apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

In my opinion, the best way to save the suburb is to introduce mixed-use zoning so that you can walk or bike to a store on a functional sidewalk. It's a concept that would reduce our carbon footprint, foster community interaction, and have a huge impact on health insurance costs in this country too with daily exercise!

There are very basic sustainability issues with suburbs that have rarely been addressed:

Excessive land use - "Developed" land is removed from productive agricultural use - requiring food to be grown and shipped from distant elsewheres.

Excessive distances from centers of employment and commerce - requiring some sort of power-using transportation solution, whether it be cars/roads, light rail, etc. Paving roads and building rail systems also removes additional land from agriculture, increases heat and requires even more resources to maintain.

Artificial landscaping requiring excessive chemical and water use as well as powered tools to make the job easier.

Inflexibility of housing solutions: Most suburbs have single-type housing in different/separated areas (detached 3-4 bedrooms, townhouses, apartments, etc) This not only prevents any sort of ability to remain within a community when the needs for housing change (increasing as families grow, decreasing when children leave home) but also discourages age and lifestyle diversity.

Until these issues are addressed, there will be no such thing as a "Green/Sustainable" suburb.

I'm in favor of it, but like home body said, these are pointless if the town center is still five miles away.

Also, I hate "modern" architecture and design.

I have to agree with bepsf, but it is an essential concept, and needs to be pushed! I'd *love* to be a part of a community like that, on both the consumer and designer side.

Amen, home body & bepsf. This doesn't really get to the root of the suburb problem. Just (forgive me) lipstick on a pig.

Agree with the comments above.

The houses built in new developments keep getting larger and larger - thereby increasing the energy needed to heat or cool the monstrosities.

Developers need to focus on smart, energy efficient housing with a reduced footprint (carbon and land).

Some neighborhoods in Austin use McHargian suitability analysis to determine which areas can be developed with minimal environmental impact. I wonder if this is in one of those neighborhoods?

In general, Austin's pretty up on making sure new developments are environmentally sound, especially on water-quality issues, at least within the city limits. It's a whole different story in the surrounding towns, though.

I think it would be difficult to implement a true net-zero neighborhood in the suburbs without a better public transit network and/or distributed commercial hubs, but for people who would be living in the suburbs anyway because of proximity to corporate campuses, etc., this would be a good option.

I totally agree with bepsf.

I was out in Calabasas over the weekend hiking and this is an area I frequented as a little kid. So I was absolutely surprised to see all the empty land and rolling yellow hills with new buildings and lush green lawns on them. Really? This is freaking So Cal and we have a water shortage. It's crazy and I can't even imagine all the travel time involved to get to work if you work in LA.

Suburbs just strike me as the types of environments that cannot sustain the types of lifestyles that people want without causing both the people and the surroundings stress. I personally know people that commute 100 miles to and from work and I can't imagine that that is an improvement in the quality of one's life. People are quick to run away from urban areas because of fear of crime and god knows what else but really, if I have to go on a mini road trip just to go to work, then you either have to rethink your job location or your living situation. So while this project is neat in its power efficiency, electricity is not the biggest problem with suburbs.

I agree with every darn comment above me! Mixed use areas are so so important for creating thriving areas. And as bepsf said, a mix of housing types would be really beneficial.

My first thought about this was "1 and 2 bedroom?" I don't see how houses of that size will have a very broad appeal, especially among folks who want to live in the 'burbs. A 2 bedroom house becomes pretty small when you add a kid or two to it.

I agree with what has been said here. Furthermore, there should be a moratorium put on building track homes, mac mansion or eco communities for a while. There are thousands of homes sitting empty from foreclosures and construction funds that went dry.

What should happen is convert the existing homes built into better energy efficient by adding solar panels, greywater irrigation systems, recycling programs, mandatory less water landscaping, carpooling pods like casual carpooling in the East Bay.. the list goes on-
http://www.builtgreen.net/documents/Remodeler%20Checklist.pdf

This will still provide jobs and work for the construction industry.

It's actually 2 and 3 bedroom, not 1 and 2. And, ErikTheRed, why in the world are you reading Apartment Therapy if you don't like modern design?!

Having lived in the typical 50's-60's era suburb growing up, and while we had commerce (grocery stores and the like) not too far away, getting there was NOT conducive due to the lack of easily traversable sidewalks for mose although there was plenty of shoulder to ride one's bike or walk until you got to the main drag, but that was about all the sidewalks there were where I lived anyway.

