Sorry it's been a while since my last post - it's been the first week of teaching so I've been busy, and besides that... I've fallen in love.

Peter Santos from ps bikes has given us a one week trial on one of his Christiania bikes from Denmark. And we all love it.

Does this mean we can get rid of one of our cars? We have a work vehicle, and a family car; the bike is capacious, but it's not quite going to replace the ute... perhaps the family car?

Hmmm...

We were looking at buying one of those sexy new Fiat Puntos, but the advantage of this is that I'll get exercise as well! Goodbye baby curves! But of course; they're not cheap, in fact I reckon it's worth more than the car we have now.

It comes with a little rain cover and a shade cloth. Have ridden baby and her Dad around in it. Hilarious, but effective. Anyway - if you want to find out more, here is the Christiania site, and p s bikes in Melbourne. The photo albums on each site are fantastic.

So we have a great little neighbourhood – in some ways it’s like something out of a New Urbanism lifestyle brochure: Two good pubs (one good, the other great – I’ll let you decide which way the dice fall), a odd little café that sells kitchenware & sharpens your knives, and from which I’m am drinking a very decent takeaway café latte as I write this. And a corner store which seems to always be open and sells the staples plus a random assortment of items including fresh(ish) veg and baking powder, toothpaste and cat food.
We have interesting and active footpaths; there’s always someone walking along the street, and as a result the streets & and our houses feel safe. There's a little pocket park with play equipment a block away, across the road from a childcare centre.

It's a pretty typical Melbourne inner urban suburb. It's not green suburbia, and it's not the inner city; it's a fairly densely built combination of terraces, flats, older warehouse buildings with the occasional freestanding house.

It's already doing comparitively well in terms of sustainability: there are no McMansions, few driveways for people to water, and hardly any lawn. According to 2006 Australian Census Data, there's 1.1 person per bedroom and I calculate that the density is about 50 people per hectare. Ok, so that is only about 10% of the density of the centre of Paris - so it's no metropolis, but it's not sprawling suburbia either.
This part of Collingwood is well provided for in terms of public transport, and judging from the cars left parked on the street, and ABS, only about 40-50% travel to work by car. Most people on public transport probably don't use the train - but catch the bus on Johnston or the tram on Smith.

It's about a 10 minute walk to the shops and the supermarket on Smith Street, 10 minutes to a decent sized park, and about 20-30 minutes to the city on public transport in peak hour (door-to-door), and maybe about 15-20 minutes on a bike.

About 320-350 people live 'the block' (if you include the area from Mater to Alexander Pde) most of us are Australian citizens and speak English at home. The most common languages apart from English spoken at home are Greek, Vietnamese, Cantonese, Mandarin and Macedonian. About 10 residents are aboriginal or Torres Strait islanders, and 90 are born overseas (a pretty even mix of people from Viet Nam, New Zealand, China, England, Greece).

There are about 20 kids under 12 living in the neighbourhood, 60 or so teenagers or young adults, 25 families with children and about 24 retirees.

About half of us have university qualifications, 20% are high income ($2500 or more a week), about 15% are low income (less than $500 a week) and general we earn about $650 a week each, and $1500 per family - which is more than the average Australian, but I imagine pretty typical for the inner northern suburbs.

(click on images for larger view)

Public Transport & Traffic & Pedestrian Movement








Landmarks & Amenities:








Planning info:

I was reading Dave Pollards addictive blog "How to Change the World" again just now, and he writes; "We don't need 'leadership' or 'leaders'. What we need is experimenters".

I think what he suggests makes sense - a leader is supposed to know the answers, they're expected to be wiser and more experienced than the rest of us - whereas an experimenter doesn't need to know anything, an experimenter can be anyone, an experimenter can focus on questions; and it's only by asking questions that we can grow, and that we can achieve real change.

As Bruce Mau exhorts in "An Incomplete Manifesto for Growth":

• collaborators: they don't do anything alone
• facilitators and coaches: they help others to learn and discover how to do things better
• demonstrators: more than just communicators, they show how it works and what it means
• ideators: they imagine what's possible, and tell stories to bring those ideas to life
• innovators: they take those good ideas and realize them, make them real
• researchers: they study what's been done, in nature, by other cultures and communities, and what's needed, and spread that knowledge
• connectors: they bring people together who were meant to work together
• model-builders: they design and build something that can be understood, replicated and adapted by others
• founders: they start new things -- enterprises, communities, different ways to do important things; they build something new rather than criticizing what exists

As I write this I am sitting alone at my desk in my studio. This is not ideal! The work I’m doing in this blog is still useful; as a case study – and as a way of answering my four research questions, but really these objectives should be generated by discussions between a group of people.

