Recycling Suburbia

Recycling Suburbia reconditioning ‘the american dream’ for living communities

Chloe Tyner . Ball State University . College of Architecture and Planning . Graduate Final Project

Recycling Suburbia reconditioning ‘the american dream’ for living communities

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

Chloe Tyner

FACULTY ADVISORS

Harry Eggink Andrew Wit

“When a patient asks a doctor for a medicine that the doctor knows will make him ill, the practitioner doesn’t accede to those wishes. He knows full well that the patient isn’t always right. The Hippocratic Oath that the doctor took also disallows it. Our work is the same. The consumer isn’t always right, and our industry needs its own oath to ensure that we’re doing our best to serve consumer desires while not delivering products that are unhealthy, environmentally destructive, or unsustainable” --Tedd Benson

Recycling Suburbia Table of Contents abstract

8

project proposal

10

literature review

12

story of suburbia

18

the vision

24

precedent studies

26

the plan

32

results

40

conclusion

42

8

Recycling Suburbia Abstract

There is growing opinion across the nation that Suburbia is... lacking. Once viewed as the American Dream, an oasis from the hussle and bussle of city life, a community within the landscape, Suburbia has been reduced to a network of meandering pavement and sprawling subdivisions. For the first time since the invention of the automobile, migration from the city to the suburbs has reversed. If the city-in-nature lifestyle is to survive, a better class of suburb must emerge.

The purpose of this study is to argue against those who believe suburban principle to be at its end. The concept of Suburbia--the not-quite-dense, not-quite-isolated land of peaceful, beautiful communities nestled into the landscape--can and does survive, but its execution, as has been exemplified over the last half-century, cannot endure if humanity hopes to continue pushing for sustainability. Just as architectural styles have conformed to appease shifting ideologies throughout the centuries, Suburbia must now adapt to conciliate the mounting demands of climate change. ‘The building’ doesn’t have to be scrapped, just the way it’s built.

Recycling Suburbia reexamines suburban lifestyle down to its basic wants and needs, analyzing in depth Spyglass Hill of Fishers, Indiana, then studies literature and precedents already concerned with finding a solution to unsustainable Suburbia. The ultimate intent of this project is to use Spyglass Hill as a case study in recycling a typical suburban neighborhood: maintaining the qualities which make it desirable, and blending ideals deemed more appropriate for an emerging green culture such that it becomes a stronger community in terms of sustainability, resilliency, sociability, and architectural diversity.

The conclusions published by this study are meant to serve as a specific example to serve a broader scale. It is the goal of this project to become a new template for suburban community design as well as examples of new architectural typologies within.

Recycling Suburbia Project Proposal

Suburbia, lush land of winding single-family units on beautifully manicured ½ acre lots, recalls from

As Tony Hiss puts it, “people are no longer driving, they’re driven” (?). Many zoning laws in suburbia do not permit residential and any other type of building type to overlap, thus creating massive clumps of housing that require cars to get anywhere from the grocery to soccer practice. But maximized paving isn’t the only culprit of suburban isolation: the material and energy used to ensure electricity, water, gas, and sewage transport has an enormous cost on the environemnt as well as the wallet.

Suburbia’s sense of community is quickly diminishing. The families living within these single-family units are as detached as their homes: driving straight into the garage, though sheltered from the elements, steals the opportunity to converse with neighbors after a long day; and the picket fence in the back lawn effectively keeps children and pets within view but at the cost of many wonderful benefits reaped from becoming friendly with neighbors.

Two simple words: cookie; cutter. These cut and paste homes are exquisite for pushing development speed up and keeping cost (relatively) low. However, these designs more often than not have little to no concern about design aspects such as daylighting, solar gain, natural ventilation, or site context. Not only does this lack of attention inhibit good design, but it inhibits any serious attempt at sustainability. Furthermore, neighborhoods with master plans and associations to maintain those plans are seriously hindered by strict ‘freedoms.’ Simple tasks such as painting your house, choosing a unique mailbox, and adding a guest house must first be approved by your association.

withdrawl alienate

somewhere in our subconscious the title ‘the American Dream.’ For generations, Suburbia has been the goal, the life sought after by young couples hoping to make a good life for themselves and their families, but these days, deep down, we are all growing hyper-aware of some serious issues with our American Dream:

suppress

10

11 The fix? Simply reverse the problems:

connect INTERACT E X P R E S S

A neighborhood should be walkable, meaning more amenities (access to food, entertainment, work, etc) should be within a 1-mile walk radius. The invention of the car saw faster and more direct means for transport. If neighborhoods were designed for ‘built-in’ amenities, legs would be the new car, and the car no longer an every day necessity. Additionally, a neighborhood should be self-sufficient. No longer should miles of pipelines expunge precious carbon and energy to deliver utilities to residents.

