Rather than taking the traditional, additive approach to solving problems, the Entrepreneurbia model simply abolishes poorly conceived zoning laws to attract forward-thinking small business owners and start-up companies. The result is a community of entrepreneurs who transform inefficient single-family dwellings and purely decorative landscape spaces into intelligent home-based businesses.
Rigid zoning laws have created many of the problems typically associated with suburban sprawl. Possibly the largest of these problems is the segregation of residential and commercial spaces. The problem is fairly straight forward. When people do not live, work, shop and eat within walking distance of where they live, extensive transportation infrastructure is needed to allow people to regularly travel greater distances.
In Entrepreneurbia, such problems do not exist. Entrepreneurbia abolishes poorly conceived zoning laws to attract forward-thinking small business owners and start-up companies. The result is a community of entrepreneurs who transform inefficient single-family dwellings and purely decorative landscape spaces into intelligent home-based businesses. From chic shops & showrooms to designer offices, award-winning restaurants, and even boutique farms the new residents of Entrepreneurbia infuse once sterile suburbs with a distinctive sense of character & community.
Eventually, individual Entrepreneurbia communities become self-sustaining as entrepreneurs open profitable businesses that satisfy the needs of the community. This eliminates the need for cars to complete necessary daily activities. Meanwhile, public transit routes are updated, allowing residents to conveniently & sustainably travel between the Entrepreneurbia communities and into the urban cores.
I am a big fan of this concept. I live on Balboa Island and love being able to walk to the boutiques to shop for clothes, walk to the market for groceries, walk to the ice cream stand for a treat, take a 5 minute ferry ride to the beach, walk to the local pub for a drink and some live music etc. It’s so fun to have this freedom, and I think where I live definitely has the “distinctive sense of character and community” that you mentioned which is part of why I love it here!!
When I lived in LA and thought of going somewhere, I always took into account traffic, parking and the hassle that would go along with getting to my destination. Often, I would just stay home because I didn’t feel like the hassle of the crowds and traffic was worth it. The entreprenuerbia concept is attractive to me because I wouldn’t have to worry about traffic or the headache of parking etc. I would prefer to live and work in a community that integrates space to live, work and play all within walking distance because in my experience, this simplifies life, saves time, eliminates the stress of sitting in traffic, and as you have pointed out, would eventually and ideally eliminate a dependence on cars for daily activity. Great job on this idea!
Beautiful! It may work, too, if there were pockets of a few businesses interspersed between the single-family homes instead of all together at one end. With a little ingenuity & creativity on the part of the entrepreneurs, this could could actually be a viable idea transforming the look, feel, and use of our suburbs. I love all the ideas for businesses! A great mix of needs being met close to home. Perhaps some small business incentive programs (in addition to the zoning changes) could help get the ball rolling.
Fantastic! What a great idea. Well thought out and I think very real world capable of being implemented.
After reviewing all of the proposals on this page, this is one of the only practical and cost-effective solutions I can see. It doesn’t require a massive, single investor, just individual entrepreneurs and businesses. How simple and effective!
What’s great, is the local culture that will be reflected in the type of businesses that pop up in the neighborhoods. That’s important to me and many communities.
I’m impressed. I can’t say enough about how practical it is and how well it would be accepted by communities across America. It isn’t super futuristic, conceptual or designer-liked only. It’s a very viable and ‘real’ solution.
Well done guys, where do I sign up?
One of the things I miss the most about living in a city, is being able to interact instantly with other members of the community, simply by walking up the block to any number of restaurants, shops etc… it seemed we had everything we needed within a block or two.
This concept seems to bring some of that feeling back… and would also help save the environment because people won’t have to use their cars as much!
Great job.
Little Italy of the new suburbia ! Zonning should be re-constructed! Much Tolerance and Europeisation of the masses is needed for this approach to become a working scheme.
An incomplete design solution, but at least it is coming from the right POV.
Isolated residential “pods” and cul-de-sac streets make terrible commercial locations for anything but home-based businesses. Consider addressing how these properties will relate to the arterial just outside the pod subdivision instead; and how to adapt the arterial in support of these commercial uses.