And so many people seem to think a 3 bedroom 1200SqFt house is too small, well, guess what? So many people of the boomer age and older grew up in houses of that size just fine thankyouverymuch. I lived in a 2200SqFt combined splint entry w/ 4 bedrooms and even that was a touch tight for a family of 6 with pets and friends in and out all the time but we had a happy and vibrant home.

But in the end, unless we address the suburbs lack of walkability, heavy reliance to the auto and being miles from most employment centers, it's never going to be all that energy saving IMO.

Besides, I like living in the city and if I were to live in a residential neibhrohood, it'd be a residential area of a city neighborhood where public transit is nearby and I can still have the option of walking if I want to get to the store and who needs an acre of land anyway?

It's been around for years, but Orenco Station is a good example of a more sustainable "New Urbanist" suburb. It was built around light rail (a much more popular type of mass transit than buses, since it's perceived as faster, cleaner and more "upscale"); it's pedestrian friendly, encouraging residents to walk to shops, restaurants, and even a farmer's market; and there's a wide variety of housing types from smaller condos and lofts to single-family homes.

It doesn't have the newer green perks (low-VOC paint, permeable paving surfaces, bamboo floors) that SOL is hyping, but ultimately, I feel that most of that stuff amounts to greenwashing. An 1800 sq ft single family home with an Energy Star dishwasher is an empty gesture, building a community that actually reduces residents' need for cars can actually change long-term behavior.

Is there a transport service to the nearest town centre or train? Its a bit 'Stepford' for me.

Does anyone else miss the front porch?

I read an article awhile back that said the main flaw with modern architecture (sustainable or not) is the lack of a front porch that fosters a sense of community.

Also this looks more like a development than a suburb (in my definition of the two). If the suburb (outlying district of a city) has it's own infrastructure, businesses and schools I'm all for it considering some cities don't provide what some families want/need to raise a family. This idea just needs to be more thought out but I applaud their effort for making developments more energy efficient.

I shudder to think at what the prices of these homes will be. Communities like this will continue to be a gimmick so long as developers think that they are making a difference and are really going to change people's minds by offering a 3 bedroom 2 bathroom eco house for $600k while a non-eco house in the same area would go for $3-400k.

This whole trend is only going to catch on when an architect and builder REALLY sharpen their pencils and offer a community with green homes at a price point comparable to non-green homes. Throw in a ball field, public garden and a basic convenience/ice cream shop so you can WALK out to get eggs and milk. Couldn't agree with everyone more on that point.

Interesting, the site used to have a tree farm. Sad to see the trees go. At least they're re-using some of them.

Count me out. If I can't walk to the grocery store, I don't want to live there. Add to that, I find most new homes to be way too huge for my husband and I.

And, ErikTheRed, why in the world are you reading Apartment Therapy if you don't like modern design?!

I don't know about others, but I read it because it has good apartment and design advice. I too absolutely loathe modern architecture and don't think it'll will be popular forever (as opposed to 3 millenia of traditional architecture).

As for the topic at hand, office parks and shopping centers can be salvaged through retrofit. McMansion developments are so isolated, and so arcanely designed that I don't think there is much hope for them. I think most of them will be bulldozed. Some might be redeveloped as New Urbanist communities, while others will be restored to nature.

I read an article awhile back that said the main flaw with modern architecture (sustainable or not) is the lack of a front porch that fosters a sense of community.

Very true. Modern architecture has no tradition to rely on, as it has no more than 100 years of history. That's why I don't think it will stand the test of time.

Here's the real the problem of the world:

There are too many ignorant, unintelligent, and beligerent people in the world.

Solution? Kill them. Kill them all.

Us green-thinkin, local groceryin, no-nonsense sassy-frassing can rule the world. And we can do so comfortably from our 500 square foot homes, which just just so happen to be located next to each other. And we can all have porches, and hybrids, and local governments and live happily ever after.

...and then you woke up.

There was a great article recently in the East Bay Express talking about "environmentalists" or "urbanists" in Oakland and Berkeley, CA, who consistently block development of high density housing along the transit corridor because they don't want their neighborhoods to change. The article's title? "You're not an environmentalist if you're also a NIMBY." It explained some of the logistical challenges in zoning & land prices in urban centers, too.

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/news/you_re_not_an_environmentalist_if_you_re_also_a_nimby/Content?oid=1061906

Hi guys! It's your friendly AT blogger. Seeing some of the comments here, it's clear I did an AWFUL job of explaining the awesomeness of Sol. I've added a few lines of information, but I strongly encourage you to check out their website as well---they do a great job of explaining all the features and benefits of this sort of development!