I've starting modeling the neighbourhood in 3D (using Sketchup and Google Earth - both free and easy to use software) - here's a shot of our little piece of Collingwood, before, and after...

I've been considering the possibility of using energy from wind as part of our 'community power plant'. A lot of people don't like wind turbines, they object to the noise, the flickering and the visual impact issues.

I can't really speak about the first two objections, but personally I really like the way they look. We were driving home from coastal Gippsland the other day, and passed some turbines on the way - and they looked amazing - like elegant white kinetic sculptures.

Anyway, one of the reasons I drew up a 3D model was to get a clearer understanding of the possible impact of turbines if we used them in our neighbourhood. I really liked the idea of them being a kind a entry feature, and a public declaration of a green neighbourhood (because a lot of sustainable features are invisible). So I modeled up a whole line of them along Alexander Parade, with each turbine 26m tall (about a third of the height of the shot tower)


But it's a no-go I think. We could probably live with the noise, located as they are between six lanes of traffic - but the problem is the shadows they would cast on surrounding buildings and private space. Nobody wants a strobe affect all day long. Actually, the shadows would only be a problem in mid winter - but that's bad enough.

Assuming 26m tall is viable - we could locate one or more here on the expressway median, but it probably doesn't make sense for us to do that as part of our neighbourhood project. I imagine that it would also be a massive job to get anything like this past the road and traffic authority - who'd probably have concerns about cars hitting the turbines, or being distracted by them.

The system, part of the Road Energy Systems, consists of a layer of asphalt concrete containing a closed network of pipes that are connected to underground aquifers. In summer, the sun heats the asphalt concrete pavement, which in turn raises the temperature of the water in the pipes. The water is pumped to a natural aquifer 100 meters down where heat exchangers wait to transfer heat from the pipes to the groundwater. Here, the heated water is stored for several months.

In winter, water is again pumped through the heat exchangers, but this time to pick up heat stored during the summer. This warm water is sent first to Ooms’ buildings, where it’s used for heating, and, second, under the adjacent road where the residual heat helps keep the road surface free of snow and ice. The now-chilled water is then sent deep underground, in a separate pipe, to a second aquifer. Here, heat exchangers use the chilled water to cool waiting groundwater, which is stored until summer and used to cool the Ooms campus.

The result, Ooms says, is cheap heating in winter, cheap cooling in summer and CO₂ emissions 50% lower than conventional heating systems.

• If we increase tree planting along the roads they may not capture enough sun (maybe Alexander Parade would?)
• The technology is new, has not been used in Australia (as far as I know), and there is no information about it's effectiveness in our context
• It relies on having an underground aquifer in the right location, although you could probably use insulated underground water tanks instead
• It would be quite expensive to install as a retrofit (certainly too expensive without reliable figures about cost & energy savings), although it would be worthwhile considering in new developments, or if major roadworks are being undertaken anyway.
  

The best solution for compost is individual worm farms in peoples back yards, but a lot of people in our nieghbourhood either have back yards about the size of the average handkerchief, or none at all.

The blackwater treatment plant discussed in the last post can process most garden waste and the compostable food waste from our kitchens. In earlier plans I'd drawn up a series of collection points around the nieghbourhood, but I think the best solution is a probably 3rd bin - we already have rubbish, and recycling, we could add a composting bin.

Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council offer their residents a 'brown bin' for their garden waste, which is taken to a local farm, shredded, composted and used on site.

Unlike C&N Borough Council, we wouldn't have to worry about pollution caused by trucks picking up the waste, because it's all being treated in locally, the waste could be picked up and delivered monthly using the old shank pony. And if you filled it more quickly, you could run it down the street yourself.

Councillor J Hammond with brown bins

Ok, so I’ve put forward an argument for increasing density in our neighbourhood as an critical aspect of sustainability – although I’m sure many of my neighbours would beg to differ on that score. Which is understandable...

After all, increasing density is always going to be a hard sell if you happen to be the one living next door to a new multi-storey development, and you’ve just been told someone is going to build their balcony overlooking your bedroom window. I know I wouldn't like it. When it comes to helping the planet, most of us would much rather stick to recycling instead.

