Sustainable Community in Chelsea, MA
Forbes Park in Chelsea, MA has received coverage on Inhabitat:
http://www.inhabitat.com/2008/08/18/forbes-park-by-urban-design-and-redevelopment/>
Forbes Park in Chelsea, MA has received coverage on Inhabitat:
http://www.inhabitat.com/2008/08/18/forbes-park-by-urban-design-and-redevelopment/>
According to the open prototype site, “The result will be a house that reflects the college’s environmental commitments and their rural, New England nature: modest, frugal, solid, high quality, appropriate in scale, and in touch with the local climate. Additionally the home will be an integration of leading edge technology in net zero energy use, sustainable materials, controlled building practices, and green principles to create a showpiece of environmental respect.”
In NH and Maine: http://www.openprototype.com/
Check out this series of posts by Ted Owens at Treehugger:
Treehugger suggests building codes be updated to balance the ‘bigger is better’ mentality with efficient solutions that offset consumption.
From Treehugger: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/07/how_not_to_build_green.php
From the list:
1. It ain’t green to ignore perfectly good homes.
2. It ain’t green to build massive homes.
3. It ain’t green to encourage urban sprawl.
4. It ain’t green to build as if space for homes has nothing to do with transportation.
5. It ain’t green to ignore advantages of multi-family homes.
And the article:
reject the idea that you can build green one house at a time, create an urban space with a high density of multi-family homes to minimize the use of cars
And I again find myself faced with the dilemma of reality vs. theory that I touched upon with No Impact Man’s passed along guidelines for reducing personal carbon emissions by 90%. Let me share with you just how badly I want to live according to this list:
Not too bad, eh? Let me share with you the reality:
While I’ll do everything I can to not contribute to sprawl, make smart choices about my vehicles and consumption, and continue to make an effort at working from home, the next home we own will be new (as new as a container home can be considered) and will not be in an urban setting. I don’t have the resources to keep fighting this fight and getting burned. I grew up in rural homes; it’s a factor in my comfort in this setting. My home is my sanctuary. I’ll be glad to make it a modest home, but I need a guarantee it’ll be respected.
From my experience, I’ve concluded that smart, sustainable communities need a majority buy-in. That doesn’t have to be 50%: It needs to outweigh the factions that just don’t care, or those that are shining examples of conspicuous consumption. I’ve also concluded that in trying to cultivate high-density urban spaces, noise pollution must be taken as seriously as carbon pollution. Unfortunately, where I am, neither seems to be taken very seriously at all. And I can’t afford property in communities where it is taken seriously.
From the current issue of Metropolis:
From Inhabitat: Top 5 Tiniest Prefab Homes. Any contenders for a New England getaway cottage?
http://www.inhabitat.com/2007/06/22/top-5-tiniest-tiny-houses/
From No Impact Man: Thoughts on living and working for real progress and sustainability:
http://noimpactman.typepad.com/blog/2007/06/can-capitalism-.html
A really thought-provoking piece, especially considering that sustainability often means living in denser communities: How children lost the right to roam in four generations.
The current issue of Dwell features a shack-inspired modern retreat in Sharon, CT, designed by its architect resident who rents in NYC during the week.
Also in the issue, a teacher from Charlottesville, Virginia writes in to share her story of an affordable modern home, the Shelley Shack at www.strataprojects.com.