, 15,000-square-foot, 7-bedroom, 11-bath mansion features floating sun terraces, a waterfall spa with a fire feature in the water and an arched aquarium wet bar.

Green features inside the one-off mansion include enough solar panels to cover a basketball court generating enough energy for two or three average-size homes.

A water system that collects enough run-off water to fill the average swimming pool every 14 days and environmentally conscious lighting reduces electricity consumption by 70 per cent.

There is enough reclaimed wood to save 10.5 acres of Brazilian rain forest.

It was also reported that The Green Building Council has approved the greenness of the mansion. But, still, I ask: Do the words “green” and “mansion” go together?

On one hand, I do appreciate McKinney’s interest in filling the pool with rain water and in solar power, etc. On the other, coming from my humble middle class existence — actually, I’m not sure what that means anymore, but… — it is awfully difficult to see someone suck up so much space and so many resources in gluttony that is merely topped with Earth-loving (faux?) sentiment.

Though the resources and space and excess now can never be less than they are, maybe how green this  mansion can be, looking forward, depends on who owns or lives in it. Does the morning newspaper end up in the trash, or in the recycle bin, you know?

If the owner is about flash and cash and ultra-wealthy fad fashions, it probably means something different than if someone moves in and truly lives the small things in a green way.

It’s so easy to be judgmental about these matters, especially of the unfathomably rich. For once, I’m trying to see the positive in an odd, oxymoronic situation — or at least view it from the middle ground.

  1. Global Patriot

    This is definitely a two sided issue, with praise on the one hand for any effort made to reduce one’s carbon footprint, while on the other a serious question about the need for anyone to use this much space on the planet.

    That said, it is obviously better for any home to be made in the most eco-friendly fashion possible.

  2. Anne

    If there where categories of houses, mansions, huts to be rated by eco-experts this project could apply in its category.

    Questions must be taken into account:
    What sizes of carbon footprints for transporting building material from places all over the world have been left on our planet for this project?

    “Acqua Liana now sets the standard for environmentally responsible, luxury construction practices around the globe.”

    And indeed: do go environmental responsiblity and luxury construction practises together?

    What about reviving an existing “mansion” eco-friendly?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *