What Will Save the Suburbs?
arieff.blogs.nytimes.com
arieff.blogs.nytimes.com
I remember being critically aware of this when looking for a house and choosing an area that was around 100yrs old. Doing this has a number of advantages, pre-built infrastructure, transport, a variety of different shops (remember main streets in towns?). So the idea was to find a place that had already spent the dollars in the past. In these types of environments you don't get mono-culture inhabitants. There is also a diversity in the ages of the inhabitants which counter-acts the decline that naturally occurs as population ages.
"... And after decades of renovation-obsession that has simply gotten out of hand, it seems a prudent time to swap Viking ranges for double-paned windows and high-efficiency furnaces. It’s the perfect moment to fix what we’ve got. Despite their currently low numbers, green homes typically re-sell for more money than their conventional counterparts. ..."
I don't see this happening yet. The costs involved are high and the expertise in re-building houses so they a) capture the water from the roofline, b) capture the suns heat for hot water and power and c) keep the heat out in summer and keep the heat in winter is simply not there, yet (Melb, Au is dry and hot in summer, wet & cold in winter). I think the biggest hack would be if new house designs could somehow be cheaply be modified before construction to achieve efficiency.
Especially water.
In Victoria all new homes now have to comply with the 5 star energy rating:
5 Star energy rating for building fabric and water saving measures including water saving tapware, flow reducing showerheads and water pressure reduction to 500kPa at outlets within the home, plus
Either a rainwater tank for toilet flushing or an approved solar hot water service
And from 1 May 2008, the standard has covered renovations (dropping the requirement for solar HWS or rain water tanks).
Water tanks and solar hot water seem quite prevalent in Melb - what's the cost/experience gap that you're referring to? Afaik you still get a federal rebate for installing a solar system. In VIC you get rebates for installing tanks, showerheads, etc in existing buildings.
But yeah, I broadly see your point - the two construction issues that get to me are (1) no verandas and (2) no trees. A veranda makes a big difference, and a couple of properly placed trees can make a big difference to the amount of (summer) solar radiation hitting a house.
If you want re-cycled water with minimal waste. Solar power hooked into the grid selling back to the power companies. Houses re-fitted with better insulation, access to high efficiency white-goods. Proper citing of properties with north facing aspects. This all takes money.
To get the desired outcome, you have to think decentralised rather than the centralised reliance we have now. Adding tanks & restricted showers is a 1950's solution to a much bigger problem. Btw where I grew up ~ http://www.flickr.com/photos/bootload/sets/72157612299413869... a large portion of my school mates lived on tank-water and generators for backup ~ http://www.flickr.com/photos/bootload/245135326 So water tanks are nothing new.
What I'm suggesting is a more radical thinking of dwellings, having the capacity to capture and store drinking water. Installations of solar heating and electricity. Power that feeds back to the grid during the day & pulled off during the night. There is no effort like this being undertaken in Melbourne save a few enviro-houses. This kind of redesign cannot happen without the combined work of architects, local planners and local government. It's not an easy task because
"... But yeah, I broadly see your point - the two construction issues that get to me are (1) no verandas and (2) no trees ..."
That is a problem. I think there is a definite disadvantage living where you cannot add trees or verandas. The other is water. My current geo location gets on average 20% more than the rest of Melbourne.
Yup agreed - tanks and solar hot water are still a good idea, although I'll agree they are only a step towards.
It's not an easy task because
Not sure what you were going to say there :) .. What's the best mechanism for this? Is water and energy just too cheap? Bump up the cost of both (with a safety net) and put it into subsidies?
I never understood the mentality of people so against the convenience of walking to the corner to buy a gallon of milk that they zoned properties in such a way to make it impossible. I guess it's some masochistic thing, that would just make life too easy.
The debate seems to be suburb vs. big city, evil vs. good (or vice versa). But I grew up in a small town, and never realized what a privilege it was to walk to my elementary and high schools, ball fields, play grounds, library, grocery store, pharmacy, even friends' houses without crossing major highways.
Can we all just admit now that the people who invented suburbs were idiots and find ways to make a subdivision more like a very small town? I'm afraid the answer might be no, but maybe hope I'm overlooking some way this could work.
If you build retail close enough to housing to walk to it, then people will walk to it. If my house is near that retail, people will walk near my house. People commit crimes. Walkable retail means I will get robbed.