I think that this attacks the problem at it’s core (the problem of the commute), which is what is needed to actually solve the issue. If zoning really is the pressure that’s causing these “living homes only” impractical situations, it’d also allow the relaxing of that holding-back-factor of zoning to cause suburban areas to bloom into better, more useful spaces.
Not only beautiful, but implementable. This is a down to earth, possibility. I would think that residents of cul de sac type communities would welcome this sort of convenience for the community it can build as well as for the savings on gasoline.
Paul brings up an interesting point (directly before my post) but I think the types of businesses they put into these houses are perfect for a suburban location.
For example, my husband has a small design studio with a good mix of clients, some start-ups, some larger nationwide co’s and a fort 500 client. He hardly leaves his office except for meetings and clients don’t mind driving to his office either.
I think these houses would sell for cheap so the main cost would just be making them ready for business.
They could help bring up the real estate value of the neighborhood too with the added amenities and aesthetics. This would allow other families to finally refinance their homes and get a lower mortgage payment. That keeps more people in their homes!
I think I just convinced myself this is the most plausible solution, hehe.
keep up the good work!
One of the biggest problems in suburban, exurban, and rural planning is that the segregation of purpose – housing, shopping, commercial, industrial – results in communities where driving to any destination becomes mandatory. Coupled with a pathological abhorrence of public transportation, the result is increased energy consumption, lower air quality and an ever spiraling traffic congestion – road improvement cycle. Revisiting zoning regulations to allow reuse of vacated mcmansions for commercial / retail purposes would perhaps allow for increased neighborhood involvement and reduced traffic. The only proviso being that increased retail could create pockets of congestion in neighborhoods whose roads were not designed to handle heavier traffic and retail destination might encourage.
i really like the idea it would not take much remodeling to do that one thing nags at me oh. in all the night shots it seem to dark mainly i would worry about criminal element maybe add a couple sun powered night lights?
Wonderfully done, Bravo! This is the smartest solution I have seen!
I really like this idea, but the nightclub might be a bit much. One of the purposes of zoning laws is to separate people from the byproducts of business that they do not wish to encounter at home. In the case of this suburban community, a nightclub would bring loud music at late hours and drunks roaming the streets where families and their children live. On the other hand, the eateries and design offices would be welcome, I imagine, so long as the eateries are careful not to exude any unsavory or irksome smells.
As I said, this idea is my favorite for the reasons others have mentioned. These are just a couple of considerations.
Oh, and just popped into my head – How could zoning laws be redefined in “legalese” to specifically exclude businesses like fast-food restaurants or small production factories designed to scoop up the low-cost land in suburbia?
This is by far the most elegant and well-thought out entry in the competition. Ironically, Entrepreneurbia simply encourages today’s suburbs to adapt the tradditonal village lifestyle that the suburban goverments & developers have so desperately tried to artificially achieve! The difference is that modern suburbs are the result of one person/organization/government’s idea of the perfect solution at a given point in time.
Somewhere along the line “Urban Planners”, developers, and governments have convinced their “followers” to buy into their cookie-cutter solutions create the perfect “modern community”. Let people create environments that suit their lifestyles & aspirations and a variety of communities with distinctive charater will develop naturally! I truly hope that depressed suburbs see what an opportunity this is to attract new capital and increase property values for the current residents.
i LOVE LOVE this idea. the only thing i think is missing is the non-boutique type businesses.. small grocer, pharmacist, butcher/fishmonger, clothing/shoes, etc..
i also wish there was a train stop to connect your idea to the rest of the world.. replacing that stinky freeway!\
great work. youre definitely getting my vote
I like the overall property value point that Lydia and Levi brought up.
This project would increase house prices naturally and progressively as new businesses emerge. It doesn’t sound like an overnight boom and pop. It doesn’t dramatically reinvent social life or your own home. That can be done in unison with this as an overall move to things more sustainable.
I like that it’s not a ‘foreign’ concept, but it’s also sustainable. I could see this fitting right into our overall American culture and local cultures too.