A neighborhood should encourage community interaction. Many less-than-neighborly feelings are born of lost opportunity, such as the arrival home inside the enclosed garage instead of on the shared-public realm, like a street or shared parking area, where residents can meet and strike up a conversation. Residents should feel comfortable and be able to share spaces, amenities, and activities with neighbors.

A neighborhood should allow for more individualistic freedoms in home maintenance and improvement. Building a backhouse for arthritic parents or installing a lighthouse mailbox should be second nature. Most importantly, a prospective resident in the neighborhood should not be forced to choose from a handful of façades, rather have the freedom to consult an ‘outside’ designer or contractor from whom they would be given greater number of design customizations. A neighborhood should concern itself less about having an identity as a single, identical entity than as a community of unique individual homes with unique individual residents.

This author is concerned with understanding the underlying needs of a suburban neighborhood using Spyglass Hill, a subdivision in Fishers, IN, as a case study. It is the goal of this final project to re-cycle the analyzed subdivision, re-using the favorable aspects, discarding the adverse, and replacing them with new benefits.

Recycling Suburbia

12

Literature Review

The American Institute of Architects, in the article Vision 2020

from their ECOHome magazine, tells us “we humans have become an invasive species” (Vision 2020). We were put on this Earth and have since scavenged, excavated, burned, polluted, and nearly depleted it more so than we have nurtured, replenished, or appreciated it. But as designers of the built environment, we have the opportunity to become forerunners in redirecting the human journey from one of invasion and destruction to one of respect and stewardship. The aim of this literature review is to compile a selection of ideologies, speculations, and studies from others concerned with what this project has defined as the 3 main problems surrounding Suburbia—dissociation from amenities and infrastructure, community disengagement, and design restrictions—and how they in turn affect our carbon footprint.

ALIENATE + connect As Tony Hiss describes, “sprawl steals from us time, choice, and closeness, not just space.” Ironically, each of the four qualities Hiss lists are qualities suburban dwellers think they are receiving from Suburbia. By separating the home from daily amenities—work, school, food, energy—sprawl demands we commute far and wide just to get through the day, illuminating such valuable time that could be utilized elsewhere. By making neighborhoods a large single entity segregated from the rest of the city, sprawl has forced mass production of homes to feed the demand of the market, eliminating variety and choice. With uniform, fenced-in designs of neighborhoods, sprawl has taught residents to disengage from their neighbors and their community, eradicating closeness to fellow residents. Lastly, by allotting no minimum density for Suburbia, sprawl has allowed the expansion of building as far as money will allow and is stealing precious green space from the planet.

Hiss further describes that due to suburban withdrawal from the city and estranged commutes to work, “people are no longer driving, they’re driven.” Yet as much as those same people complain about the

13 commute, the traffic, and rising gas prices, they don’t so much as consider leaving their oasis of perfectly mown quarter-acre lawns and white picket fences for a life of mass transit, short commutes, and urban housing. As said by Bill McKibben, “changing the face of a city is a matter of blueprints, of dollars, of cubic feet of concrete…there’s no simple way to bulldoze attitudes, to pour old feelings into plywood forms and let them harden in better shapes” (source).

To paraphrase Albert Einstein, our problems will not be solved in a mind similar to that in which the problems were first created.

From this perspective, it’s understood that the unpreparedness for population growth and resulting hurried, panicked solution which is sprawl cannot be turned to anymore. However, there was some inherent good in the rise of the suburbs: lower densities meant less grime and less noise while providing more wiggle room and more scenery. Suburbia was an escape from the daily hustle and bustle, an oasis estranged from the business world in which people better enjoy evenings and weekends relaxing with their families. Originally located just on the outskirts of the city, the environmental toll taken up by the suburbs was minimal, but as sprawl increased, as paved surfaces, miles traveled, and transfer of utilities stretched farther and farther, Suburbia is growing increasingly less sustainable. Now that ‘global warming’, ‘carbon footprint’, and ‘green building’ are widely acknowledged terms and humanity is paying attention to the impact we have upon the Earth, it is time, not to scrap the idea and develop and wholly different solution, but to instead update and revise how we envision Suburbia.

