Retrofitting Suburbia Notes

Intended consequences RetrofitÝng surburbia: the big design and development project of the next 50 years Trememdour opportunity to take least-sutainable into more sustainable places Redirect growth into existing community WHY IT’s IMPORTANT: IMPERATIVE: Climate change: urban dwellers on average have 1/3 the carbon footprint of suburban dwellers Drive more, and detached buildings to leak energy Cities are relatively green → urbanize suburbs Dependence on foreign oil: Sprawling communities exhibit 20-40% higher vehicle miles traveled than more compact, walkable, mixed-use communities Vehicle miles traveled per capita doubled between 1983 and 2007, an increase more than 5x population growth (Red Ewing, Growing Cooler, 2007) Despite gains in fuel efÏciency, we’re doing much more driving- can’t keep up technologically Health: suburban development patterns have been linked with sedentary lifestyles, dramatic increases in obesity and consequent higher risk factors for cardiovascular and diabetes 1/3 American children born in 2000 will develop diabetes and car accidents are the leading cause of death amongst persons 0-24 years old Affordability: The savings associate with “drive ‘til you qualify” afforadable housing disappear when you factor in the cost of transportation In 2005, Atlanta households making $20-50K spent 29% of their income on housing and 32% on transportation (Center for Neighborhood Technologies, 2006) Rising gas prices negates savings and even flips the equation in some cases DYNAMIC: Demographic Shift: 75-85% of new households through 2025 will not have children in them 77% of Millenials/Gen Y say they want to live in an urban core 75% of retiring boomers say they want mixed-age and mixed-use communities Since 2000, family-focus has gone downhill Underperforming asphalt: 2.8 million acres of greyfields to be available for redevelopment by 2015. If ¼ were redeveloped, we could meet half our housing needs (A. Christ Nelson, 2006) 130 million square feet of vacant retail space has been added to the US this recession (Cushman & Wakefield, 10-2009) (approx. 7000 acres) Makes sense to build UP STRATEGIES: Re-inhabit Convert to community-serving centers Convert to restaurant (“never underestimate the power of food”) – provided the “third place” (place to hang out and build community) Redevelopment Incrementally to complete rebuild (especially UPWARD) Pockets of walkability Systemic transformation: retrofit corridors (boulevards) Regreening Suburban farming Restore the local ecology (could create waterfront property) Mixed-use areas – daylighting creeks THREE CHALLENGES FOR FUTURE 1. Plan retrofitÝng more systemically at the metropolitan scale (target the areas and best solutions) 2. Improve the architectural designs of the retrofits 3. Call to action for more sustainable places SUMMARY: Ellen Dunham-Jones talks about retrofitÝng suburbia through a variety of techniques, including reinhabiting, redeveloping, and regreening these areas. Suburbia has become less sustainable in terms of climate change, dependence on foreign gas, health effects, affordability, demographic shift, and underperforming asphalt. By retrofitÝng suburbia, we can take less sustainable areas and convert them to more sustainable areas. Dunham-Jones suggests the challenge for the future are planning retrofits to be more systematically developed by targeting the most at-need areas and pairing them with the best solutions, improving the architectural designs of the retrofits to best serve the area and its population, and getÝng more people to call for more sustainable places. A challenge she does not talk about in her TedTalk was the financing of these ideas. It’s a good idea to regreen an abandoned lot, but there needs to be someone who can fund it. There may be people would pay for this out of their pocket, but these people are few and far between. Another issue she talks about are municipal laws and zoning codes to work around in order to enact these ideas. In some instances, it would be unwise to redevelop an area to a community center or community serving building if the area had environmentally damaged areas that could have health-impacts for those who use the building. Discuss the vision of the speaker in the Ted Talk. GIVE DETAILS. Do you think this is a possible solution? Why or why not. Ellen Dunham-Jones talks about retrofitting suburbia through a variety of techniques, including re-inhabiting, redeveloping, and regreening these areas. Suburbia has become less sustainable in terms of climate change, dependence on foreign gas, health effects, affordability, demographic shift, and underperforming asphalt. By retrofitting suburbia, we can take less sustainable areas and convert them to more sustainable areas. Dunham-Jones suggests the challenge for the future are planning retrofits to be more systematically developed by targeting the most at-need areas and pairing them with the best solutions, improving the architectural designs of the retrofits to best serve the area and its population, and getting more people to call for more sustainable places. A challenge she does not talk about in her TedTalk was the financing of these ideas. It’s a good idea to regreen an abandoned lot, but there needs to be someone who can fund it. There may be people would pay for this out of their pocket, but these people are few and far between. Another issue she talks about are municipal laws and zoning codes to work around in order to enact these ideas. In some instances, it would be unwise to redevelop an area to a community center or community serving building if the area had environmentally damaged areas that could have health-impacts for those who use the building. I think her ideas a definitely possible, but there needs to more of a discussion of the finances of these ideas. In the TedTalk by Alejandro Aravena, bringing the community into the process. In a case he discussed, there was an idea to redevelop the land to protect the community from natural disasters like tsunamis by placing a forest between the shoreline and the community. The redevelopment costs less than the multiple projects that were working on that same area of land. In this case, it was better for the community and the people already spending money on the land. With open communication with the community and funders, Dunham-Jones's ideas can not only be possible, but probable.