The Class of 2010

This blog space has intended to infill the gaps in the formal curriculum that you have just completed.
Prior posts have dealt with ancillary housing options, yet more shelter strategies, dorms as models of "real world" possibilities , economic survival options, and the ultimate in "sharing" programs.
I posted a short list of supplemental courses that I called "the art of crap detection" within this post.

All of the above pointed out that the most important lessons you were learning were informal; living in groups, being carless, the economies of scale, and that having access is more important than owning.
If you insist on leaving the "ideal world" you just inhabited, where you literally had it all, then consider the following my commencement address.

The decision you are going to make re. where to live is more important than your career choice. Typically, media stories will list cities that are attractive to recent grads and list the criteria supporting their choices. This story by Richard Florida goes so far as to cite that which is "important" to 20 somethings; bars, restaurants, and entertainment. (You are worth no more than your ability to consume). What everyone of the chosen cities have in common is that they are already what they are going to be. As a migrant to any one of them you are chasing a dream already realized by those who preceded you. You hope to become part of that which already exists. "I am moving to NYC cuz that's where the hipsters live". What you can't know, because your teachers like Richard Florida haven't a clue, is that you are about to participate in the "next biggest sucker syndrome". The person who is about to leave for someplace where she has a chance of actually carving out a living for herself, needs someone to whom she can sub-lease her too expensive 350 sq ft apartment. Don't be that person.

Its is going to take some backbone to resist the kind of marketing crap proffered by the merchants of cool so lets use some common sense.

The criteria that I would suggest you apply when considering where to live include: What is the total tax burden of the place you might live? What is the cost of auto; insurance, registration, and taxation? What are the rules regarding house sharing? What is the speed of the local ISP provider? What are the average utility costs? What is the fiscal status of the town, state in which you might reside? What is the cost to have a dental filling? What is the ratio of others to whom you might be attracted? Are there viable and independent media outlets? What are police practices regarding victimless crimes? Applying the above criteria would automatically rule out California.

The places that do qualify are invariably going to be the subject of bad news. You are going to hear about the abandoned, the broke and broken places that are the casualties of the economic collapse. This is exactly where I suggest you begin your quest. Only when a place is degraded enough does it become possible to have an opportunity for real growth. Consider that Georgetown, D.C., Harlem, NYC, The Mission, S.F., SoBe, and now the Design District in Miami, are examples of what were once neglected slums. Their reconstruction afforded their pioneers the opportunity for employment, new think, and identity. Now those very people couldn't afford to live in any one of these neighborhoods should they chose to move there today.

In a world where one can literally buy anything from anywhere and have it delivered, where the newest ideas are instantly available on the web, where affinity networks thrive, the pressure to be within the hip cores is unimportant.

The myth that there are "creative communities" belies the fact that the most significant wellsprings of art are often at a remove, giving the artist the space they need to create their own identities. Think Morgan Freeman, Clarksburg Ms., Dennis Hopper, Wilmington N.C., the crowd at Black Mountain, N.C. or Georgia O'Keeffe in Abiquiu, N.M.

More important than any of the shibboleths that are so indicative of mob think, absorb the most important principle you weren't taught during your college days, buy low! This is just as true in real estate as it is an adage in the stock market.

When a place has become cheap enough that you, or more importantly a group, can pool resources and actually gain a foothold, then you have a real opportunity. Exploit the social network you have developed, form a gang, and move somewhere. The wants and needs of that place and the opportunities will sort themselves out. This is exactly what happened in Hardwick Vt.

What a fabulous example of the success of people who went their own way. Other food oriented activities are located through Balle.

Get busy. There has rarely been more opportunity.

A House For All Seasons

Our shelter system thrives on instability. Developers, builders, real estate agents, mortgage brokers, and bankers profit when the market for shelter is in churn. For those too young to remember there was once a process called "block busting".

Move a black family into a stable white middle class neighborhood, excite fear that property values are going to be adversely affected, and watch the neighborhood change its complexion. The opportunity that arises for persons of less sophistication to now move up and out of the ghetto sets the stage for a sub-prime housing debacle. Lenders prey on people desperate to own a piece of the American dream.

The system requires demand. Natural disasters are pre-conditions for renewed housing demand. As are relaxed immigration standards for persons of means, or relocation programs on the part of employers. Nothing was as beneficial to the building industry as divorce. During the turbulent years in the later half of the 20th century new home formations generated by divorce drove the industry.

Looking to externalities to describe contributing factors of our housing crisis will not lessen the impact of cultural shifts regarding our shelter. In fact, when was the last time anyone referred to housing as shelter? We have commodified shelter. Housing is now an investment. The fact that at any given time a house is calculated as either a good or bad investment points up the cultural shift away from shelter as a necessity, to housing as something that is to be traded.

