If we owned the block

If you had the opportunity to redevelop your entire block (or maybe just start with a group of say, 6 adjacent properties), what would you differently? Around here, I’ve got a few thoughts on what could be possible:

• We could increase density by building smaller homes and multi-storey (low-rise) buildings.

• We could layout the buildings so that there was minimal shading.

• We could drop a ground-source heat pump that fed all the properties.

• We could have vegetable gardens located at premium positions.

• We could have warm, dry, healthier homes.

• We could have a range of homes so that a range of people could live there, and so people wouldn’t have to move elsewhere as life circumstances changed.

• We’d have waaaay less fences.

• We’d probably have some shared facilities, like a workshop, children’s playground and possibly vehicles and or garage/storage space.

• We could a central battery bank and solar panels on all the buildings to collect and share electricity, and group-buy power from the main grid.

Of course, all of this shared stuff is pretty challenging if you’re working on the assumption that we all “own our own home” in the traditional sense. But there is some form of common ownership (or non-ownership), creating some shared commons is not only easier, it becomes a natural extension of the advantage of (all) owning the block.

Initial Inertia

Once something is moving, it’s hard to stop. And the heavier or faster it is, the harder it is to stop.

That’s called inertia.

If all you have is a very small force, and you want to radically change the direction of something with lots of inertia, you have essentially two options:

1. Push directly against the object you want to change. It will keep heading in the same direction but will immediately begin to slow down and eventually it will stop, before starting to (very slowly) move in the opposite direction. Keep pushing, and it’ll eventually be moving in the opposite direction at the same speed it started at.

2. Push at 90 degrees to the object you want to change. It won’t slow down, but it will immediately change direction. If you keep readjusting where you are pushing (so that you’re always pushing at 90 degrees), eventually it’ll be heading in the opposite direction.

Which option you choose, depends a lot on the object you’re pushing against (i.e. will it change in size as it moves/changes direction, making it easier or harder to move) and the environment around you (i.e. if it’s rolling down a hill there’s forces pushing it along, and you might not be able to slow it to a stop at all). Here’s some questions to ask:

1. How will this object respond to me pushing it?

2. Is it important to maintain speed?

3. What else is pushing this object?

4. Can I make it smaller?

5. Can I get stronger?

6. Will changing the direction of travel increase of decrease my ability to apply force?

In the context of property development, slowing down the construction industry to a halt before starting to move in a new direction is a horrendous future to contemplate. A far preferable process is to start moving, and work on increasing the force that you can apply as the direction changes.

*apologies for this post being extremely abstract, it makes sense in my head.

Translating across contexts

Good housing is getting some recognition.

Our local context isn’t the same as major urban centres. We’ve got a few more earthquakes. A community unaccustomed to apartment living. A relatively small population. A rebuilt-and-rebuilding central city. And really expensive construction costs.

That is, if you want to live in a house you would want your grandchildren to live in, rather than something you home someone else will want to live in. And pay more than you did for it.

What does ethical, grounded, alternative property development look like outside of a major urban city? I suspect it’ll be the same, but different. Most likely more of the key ingredients.

Collaboration.

Transparency.

Values-led.

Holistic.

Design delivers purpose, for good or otherwise

I'm a fan of good design. Of all kinds.

Interior design. Landscape design. Urban design. Architecture. Graphic design.

Design is creation with intent and purpose.

What is created embodies the purpose of the designer, and effects the environment around it accordingly.

Where we live affects how we live.

• If we have a six foot fence, we're less likely to get to know our neighbours. Because we're less likely to see them.
• If we have a 300 square meter house, we're more likely to buy more stuff. Because we have the space.
• If we have a double garage, we're more likely to have two cars. And probably even more likely to keep more junk.
• If we live close to work, we're more likely to walk or bike.

And we haven't even thought about how the inside of our house is designed and laid out, and how that affects the way we live together.

Design matters. Because it changes us.

What is the purpose behind your house?

Most of the houses being built seem to be built to-spec, not built for people. The purpose lies somewhere between making money for the developer, and looking appealing to the market, which really means the same thing.

The purpose isn't to build a home that is good for the people who will live there. It's to build a home that looks like what people want, so we can sell it at a good price.

Build a Good Home vs Get a Good Price

While we might strive for both, I suspect the latter is the priority for most people in the business of designing our new subdivisions.

Suburban Redevelopment

Pick up a property. Demolish the building. Rebuild what was there, but better, and make more spaces for more people.

A crucial piece of the puzzle of trying to transform a neighbourhood, is how to get hold of the land in the first place. The Nightingale 3 project in Melbourne took the above approach, you can read about it here.

But how about suburbia? We don't have the option of taking a single-storey building and adding space by building up, but could we take a similar approach? Could we find four connected titles, demolish, and rebuild with eight households?

It could be possible if we used the following principles:

More shared spaces: Shared laundries, storage, workshops, maybe even ditch the cars and use a fleet of electric vehicles.

Smaller spaces: Design for what we really need, learn to live with less, and just generally do bette design.

Common ownership: Whether it is a body corporate, a company structure or some other legal delight, sharing more requires a shift from a 'my house, my castle' property mentality.

Energy efficiency: Environmental considerations aside, this is a smart financial move. Keeping running costs low not only makes a higher build cost/mortgage affordable, it provides longer-term financial security by making living costs less tied to market variations in energy costs.

Around here, a typical section could be around 600 sqm. Four sections would give us 2400 sqm to play with.

I'm sure an architect could come up with an 8-household development using the principles above on 2400 sqm, even if we're limited to two storeys.