Sustainable Community Design

A GREEN initiative that I would like to explore is one that is still catching on around the world and may show the most potential to help improve the quality of the environment, the quality of human health, and the enjoyment of individual and family life. Sustainable community design is a concept that re-organizes life according to a concepts that are often overlooked all too often in society: family, community and environment. An environmentally friendly and sustainable community is one that permits mixed use developments, maximizes the use of the natural surroundings and environmental conditions, and is designed in a way that doesn’t require outside sources of energy to get local processes done.

 

 One of the best examples that comes to mind is a community design that Douglas Paterson and Kevin Connery created and published in Landscape and Urban Planning, issue 36 (1997). The “master plan for Jericho Hill Village is a product of applying ecological design parameters as determinants of the community’s form and function”. Some of the highlights of this community are VERY interesting, have a look:

 

1. Energy Systems
   1. 80% Heat-Energy Savings through exploiting the solar aspects of the site through orientation, thermal masses, high efficiency windows, and location and arrangement of the housing (maximizing day lighting and heat gain to each room). Efficient electrical and mechanical systems, ground source heat recovery systems and roof mounted hot water panels.
   2. 50% savings in transportation energy from creating mixed use development areas. Corner stores and workplaces are located within a 500m walk of all residents. Centralized transit stop to serve as commuting hub.
2. Water Systems
   1. 60% water savings through open spaces through the communities that channel surface runoff, distribute it, filter it and treat it – thus purifying the water before it is released into the head waters of existing creeks.
   2. Ground water recharge zone under streets, surface runoff into drainage swales, biofiltration beds and green roofs help maintain the hydrologic cycle.
3. Waste Flows
   1. All of the waste water is processed in solar aquatic greenhouses located at each neighbourhood’s lowest point of elevation, as well as within certain housing developments.
   2. Solar aquatics and adjacent grey water reservoirs are associated with community orchards and gardens where compost and nutrient rich water can be utilized. Solid wasted and composting facilities are also associated with community gardens.
4. Vegetation
   1. Centralized design permits 60% of the village to remain forested, which would otherwise by consumed by roads, paths and buildings.
   2. The 45% of land within the village that is not consumed by roads and buildings is developed into an urban forest, community agriculture, or recreational open space.
   3. Forests are mixed canopy forests that support complexity and movement for wildlife and provide for viable nesting habitats. These also moderate microclimate changes  by providing shade and wind protection.
   4. Within the village, 60% of the villages food demands are provided for by numerous agricultural operations and numerous allotment gardens.

5. Housing

 

The housing is designed with two, three and four storey generic massing. Such a design will allow for optimal solar energy use, and will provide sufficient population densities to justify local commerce and hubs for local transit. The height restrictions also allow for optimal use of collected and recycled grey water, for anything higher would require larger footprint.

 

6. Spatial Form

 

The village has a civic ‘spine’ that runs from north to south, that will be a pedestrian corridor containing a church/meeting hall, transit hub, commercial core, post office, library, recreation centre and even a school. This spine is never more than 350 meters away from any home, and in most cases is less than 200 meters. Population density will of course be regulated, and pedestrian-only paths and streets will account for most of the streets.

 

The idea of designing a community that is built for the automobile is, and has been the trend ever since the end of the second world war, when the concept of suburbia was popularized to give the booming population their own piece of the country lifestyle (medium sized frontyards and backyards), while not actually removing themselves from the mass of the community, as the common rural lifestyle does. What has happened, is that this form of community design has become an unbreakable pattern that is upheld and enforced through the city of Ottawa, and as a result many developers are finding it impossible to bring any of these unique ideas to life. Recently, in my City Planning course with the City of Ottawa, we were analyzing a proposed development, and how the city had made objections due, in short, to a design that was impractical for the everyday use of the automobile. We had one gentleman raise his voice when he proclaimed, “Since when do we design communities for the automobile?” He then went on to explain that he was member of a development committee for his particular area in which he lived, and he has become disgusted with how many thoughtful and innovative designs get turned down from the City do to a conflict with archaic regulations that do not reflect the true needs of communities, the environment or even the evolution of everyday lifestyle.

 

Another great example of such a struggle is exemplified by Dr. Bruce Firestone (Real Estate Broker and Mortgage Broker, Partners Advantage GMAC Real Estate, Bokerage; Founder of the Ottawa Senators, Entrepreneur-in-Residence, Telfer School of Management, University of Ottawa). As he explains, “When we were planning a 600 hundred acre development which we called West Terrace, around what was then called the Palladium (now the Corel Centre where the NHL’s Ottawa Senators play), I had many meetings with local planners about our concept design. Along Palladium Drive, we showed nightclubs, caf’s, shops and other services fronting on the street. But where are the six meter buffer strip, the double loaded parking aisle, the side yard requirements? they cried. I tried to explain that we wanted to develop a mixed use place somewhere that people could shop, work, live and play a walk about place. But it wasn’t in their zoning codes so it couldn’t be allowed”.

 

We are left with a history of regulations that appear to be out of date, and a changing set of needs that demand some sort of reform. What, you may ask, is being done about this? This past weekend I took a trip to City Hall to find some information on just that.  The best information I could find was summarized in the Directory of Environmental Initiatives, entitled “Getting Greener: On the Path of Sustainability. In the development section, their identified targets only speak of a) requiring subwatershed plans or environmental management plans prior to consideration of development, and b) meeting a target of 36% new dwellings within the Greenbelt by 2011. Digging into the specific paragraph about Design Guidelines for Development, much mention is made about ‘supporting’ and ‘promoting environmental sustainability in development’. When it comes to the details about HOW they support these objectives however, (get a load of this): “by specifying design guidelines for Greenfield neighbourhoods, arterial main streets, large-format retail, drive through facilities and collector roads”. UNBELIEVABLE! While they go through the trouble of printing these books on 100% recycled paper, make use of green lettering within the text for effect, and make mention of somewhat progressive environmental initiatives, the very specific guidelines they are employing are directly catered to the use of the automobile! Four out of five of their tools involve automobile accommodation, and the single one that doesn’t make specific mention of the automobile is vague enough to interpret either way.

 

While I acknowledge the effort, and commend the City on making environmental sustainability an apparent priority, there is still more I would like to see. Perhaps a little more open-mindedness from the City in terms of innovative community design. They could hold competitions that would encourage sustainable design, they could offer grants to pursue more the research and development of environmental initiatives, or perhaps create a specific branch devoted to new environmental concepts and give them some authority. There is a great deal of room for improvement, and it is imperative that we get our ideas out there.

 

What kinds of ideas can you think of that would support GOING GREEN?