I too have been lucky to have discovered your writing over the last decade. You have a knack for navigating all the technical jargon in these reports and symposiums, and then presenting it to all us laypeople. This discussion is so important right now, especially w/ the right wing factions in North America ginning up fear over "Davos Elites" and "The Great Reset." Any trivial mention of single family homes being a problem will trigger them and they'll go right to a vision of Soviet style concrete high rises. OTOH, my best clients, who are now proud owners of two 6000 sq. ft. homes 2000 miles apart, have now come to the realization (climate change isn't on their radar), that its too damn much work and that they'd be better of if one of them was a 2400 sq ft. condo! go figure
>>”and perhaps we no longer need so many duplicated spaces for living and working.”
Perhaps, perhaps not. I live with my girlfriend in a 1094 sq ft SFD tract home in a suburb of Phoenix. It has excellent flow design, no wasted space, but it’s inadequate for us as a couple and we’re looking to move into something bigger with an extra bedroom and a MUCH larger outdoor area. Part of that is due to our need for privacy to make phone calls or to watch different TV programs without disturbing the other, and partly due to a need for more space when entertaining (and gardening.)
I’m not sure how you reconstruct cities from the ground up to mimic European architecture but if you do it’s going to cost so much more in upfront carbon emissions than what can be saved—and then you will need to convince Americans to adopt communal space as their living rooms, when it’s not been part of our culture. That would also be a big hurdle to overcome.
A VAST hurdle that gets rather short shrift in all this in which emissions is the only thing, it seems, to matter. It reduces people to being a single dimensional entity and the Good Lord above have pity on our souls when we refuse to become that entity.
And no, Allyson Chiu (of WaPo), I have no interest in taking just cold showers.
The cold shower article in WaPo is the kind of thing that gives environmentalism a bad name. At least she didn’t suggest “navy showers” where you turn the water off to soap yourself. Shorter and fewer showers can be discussed; they are probably healthier and probably save more water and energy. But nobody should be miserable.
Agree on the bad name AND being miserable and she caused both to happen. The question will be is does she have the self-awareness to understand the opprobrium directed to her right now?
Of those three things, the lack of awareness is the largest problem. Root cause?
I have yet to meet a person (including myself!) Who doesn't find it easy and desirable to expand/ increase comfort/move "forward" and Incredibly difficult to do the opposite. I think this might just be the biggest obstacle to getting to where we need to be. And in a global context, North America is supercharged on that. Bigger houses. Bigger cars and trucks. More stuff. And now we've left it so long that there is no direction to take that isn't going to be incredibly difficult.
I must say, those numbers about the impact on carbon emissions from missing middle are super interesting and exciting. Now I hope that we keep moving towards that type of city building. There is some movement in that direction but also a lot of resistance still.
Great piece. The madding thing is this: The development industry in both very conservative and risk averse. They don't, at the moment see this model as saleable, so they aren't going to make it happen. The circular argument is cities won't change zoning if the industry keeps saying (as they do) "no one will buy these units". What's madding to me, is neighbourhoods with similar models built pre WWii are often the most sought after AND often expensive.
It may take State/Provinces & Federal Governments in NA to either mandate these building types or invest directly in them to prove that this is not only attractive but profitable building model.
The point about density should relate to people more than numbers of dwellings. Reducing under-occupation is fundamental to the heating and insulation of space and fabric that is meeting housing needs and at the same time reducing the need for new building unless upfront carbon is reduced to zero?https://redbrickblog.co.uk/2023/06/sub-dividing-properties-to-meet-carbon-budgets/
I am sorry I should have put a different link for American readers, I thought it was easy to switch between them here is the US site https://newsociety.com/
I have felt very lucky over the years to have read your work both on Treehugger and later Green Building. I have learned most of what I know about sustainability from your work.
Very interesting, we are still having discussions in Arlington, Virginia this election cycle about “missing middle” housing even though the county dropped that term like a hot potato in the face of criticism. Our issue here is the dominance of single family homes and the representative investment by owners and the replacement of last century homes with new much larger McMansions in a neighborhood where no green building space exists, something has to come down to make way for new. And yet at no point in the discussion have we gotten beyond the more obvious environmental impacts of reduced tree canopy and local management of runoff.