“The financial viability of our modern suburbs, meanwhile, was flawed from the start: the lower-density pattern of development doesn’t yield enough tax revenue to pay for the infrastructure needed to support them—one reason many municipalities are struggling or going broke” (The End of the Suburbs). “since residents of New York City live closer together, use transit, and rarely drive cars, they use about one-third of the energy of the average American…Any compact, well-connected, and

14 walkable neighborhood with amenities such as shopping will tend to outperform a neighborhood that is auto-dependent” (John Norquist).

DISSENGAGE + interact “The quality of ‘community’ was somehow thought to be automatic or unnecessary – or was not thought about at all” (Superbia) “Strong sense of community…is one of the strongest promoters of good health” (Superbia) “Despite their differences, the American suburbs share one thing in common—they evoke a certain way of life, one of tranquil, curving streets and cul-de-sacs; marching bands and soccer leagues; bake sales and PTA meetings and center hall colonials.

The phrase ‘the American Dream’ immediately brings to mind images of the single-family home with a white picket fence” (The End of the Suburbs).

RESTRICT + express Although each author uses different words to describe it, each conclusion resonates at this statement: “If we’re going to continue to hold on to the single-family home, we need to transform it” (4), and the same statement can be made for Suburbia at the neighborhood scale. In the big picture, the dense problems surrounding single-family cookie-cutter neighborhoods in modern suburbia are in no way strictly confined to architecture.

“Innovations in zoning policies, construction techniques, property assessment and taxation, parking distribution, maintenance and expansion of utilities, provision of social services, processes for formalizing existing informal house – all these strategies will be required for us to truly rework the suburbs” (1). However, it is our right and perhaps our duty as architects to be the leading force for change in the suburbs. As Jean Gang put it, “designers and

15 policy makers need to see the single-family house as a design dilemma whose elements – architecture, finance and residents’ desires – are inextricably linked” (3), and we need to begin rethinking and reshaping the face of suburban development with respect to that understanding. “Just as urban development has been at the forefront of academic discourse and planning and design practice for the last several decades, suburban redevelopment must take on similar importance” (1).

Perhaps the first step in a long line of wrong steps was in 1926 with Ambler v Euclid. This case illegalized the layering of housing, business, and retail in suburban neighborhoods “based on the dubious assumption that residences should be separate from commerce, civic life, and even recreation” (Superbia).

With this case, the responsibility of design and functionality of neighborhoods were stripped from designers hands and placed in the governments. “We live today in cities and suburbs whose form and character we did not choose, they were imposed on us, by federal policy, local zoning laws, and the demands of the automobile. If those influences are reversed, and they can be, an environment designed around the true needs of individuals, conducive to the formation of community and preservation of the landscape becomes possible” (Suburban Nation).

“Even though there’s increasing demand for more diverse housing – especially smaller, more energy efficient homes and multifamily units in more walkable communities – too many homebuilders are inexplicably committed to the status quo” (4). Therefore it is up to architects to not only think innovatively toward more sustainable designs, but to be sensitive of designs that homebuyers will value more than the vinyl sided carbon copies in which they currently reside.

Suburbia shouldn’t strictly cater to newlyweds buying rooms for future children or parents waiting for their kids to vacate so that they can downsize again. “Right now we have an opportunity to rethink suburban housing: to make it responsive not to dated demographics and wishful economics but rather to the actual needs of a diversifying and dynamic population” (1).

16 “According to census data, population growth for much of the 2000s ground to a near halt from 2010 to 2011, increasing by just 0.4 percent. Cities and high-density inner suburbs, meanwhile, grew twice as fast, marking the first time in twenty years that city growth surpassed that of the exurbs…the first time since the invention of the automobile that our outward migration pattern has reversed” (The End of the Suburbs). “if you want financing, stick to your single-use structures. This has to chance by 2020 in order to facilitate more efficient, sustainable growth patterns” (John Norquist) Could apply to suburban neighborhoods. Single-use subdivisions congregated in clumps with amenities shoved to the edges, we need to reverse this in order to create self-sufficient/sustaining neighborhoods. Also applies in the sense that only one type of resident should reside there/only one type of design should be built there. Variety brings money.

