We freely admit it. We’re proponents of urban design and living. We’ve been gluttons not only with interior space but also exterior. It’s not the quantity of space that matters - it’s the quality.
Getting away from people can be done as effectively within a home as it can from moving to the middle of nowhere. And it impacts far less of the planet. Who hasn’t lost track of time reading, surfing, tinkering, or watching a movie in that “cave room” in their house? (That rarely used guest room can be turned into a library, movie, or a meditation room.) Bottom line? There’s less space in the city, but designed well, gives us everything we need on a daily level. Without paving it all and disrupting natural systems for building new infrastructures to support the invading humans.
Effective, smart urban in-fill is about as green as we can be. It will take all of us to do it:
us, to haul our butts out to vote for people who share that mindset, and
leaders who can drive that mindset to tangible results like mass transit and better planning that allows for the coexistence of elements of suburbia and city life.
As far as #2 goes, Mary-Ann Baldwin holds positive views of urban in-fill and smart city planning. She’s got our vote for City Council.
It’s ironic that voting is perceived as an irrelevant action; on a national level there may be some truth to that. On a local level, however, we probably have much more influence than we know, and yet voter turnout is 11%. We’ll be filling out our ballots on October 9. We might even wear green. Will you?
About 5 or 6 years ago I stumbled across Theo’s work online. There’s a lot of math & science behind his work. Wikipedia entry. Glad to see him getting more exposure.
How “Green” is usually defined: Recycling. Cradle-to-cradle. Carbon footprint. Eating locally. Low VOC’s. Biodegradable. Telecommuting. Space. Space?
Yep, space. Not outer space. Living/working/playing space.
We’ve been gluttonous space hogs with home design, especially. We don’t need 2k, 4k or more SF for a livable home. My partner and I are getting ready to downsize from 1500SF to just under 1k. We sold our living room furniture to see if we could do without. Turns out, we never use the living room anyway. That space, along with the wasted circulation space easily added up to 500SF. So we decided to go for it.
In the process, we’re decluttering. All that stuff in the closets? If it’s not sentimental and we don’t use it, out it goes. Bigger homes mean room for more accumulated stuff. More accumulated stuff means more to move next time. Or more to have to find a new place for, be it donation or the landfill. The old 80/20 rule applies to stuff, too: we use 20% of our stuff 80% of the time. Guess what’s in the closets? The other 80% of our stuff.
It’s possible to live in under 300SF for a week or more. That’s the average size for a hotel room. Hotel QT in the heart of NYC does it very well, and with style to boot. It works because it uses space well. There are shelves in high and low places. Anywhere a gap exists is potential for storage or mounting something out of the way. Like flat screen TV’s. Or art.
We don’t live in NYC. There’s plenty of space around here in central NC. So why downsize inside the city limits? Because it’s the green thing to do. It will be cheaper to condition, furnish and clean. It will keep us from collecting crap we don’t need or use. It’s part of a multi-floor building with a small footprint. It’s within walking distance of a grocery, a bus line, a library, and many restaurants. And ironically, it will leave more money in our pockets for when we do venture outside the city.
Stay tuned for Part II: container gardening, and nature within civilization.
We freely admit it. We’re proponents of urban design and living. We’ve been gluttons not only with interior space but also exterior. It’s not the quantity of space that matters - it’s the quality.