The culture aspect is super important to me. I don’t want some mod-euro-futuristic colony off my front porch. I wouldn’t mind having a Brazilian restaurant down the street though and a mini farm that reflects the wants of our community! I love that part of it!
I love this project. It’s beautiful but more than that, it puts the power of renewal into the hands of the individual.
New zoning is the key to a new, creative lifestyle and a flurry of new economic energy.
This plan doesn’t rely on grand plans or superstructures. House by house, a new city will emerge.
How did we loose sight of our grandparent’s American dream? Live above the store!
This plan is provocatively simple yet it attacks the core problem in suburbia: zoning.
This is quite possibly the best idea I’ve ever seen! I believe everyone should feel like the Toast of the Town in their own town! Bravo!
Wonderful project, understandable and very well presented idea!
I see more than just thoughts and knowledge, but also heart and personal feelings put into this “basic” concept, based on the owners’ decision for the way how to use their lots.
I am only questioning the economic viability and if this really would people prevent coming to the restaurant on their own car, even if only two blocks away…
But anyway, you’ve got my vote!
Good idea to achieve individual community life and character; I agree with many of the comments above. Just be careful when re-zoning, not to allow various pollutants such as noise, chemicals, bad odors, and so on. Would love having a relaxed coffee house next door, would hate a loud bar, kids playground or fertilizer depot… as well as bright neon signs! Reclaim a warm small village atmosphere, avoid citylike loss of peace and privacy.
Yes
Zoning needs to change and should be as demonstrated here. Be careful, these “home / Business” concepts bring their sets of problems.
When you travel to poor nations, this is common because the cities have failed. lets make sure we considered what happens when work and live mix as demonstrated by other population areas; not all business’ succeed and those that do invite increased local congestion. A lounge on a neighborhood street would not be an acceptable zoning change and 20 of them within 1 mile of each other…well you get the idea
Jame’s comments pertainting to increased traffic, the fact that it would be “unacceptable” for a lounge in the neighborhood, and any other comments about “drunks stumbling through the neighborhood” are exactly the types of ignorant though processes that are responsible for these ridiculous zoning laws in the first place. The whole fear based, not in my backyard mentality, let me drive to that instead mentality is dangerous to longterm ideals of community and sustainability.
There are many communities all over the world with much narrower streets, less street parking, fewer traffic lights, lower crime rates, that have lounges, bars, and businesses intermingled throughout the community. Even in Southern California many suburbs have built new mixed use “village centers” where people live and work. Entrepreneurbia is simply saying that the current infrastructure and space needs only very modest changes to brings life, vibrancy and character into the suburbs. But, if you’d like more of the same, go ahead and vote for the “Repair Kit”
This is a very good idea, very Jane Jacobs-ish in the way it wants to amplify natural urban processes. But I think some re-planning would be needed to make it really work. First, you need to rework the street pattern.
In the aerial view above, for example, you might convert the highway/artery into an urban boulevard, with high-speed centre lanes and low-speed curb lanes lined with storefronts (on one side anyway). Then you’d punch through each side on the residential loop to the boulevard, creating a rough grid. This would encourage a pattern of intensive commercial (say, 3 or 4 story mixed use) along the boulevard, with less intensive (e.g., converting housing stock) on the side streets, forming a density gradient.
So basically . . . take suburban developments and make them more like cities.
This one is a good idea, probably the best of the group.
To address some of the problems brought up about limiting types/number of businesses – allow community units at the smallest level (street/block associations) to set zoning rules. this is similar to how community boards in cities can influence how many liquor serving establishments, etc, there are in a given neighborhood.
You can choose to live on quiet street, where no retail business after 5pm is allowed, or you can live on the block with all the bars.