“We need proud industry standards to serve the public and the environment better. What we no longer need are insufficient code minimums, that are full of loopholes, and poor enforcement, both of which become standard industry compromises masquerading as value” (Tedd Benson). Basically, make a better system.

“What designers and planners can do, then, is to reinforce these positive trends and create viable visions of neighborhoods that are equipped to adapt, to change and grow in density and use without diminishing quality of life, while bringing new income, amenities and service” (1).

17

Recycling Suburbia

18

Story of Suburbia

In the pre-settled history of Hamilton County, there was forest: naturally towering trees amongst gushing steams and brooks, and perhaps even a scattering of nomads rested amongst aging trunks, but not much impression was left by them upon the environment.

Eventually, the settlers reached Hamilton County and began sprouting cabins beneath the canopy, certainly giving the forest pause, but not so much to disrupt its natural procession.

Soon after, man decided to expand, his eyes craving broader horizons and legs craving room to roam. Horse and cattle ranches emerged, which soon made way for farming and then agriculture, and soon the trees were merely a backdrop for man’s presence. Railroad brought more and more people inward from the coasts, dotting rail towns like Fishers—then Fisher’s Switch—across the nation, from which growth sprawled farther and farther outward, eventually taking form in the serpentine asphalt subdivisions we know and love today. But at what cost?

19 Let’s take a look at Spyglass Hill: the population density here 2074 people/mi2 compared to 2143 people/mi2 for the Fishers’ overall; 4060 people/mi2 for the census block containing Indianapolis suburbs Kennedy King, Herron Morton and the Old Northside; 4510 people/ mi2 for Chicago suburb, River Forest; and 10,478 people/mi2 for Brooklyn suburb, Mill Basin. Obviously, suburb density increases as its respective city density increases, yet if Mill Basin is a high density suburb, River Forest a medium density suburb, and the Indy-burbs a low-density group, Fishers is lower than low-density burb and Spyglass Hill officially a super-low-density subdivision. Spyglass also boasts only single family detached homes, and 95% of its residents own their homes as opposed to renting.

In relation to energy and carbon, Suburbia’s numbers are no small feat. The total amount of energy used in by the average single family detached home in the East North Central region of the US—in which Indiana is included—is 117 Btu’s per year, 30% more than the national average. However, annual consumption for electricity only records the East North Central region as using 10% less than the national average. These numbers are in response to the cooler temperatures of the region, in which heating strategies—which accounts for 52% of overall energy usage—are implemented more than cooling—which accounts for 2% of all energy usage. Within those percentages, around 70% of heating fuel comes from natural gas whereas 60% of cooling costs come from electricity running Central Air.

20 Car ownership in Fishers is also on the high side with 85% of residents own one or two cars, compared to Indianapolis where 10% do not own a vehicle and 75% own one or two cars. Distances to daily necessities are only within car distance and no closer than a mile, and the most amount of commuters drive 40 minutes to work. But the carbon invested in these thousands of vehicles is doubled when considering the embodied energy and fossil fuels of Suburbia’s infrastructure: the miles of wandering pavement, utility lines and drainage and sewage piping.

2.7 mi veterinary

5.1 mi

How does this happen? How has America’s most sought out quality of life been allowed to continue racking up such horrifying numbers? It comes down to the way we plan Suburbia:

high school

2.5 mi

2.4 mi emergency

library

.9 mi

post office

bank

public park

1.1 mi grocery 3.8 mi medical

1.3 mi 4.7 mi church

public park 0

0.25

0.5

1 Miles

21 It begins with the superblock, which in this case is 1.5 mi2, bounded to the west and east by Cumberland and Promise Roads respectively, and to the north and south by 116th and 106th Streets respectively. Layers of roads are then layered in, winding and meandering as if imitating a gentle stroll in a carbon-guzzling steel cage. Then the parcels are laid—because everyone needs an individual slice of “nature”—followed by the house, copied over and over and over from one floor plan, extruded and slapped with cheap material.

As an afterthought, then Suburbia is reseeded with non-native grasses and trees and peppered with dammed, run-off diluted rivers posing as freshwater lakes.

And this is the ‘American Dream.’

22 Malcolm Wells, architect and activist, once said “another type of building is emerging: one that actually heals the scars of its own construction. It conserves rainwater—and fuel—and it provides a habitat for creatures other than the human one. Maybe it will catch on, maybe it won’t. We’ll see” (www. malcolmwells.com). He also created the Wilderness Scale, to test a building’s acceptance, preservation, or destruction of its natural context. Spyglass Hill scored -950.

