How sustainable should the communities we design be built? Personally, I oscillate between new urbanist and ecovillage philosophies depending on the mood of the day.
If one is optimistic, then new urbanist solutions are optimal designs for a consumption based economy we have had in the past and will continue to have. We will be able to get a hold of, and self regulate the amount of consumption our society demands. We will eventually reach carrying capacity (if we haven't already), realize what we need to do to survive, and execute a proper plan. In this scenario, I see providing communities that are only say 50% or 75% "sustainable" as a huge optimistic leap forward. New urbanism is applicable to the masses, and if nationwide we reduced our ecological footprint by 50% while encouraging a healthy society at the same time then it may work. Life as we know it would not be that drastically different a hundred years from now as it is today.
If one is pessimistic, then new urbanist solutions are futile and too reliant on an outside and far reaching economy to survive. War, peak oil, nuclear and societal meltdowns are causing fear to permeate throughout our society. The pessimist has lost hope in the far reaching network to provide essential needs to survive and decides to get extremely local. The pessimist retreats from the urban core to find refuge in wilderness. They look toward nature to provide for food, water, and shelter. The ecovillager trades all the good that urbansim can provide for securtiy, sustainablity, and sustenance.
So is it sunny or raining? Maybe the answer is both, (think rainbows). I find myself wanting both. I want an urban live/work unit, and I also want a rural homestead. What do you want? What do you think? Do we do a disservice as professionals by not designing for a limited few at 100% sustainable (whatever that may be), or should we attempt to get as many people as possible to live at a lesser degree of sustainability?
No comments:
Post a Comment