Back to Basics

A couple weeks ago, we had a guest speaker discuss the implications of climate change in class. Whether you fully believe climate change is happening or that it isn't, the fact of the matter is that something is happening and it is mostly human-induced. There have been a number of studies that have created reports and charts regarding climate change. Some have focused on the future rises in temperature, future sea level rises, precipitation patterns, and many others that seem to indicate that something severely wrong is going on with our planet Earth. The guest speaker who came to our class encouraged us to pick one topic of sustainability related to climate change and briefly discuss in small groups how we would "solve" these problems. My group, in particular, briefly touched upon the need to think more wisely about the way buildings are being built and what we can do to make them more suitable for the climate of the future. This post is intended to discuss problems with the current way developments, especially single-family residential, are built and provide some recommendations from builder's past that will bring us back to the basics of vernacular architecture and design.

Most current large-scale developments are focused on one thing: profit. The developer's goals, especially when building single-family residential, are to get the most bang for their buck. This means that developers try to maximize there yield on land to fit in the most homes as they can to ensure they will gain lots of profit. In addition, many developers are focused on building homes as fast and cheaply as they can. So instead of taking the time to create varied sized lots and preserving major natural features on a lot, such as a large oak tree, developers clear-cut lots and destroy everything on the lot to begin with a clean palette. Then once the homes have started being built, the developers tend to use cheap products and the end result is home that tend to all look the same and which are not very durable for future generations to come.

Courtesy of Mark Strozier

So, how can this epidemic of mass "cookie-cutter" houses be stopped to create homes that are more in touch with their surroundings and will take into account the future climates of tomorrow with technology that currently exists? One example, is to create more homes that are capable of harnessing solar energy. A great reading that outlines the rise and struggle of solar energy in homes is Chapter 2 in Adam Rome's book, The Bulldozer in the Countryside: Suburban Sprawl and the Rise of American Environmentalism. An example of a more passive solar home features that do not need solar panels are trombe walls.

Trombe Wall, Courtesy of Flickr

In addition, zome houses with drum walls offer another option for passive solar heating. Zome houses are modular solar-heated homes. They have panels that are dropped during the day to allow sun to pass through the glass and heat water in blackened 55-gallon drums which heats up the home.

Courtesy of Flickr

Courtesy of Flickr

 Another way to create homes better adept for future climate changes is to create homes suitable for their specific environments. For example, in Florida, old Cracker Homes were built with hot temperatures in mind. Homes were elevated off the ground, yards were kept natural and to a minimum, and doors were aligned to let breezes pass through the home. Another example, are the works of Egyptian architect, Hassan Fathy, and Laurie Baker's jali, who incorporated brick lattices into building to facilitate breezes while at the same time shielding those inside from the harsh sun. It is these kinds of techniques that keep energy consumption low and create homes that are unique to their landscapes.

Courtesy of Judy Waller

Fathy Design, Courtesy of GreenProphet.com

Baker Design, Courtesy of FlickRiver.com

I hope these very brief examples will provide you with some incentive to look at other passive designs that might be suitable for the climates of tomorrow years. The intent of my next post is to further explore sustainable architecture examples in history and show how the people of these unique, and sometimes quirky, communities lived. Until next time.

"Versailles" to Tiny Homes

As an urban planner the discussion of housing in communities is very important to me. It is important for cities to be able to offer a variety of housing types to accommodate varying lifestyles and income levels.  However, some people have taken their housing choices to the extreme creating some of the largest and smallest homes in existence.