23 Here, allow me to clarify my accusations against Suburbia: I love Suburbia. I was raised in the bubble, played in the fenced in backyards and always fought for the spot in the garage. I love the ideas of space and greenery right outside your door. But times are changing. Sooner than we all hope, the jokes about neighbors cheating on the lawn-watering ban won’t be funny because it will be a criminal offense. Wars over fresh water are going to be the battles of the future and where do you think they will start?

With sprawling, selfish, lush Suburbia.

I love the heart of Suburbia, but I hate what it has become.

And so this graduate final project is named Recycling Suburbia in the hope that the suburbs will not merely end in favor of rushed and equally as unsustainable densification.

This project aims to recycle the at-heart ideals of Suburbia—the home within the landscape, a safe peaceful place to raise a family, a quieter place to escape the city—replacing the extremes with a milder, but more passionate vision in which man’s stewardship of nature maintains the environmental context for Suburbia.

Recycling Suburbia The Vision

manicured lawns

Constructed from an interview with a current

picturesque landscape

ecology + environment

barriers

EN

SP

ACE

E UR CT

RE

G personal-not private-parking

INF RA ST RU S E I T NI ACY

centralized privacy

IV

borders

green with purpose

PR

green house

NG DESI HOUSI GN

resident of Spyglass Hill, this venn diagram encompasses Suburbia’s current, possible, and future profile. The venn diagram is split into 5 main categories: privacy, greenspace, amenities, infrastructure, and housing. Within these 3 categories are the views of the current resident and the views held by the highest positive points of the Wilderness Scale, combining to create the standards with which this new neighborhood follow.

AM E

24

design with context

infrastructure based on distance

[traffic] calming meandering impervious highways

pervious foot/bike paths

walking distance OR green transport

amenities closer

25 Now, with such different level of standards, this project no longer is sufficed by common terms like ‘neighborhood’ or ‘subdivision.’ This new project, for its resiliency, ecology, and conviviality is named a living community. house “design”

options

assesment of design values

with xt

nities oser

driving distance

26

Recycling Suburbia Precedent Studies

COLDSPRING NEW TOWN . moshe safdie

In 1971, the city of Baltimore, Maryland

commissioned Moshe Safdie and Associates to develop a community on 300 acres, 10 minutes northwest of the downtown area and nestled between highly diverse communities. Upon receiving the project, Safdie and Associates determined 5 main design strategies: involve all of the surrounding communities interests into the design such that they may identify with and benefit from the new community; develop its own identity and amenities to attract families, as well as becoming a part in a continuous fabric and not a closed off commune; create moderate-density housing along the slopes of the site and to take advantage of the physical site features within the posed economic restrains; create a variety of housing types in both density and cost; reexamine the functionality of base city services such as schools, heath services, and parks and recreation, such that the amenities developed on site are innovative and adaptable to the surrounding community (Safdie).

The town center, located just south of the major highway that cuts through the site, was proposed to house a majority of the parking for the community, further promoting walkability in the already walkable community. An additional system of minibuses was proposed running throughout the community, for heavy shopping trips, inclement weather, and disabled residents (Safdie).

The proposed master plan consisted of 4 main designs: decked housing, clustered housing, a town center, and high-density tower units, but the later two were not built (image: Moshe Safdie and Associates; text: Safdie).

27 Decked housing overhead section perspective (John Bland Canadian Architecture Collection).

Decked housing aerial layout (John Bland Canadian Architecture Collection).

Section perspective of Safdie and Associates decked housing units and pedestrian pathway (John Bland Canadian Architecture Collection).

Safdie’s decked housing designs are the only proposals built and maintained as per the original master plan. Never the less, they are very popular housing plans around the entire Baltimore area.

These “low-density” units are a mix of townhomes, condominiums, and maisonettes which sit at 23 dwelling units per acre (Safdie). They are defined as decked housing because car parking is located at the lowest level of the unit over which runs a pedestrian traffic deck, “which connects all the houses with intimate, landscaped walkways” (Brambilla).

The layout of these townhomes differ based on location. The units are built into the existing sloping topography and design varies respectively. The number of bedrooms per unit ranges from 1 to 3, and options to rent as well as buy are available.