We already have this. It is called Houston, Texas. Oddly enough, it is not the utopia everyone seems to imagine. For instance, picture a dense neighborhood, replete with boutique stores, and and little apartments, and houses, many of them lovingly restored bungalows, but, oh, some neat modern ones, too. Now a developer comes along, and right in the middle of all these neat little buildings, he wants to plunk a 23 story high rise condo project. Imagine the traffic. Imagine the amount of actual shade this building casts, and the breezes it blocks. Picture the runoff from such a big building, and this is the Bayou City, which is to say flooding is a problem here as it is. Google Ashby High Rise, and rejoice in Houston’s lack of zoning, which may well let this project go through.
A better solution is probably New Urbanism, which allows for the mix of residential and commercial units you describe while still allowing zoning so that (for instance) an industrial waste processor can’t set up shop in the middle of a bunch of houses.
To boil down DRK’s point above, Entrpreneurbia just needs to make sure to leave some zoning laws in place that do not allow industrially loud, tall etc. buildings and businesses into the burbs. That’s a valid point echoed by others in this mini forum.
The point doesn’t take away from Entreprenurbia, but it’s valuable insight.
I’ve been watching the comments with interest these past few days and am liking the feedback on this one more and more. I don’t hear praise for the designer/s (whoever they are) just the idea. That’s a good thing!
I really like J:Lai’s comment too at the end there.
I also agree with DRK’s comment about Houston’s lack of zoning. The residents should have the right to vote down things that are violating/destroying the communities that they would have worked so hard to create.
I think J:Lai hit the nail on the head with her solution. Entrepreneurbia said they would rezone and “abolish poorly concieved zoning laws” not eliminate all zoning. Leaving zoning up to individual streets/blocks where everyone votes on what they don’t want to go through for their own mirco-districts. This would keep it very personal and only contribute to creating distinct character the different communities. Localization is the key to sustainability as the Entrepreneurbia developers said in the first page of their presentation.
entreprenurbia uses what is valid about suburbs – access to streets, scale, flexibility for incorporating landscape – and mixes in innovative uses. lacks density needed to make the businesses viable however, so cars won’t disappear altogether. still, love the business concepts!
Seattle does this, not with SFRs, but with condos and apartment buildings, which is more suitable, IMHO. SFRs often want less traffic for both quiet living and child safety. I don’t think all SFR zones should be mixed use for this reason, but some such zones sound like a good idea. You see something similar currently, where one zone meets another.
nice idea, very naive viewpoint. seems like a great idea till you actually think about it for more than 5 seconds.
1. if the uses are actually those that would attract locals who would walk (grocery, pharmacy…) they will also bring almost-locals in cars causing major parking issues. if they are professionals (architects, therapists…) they won’t attract locals who would walk, so what’s the point?
2. how will a commercial enterprise with no exposure be successful. businesses located on the second floor of a mall are 4 times more likely to fail due to decreased exposure, and that is a place people come to circulate to shop. in a residential area on a cul-de-sac there is zero foot traffic and zero exposure.
3. where will all the cars to and from these businesses park and circulate since the infrastructure was designed for much smaller residential volumes?
RE-ZONING!!!!???? Thank God someone said it, zoning restrictions are the main roadblocks to 99% of all inovative developments. Can we get this project on TV or in the news asap?
Any project in this competition that focuses on individuals making the changes is a losing bet. All re-burbia projects must start with government changes, Long Live The Re-Zoning-Burbia Project!
this idea introduces some complications, and navigating the public consultation on which zoning laws should be retained or not would surely not be without bumps along the way, but it is a necessary first step.
i do wonder about the congestion that could be created by some of these businesses if they catch on with people beyond their immediate environs, but most of them seem relatively benign in this respect. i think most businesses will find ways of avoiding these problems all by themselves anyway.
This is an excellent idea for many reasons: It is simple and can be implemented immediately; it encourages street life and social interaction (community building); it counteracts the movement toward bigbox corporatism and encourages local economies; it could dramatically reduce travel (both of consumers and products); and it does not rely on technology.
I also agree with J:Lai’s comment about the need for more local decision making. We must empower people to take responsibility for the life of their community. However, this must be accompanied by a reintroduction of civics into the education system.