Last year, a documentary movie entitled, "The Queen of Versailles," came out  which portrays the journey of a billionaire, married couple on the quest to build the largest home in America inspired by the Palace of Versailles in France. The husband is a 70 something man who owns one of the largest real-estate and time share companies in the world, Westgate Resorts. The wife is a 40 something, former New York beauty queen. The plans for the home included 90,000 square feet, 2 tennis courts, 30 bathrooms, a full-sized baseball field, and 10 kitchens! While construction for the home was underway, the Recession hit and soon the couple's dream home went into foreclosure, mind you, the home is valued at around $100 million. I didn't watch the full documentary so I am not sure how it happened but the couple kept their palace in their possession and are still working on constructing it. What does all of this have to do with sustainable construction? EVERYTHING! Is it even morally right to build a home that large? The home as planned is larger than the White House and equivalent to almost double the size of two Publix grocery stores combined.I highly doubt sustainable materials are being used and the home is only planned for the couple and their eight children. Do 10 people really need all that space? The worst part of the story is that this home is being built near the Orlando, Florida area. [Insert joke about Florida development here]

Courtesy of Lauren Greenfield/ INSTITUTE

On the opposite end of the spectrum there has been a trending shift to tiny homes. People are choosing to shed their consumerist lives and live with only their basic necessities in homes that range in size from 65 square feet to 450 square feet, give or take. Some of these homes have their foundations on the land like a normal single family dwelling. However, most are on trailers so that the homeowners can live a carefree, sustainable life wherever their heart desires. People are choosing to live in these homes due to the decreased costs associated with them. For instance, a mortgage free life and extremely low heating and cooling costs. The homes are available in many styles ranging from a log cabin feel to very modern. Is this the type of lifestyle Americans are headed towards in the future? Or, will we always have that dream of the large home with the white Pickett fence in our minds? And, if tiny homes become the new norm, how will this impact family sizes? Tiny homes means less space, typically only enough room for two people to live comfortably. Will this type of lifestyle slow down the ever exploding population of our country? Or, can we, as responsible stewards of our environment, find a middle-ground that doesn't involve such extreme housing measures?

Courtesy of Tumbleweed Tiny House Co.

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to my first blog post! My name is Amanda Douglas and over these next couple months I hope to offer you some insight into the world of urban and regional planning. My goals are to inform and educate you about the many different ways urban planners, and the rest of the world, are trying to make our lives just a little bit greener, one day at a time. I will be writing about topics covered in my coursework at the University of Florida, as well as, topics I discover through reading various newspapers, magazines, and websites. Since I am doing a concentration in transportation, many of my posts may be devoted to that particular subtopic. Don't worry though, if transportation bores you I will find other stories to keep you entertained! Well, now that you know where we will be headed on our journey of sustainability, let us begin.

So, it is the beginning of the semester and student's pockets are full of money from financial aid, or so we hope anyways. The students are wondering, "What should we do with all this extra cash? Should we spend it on the new David Bowie song, that nobody even knew was coming out,or maybe a new pair of Nike Free sneakers?" While consumerism is great and stimulates the economy, there are other ways to invest money more sustainably. For example, the other day I came across an article about Solar Mosaic, which is a project intended for the public to invest their own hard earned cash into making the world a better place. Money invested from the public goes towards solar projects that are in need of financing. As the projects begin to produce renewable energy, they generate profits which are then returned to the public investors plus interest. Examples of solar projects include the installation of solar panels on community centers, grocery stores, and affordable housing units. 

Photo Credit: Solar Mosaic

Solar Mosaic (https://joinmosaic.com/)begin selling investment spots on January 7, 2013 and has already had 400 investors contribute $313,325 in just 24 hours alone. Just think of the potential of this type of innovative investment tool. Why stop with solar panels? Why not fund other renewable energy types such as hydro and wind farms? Are there other sustainability projects that could be funded this way? As this type of funding scheme becomes more commonplace in the future, think Kickstarter, it is very important that the people who create these websites and post projects for funding are regulated. Without regulations and accountability, how will investors truly know where their money is going and when to expect repayment? 

In closing, as we move into the future and discover more and more ways to help create a healthy environment for ourselves and future generations it is always important to think about the potential negative externalities that may arise with the decisions we make day-to-day. Just think about this, while using solar energy is a renewable resource, are the raw materials used to create and maintain the solar panels renewable? If not, then are we truly being sustainable? Or, are we just doing the best we can with what we have?