In all units, the layout follows split-level floor plans, providing each space with natural light and views. In one such unit, “a living room appears suspended in space as it overlooks a dining room like a balcony” and residents since the project’s completion have praised the “creative use of light and dramatic design” (Jacobson). The first phase of construction consisted of 124 decked housing units, all of which sold immediately. When a grant was proposed to fund an additional 300 units, there was a waiting list for tenancy (Brambilla).

Today in Coldspring Newtown there stand 124 of Safdie’s original decked housing units completed in 1978 and an additional 128 decked housing units completed in 1982, as well as 56 townhomes, 43 single-family units and 56 senior apartments, all not of Safdie’s design (Coldspring). The Coldspring Newtown Community Association boasts of its architectural styling, extensive landscaping, and abundant community spaces. Immediately after

28 its completion, Coldspring attracted a variety of residents from vastly different careers and lifestyles and even was home to some federally subsidized housing (Jacobson). Though seemingly detering when compared to the typical suburban demographics, one resident claims “there’s a wonderful respect and dignity to the people who live here” (Jacobson). Community member Tina Brown regards Coldspring as “a jewel in Baltimore City. This community has all the amenities you could look for, in addition to the suburban feel, in the inner city” (Coldspring).

Play space and private lawns of Coldspring’s condominiums (image: Moshe Safdie and Associates).

29

KATTENBROEK - the netherlands . ashok bhalotra

30

ECOVILLAGE AT CURRUMBIN VALLEY queensland, australia

31 LEESTEN - the netherlands . a bike trip

32

Recycling Suburbia The Plan

For the sake of this academia and exploration, I began my design process in between the ‘agriculture’ and ‘the modern subdivision’ tags on Suburbia’s timeline, envisioning this project as if the bounding streets of the superblock remained, but what developed inside is, instead, what follows here. I chose to design this way for 2 main reasons: 1—a major street grid is still necessary for maintaining fluid transportation throughout the city, and would be immensely important if Fishers was to develop and integrate a successful public transportation system, as one of its main corridors would most likely be the northern boundary of the site, 116th St; 2—it is not my belief nor argument that the suburbs are, nor should be, at their end, and therefore believe that if the living community develops in place of today’s suburbs, both suburban culture and the environment will be healthier and stronger.

33 The second design decision would be to divide the superblock into more manageable and reasonable sections, in this case 3 sections partitioned by narrow, through-traffic lanes for quicker and simpler access both into the sections and between the boundary streets.

The section I chose to design is farthest west, bordering Cumberland Road.

Since water and topography are often the last aspects of suburban layout considered, I wanted the existing landscape to be my first consideration. This site is one of the most topographically interesting in all of Fishers, climbing up and dipping back down to various heights. Additionally, three natural creeks— Mud Creek, Sand Creek, and High Ditch—all cut through and eventually merge within the confines of this defined site. Though many man-made water retention ponds reside here, their effectiveness can be increased through implementation of bioswales, and the water collected here will not only be more attractive, but also more ecologically sound.

34 The third layer of design for this site would be the introduction of ‘the grove’—a band of natural and native forest and ecosystem left in place along the steep ring of topography which wraps across this site.

Contrary to many suburban developments, ‘the grove’ was no leveled and later reseeded, but is a planned region of almost completely undisturbed nature, save for a few programmed areas. Though the whole of ‘the grove’ is programmed, few would require an invasive strategy of habitability.

For example, several areas, surrounding lengths of creek, would focus on the natural cleansing of runoff and stormwater such that the flowing creeks are clean and healthy. Some areas would be designated for growing vegetables and gardening to benefit all residents. Others would merely have a well-placed park bench or artwork.

The most invasive area of ‘the grove’ would be that designated for sports fields and a ground source heat pump system, in which the benefits of off-setting carbon from burning fossil fuels for heating largely outweigh the loss of this particular area of forest and ecology.

This feature is the source for naming this living community Cumberland Grove.

35 Fourth, this layer consists of a network of pathways. In Suburbia today, pavement is defined by a meandering, faux-beautiful street to which a driveway, garage, and then house are attached. Yet regardless of their intent, they become speed traps for exhausted and traffic-maddened residents just wanting to get to their couch.