In response to Hans’ rather rude dismissal of this idea (as if the authors did not devote more than 5 seconds worth of thought to the project): he assumse that the average person is not willing to walk more than a few blocks for anything. My experience suggests that many people would love to be able to walk more (or bike, rollerblade, skateboard, segway, whatever). People drive everywhere because they have to – that is how the suburbs are set up. His second and third points, similarly, assume absolutely no change in commuting patterns which is exactly what this idea sets out to create – a vibrant pedestrian environment.
I think that Hans may not have heard of a little invention called the internet. Or understand the concept of PR. Or have ever visited any of these masterplanned suburbs. Having grown up in this type of suburb and being a current small business owner residing in a city, I can credibly say that there is nothing naïve about this idea.
1) I currently run my online boutique retail business from my apartment. If I could buy one of these homes and make a little showroom out of the garage I would in a heart beat. I could never afford to rent an apartment and a retail space this size in the city. That’s the point!
2) Most successful business and intelligent business people don’t rely solely on people accidently discovering them while strolling by. They advertise, publicize, promote, network. It’s called destination retail. Not everyone needs to be on Rodeo Dr in Beverly Hills to run a successful business. And, I would never want a second floor shoebox in a stripmall either because I couldn’t personalize it enough to do justice to my brand. (Probably why those businesses fail)
3)The streets in this type of suburb are excessively wide so adding diagonal street parking wouldn’t be a problem if indeed the neighborhood became that busy. If parking was such an issue than people may actually ride a bike or use the buses that usually service the areas but are never currently used. The business owners could solve this better than any government official or urban planner with no business sense.
I’m defending this one to the end!!
This has been done: it’s called a strip mall.
This is an interesting idea. Zoning laws in some areas of the country are often political. In some areas people flee to the suburbs cause they have children and don’t want to live down the street from bars & strip clubs. Strong idealistic concept but doesn’t take the politics into consideration, Can you allow a bar/cafe on the street and not the adult porn bookstore on the same block? I mean c’mon, families with young children just don’t disappear magically…unless they move to the suburbs.
DRK: While Houston does not have a zoning ordinance, it does have various regulations in the municipal code and covenants, conditions and restrictions that have the same effect as a zoning ordinance. Houston isn’t the wild west of development that people believe it to be.
You would have to be extremely discriminating as to what businesses you allow to intermix with the neighborhoods. As previously stated, nightclubs would be a no no. Also, restaurants, ESPECIALLY fast food spots, would stink up the entire neighborhood (I can smell McDonalds from 2 blocks away). Also, you would have more big trucks tearing up the streets because some businesses replenish their supplies up to several times a week
BRAVO
Nightclubs would not be a “no no” if that’s what the members of that community wanted. Remember that we are talking about bringing new life to decaying/largely abandoned suburbs here. If the suburb was filled with families with children they would function as intended and they would need this competition because the environment works for the current residents. (As descrided in the third case study).
P.S. McDonalds wouldn’t want to move into these neighborhood beause they’d need expensive improvements to make drivethrus and couldn’t do enough volume to suit their business model. A small neighborhood restaurant would be great. When a family cooks dinner or has a dinner party does it “stink up the neighborhood?” JD.
P.S. McDonalds wouldn’t want to move into these neighborhood beause they’d need expensive improvements to make drivethrus and couldn’t do enough volume to suit their business model. A small neighborhood restaurant would be great. When a family cooks dinner or has a dinner party does it “stink up the neighborhood” JD?
I’m not sure what strip malls Dan Cortland is reffering to. I’ve never seen a strip mall where people live (unless homeless). And, isn’t the very definition of a stip mall a “strip” of connected retail stores? They don’t usually have unique character to each store, just a sign over a box.
this is a very good concept, I agree with questions about cul de sacs and congestion, but in terms of well thought out, real design solutions this is a winner… the graphics need some work though.
Beautiful in its simplicity.
I like this very much (I’m trawling the list).