The idea of house as a tradable commodity is built into the modern system of shelter supply. We promote "starter" homes without giving a second thought to the implications of the process the buyer commits to once having "started".



As long as the industry could suggest that the buying and selling of housing was a good investment, then trading up was a positive social behavior. Up had many connotations. Up might mean bigger, showier, the trophy house. Up might mean our family is growing and we need a bigger house. Up might mean near to or within a neighborhood that has status. Here's a fun forum re. Beverly Hills as an example.

No matter what the motivation, the move occasions the loss of fundamental family values: The wrenching of the kids from school, the abandoning of friends, shifting of commerce from one set of stores to another, and most importantly the atomization of the family.

The re- release of the film Make Way for Tomorrow (1937) is heralded as contemporary in the VSL announcement:
With its rerelease on DVD (available 2/23), Make Way for Tomorrow has another chance to be appreciated. The film’s Depression-era plot couldn’t be more timely: An elderly couple must move in with their children after losing their home to the bank. Separated and out of place, these grandparents not only disrupt the lives of their children and grandchildren—they’re miserable themselves. http://www.veryshortlist.com/vsl/daily.cfm/review/1469/DVD/tomorrow-is-today/?tp
The reuniting of the family in the above scenario is portrayed as a negative.

Like so many facets of the new economy that have blown up, the housing bubble burst could be a precursor to a reexamined set of premises. What if we explored the millennium old tradition of multi-generational dwelling, not as a burden that one has to escape but rather a support network that can be trusted. I remember the first time I heard the phrase "home place". My auto mechanic in the Shenandoah Valley and I were becoming friendlier and he wanted to cement the relationship with a long pull of brew on the porch of his home place up in the hills. Five generations had been born and raised there and it was never to be sold. It served as a home base in tough times. Family could settle in and await the next opportunity without going homeless or uprooting.

Circumstances are creating similar situations for people who thought they had "outgrown" extended family. Boomerang adults are moving back in with mom and pop, children are assuming responsibility for the senior care of their parents, and grandparents are becoming day care providers. These are not negative practices. The key to the success of these activities is not to stigmatize them. Not to allow the media or the industrial housing barons to determine what is right for us. Some enlightened professionals can see the writing on the wall, but have yet to come up with solutions. We needn't wait for them.

I have addressed the possibilities of granny flats in this space.

That is but one form of housing modification that would work. It turns out that larger, higher end housing stock is suffering a slower recovery and is probably headed for steeper price adjustments. This could be the exact moment to pool resources and buy the homestead, a "forever house". The housing would have to be modified. Modifications to an overbuilt suburban McMansion might include child proofing, sound proofing, increasing accessibility, creating privacy zones, and reconfiguring common spaces to pool resources like computing power or entertainment centers.

I don't think the highest hurdle to such reconfigurations is physical. I think that a great many of us are victims of cool. We would rather die then live in a suburban setting. If we are going to create sustainable, stable futures for ourselves we are going to have to get smart about space, money, and a restored set of family values. Richard Florida isn't going to write a book suggesting creative types should live in a suburb, but the Coastal Conservation League may provide an example of context. They propose retrofitting existing suburbs into livable places. Theirs is but one example of planners trying to save what's left of the landscape by building up what already exists on the grid. Now its up to designers and builders to retrofit the individual house on that grid to make it livable.

An idea whose time keeps coming, and coming

This spring the Volvo Round the World maxi boat race sailed into Boston harbor. Their arrival was preceded by the Puma pop up store that was erected on the pier in a day.

Thousands of us clambered aboard, bought gear, partied, and became impressed with the possibilities of container architecture.

I had seen "Positions"the art installation village consisting of "galleries" assembled from around the world and then transported in containers, lined up along the beach, and forming an instant art's district on Miami Beach, but this project moved the possibility from art to reality.

LOT-EK has been experimenting with containers for some time. An earlier example of a project was their









container home.










Bob Vila's web site featured a story on home creation utilizing containers and concluded: "Perhaps the biggest barrier to increased production of container homes is the stigma that is attached to the ugly metal boxes left abandoned in urban shipping yards. Transformative thinking and a willingness to move outside of the box can bring this technology to the forefront of urban planning agendas everywhere."
Text by Mark Fuller














A Seattle based architecture firm Hybrid Seattle coined the term "cargotecture" to describe their development and their first structure has landed.
I also know that when talking to the principals of the firm they are at work on an infill concept that is so smart it is a wonder that it hasn't been implemented yet. They view dorment development plots, builders waiting for financing might be a reason for a plot to lay fallow, as sites for temporary villages of container homes. The portability of the containers would allow them to have a temporary location until such time as the underlying project was green lighted, and then would move to the next site. A much better use than surface parking or weed patches.