In this living community, paths outside of the bounding roads and lanes are defined by 4 speeds: walking, jogging, biking, and cycling. Each path is longer, stretching beyond the bounds of the site, as the designating speed increases. These paths are wide enough for cars—as well as access vehicles, ie: emergency and delivery vehicles—but are not designed for such speed. These paths are narrow, laid with pavers and permeable pavement for maximum stormwater returned naturally to the water table. Yet, for greater ease of access, these pathways converge at more points, such that the number of route options is maximized. The pathways also help to begin to break up large spaces, such that no space is too far from a main pathway.

36 Subsequently, the next layer involved the process of districting. The purpose of designating districts is to create a greater sense of place by designing for smaller communities within a larger whole. These districts each can stand alone but offer unique opportunities individually—such as an urban square, artisan alleyways, design for learning, a skate park, or bridge housing.

This allows for multiple designers, sparking competition, promising a rich and diverse architectural culture and driving cost down.

The importance of this diversity cannot be overstated: different people crave different social scenes and at different points in the day. A neighborhood that plans for one forced and mildly social scene for every resident at all times of day will never be resilient. This isn’t to say that designing for diversity will make it less likely for residents to leave to experience, for example, shopping in Indianapolis or bar crawling in Broadripple, but it is more likely that more people will stay more often than not. If you build it, they will come.

37 Finally, the overall master plan, or really, master guide. These buildings and plots are not exact. Per the districting plan, it would be up to the design team to determine the exact layout, floor plans, landscape plan, etc, as long as they follow the master guide for basic placement of building typology.

Contrary to Suburbia, this living community supports housing typologies beyond the single family detached home—including apartments, live-work units, duplexes, and townhomes. Depending on the overall vision of the design team for a respective district, the team would have free reign to design their own vision of a housing typology with respect to that specific district’s vision.

38

Via design team, the ‘custom’ home process can be quickened by providing homeowners with forefront knowledge and choice of design principles such as passive design, energy collection, resiliency, privacy, openness, etc. Then a collection of examples relating to materiality, floor plan, and overall style could be provided which adhere to their selected design principles.

These examples would then be tweaked per desired number of bedrooms, orientation, integrated systems, etc. The design doesn’t have to be completely customized, just original enough to allow for creativity and individuality.

11' -

11' 7 5/16 "

1 5/16 "

8' - 11

5/16 "

UP

12' -

DN

10' -

7 5/16 "

12' -

4"

UP

5/16 "

16' -

2"

41' -

0"

13' -

6 5/16 "

8' - 5

11' -

9 5/16 "

6"

10' -

9"

2

12' -

In terms of the single-family detached house, of which this living community still has the most, many residents—like the one interviewed for the venn diagram—pick their home from catalogues or model homes, but looking only gets you so far.

The cookie cutter epidemic was caused by developers taking advantage of homebuyers design ignorance. Prospective homebuyers unknowingly buy into lazy and cheap architecture because it is still somehow the ‘top notch’, but the same people wouldn’t purchase a car, computer or smart phone without doing comparative research on style, efficiency, and functionality. If the cookie cutter home is to be exterminated, the homebuyer must be made aware of the true value of his investment.

30' 15' -

0"

0"

15' -

0"

0"

39

40

Recycling Suburbia Results

Cumberland Grove is home to a village center, boasting a market, restaurants, pubs, bike shop, post office, car share program, barbar, bank, medical office, and other amenities that create a holistic and supportive neighborhood.

Cumberland Grove provides its own food, with ample space for growing vegetables throughout the year and flexibility for a shared meat shop between the 3 living communities of this superblock.

Also located within Cumberland Grove is an education center--used for schooling, community group meetings, and home to a library--as well as a teleworking center. These two are the gems to the full success of this living community. Suburbia today resembles a giant parking lot, holding space for residents during the evening and night and then is vacated until everyone comes back. But teleworking and a local school prevents this by allowing the resident freedom from the automobile.

41 Due to the varied housing typologies and better utilization of site, the population density for Cumberland Grove is 250% greater than that of Spyglass Hill. The pathways and proximity of amenities allows for less automobile reliance and other transportation options.

Cumberland Grove’s carbon footprint can easily meet the 2030 Carbon goal of 50% reductions between reductions in automobile use, energy, and water consumption and waste.

