Why not sustainable housing?
Denver, Colorado
In my blog post last week, I railed against real estate developers who build unnecessarily large homes and the people who buy them. One anonymous reader submitted a comment asking about developments to accommodate people who need more modest housing? He/she wondered if I see a place for real estate development at all, and if so, how can it be done sustainably?
I am
forced to admit that as long as the population keeps growing especially in
metropolitan areas which are perceived to be highly desirable places to live
with a healthy job market, new real estate developments will be necessary. But why can’t we have new developments that
provide homes the middle class can afford; meet their needs in terms of size,
proximity to work, and basic amenities; and also be “climate-friendly”?
They don’t built them like they used to: A 1950s “starter home” in southeast Denver. It’s probably only 800-1000 square feet in
size which is plenty for most single adults or maybe two people. It’s tough to find small, detached homes like
this at affordable prices in many cities.
By the way, you can barely see that there are solar panels on the roof. Photo
by Judy Greenfield.
Are real estate developers so blinded by greed that they can’t recognize the following demographic realities? According to 2020 census, only about 25% of households consisted of married or cohabitating couples with kids. Almost a quarter of U.S. children under the age of 18 live with one parent and no other adults. And, nearly 30% of American households are comprised of a single person (a record high). And yet the developers continue to build as if most families include Dad, Mom, Buddy, Sis, and visiting grandparents. They apparently think that singles and small families can buy a condo where they will be subject to big monthly maintenance fees, no yards, and their next door neighbors’ noise and cigarette smoke. Isn’t there another way to provide housing that is based on what people actually need, that is affordable, and that minimizes negative impacts to the environment?
Yes there is, and they’re called sustainable developments or green homes. Here are some of possible attributes of housing that is more climate and environmentally-friendly:
-
Many of us have a negative image of pre-fabricated homes thinking they contain
shoddy materials and are aesthetically unappealing. However, quality materials and designs are
available. Pre-fab components can be
manufactured more efficiently than building a home from scratch on-site. They can then be assembled on-site with
significant cost savings.
-
Home construction costs and environmental impacts can be reduced by using
recycled materials. In relatively dry
climates, more energy efficient homes can be constructed using adobe which is a
mixture of sand, clay, water, and organic material such as straw.
- It’s
a mystery to me why most developers do not seem to be incorporating renewable
energy into their home designs: solar
panels to generate electricity and heat pumps or geothermal systems for heating
and cooling.
- A
somewhat radical but eminently practical idea is constructing homes that are
partially buried. They rely on skylights
and windows in exterior walls just below ceiling level for lighting. Summer temperatures inside the home will be
cooler and winter temperatures warmer because the ambient temperatures a few
feet below the earth’s surface are more moderate.
-
Landscaping with native vegetation cuts down on water use and the energy needed
to keep a green lawn mowed. Native
vegetation with an absence of fertilizer and pesticides is friendlier to birds and
pollinators like bees and butterflies.
- All
new developments should have sidewalks to promote more walking and less car
use. Developers and public transport
authorities should work together to ensure that new developments are served by
buses that are convenient to commuters.
Socially-
and environmentally-conscious developers would incorporate ideas like these and
many more I haven’t thought of. Are sustainable/green
homes less profitable for the developers?
Or, do they feel, rightly or wrongly, that the public won’t accept
sustainable developments? Would you consider
purchasing a smaller, sustainable home?
Do local governments need to force developers to build small, detached homes in the range of 600 to 1500 square feet? Maybe so, as they don’t seem willing to do it on their own.
With regard to homes, the conveniences we now take for granted were luxuries in the past. An example is the washing machine. When I was growing up in the Netherlands in the 1940s, washing clothes was done by hand and took a whole day. After World War II, we were amazed to hear that in America they had machines that washed clothes. In Europe today, everybody has a washing machine but not a dryer. Also every house in the US now has a garbage disposal in the kitchen sink but these are completely unknown in European homes.
ReplyDeleteBefore World War II, most homes did not have a shower. As a child, I was bathed on Saturday night in a tub in the kitchen. During the war, you could buy a bucket of hot water for a nickel. After the war, people went to bath houses, and later houses got showers. The normal now in America is that every bedroom has to have its own shower and toilet.
When I was recently visiting my daughter in Brisbane, Australia, I learned that almost no one wanted to buy a house that did not have a swimming pool or a house that didn’t have a few acres of land.
The reality is that nobody wants to get rid of these conveniences in the name of preventing global warming. My only hope is that eventually groundbreaking technical advances will save us from ourselves.
André
Las Vegas, Nevada
As a single person, I absolutely agree with the need for smaller, energy efficient homes. Long ago I asked a friend in the construction business why it seems impossible to get a small house with custom features...something that wouldn't be a cookie cutter box but would still be reasonably small. He said that construction loans were based solely on square footage so a small house would only be eligible for a smaller loan...preventing the addition of custom features which generally are more expensive to create...a logical, but disappointing, answer.
ReplyDeleteCynthia
Denver area
ZPG and Population Connection both support your position. Shifts in family structure oscillate at a different frequency than housing trends. There is in our area, a market for mixed/multi generational housing. But of course, it’s unaffordable, anyway.
ReplyDeleteKeep the thoughts and ideas flying, brother. I’m reminded of the Georgia monument to future generations, since vandalized, that warns that the true carrying capacity of the earth is about one billion. Sorry to see thousands every week being fried or swept away, seemingly in nature’s attempt at balance. I hear the microbes are working on the same project
David
Clear Lake, California
I enjoyed your excellent response to my question about sustainable development. I appreciate your thoughtfulness and pragmatism regarding these issues, and your willingness to discuss them in a nuanced way even when you have strong opinions, all things that are missing in the typical discourse of our times.
ReplyDeleteI think some kind of public/private partnership with incentives for developers to create this type of housing could be beneficial. Of course it would require some tax dollars, and we all know how that goes. People love to rail about problems like homelessness, crime, and unaffordable housing, but when even tiny tax increases are put to a vote, they get defeated, at least in this town.
Karen
Denver