The AIA, and the City of Newark sponsored a world wide competition for a container based development for their city. The results are amazing.

The beat goes on. LOT-EK won a competition to build a new shopping mall on a NYC pier, an Italian firm built a jewel box and slowly the concept is winning acceptance. It is important to take away the reality that zoning and planning board rules that might inhibit creative housing solutions are responsive to political will. If you have the will, there is a way.

Maximizing the built environment

A scenario:
Barbara is a single mom who got herself behind the eight ball. Her husband died from a sudden heart attack while jogging. They had no life insurance. To help her with cash flow she refinanced her modest three bedroom, two car garage home in middle America using an adjustable rate mortgage. The way it was explained to her, "when the affordable rate is about to adjust, we will refinance again, and the monthly payments will remain the same". The problem is that when the adjustable rate reset, there was no bank ready to refi her loan and now she was saddled with a mortgage that was breaking her.

Barbara works in human resources at a mid-sized utility company. After her debt service she barely has money left to feed her two kids, 3 and 5 years old.. She was very close to foreclosure when a group of three approached her office with a concept for a new small business (house retrofitting for conservation) that they imagined was allied with the utility, and that the utility might want to fund. This was beyond her pay grade and she pushed the proposal up the chain but kept the cover sheet of the proposal in her desk. Weeks later she called one of the principals out of curiosity. No the utility hadn't funded the venture but the group had secured some start up money and was plunging ahead. They were looking for space.

No one can ever trace the sparks that trigger creative energy. What Barbara blurted out was, "would you consider renting my house from me during the working day?" Meetings were had, problems discussed, and the resolution worked as follows: They split the debt service and utilities. For the start-up this was far cheaper than the office options they had explored and far more comfortable. The living room, dining room, kitchen, and one bedroom would be shared by the business while Barbara was at work. Barbara and the kids each maintained a private bedroom. The key to the success of the concept was the separation of stuff in the shared space. Barbara contacted the head of the architecture dept. of a nearby university and posted a want-ad for a design project. A short description was included and of course a student responded within days. In addition to a little money beyond materials what the student needed was a practicum for credit. For that the student required they document the process. No problem.

Barbara suggested the student set up shop in the garage. He did. And what he fabricated was a set of three modular storage cubes on wheels. During the work day they opened to include the work surfaces, and communication storage areas that were needed, and at the end of the day, were secured and rolled against a wall, out of Barbara and the kids' way.

The kicker was that when the project was finished, the student suggested that he could retrofit the garage and create an apartment for himself in the space. He did. You will be pleased to know that Barbara is secure in the house, the start-up has positive cash flow, and the city certified the garage as a legal ancillary space.

They're Back

They're back:
From the gang that brought you the economic collapse of 2008.

The building and allied trades, has been the most successful economic enterprise in human history. They formed a perfect alliance with government at all levels, becoming the largest donor in most campaigns. The result has been the pairing of interests so that government revenue is tied to developer success in bringing tax generating projects to ground.

The fact is that to develop, the building industry needs land. In the past they supported planning and development boards that ripped out entire neighborhoods in all of our major metropolises, giving them the space they needed to construct new projects. They created language,"highest and best use", that sanctified the process. They determined what the half life of a building was and if creative destruction wasn't rapid enough, they destabilized entire neighborhoods by red-lining, lax policing, or finding some other incentive (removal of politically weak minorities). In one of the more amazing acts of political manipulation the building industry got tax payers to foot the bill for the Impacts, (costs of schools, water treatment, public safety) of their developments.

They supported "white flight" and built the suburbs that sprawled across the countryside. When the price of gas rose, and it appeared there might be advantages to inner city living, they stimulated gentrification and created new "workforce" housing near the plants that hired the former inner city resident they displaced. They got highways and ramps built to facilitate access to their projects again at tax payer expense.

This kind of manipulation is not easy and they need the appearance of independent thinkers to rationalize their behavior. For example, when an argument is needed to support the myth that more building will create a bigger tax base, it helps to have a think tank to create the story.

To that end the industry created the Urban Land Institute (ULI). This group includes every major mortgage bank, builder, developer, real estate sales firm, and even many government agencies send representatives as members. They publish, hold conferences, train youth, and steer development by creating trend analysis.

Some of their hits include urging the FED to support the idea that everyone deserves to own a home, and deregulating the banking practices that stood in the way of loans for people who couldn't afford them. They got the right of eminent domain to include taking private land for the benefit of private developers. They made it illegal to have more than one head of household in a residence, and saw to it that there was a strict separation of work and living spaces. They define what space is, what building material can be used to create it, and who can build the space, all in an attempt to suggest a shortage of available space, creating the opportunity for yet more building.