93 kWh/day

2265sqft (ave)

.04kWh/sqft/day

50 50% 0%

1 borehole supports 2000sqft Cumberland Grove requires 740 boreholes covering 166,000sqft

2.1 million sqft

87,361kWh/day

30% 0

solar energy collects .427kWh/sqft/day Cumberland Grove requires ~2500 solar panels

30% energy use reduction

61,153kWh/day

20 20% 0

1 50kW turbine produces 657kWh/day Cumberland Grove requires 14 turbines *or remaining energy needs from off-site wind farms

Based on design for passive systems, better materials and insulation, I estimated 30% overall energy reductions, reducing almost 90kWh/ day to nearly 60kWh/day for the whole of the neighborhood. Maintaining that the East North Central region takes 50% of its energy usage from heating, I implimented a ground source heat pump system that would account for 50% of all energy needs--a total of 747 boreholes located beneath a portion of ‘the grove’. 30% of remaining energy needs would be produced via solar panels spread over rooftops throughout the community, and the last 20% would be collected from wind turbines located off-site, which is allowed per the 2030 Challenge.

42

Recycling Suburbia Conclusion

To conclude, I have provided another of

Malcolm Wells’ Wilderness Scales, this time testing Cumberland Grove for its stewardship.

Cumberland Grove received 2275 more points than Spyglass Hill.

In designing self-sustaining, living communities for proximity, sociability, and architectural diversity we will find the future of suburbia.

43

44

Recycling Suburbia Resources

Brambilla, Roberto, and Gianni Longo. “Coldspring Newtown.” Learning from Baltimore:

What Makes Cities Liveable? [New York]: Institute for Environmental Action, 1979. N.

pag. Print.

Chang, Aron. “Beyond Forclosure: The Future of Suburban Housing.” Places. The Design

Observer Group, 14 Sept. 2011. Web. 4 Dec. 2012. <http://places.designobserver.

com/feature/beyond-foreclosure-the-future-of-suburban-housing/29438/>.

“Coldspring New Town.” The John Bland Canadian Architecture Collection. McGill

University, 2001. Web. 11 Dec. 2013. <http://cac.mcgill.ca/safdie/searchengines/

showrecord.php?id=51>.

“Coldspring Newtown: Baltimore’s Modern Oasis.” Mid-Century Maryland. N.p., 1 July

2013. Web. 11 Dec. 2013. <http://mid-centurymaryland.blogspot.com/2013/07/

coldspring-newtown-baltimores-modern.html>.

Coldspring Newtown Community Association. N.p., 2011-2012. Web. 04 Dec. 2012. <http://

www.coldspringnewtown.com/>.

Gang, Jeannie, and Greg Lindsay. “Designing a Fix for Housing.” The Opinion Pages. The

New York Times, 9 Feb. 2012. Web. 4 Dec. 2012. < http://www.nytimes.

com/2012/02/10/opinion/design-a-fix-for-the-housing-market.html>.

Jacobson, Joan. “Coldspring New Town’s Grand Dream Goes Unfulfilled.” Baltimore Sun.

N.p., 22 May 1994. Web. 11 Dec. 2013. <http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1994-05-22/

news/1994142051_1_coldspring-baltimore-deck/>.

Keith, Kelsey. “Architects Rethink Housing for the 21st Century.” Curbed. N.p., 17 Nov. 2011.

Web. 4 Dec. 2012. <http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2011/11/17/architects_

rethinking_housing_for_the_21st_century_city.php>.

“Liv: Circles in the Suburbs.” LIV: Scandinavian Design and Culture. N.p., 3 Aug. 2010. Web.

13 Dec. 2013. <http://thisisliv.blogspot.com/2010/08/circles-in-suburbs.html>.

“Moshe Safdie and Associates.” N.p., n.d. Web. 4 Dec. 2012.

<http://www.msafdie.com/#/projects/

coldspringnewtownanddeckhousing>.

Norquist, John, and Tedd Benson. “Vision 2020.” Comp. The American Institute

of Architects. ECOHome Winter 2013: 9, 41-42, 50. Print.

Safdie, Moshe. For Everyone a Garden. Cambridge: M.I.T., 1974. 184-97. Print. http://www.usa.com/fishers-in-weather.htm

45

http://www.usa.com/IN0571108051-housing.html http://www.usa.com/indianapolis-in.htm http://www.usa.com/IN097390900.html http://www.usa.com/river-forest-il.htm http://www.usa.com/11234-ny.htm http://www.malcolmwells.com/ http://www.city-data.com/city/Fishers-Indiana.html#top