But even if we put the environmental concerns aside for the moment, the fact is that with rising land prices increasing density is inevitable in inner urban areas. So the problem becomes making sure we get the ‘right’ kind of density, in the ‘right’ place.

Where should we locate higher densities:
In the plan to the left (click to see larger) I’ve shown higher densities along the major roads (Wellington, Alexander and to a lessor extent Gold and Hotham). This doesn’t mean that I’m proposing that these areas should be exclusively high density, or that density should not be increased outside these areas. Rather, the areas indicated are those where we should encourage a concentration of higher density.

Why there?
The reasoning behind the location of density is a combination of New Urbanism and Christopher Alexander’s ideas.

We want to keep higher density housing on busy roads, and away from Charlotte Street, so that we can maintain the ‘quiet back’ of our nieghbourhood, which might include a peaceful common green area in the centre of our neighbourhood.

And we want to 'reward density with amenity' by locating higher densities adjacent to shops and café’s, workplaces and activity centres (see previous post).

More design notes:

• High density residential should be located where possible to reuse existing building envelopes, and adjacent to amenities.
• In order for residents to maintain a ‘relationship’ with the street, high density buildings should not be more than four stories in height (rare exceptions are fine).

More design notes:

• Small scale retail and office should share residential building envelopes.
• Children should be able to play in all minor streets (woonerf system), but a specific play area for young children & toddlers to be provided where indicated (yellow area). Play area should not be fenced off, or have a defined perimeter.

Which image shows the most sustainable lifestyle? A terrace house in Fitzroy? Or an 'earthship' in New Mexico?

That urban sprawl is not sustainable seems pretty self evident – the growing sprawl of suburbs and ever growing McMansions is chewing through natural resources. In outer Melbourne, green field development is eating into remnant grass lands and red gum stands. Heating & cooling those big houses with their multiple bathrooms and lack of eaves is a problem, as is the fuelling the ever growing daily commute, as well as catering for the increasing congestion in the city.

And there’s not much in the way of alternative transport for these people because of there are so few residents over a large area, it’s difficult for outer suburban areas to support effective public transport networks.

And sprawling suburbs, bereft as they are of their own town centres, except the ubiquitous shopping malls, tend to lack community, lack identity, lack a ‘sense of place’.

So, if the endless sprawling of our cities is a social and environmental problem, then there is only one solution: higher density housing.

I think it’s funny that people who are otherwise into sustainability are always quick to have a go at “greedy developers” building apartment buildings, or townhouses in their neighbourhood. The developers who are building higher density housing may well be greedy, but they’re also helping the planet.

Perhaps it’s a NIMBY thing (not-in-my-backyard), or maybe it’s an understandable concern about an erosion, or change in neighbourhood character. And of course, there are problems attached increasing densities including increase pressure on infrastructure, noise and privacy concerns, and impact the solar access of homes surrounding new developments.

Of course there are good things about increasing density too. Neighbourhoods with higher densities can support higher levels of infrastructure, which means more choice: more schools, more doctors, more public transport, more shops (especially more specialty shops) and more cafes with decent coffee.

More units and apartments mean more mixed communities – more old people, more students and lower income residents, which is good for social diversity.

A lot of people seem to have an idea about sustainable living that it’s something like this self declared sustainable community in New Mexico. That is, being truly sustainable requires leaving the city and setting up a self-sufficient house somewhere in the desert or the bush.

The idea of turning Charlotte Street into a green (or a woonerf green) is a response from a series of Christopher Alexander's ideas. Ideas which I think are so compelling that I’m going to summarise them here – (for more information follow the links).

Excuse the male pronoun – the book was written in the 70’s, his ideas might not date, but modes of expression do.

Pattern 59: Quiet Backs
People in busy environments “needs to be able to pause and refresh himself with quiet in a more natural situation".

So we should “give the buildings in the busy parts of town a quiet "back" behind them and away from the noise. Build a walk along this quiet back, and connect it up with other walks, to form a long ribbon of quiet alleyways which converge on the local pools and streams and the local greens”.

Pattern 64: Pools and Streams