Every effective monopoly overreaches and in this case they created a doozy. In the wake of the disaster of their overbuilding, over leveraging, and over lending, they have created the greatest economic debacle in the history of mankind.

They have an enormous problem. After transferring the blame for the collapse on the hapless home owner, they have to concoct another scheme to keep their engine going. They count for over half of the national economy. Talk about "too big to fail". They use other people's money and even the average citizen is starting to get the fact that if they fail, we pick up the tab.

Opportunities are being created as I write this. They are creating new wastelands,
taking down structures they couldn't sell and turning their backs on the suburbs they created.
The effect of this on the individual is to wipe out a lifetime of saving, belie the myth the real estate is a good investment, and that home ownership, as defined by the industry, is a noble objective. The industry needs a new set of suckers, and it is setting about creating them.

The ULI concluded their annual conference in San Francisco last week and their proceedings are fascinating. Here are some highlights:
ULI "Icons" have advice they share with attendees.

Emerging Trends in Real Estate®, released this week at ULI’s Annual Fall Meeting in San Francisco.
Emerging Trends predicts that investment and development will start to pick up steam in a couple of years. In the meantime, those who are in a position to do so should buy or hold multifamily; buy hotels; buy distressed condos and second homes; buy land; buy or hold industrial; hold office; and apply a "triage" approach to retail.
Looking past the recession, "The future is about green development, infill, and transit-oriented development."

The panel discussed two main demographic groups that will drive the next decade’s housing market: Generation Y and their parents (the aging baby boomers). Looking past the recession, "The future is about green development, infill, and transit-oriented development."

In other words: If they play their cards right, they can get a whole new generation of people with no experience to buy the idea that they are going to build them the green future we demand. As for their parents, who they just wiped out, and the brown and black immigrants who barely speak the language, they will validate new multiple family dwellings.

And they concluded: "The bad news is that it is unlikely that enough new housing can be built in urban areas to meet this growing demand. The result is likely to be rising urban housing costs--good for developers and owners and bad for homebuyers and renters with limited funds."

Let me tell you what that means in plain english. When a developer applies to the commission of a "built out" city for permission to build yet more, higher, denser property for which he is not willing to contribute additional costs of operating the services that are necessary to sustain it, and is requesting public money and tax forgiveness, he will use the argument that the new young workers need these places if they are to move here, and it will increase the tax base.

The city will fall deeper in debt, the tax burden will increase, and a new class of home buyers will suffer the ravages of the second wave of housing destruction.

The reality as reported by Fortune Magazine is more realistic.

Built-Ins are Bankable

Built-ins are Bankable:

You enter the dwelling space and you immediately sense that the owners have overreached. It isn't a matter of the size or the cost of the housing. The sparse furnishings suggest that the owners simply haven't the money to fit out their new digs.
The fact is that the cost of furnishing a new home is rarely factored into the total cost of housing. Typically new starts begin with a hand me down or two, play out a shabby chic style, or worse, go into more debt, at outrageous interest costs, to furnish a space. "Rent to own", credit cards, or furniture store credit is usually exorbitant.
If we are to develop affordable housing options we have to be mindful of the total livability cost of any space. So here are a couple of thoughts and strategies we might employ.

When I say that "built-ins are bankable" what I mean is that if the builder has included the banquette pictured at the top for example, it is included in the cost of the house and is wrapped into the mortgage. It is financed at the same time as the home and at the same interest rate as the structure. It is part of the structure and therefore considered "real estate". In today's market that means the cost of the money for the kitchen seating group was 5%. As long as we continue to provide tax reductions for interest payments on real estate, the interest is deductible.
Strategy number one has us influencing builders to include as many built-ins as we can imagine.. The pic above is from a book currently on Google Books. The cover itself is filled with possibilities.

Strategy number two involves people about to buy a new space and before they agree to purchase they develop plans for additional built-ins that they want included in their new home. If the builder is still on site it is probable he will welcome the opportunity to increase his return on the structure. If the original builder is not available then the buyer can contact an aftermarket retro-fitter and work out a building plan that is formalized and thus can be brought to the table with their lender. This movie shows a typical retrofit.

A third strategy has a person in their space and considering a refinance, or executing a part of a home equity loan. In both cases a set of plans and contracts for built-ins will be accepted as a bankable home improvement. At times like these, "cheap money" suggests the time is right to increase your "relatively cheap" home line of credit rather than getting killed by your credit card rates. So consider beds, closets, book cases, entertainment centers, cupboards, storage chests, shop benches, the list goes on. Built-ins are also the key to maximizing small spaces and making them functional. THINK BOAT.