Or at least that's how I assume their thought process goes.
"Can we all just admit now that the people who invented suburbs were idiots and find ways to make a subdivision more like a very small town?"
People are trying: http://www.cnu.org/
One such development that I've been paying attention to: http://muelleraustin.com/
It's closer to the center of the city than what most people would call a suburb, but it's in the midst of plenty of suburban density, segregated-use development. The part that has been built is really pleasant to walk around. Instead of giant garages being the primary architectural feature, the garages are in the back on alleys. There aren't driveways every couple of feet with cars blocking the sidewalk like there were in the neighborhood I grew up in. When the "town center" part gets built, the neighborhood should be a pretty amazing place to live.
In the Bay Area, Palo Alto's not so bad. You can't really walk anywhere unless you live really close to downtown or the Middlefield shopping area, but at least you can bike places without cheating death.
i mean at the end of the day it does come to supply and demand (for beneficial real estate).. suburbs are where people move out of the city to... or rather suburbs are what the expanded regions of a city are.. as demand for a particular location grows (along with the number of inhabitants), the demand for infrastructure grows (further fuelling demand for the said location?)..
the article talks about what to do about the "communities we are left with"... last i checked population is RISING.. unless we have found ways to live magically in thin air, demand for housing will rise (not taking into account short term abnormalities like the current financial slump)...
This was the case here in Australia anyway, but I'm sure it applies in a lot of other areas.
Surely this could be the case for the suburbs too? A whole suburb taken over by people doing startups would be an interesting place.
Artists/startups wanted to be located in the city and close to the things they needed because, as with wanting cheap place to live, they didn't have money for cars. The majority of these now abandon suburbs were entirely designed to be used by cars. They are bedroom communities with nothing in or around them but houses, and poorly built houses at that.
I think the issue really is critical mass - Access to the city is great, but I think what is required most of all is access to like-minded people. If you get enough of that going, then the rest will (generally) come.
... All that said - I get your point - even these areas had something going for them (e.g. the environment, surrounds, etc, etc).
On the energy conservation note - Does anyone have some quick tips for how best to utilise / retrofit a water tank? Last winter we filled an (existing) pool with rainwater - and now I need to do something with the pipes...
The Law of Sunk Cost: if you abandon a project, then all the money you sank into it to begin with is lost! Therefore, never abandon a project, always throw good money after bad.
Though I think we shouldn't have them in the first place.
Until there's a way to measure it I certainly wouldn't get my hopes up. To illustrate the issue, go to http://www.zillow.com/ and try to select a house for sale that you believe would be efficient or otherwise more suitable for the "new future" -- it's basically impossible. It's not Zillow's fault either, generally MLS services have such awful data that it's hard to trust anything beyond the number of bedrooms. Until there's a way to look up your rating and look down at your neighbor's, I wouldn't expect the people who currently inhabit suburbs to make it a priority.
Furthermore, except for a few localized situations I believe that the suburbs are safe for the forseeable future. There has long been the assumption that fuel costs are inelastic, but 2008 has shown that to be untrue. America is, for all intents and purposes, treating oil as if it's free -- the suburbs drive to work one person per vehicle in passenger cars in the midst of a horsepower war (Cadillac has a 550hp product in the "compact sedan" segment and BMW's smallest cars, the "1-series", are available with a 300+hp engine!), or trucks that make the commercial trucks of the 70s (not to mention the 40s!) look downright weak. The 2009 F-150 (at one time called a "half-ton" pickup) has a 1.5 ton payload capacity and can tow almost six tons. This vehicle is routinely ignored by construction contractors and macho wanna-be alpha-males who go straight to the "Super-Duty" models, capable of hauling three tons and towing ten tons!
For all of the wankery we've heard recently about the end of life as we know it, we've yet to begin to even try. There's a lot of easy belt-tightening to do before people have to give up on their version of the American Dream.
On the flip side, all of the attention toward green living should hopefully generally raise awareness and stimulate development of greener products, definitely a win for everyone. We've needed a shock like 2008 for about 20 years now.
In Texas, suburbs are still going strong.
High enough cost of gasoline could probably kill off a lot of suburbs, especially in places with traffic congestion such that commutes are already annoying. When commutes are both annoying and unaffordable, the suburbs that are only bedroom communities will be abandoned for places with a job base.