At the very least by a group of professionals (urban designers, architects, planners, ecologists, environmental scientists and engineers) but ideally the work should be done by a group of residents, workers and other stakeholders.

Seeing as though it’s only me, we can’t go through the process of workshopping these ideas; we can’t argue and discuss their merits and then reach an agreement together. So instead I will post some interim ‘Urban Design Objectives’ – to operate in lieu of a ‘Neighbourhood Vision Statement’

A Neighbourhood Vision Statement could be generated from discussing the following questions:

1. Where are we now? (the current situations, issues & values, background and features of the neighbourhood)

2. Where are we going? (What the neighbourhood might look like in the future if we follow the current course)

3. Where do we want to be? (Develop a preferred scenario, what Chiras et al call a “realistic-idealistic” picture)

4. How do we get there? Neighbours formulate an Action Plan, delegate responsibilities, and agree on timetables for action and ‘benchmarks’ for progress.

...

Ok, so - the realistic/idealistic picture in question 3 forms the basis of the Neighbourhood Vision Statement, and is what I am attempting to create now in this post.

(for more information about this process, have a look at Chapter 3 of “Superbia!: 31 ways to create sustainable neighborhoods”)

I’ve divided the following Urban Design guidelines into 10 categories based on those of the Guiding Principles of One Planet Living.

1. Zero Carbon
Our climate is changing because of human-induced build up of CO2 in the atmosphere

• Reduce the block’s carbon emissions to zero by 2020;
• Maximise the block’s ability to generate its own power;
• Minimise the energy needs of each dwelling, and of the neighbourhood in general;
• Maximise use of passive heating and systems;
• Seek relationships with individuals, communities and service providers which extend and strengthen practices of ecologically sustainable design, construction and behaviours;
• Ensure all sustainable interventions are designed and maintained so that they function as intended and within budget;
• Ensure ongoing ESD information, education and support is available for new and existing residents;
• Maximise the ability for both the local and global community to access to the knowledge and experience of the blocks residents, and also to the successes and failures of the project; &
• Examine & modify unsustainable lifestyles, consumption and behaviours.

• Reduce waste to zero by 2020;
• Maximise waste treated on-site;
• Allow adequate space to store and facilitate waste recycling;
• Reuse existing facades and structures when building new buildings or renovating; &
• Select recycled materials, or materials which can be reused or which reduce waste.

• Increase access to and use of public transport;
• Increase use of bicycles & walking (& other sustainable transport);
• Minimise private car ownership and use;
• Provide pleasant and convenient movement, seating and bicycle parking/storage for cyclists and pedestrians; &
• Increase density where possible without destruction of the existing urban and community fabric, in order to reduce ‘urban sprawl’ and maximise use of sustainable transport.

• Maximise use of existing built form;
• Use recycled low VOC materials, and avoid materials which have a negative impact on air quality or emit chemicals and pollutants harmful to people or the ecosystem. Consider the whole lifecycle of the material and toxic affects during manufacture, during construction, during the materials intended use and maintenance, and during disposal or recycling;
• Maximise use of recycled, locally produced and sustainable materials; &
• Design and build to minimise the use of chemical cleaning agents and to discourage mould growth.

• Encourage consumption of locally produced and sustainable food; &
• Ensure a range of fresh locally produced food is available within a 5 minute walk.

• Reduce the blocks use of ‘mains water’ to zero by 2020;
• Consider ways in which the block may become a net producer of potable water;
• Minimise rainwater & pollution runoff into stormwater;
• Retrofit houses to maximise water efficiency;
• Modify behaviour to reduce water usage; &
• Reduce the water consumption of gardens and outdoor areas.

• Maximise the quality of the habitat provided for indigenous flora and fauna;
• Maximise areas of soft landscaping, including on top of buildings and on balconies;
• Maximise indigenous planting;
• Minimise light pollution;
• Maximise areas of permeable paving, and reduce overall area of impermeable surfaces to reduce runoff and pollution in waterways; &
• Capture run-off on-site before it enters storm water system.

• Increase number & richness of relationships between neighbours;
• Maximise opportunities for neighbours to meet and talk;
• Protect/change and enrich local identity and character; &
• Create opportunities for residents to volunteer their time, and to work for the benefit of the community.