I have a criticism for the concept though: something cannot be chic or designer without an element of the exotic – the unfamiliar, the far off. Award-winning cannot occur without wide-reaching acclaim. Both contradict the mandate of reducing the “greater distances” travelled by the suburbian.
i may not have a lot to write compared to everyone else, but i really am a big fan of this idea. im sure if this idea were to be used they could make some changes that everybody is taking about but its a very interesting and great idea overall. good work!
This is by far the best idea, I think. I recall when I first read Kunstler dismissing suburbia as unsustainable, thinking: “Intead of moving people from the ‘burbs back into the city centers, why not grow ‘downtowns’ in the suburbs through mixed-use development?” Jeff Vail has had similar ideas about retrofitting the suburbs.
One of the key models for sustainable suburbs is the household microenterprise. The household and informal economy is an order of magnitude more efficient than corporate capitalism, in terms of what John Robb calls “STEMI compression,” because it operates on almost zero overhead. The reason is that it uses spare capacity of ordinary household capital goods most people already own anyway. Examples are the microbakery using an ordinary kitchen oven, the unlicensed cab service using the family car and cell phone, people providing daycare and elder care in their home for the neighbors, all exchanging with other via some sort of credit-clearing barter currency a la Tom Greco. And of course intensive raised bed horticulture, as elaborated by John Jeavons, can feed one person on 4000 sq. ft.
Jane Jacobs’ example of the Japanese bicycle industry is a model forrelocalized manufacturing, going from repair to custom production of replacement parts to networked small-scale manufacturing. There are plenty of well-stocked “hobby” garage and backyard metal shops in the ‘burbs that, when the corporate supply chains of spare parts dry up in the face of Peak Oil, will be custom machining replacement parts to keep appliances running in their neighborhoods. Eventually, they will begin pooling their efforts in networked production of common open-source designs.
The main obstacle is not just zoning, but business licensing and similar entry barriers. Established businesses are behind regulations to impose artificially high minimum levels of overhead, in order to render small-batch production virtually impossible as a business model. Take, for example, the microbakery. Or a household restaurant using the kitchen range and appliances, with tables in a redecorated spare room, and maybe a few fermenting tanks for a microbrewery. The total capital outlay for this, at most a few thousand dollars, could be serviced with the revenue stream from one customer a day. People could start out small, supplementing their income with modest amounts of business from their circle of acquaintainces, with virtually no risk because of the minimal overhead. But thanks to local licensing laws, you have to spend many more dollars on an industrial strength oven, dishwasher, fridge, etc., a level of debt that can only be serviced by large-batch operation and a full-time kitchen and waiting staff. So you’ve either got to get big or Chapter Eleven. The only people who have access to self-employment are those who start out rich, or who are willing to gamble everything on an expensive long shot; otherwise, wage slavery is good enough for the peons.
Arguably, the primary function of the regulatory state is to impose mandatory minimum levels of overhead on all production so that only large operations can enter the market. This protects the big boys from having to compete against low-overhead, small-batch producers in the informal and household economy. Ditto for “intellectual property,” which enables the old corporate players to collect rents on artificial property rights even when the actual prerequisites of physical production are increasingly affordable by the little guy.
The good news is that such restrictions are becoming increasingly unenforceable. Networked open-source manufacturers in small shops, many of which are still currently tied into corporate supply chains, will start making sneakers, refrigerators, etc., without the corporate trademark–and defying Whirlpool and Nike. The large corporations, increasingly, outsource everything but finance and the trademark to networked suppliers. And the suppliers are going to figure out they don’t need the trademark–they’re already producing the goods themselves. So the majority of current manufactured good price that results from embedded rents on artificial property rights, rather than actual labor and materials, will implode. To borrow Stallman’s phrase, the imploding cost of desktop machine tools and crowdsourced means of aggregating credit, are causing even physical manufacturing increasingly to resemble “free beer” more than “free speech.”
A refreshing take on the need to improve the habitability and sustainability of the suburbs. While I don’t mean to be sarcastic, I would suggest some of the more pessimistic contributors ‘google’ Europe and learn how this works in most parts of the world.