Granny Flats and why you want them

The best definition of an ADU comes from an issue of New Urban News, Dec 2001:

"Granny flats add flexibility and affordability. 
In several new urban communities, accessory dwelling units are strong sellers and offer benefits to both home owners and developers.
Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) appear under many aliases — granny flats, garage apartments, carriage houses, ancillary units — and they almost invariably show up on a checklist of what sets new urban communities apart from conventional subdivisions. They are by no means ubiquitous, but developers from diverse projects report that granny flats have become a popular amenity and an important selling point.
For some home owners, the most attractive aspect of ADUs is the potential for extra income from renting out the unit. Other home owners view the extra space as a flexible addition that can be used as a home office, as lodging for teenage children or elderly family members, or as a guest room with great privacy.
From a developer’s perspective, ADUs provide an extra tier of housing options — affordable units that can attract people from diverse age and income groups. Another benefit is safer and more lively alleys. With more “eyes on the street,” children and adults are more likely to use the alley for play and socialization".

The article goes on to discuss great examples of win-win opportunities where the concept is implemented, and though describing new housing, it establishes the concept. It could be applied to existing stock through smart adaptation. Some companies are starting to build portable structures to be moved into back yards as needed.

This idea however is very controversial. One story jumped out at me, This from Binghamton NY:
Profs use Facebook info to evict BU students
Originally Published 2007-12-07
By Erika Neddenien
Six Binghamton University students face eviction after their neighbors — two BU professors — used Facebook to determine that they were in violation of the West Side’s R-1 zoning law, Binghamton’s Mayor Matt Ryan said.

The R-1 zoning law, which restricts a chunk of Binghamton’s West Side to “factual and functional families,” is typically only enforced when reports are made about a violation. The issue made headlines in 2000 when two dozen students were evicted from their homes.

To try to get a grip on this "problem" The city commissioned "A Report of the Mayor’s Commission on Housing and Home Ownership"
The result was to suggest the creation of an "overlay district" in which "student housing" was encouraged.
BUT: Within their summary the planners identified the following strategy to limit:"Rebuttable presumption / presumptive limit approach: This approach is a somewhat complex concept. What it amounts to is setting a numerical occupancy limit, which can be waived under specified circumstances, based on the number of unrelated tenants who can live together in a dwelling unit. The limit is waived if the landlord (or tenants) can demonstrate that the tenants are the “functional equivalent” of a traditional family—based on criteria set forth in the Zoning Code. (Most municipalities throughout the U.S. employ this functional family equivalent approach, as a result of Constitutional rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court and the highest courts of most states.) The presumptive limit approach is further complicated by the need to decide whether to apply the same presumptive limit to dwelling units in R-1, R-2, and R-3 districts- -and, if not, how to draw principled distinctions. It also creates endless debates about the rationality of applying the same presumptive limit to large versus small houses, and to houses with many versus few bedrooms " Students considered this a ghetto that limited their choices.
The city in an attempt to quell student outrage at what they conceive of as restrictive zoning addressed them with respect citing they were only interested in their safety. Too many persons in a home is a fire hazard.

There you have it. This isn't the first time the issue of non traditional families living together caused a ruckus. "Exclusionary rules" have been challenged around the country with varying degrees of success. The Fair Housing Act is a response to handicapped persons wanting to live together and having been rebuked. Same sex marriage prohibitions run right into this issue of what constitutes a family or the "head of a household".

In 1985 the following abstract appeared:
CHALLENGING THE EXCLUSIONARY IMPACT OF FAMILY DEFINITIONS IN AMERICAN MUNICIPAL ZONING ORDINANCES
MARSHA RITZDORF Iowa State University
Copyright 1985 Urban Affairs Association

Although not often included in the literature devoted to exclusionary zoning practices, an examination of the use and abuse of family definitions in American municipal zoning ordinances is important to those who are concerned with the revitalization of American cities and suburbs. Many of the ideas suggested for innovative reuse of existing housing are linked to the family definition. Accessory units in single-family dwellings and shared housing are two examples. This paper briefly examines the history of family definitions in municipal zoning ordinances, reviews the major court decisions concerning their use and discusses the relevance of the continued use of family definitions when current demographic changes are taken into consideration.

Since then the issue keeps bubbling up. New Urbanists, trying to increase density and walkability in their planned communities meet resistance. Whereas the article at the top sites eyes on the street as a positive. The following article in Reason Magazine argues against it:
"Crime-Friendly Neighborhoods
How "New Urbanist" planners sacrifice safety in the name of "openness" and "accessibility"


ADUs marketed with seniors in mind are doing better. ECHO is a program that is gaining traction. In some cases it pays to be old.

Here are other examples of places struggling with the concept. Denver,
Boston, Provo, and here is a great story from Santa Cruz.