• Increase awareness of the relationship between our consumption and economic status & lifestyle of the people who produce the goods in the developing world;
• Retain and circulate money within local economies; &
• Maximise prevalence and stability of small businesses within the neighbourhood.

• Create situations which encourage people to question their assumptions of what makes them happy, and what makes a ‘good neighbourhood’;
• Create opportunities for residents to meet the needs for live, work and play within the community, and without the ‘schism’ created by long commutes;
• Improve the qualities of social relationships and mutual support;
• Embody processes of localised, democratic participation in community life;
• Provide safe places for children to play in public space; &
• Increase size or value of public & communal space.

1. What does a sustainable neighbourhood look like?
2. How does a sustainable neighbourhood work?
3. What are the basic design features of a sustainable neighbourhood?
4. How can we move towards sustainable neighbourhoods from where we are now?

to borrow a turn of phrase & proposal structure used so well by Matt Fisher in his proposal for a publication dealing with Sustainable Cities, 2005.

Why a single block? It seems to make sense to operate on this scale. It’s small enough so that people can initiate change locally; outside centralised institutions, but large enough to be able to consider bolder interventions like back water mining or changes to the streetscape.

If you were to imagine a descending scale in which you might consider the application of ecologically sustainable design – starting at the ‘big end’ it probably would read something like this: The planet: the pacific region: the state: the catchment area: the region: local council area; my neighbourhood; me.

Everything higher than my neighbourhood feels like it’s totally out of my hands. Is probably not really, but that’s certainly how it feels – so that brings me back to me, and to my neighbourhood.

I read somewhere recently that anyone can imagine a utopia the secret is to imagine a something that’s do-able. I suspect that’s not entirely true either (the bit about anyone being able to imagine a utopia, I can think of a couple of people at least who would have trouble imagining a Bombe Alaska if they hadn’t seen one lately), but I do think it’s important for me to restrict this project to existing technologies, and proposals that are likely to be approved within existing planning processes and legislation (unless the game is worth the candle, and seems important to challenge existing legislative structures).

In Dan Chiras and Dave Wann’s book ‘Superbia!’ they say that cohousing research indicates...


that 25 – 40 households is an optimum number for running collaborative projects. Any more and it gets too difficult to communicate and to share facilities – and basically, I guess, it’s just too hard to get to know each other well. I imagine that any less than 25 would make it difficult to have the numbers to reach a critical mass, in terms of raising capital or organising ‘work parties’ etc. If I want to follow those recommendations the neighbourhood block I defined in the first post is much too large – roughly 137 households (not sure how many are in each block of flats).

Hmm, what to do? I could just redefine the ‘neighbourhood’ to a block of around 40, but then it’s starting to get too small to consider making changes to stormwater or streetscapes. Perhaps what I can do is divide my neighbourhood into four proposed ‘Neighbourhood Communites’ – each with about 30-35 households…

Ok that doesn’t work when you actually draw it up, not if I stick to including the streets in the divisions (to reflect the existing relationship patterns I have with my neighbours). Dividing into 3 makes the groups too large.

(click on image to see it larger)

If I make the overall neighbourhood block smaller by leaving off the houses on the other side of Wellington, that makes sense, because Wellington St has a lot more traffic, and acts as a barrier to relationships (people living opposite each other on Wellington would be unlikely to know each other, whereas I do know the people who live across the road on Hotham St). See diagram from Superbia! (pg.24) by David Engwicht – the traffic & community guru (click on image to see it larger).


Then the new Neighbourhood Block and smaller Neighbourhood Communites would look like this:

(click on image to see it larger)

Of course I’m doing this now so that I can go ahead and design a practical/theoretical case study. In fact the best way for these divisions to be decided would be by my neighbours – and then the divisions would reflect actual relationships as well as practical & spatial considerations.

The other reason why it makes sense to work on the level of a ‘block’ is that the neighbourhood block is, if you like, the basic building block of the city. So if we can make one block ecologically sustainable, then in theory at least, we should be able to apply the same changes right across Melbourne (and elsewhere).

Well… fingers crossed.

"If you must tell me your opinions, tell me what you believe in. I have plenty of doubts of my own." Goethe (from Dave Pollard's fascinating & ecelectic blog)

Now that is depressing... (thanks for the link Dave)

Superbia: 31 Ways to Create Sustainable Neighborhoods
by Daniel D. Chiras & David Wann

Superbia! is a book of practical ideas for creating more socially, economically, and environmentally sustainable neighborhoods. It is about remaking suburban and urban neighborhoods to serve people better and to reduce human impact on the environment.

http://www.amazon.com/Superbia-Ways-Create-Sustainable-Neighborhoods/dp/0865714908/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202089028&sr=8-1

Recently I decided to follow the instruction "Think Global and Act Local", and to that end I have started to try and change my buying behavior (local produce, buy less, buy services instead of things), and my living style (shorter showers, recycling, drink tap water instead of bottled etc) and also started to think about what we could do to our (rented) house to reduce our energy and water usage.