I too have been lucky to have discovered your writing over the last decade. You have a knack for navigating all the technical jargon in these reports and symposiums, and then presenting it to all us laypeople. This discussion is so important right now, especially w/ the right wing factions in North America ginning up fear over "Davos Elites" and "The Great Reset." Any trivial mention of single family homes being a problem will trigger them and they'll go right to a vision of Soviet style concrete high rises. OTOH, my best clients, who are now proud owners of two 6000 sq. ft. homes 2000 miles apart, have now come to the realization (climate change isn't on their radar), that its too damn much work and that they'd be better of if one of them was a 2400 sq ft. condo! go figure
>>”and perhaps we no longer need so many duplicated spaces for living and working.”
Perhaps, perhaps not. I live with my girlfriend in a 1094 sq ft SFD tract home in a suburb of Phoenix. It has excellent flow design, no wasted space, but it’s inadequate for us as a couple and we’re looking to move into something bigger with an extra bedroom and a MUCH larger outdoor area. Part of that is due to our need for privacy to make phone calls or to watch different TV programs without disturbing the other, and partly due to a need for more space when entertaining (and gardening.)
I’m not sure how you reconstruct cities from the ground up to mimic European architecture but if you do it’s going to cost so much more in upfront carbon emissions than what can be saved—and then you will need to convince Americans to adopt communal space as their living rooms, when it’s not been part of our culture. That would also be a big hurdle to overcome.
>> when it’s not been part of our culture.
A VAST hurdle that gets rather short shrift in all this in which emissions is the only thing, it seems, to matter. It reduces people to being a single dimensional entity and the Good Lord above have pity on our souls when we refuse to become that entity.
And no, Allyson Chiu (of WaPo), I have no interest in taking just cold showers.
The cold shower article in WaPo is the kind of thing that gives environmentalism a bad name. At least she didn’t suggest “navy showers” where you turn the water off to soap yourself. Shorter and fewer showers can be discussed; they are probably healthier and probably save more water and energy. But nobody should be miserable.
Agree on the bad name AND being miserable and she caused both to happen. The question will be is does she have the self-awareness to understand the opprobrium directed to her right now?
Of those three things, the lack of awareness is the largest problem. Root cause?
Bubble-itis (another "Pauline Kael" moment).
I have yet to meet a person (including myself!) Who doesn't find it easy and desirable to expand/ increase comfort/move "forward" and Incredibly difficult to do the opposite. I think this might just be the biggest obstacle to getting to where we need to be. And in a global context, North America is supercharged on that. Bigger houses. Bigger cars and trucks. More stuff. And now we've left it so long that there is no direction to take that isn't going to be incredibly difficult.
I must say, those numbers about the impact on carbon emissions from missing middle are super interesting and exciting. Now I hope that we keep moving towards that type of city building. There is some movement in that direction but also a lot of resistance still.
Great piece. The madding thing is this: The development industry in both very conservative and risk averse. They don't, at the moment see this model as saleable, so they aren't going to make it happen. The circular argument is cities won't change zoning if the industry keeps saying (as they do) "no one will buy these units". What's madding to me, is neighbourhoods with similar models built pre WWii are often the most sought after AND often expensive.
It may take State/Provinces & Federal Governments in NA to either mandate these building types or invest directly in them to prove that this is not only attractive but profitable building model.
The point about density should relate to people more than numbers of dwellings. Reducing under-occupation is fundamental to the heating and insulation of space and fabric that is meeting housing needs and at the same time reducing the need for new building unless upfront carbon is reduced to zero?https://redbrickblog.co.uk/2023/06/sub-dividing-properties-to-meet-carbon-budgets/
I just preordered your book on the Bezos site. Your link only ships to Canada. An additional foreign friendly link might be great.
I am sorry I should have put a different link for American readers, I thought it was easy to switch between them here is the US site https://newsociety.com/
I have felt very lucky over the years to have read your work both on Treehugger and later Green Building. I have learned most of what I know about sustainability from your work.
Very interesting, we are still having discussions in Arlington, Virginia this election cycle about “missing middle” housing even though the county dropped that term like a hot potato in the face of criticism. Our issue here is the dominance of single family homes and the representative investment by owners and the replacement of last century homes with new much larger McMansions in a neighborhood where no green building space exists, something has to come down to make way for new. And yet at no point in the discussion have we gotten beyond the more obvious environmental impacts of reduced tree canopy and local management of runoff.