Since world war II, housing developers have been ever increasingly popular. The houses themselves have improved slightly since then but they still are unsustainable. Most developers use low grade construction methods and materials to create houses which bring in the highest revenue as possible. These housing ethics are responsible for; 39% of the total energy use, 12% of the total water consumption, 68% of the total electricity consumption, and 38% of the total carbon dioxide emission. A large reason for the public not wanting sustainable housing is that they are uneducated about the advantages. By creating a community center within the context of a development or several developments, one could use it to educate the public about advantages of sustainability. This would be more successful than a prototype house because a community center has a constant flow of a wide range of people within the community. By educating the public and helping them make the move to a sustainable future, the advantages could be; 20% annual savings in energy costs, 20% reduction in water costs, 38% reduction in waste water production, and 22% reduction in construction waste.
I. Introduction
___A. Development of land is inevitable with the growing population and migration of people from the city to the suburbs
___B. Toll Brothers housing
______1. They Build houses which use low end materials and design and sell them at high end rates.
________a. Why do consumers buy these houses?
________b. Many of these houses begin to break down(Fall apart aesthetically and functionally) after about 5-10 years. Why?
______2. Construction methods
________a. Use bare minimum of materials
________b. Use most inefficient heating and cooling systems
II. Program: Community center
___A. Active Facilities
______1. Nursery/ Daycare
______2. Small gym
______3. Education rooms/sleeping rooms
___B. Day Camp
______1. Large gym
______2. Class rooms
______3. Outdoor recreation
___C. Small shops/stores (coffee, food, books) with access to a gallery
______1. Coffee and food shops could bring in commuters passing by
______2. Bookstore could sell books on sustainability
___D. Community outreach facilities
______1. Educational facilities
________a. Classrooms which teach community about sustainability
________b. Lectures on Sustainability
________c. Large auditorium/ gym (maybe flexible spaces)
______2. Small group programs: AA, community outreach programs, etc.
________a. Small rooms for meeting spaces
______3. Recreational Facilities
________a. Walking path to connect with development
________b. Indoor and outdoor sporting facilities
______4. Active community spaces
________a. Large indoor areas for rent
___________1. Reception space
___________2. Personal parties
III. Conclusion
___A. By using a combination of traditional strategies of sustainability and the latest advances in technology in a community building, it may demonstrate to the public the successfulness and advantages of sustainable living.
___B. Educating the public through seminars, lectures and optional classes to explain the disadvantages of traditional American houses and the savings available with sustainable living.
___C. Have workshops and classes on showing the public methods and technologies available to convert their existing house of building new houses to become sustainable.
1 comment:
Fine, making progress, Jesse.
The program is going together in a fairly elaborate fashion- a community center, one that ought to be able to be precisely justified in that you want to knowingly bring together various user groups to educate them (both directly thru the exhibits and displays and classroom events scheduled to teach your sustainabillity issues, but also more surreptitiously in that they will be going about their other community-based activities in spaces optimally designed- hopefully they will come to appreciate that and know that they can live similarly at home. That is the motivator behind a carefully balanced program. Lisa still makes an excellent point of: why no brownfield site? This fact, in itself, would bring the curious to be even more amazed and impressed...and your building would be more honestly living its philosophy rather than just spouting it from yet another ploughed up lawn. Can't quite get around that. The Toll Brothers critique is good, but then again, it leaves you with a lot of written policies about materials, detailing, and longetivity to document, but I am not sure this will have much design value for the purposes of thesis. Aside from Wells, are there any other truly excellent positive case studies of community centers, or well designed model houses that you can examine and critique? Still trying to make sure that your ideas have sufficient meat-on-their-bones to "sustain" your design efforts thru 5 months in the spring. jp
Post a Comment