For our purposes it is safe to say that those of us looking for creative ways to solve the housing crisis the idea of ADUs makes sense. Were this to be a widely adopted housing pattern, you can imagine a set of dwellings which enhance "family values". Owners could shift the footprint of their homes as their family composition changes without having to uproot. Homes could expand and contract as needs determined. New homeowners offset mortgage costs. If their family grows they move into the ancillary spaces. When family members move on, the now empty nester has space to rent again. This is an idea whose time has come. Be vigilant and attend those dull zoning hearings. Your life depends on it.

Thou Art

Best Products stores shattered the easy distinction between a building as functional, or as an object of art. These early big box stores were designed by the firm "SITE | architecture, art & design" ( Sculpture in the Environment ). A pictorial review of these stores is here.


The fusion of structure as art and design was shocking. I remember near wrecks as people driving by, slowed to view the structure standing near a parkway in Richmond, VA. But the firm had a serious purpose which drives them to this day: To break new ground.

As this project was winding down the firm created a book "Highrise of Homes" which was published in 1982. The following is a slide show of some of the images from that book, forwarded to me from the firm:


As I was preparing this blog I wrote to Jim Wines, now professor of Architecture at Pa State and told him of my intent to revisit this concept. He replied:

Dear Will,
I received your inquiry concerning the Highrise of Homes project. I am delighted that you are pursuing its translation into reality. SITE actually had a client in Japan who was ready to build a version of the idea around 1985, but the negotiations never quite worked out.

As you may know, the project has been getting quite a bit of attention over the past couple of years; so the prospect for serious consideration seems to be growing. In fact, I will be a keynote speaker at the Sarkozy sponsored conference on green design for Paris at the Pompidou Center in October, where HoH will be featured. Also, the project will be on show at the Victoria and Albert Museum in London for their big Post-modern exhibit in 2011. So the timing of your interest is probably pretty good....

Thanks again for your interest.
Best regards,
James Wines

The text of the book included criticisms of the project, responses, a lot of architecture speak, and an epilogue that I quote from here:


"The Highrise of Homes is a far from perfect solution, yet it functions as a viable response to an imperfect world--a world of too many people trying to occupy too little land surface. The project is a condition of experimentation which accounts for and tries to deal with the conflicting desires of city dwellers to enjoy the cultural advantages of urban life, without forfeiting the sense of independence and identity associated with the house and garden. In an era when the mansion on the hill and the cottage in the country are becoming increasingly less attainable--and, indeed, less sociologically justifiable--the Highrise of Homes may represent the new "democratic skin" of multi-level habitat. It is architecture as the collective biography of its inhabitants. It is architecture as a chronicler of pluralism and a celebration of choice. It is architecture as the negation of the "master builder" concept that has dominated this century. It is architecture as a form of spontaneous urban theatre. It is architecture that is, at once, visionary and very traditional."

I can't be sure but I have a hunch that at least one member of the team had a tongue placed deeply in their cheek. At the least the sense of having given in to a cultural imperative is expressed in this concept: If the western pattern of dwelling is so fixed in the minds of the consumer then lets give it to them in a way that works us out of some of the attendant problems of sprawl, and at the same time incorporates an adaptive reuse of the existing infrastructure.

Anthropologists will tell you that the modern "fireplace" is a vestigial manifestation of a primitive need to gather around the warming hearth. Builders concerned with the consequences of heat loss, build in inserts, insulating screens, and finally the ultimate ventless fireplaces.

These adaptations respect the fact of the reluctance to change while adapting the dwelling to the demands of modern conservation. In the case of Highrise of Homes, SITE has retained the core concepts of cluster efficiency while suggesting to those who resist the loss of their identity, they can have it all. That's not Art. That is an artful solution to a practical problem.

The Real World, Part Two

Students are constantly exhorted that the point of their education is to prepare them for work in the "real world". The college experience is understood to be a transition in that process and doesn't count as a real world experience. But as the following will evidence, it may be that an important set of lessons is being learned in the informal curriculum.

As students return to their respective colleges this month it is interesting to observe how the dwelling space has evolved. Time.com featured a photo essay of where we have been and where we might be going.

Their take of new slick dorms features the for profit examples built by American Campus Communities. These campuses have realized that marketing quality of dorm life is a key element in recruitment.

Simpler, more environmentally responsible projects are gaining momentum as revealed in this article; "Sustainable dorms" By Marcia Passos Duffy, featuring students at Sarah Lawrence and American U.

The Sarah Lawrence students conceive of their space as a living laboratory.




Casey Roe, an environmental studies major at American U says: College students are the ideal population to encourage sustainability on both a personal and a community level, Roe says, adding that American University opened its first environmentally friendly dorm this year. "College is a good place to breed this kind of behavior," Roe says. "If one person starts, it can spread pretty quickly to all areas of the college."