I live in a small apartment in a fairly affluent area of Cambridge UK. To one side of me is a private house, the other side is a house converted to four apartments like mine. Across the street is a private school, next door to that is a graphic artists studio. At the end of the street are two convenience stores, restaurants and a pub. On my street there is another pub and a kindergarten. Branching off from this are streets with two different bus route, the train station is 300 yards away. A chemist, hairdresser, gambling shop, nightclub, dance studio, several takeaways, a liquor store, churches and a primary school are all within a 300yd radius. My street is about 200 yards long!
A full range of retail stores are under a mile away.
I don’t notice any of these activities going on, I make use of most of them. I walk to them all. I have a company car and a parking permit for my street but rarely bring the car home from my office because I just don’t need it. People in this city cycle because the place wasn’t designed (city centre over a thousand years old) to handle car traffic. The level of cycling is unusual but otherwise this a normal-ish town. The UK is probably worse than most European countries in the extent of its suburbs. But generally in Europe, suburbia is a regrettable fad that is already dying out. In any case zoning was never embedded here, instead permission is sought for each development and an impact assessment carried out. Most streets are mixed use. Residents can object to applications, and the council can debate whether to give permission.
Good luck de-zoning!
Forgot to add, my area could be considered a 19th century suburb, now on the city periphery. But this description could equally apply to the city periphery..
I think this idea sort of misses the point. The reason people move to the suburbs is to get away from this type of thing. I know that’s why I did. I wanted to live away from the hustle and bustle of the city with it’s mixed retail/residential. I want to live in a place where I know everyone around me and I don’t have to worry about strangers strolling around at all hours of the day and night shopping. I think zoning laws are in place for a reason, and it’s because there are a lot of people who feel the way I do.
On a side note, there are lots of neighborhoods popping up in my area that take a more practical approach to this idea in that there is a planned community…sort of a regular neighborhood, but at some pre-determined location there is a sort of tiny “city center” that has shops and restaurants and other amenities (one by my house has a post office and a YMCA). This area is a part of the neighborhood and easily accessible on foot or bike, but it’s still separate from the houses in the neighborhood, guaranteeing privacy and some peace and quiet. This is an idea I really like and would love to see more often…but mixing business with private homes is a bad idea.
where do I buy eggs???
The future will not be cute.
How will the tiny vegetable garden/orchard eliminate the need for HOA dues? Notice the “gas lantern” sidewalk lights and the new planting strip and trees that have appeared in the “after” illustration above. Rather expensive, especially the concrete work. Will they be purchased with the proceeds of sales of apples and lettuce grown using free labor supplied by the neighbors?
The proposed nightclub space is a garage. Presumably, health regs will disallow the use of the garage to store items usually found in garages: cars, extra gas, oil, solvents, etc. Yet the business will probably require such a space for a vehicle, or it will generate new delivery trips from the city.
That same nightspot (”one of Southern California’s hottest nightclub destinations”; sounds like lots of fuel consumption) and the restaurants: will their kitchens be staffed by residents of the nearby cul-de-sacs? No? (If they’ll be too small to need hired staff, how expensive will they have to be to succeed?) Perhaps the designers’ retail fantasies—are the McMansioned suburbs still centers of huge quantities of disposable income?—distracted them from considering a re-think of the zoning that restricts the number of unrelated persons allowed to live in a single house, maybe because property values might drop. What to do?
(One solution: have the prep cooks fly in from east LA using personalized helium balloons blown forward by traffic-driven air currents over the freeways; simultaneously, the cooks’ helicopter beanie caps would be recharging battery packs as they flew through the air. Once at work, the same batteries would power the new street lamps, enabling customers to make their way to their dinners of orange roughy grilled over shredded physics textbooks, while solar panels built into the sidewalks near the lamps would again recharge the battery packs.)
Admit that the standard of living is already reduced from that produced by easy credit, allow more density, and think about businesses that 1) generate relatively few vehicle trips, and 2) can succeed by providing basics locally (the “delicious restaurant” could be replaced by a commonplace grocery or bodega). The price of gas will eventually obviate the need or perceived need for “courageous branding” (will real solutions come from people who are capable of using that term seriously?).