I'm an Urban Designer, so when I think about our house, I naturally begin to think about the relationship with the other things around it - the street outside, the laneway behind, the stormwater system, the street trees, the local park & my neighbours houses.

From both and ecological and urban design perspective - it makes sense to think this way. Because cities and ecologies are both systems, and when you're dealing with systems it doesn't help you much to focus solely on one element within the system, what is important in the relationships between the elements.

So thinking about it that way - my house is literally connected to a series of systems; the road network, power, gas and electricity systems, stormwater and drainage systems. My neighbours and I share the problems of pollutants from the two major roadways nearby, our cars spend most of the day and night beside each other on the street, our oranges and teabags probably travel half way around the world on the same shipping container, get loaded onto the same truck and delivered in the same box to our local supermarket.

We are also connected in less physical ways; by council and community infrastructure, by cultural events and attitudes, and by personal relationships (my family have only been living here for a few months, but Jo and Joanne; the couple that own this house have lived here for 16 years, and they have strong relationships with dozens of households in this neighbourhood).

It makes sense then to expand my thinking past the boundaries of my own house in order to think effectively about achieving a higher level of sustainability. At the same time it seems to me that the best way to achieve change is not to worry about what everyone else is doing and "heal thyself" - because, lets face it, that is hard enough. And in fact, it's only ever by changing yourself, that you can ever change or affect anything else.

Ok, so that leaves me stuck between a rock and a hard place really...

Perhaps the solution is to try and find a middle ground between trying to deal with a whole system or large scale series of interrelated systems and thinking about only me and my house. The secret is to identify a mini-system which is manageable in some sense - that I can get my head around, and maybe hope to affect in some way.

I'm going to define 'a block', which I'll think of as my neighbourhood. Of course I'm not trying to over simplify, I know that these systems and relationships can't be diced up into neat units like that, but I think even Christopher Alexander would approve of finding a focus area, or a defining a 'problem'.

I'll define two areas on two separate scales - a 400m five minute walk radius (so loved by New Urbanists) and a 100m radius centred around my house. I'll draw the boundaries in the middle of the housing blocks rather than in the middle of the road - because I want to cater for the fact that over the parked car relationships are more common in my neighbourhood that over the back fence (or back lane) relationships.

Ok, so here below is my subject area - my neighbourhood, my little part of Collingwood - including Hotham, Gold, Charlotte and Wellington Streets. And my project is to try and design a series of interventions which can be taken up by residents or retrofitted to make this one block ecologically sustainable.

In the next post I'll define some clearer & more detailed objectives. And also take a closer look at my neighbourhood - and maybe do a kind of site or context analysis.

This blog is an attempt to work out how my neighbourhood in Collingwood Melbourne could become sustainable. Here are the key posts - tracking the project from the first couple of posts where I try to work out what I'm interested in doing, and define the 'scope' of my research - through the process of defining 'my neighbourhood' - to researching and designing possible sustainable interventions:

Key posts in chronological order:

• The first post - what this blog is about & why I'm doing it
• 4 key questions that this project & this blog should address
• Where do we want to be in the future? (Urban Design Objectives)
• About our neighbourhood: Site Analysis & general info
• Some Urban Design theory: Getting sizes and shapes right
• The bigger picture: Defining a 'Local Transport Area'
• Learning from Sophocles: Community of 7000
• How big is "my neighbourhood"?
• A Design for a Networks City
• 'My Neighbourhood' as part of a larger Networks City
• How to design: Crash together 'Little Utopias'
• Bike infrastructure (Woonerf & bike paths)
• A community energy plant? (Solar)
• Earth Cooling & Ground source heat pumps
• Indigenous, deciduous or edible: Which is greener?
• Turn a street into a park?
• Alexander's ideas about cities, people, trees & water
• Higher Density = More Sustainable
• More about density and where to locate it
  
• Poo Power: Community blackwater treatment plant
• A community worm farm?
• A 'Road Energy System": asphalt as solar collector
• A possible future: Before & After in 3D
• A community wind farm?
• Rainwater harvesting
• Stormwater harvesting
• One house or a hundred houses?