And to other colleges as this summary demonstrates.


A great example is the Graduate Housing recently built at Harvard. Top designers are now building LEED certified dormitory structures.


Students are also plugging into conceptions of their future. An award winning design expressed some of the greenest dwelling space as a dorm.


Respecting the environment while at college leads to habits that continue after graduation, says Yevgeniy "Gene" Gutsalo, who graduated in May from Binghamton University in Binghamton, New York, with a degree in economics.
"I wasn't even aware of the movement until I got to college," says Gutsalo, 21, who lives in New York City. While at college, he participated in competitions among dorms to decrease energy usage and increase recycling. "I don't know if there was a winner, or if anyone cared if there was one, but everyone did their part, and it made an impact on me."

The experience probably left him ecologically minded for life, Gutsalo says. "I decided not to buy a car, I bring my own mug to work, I still turn off electric appliances, I still recycle and reuse," he says. Rather than feeling like a weighty responsibility or a sacrifice, "it's become second nature."

And that is really the point of teaching sustainability, Sarah Lawrence's Justin Butler says. "The beauty of it is that none of this requires moving back to the Stone Age. It does require a lot of dedication on changing everyday behavior," he says. "But it is hopeful because, after a while, it becomes so easy."

More important than the structures that contain them is the fact that students are living communally, sharing a wealth of resources, and learning lessons about how to live in the "real world" they will eventually inhabit.

OURS

The most recent interview with Ezio Manzini ends with the following statement: The need is great. Now is the time. "We need radical change; increasing consciousness is not enough."

Ezio Manzini and François Jégou are the creators of The Sustainable Everyday Project.
One element of their project is Scenarios. An example follows:
How can we take care of our houses and things?
THE HANDYMAN SHOP


The Handyman Shop is a local multi-service centre that combines aspects of a neighbourhood convenience store and a do-it-yourself shop such as “wardrobe service”, “object clinic”, “mutual help”. On the web site you can "Clic" on each solutions to download a short movie presentation and post your comments…

Another component of the Sustainable Everyday web site is a record of cases that are exemplary of some aspect of behavior that we might consider prototypical.

Mr. Manzini was asked in an interview if he really meant it when he suggested we might actually share housing. He emphatically answered we could. He documented the following example in his home town, Milan:
Prendi a casa uno studente – Lodge a student at homeIntergenerational house sharing helps students find cheap, family-style accommodation, while giving lonely, but independent, elders help, companionship and financial support.


I offer another example where house sharing works to every ones advantage. Seniors share housing in NYC, facilitated by a city service.

At any given minute millions of students in residence around the world are also sharing housing. I believe they accept the rather spartan housing because of the wealth of services they have access to. Theirs is one of the richest environments imaginable.

As individuals they could never assemble the resources they share collectively.

Sharing, the new commons, as a practice, is gaining momentum. I think those who are documenting and writing about it feel they must go to great lengths to avoid the stigma attached by association with the failures of communism. If the current rhetoric surrounding Obama's policy initiatives is any indication they are politically correct. The writers for the Sustainable Everyday Project use the phrase "colab services" when referring to opportunities for sharing, while Treehugger identifies what they call "product service systems".

However you name it, the process remains the same. We are all made richer by refining the definitions of "mine" and "ours".

Vertical Neighborhood

This image from a Dwell Blog re. the proposal by Axis Mundi for a new tower in NYC suggests these ideas are taking hold. Comments on that posting demonstrate how difficult it is to break with conventional thought.

Headroom

Several times a year a major city paper publishes a story about the coolest small space in the city. The latest entry is too cute to boot. The article leaves some questions unanswered. Where, for instance, is her storage? How does she entertain? Does the small space make her feel claustrophobic in foul weather.


Ms. Biosic's small space is typical in that it enjoys a high ceiling and as the picture reveals she sleeps in a loft space. In this case, and to be fair, we ought to calculate cubic feet as she lives within a volume. The sleeping loft is a design that appreciates the fact that the occupant doesn't need headroom when she occupies it and makes her space livable.

I am going to guess that the most important piece of furniture in her space is the table. It serves a multitude of uses. It is a dining table when she eats, a desk when she works, a prep surface when she cooks, and a board when she irons. Her satisfaction with her space is dependent on maximizing the surfaces she has by putting them to multiple use.

I believe that the key to the success of this and other small spaces is that the occupant offloads to her surroundings the support systems that round out her needs. Typically she does her laundry at the Laundromat, picks up a variety of meals at anyone of hundreds of new venues catering to her, works out at the health club, keeps her excess stuff in a rental storage space, uses public transportation, and arranges her Thanksgiving Day guests overnight accommodations at a nearby hotel. She gets her reading material at the library, maintains a very basic wardrobe which she can update regularly, and the art she views hangs on the walls of nearby galleries.

This life style is served up like a bauble, fun to read about, and reserved for the "bohemians" that exist like curios in a gallery. The facts are that most of us continue to move to the suburbs and house scale continues to grow. But the current housing crisis might give that momentum pause and allow many to consider the lessons learned in descriptions of small spaces to be more generally applicable.

The primary factor in determining housing cost is scale. Builders build and price on a per square foot basis. If we calculate the "value added" that Ms. Biosic enjoys by living in a dense urban area, she can more than offset the higher per square foot cost that she pays to live there. The smaller house movement is most relevant within an urban context. If we apply the additional environmental benefit of having a smarter, more efficient dwelling, then small spaces become less an art object and more a critical piece in solving our global problems.

Gimme Shelter

Allison Arieff in her review of the Buckminster Fuller exhibit at the Whitney last fall highlighted the following quote:
“Our beds are empty two-thirds of the time.
Our living rooms are empty seven-eighths of the time.
Our office buildings are empty one-half of the time.
It’s time we gave this some thought.”

If you accept no other aspect of this man's work you have to admit he was great at naming the problem. Fuller was obsessed with how people were housed. You will read how he wanted to maximize efficiency and was concerned with how compact we might live.

WE have a shelter crisis. It exists at all levels of the economic spectrum: We have the obvious problems of intractable homelessness, we have the new homeless that have been foreclosed upon, and we have the ironic situation of huge scale housing being wildly inappropriate for its intended purposes, while millions can't afford to house their most basic needs.

The solutions that are most often posed to these problems involve the design of yet more housing, most often single family variants as pointed out in Ms. Arieff review of Home Delivery in the same blog post above.

I don't believe we can build our way out of this problem. Nor do we have to. I think Bucky was on to something in the above quote and yet he never addressed it; the psychological imprint we place on space that limits it use. An office is an office, a bedroom a bedroom, a gymnasium, a classroom, a church, are all fixed in their use because we have assigned them an identity. When they are not in use for their intended purpose, they are vacant.

The Sears Tower, the biggest office building of them all, is about to undergo a massive renovation to "green" the building. 350 million dollars are going to be spent retrofitting this massive structure. To comprehend the scale consider The Sears Tower’s 4.56 million gross square feet (3.8 M rentable) would cover 105 acres if spread across one level. This is the equivalent of 16 city blocks in Chicago. This building has become the ultimate potential new monopoly board space and has changed hands many times in the last decade. The economic fact is that the building has never been more than 2/3 occupied since it was built.

The Sears Tower, and many like it, enjoy a "mixed use" zoning designation. It allows owners to rent lower floors to retail tenants. It does not include residential uses. In the early days of loft conversion in NYC, occupants had to blanket their windows else they might be discovered living in commercial spaces. When they hit critical mass, enough persons were in place, the blankets came down and the city was forced to accept the fact of this new use. Lofts were retrofitted for safety and other smart conforming changes and the model is now established. The zoning regulations in most cities prohibit the integration of residential land office uses within the same structure. A quick read spells out the problem and though the cited organization is directed to affordable housing options, their solution is applicable across a broad band of housing price points.

We can only imagine how much greener (and more economically viable) The Sears Tower would become if the full potential of this vertical city were to be realized. What if tenants had the choice of purchasing living spaces within their work environment. They would commute by elevator. What if those same tenants had educational opportunities available for their children throughout the building. What if the retail stores included the gamut of whole life products that satisfied tenants needs for food, pharmacy, and entertainment. Ironically none of these concepts is particularly creative. The developers of the Tower are proposing to build a 500 room hotel next door. If successful, we can imagine that all of the functions of an integrated living/working shelter we propose as an ideal will be achieved within the "imprint", hotel. People will be in residence, others will be at work in different rooms, still others will be dining, or working out, and still others will be attending seminars in banquet rooms. So we have de-facto zoning in place that accommodates our needs for maximized shelter for the 21st century. We simply have to declare that our structures are hotels.

A survey of the vacancy rate of our nation's city office spaces suggest that there are millions of square feet available for occupancy. The next shoe to drop in the ongoing fiscal crisis that is paralyzing our economy is the problem of high debt leverage in the commercial office market. We can foresee still higher vacancy rates and failed buildings as the debt cannot be rolled over. One way to head off that crisis is to maximize the affected buildings, helping them realize their rent potential. To achieve that goal we need to enlighten local governments to embrace creative new uses for these spaces and in so doing, go to great lengths to solve our "shelter" crisis.