Where would people park at FS design studio? Without a garage, cars in the driveway would obfuscate the display window.
How would the neighbors sleep on the same block with the nightclub?
I think there are some great ideas here, but the execution may need to be rethought a bit to really make it compelling.
As someone else mentioned, where will the workers park? Doubt they’ll be able to afford to live in the mcmansions.
Dan,
Admittedly this plan does rely on gentrification to occur. But that’s the natural cycle of redevelopment. And this attracts new money and progress. Maybe surrounding homes get subdivided into townhomes or fourplexes. They could if zoning permitted it.
Have you never heard of this concept? Usually a few visionary, creative business minds move into “bad areas” to open these types of businesses which ultimately raise property value. Look at Venice Beach, CA in the 80’s vs now. This is just allowing this natural cycle to repeat itself. Where do you live Dan? Have you ever traveled outside of your doom and gloom bubble? If there are any psychiatrists reading these comments, maybe they could suggest the appropriate anti-depressant? Or maybe just a hug.
HOA fees are eliminated because individual businesses/homeowners own the land and if they don’t keep it up their business’s image would suffer. Not to mention the fact that they live there and want their home to look good! Have you never been to a place where people relandscape their frontyards?
There was no mention of volunteer labor for the farm. They would hire employees and gardeners just like any other business. Or, how about a family business?? Is that a foreign concept? Yes, cars will still drive in. They are not discouraging tourism, they are encouraging localization so people don’t NEED to drive for daily necessities. A self-sustaining community in this project’s context does not mean that outsiders aren’t allowed in. It means that residents have convient access to the ammenities provided by these businesses as if they lived in a city. Each community would be different under this model so if you think this one is too “cute”, move to the one with the “stuggling artists” who also like to sit around and criticize the world to make them feel better about themselves. Property values in Depressionurbia may never get that high but then more people like you could always afford to move in.
Need to see a former single family home converted to a restaurant in LA? Visit http://www.alcovebakery.com. This is very popular with locals and tourists.
People like Dan Cortland don’t contribute anything to society and only seek to drag people into their own unhappiness. Anti-success? Anti-branding? I don’t get it. Unless his entry just didn’t make it into the finalists
Correction on the restaurant website. Visit http://www.alcovecafe.com
And FrancoB411,
Street parking. Valet parking. Corner parking lots built by an Entrepreneur seeing a need for parking arising. Public transit. Biking. None of these parking issues haven’t already been solved in cities.
In cities people live on top of bars and nightclubs. If they are light sleepers they don’t live there! If the community doesn’t want nightclubs than that community doesn’t have to allow them. All this has been addressed in other comments.
Les Deux in LA used to be a house too…
Josh brings up a valid point about some peoples preferences. But, as said, empowering the community to make these types of decisions is the key. If the neighboorhood was largely abandoned than it means that it doesn’t function properly and people don’t want or can’t afford to live there. If its thriving than people like Josh would gravitate to those places as they have in the past. This project doesn’t threaten that lifestyle. But if that community fails or ideals change due to changes in the economy, cost of fuel, etc. current zoning would dramatically slow or prevent recovery. When half of the houses on the block are abandoned or in foreclosure, residents might welcome a designer or specific businesses. Even if 25% suburban communities were interested in Entrepreneurbia it will still be a great start! We need the flexibility this solution provides. Children don’t live the same way as their parents, neighborhood demographics change. Zoning laws don’t allow communities the flexibility needed to evolve accordingly. Do you have any idea how hard it is to get a variance even if most of the community wants it?
Levi,
LOL, believing that the long term solution to the problem of the suburbs is to gentrify them is insane. Sounds like Alan Greenspan as interpreted by Mel Brooks in a musical called “The Developer”.
Anyway, suburbia would be converted to large low-density towns. Among other energy use questions, would efficient public transit be possible and, if you leave its patterning up to the market, how long do we wait for the market to determine whose neighborhood should be served? Would sprawl be allowed to continue at suburbia’s edges?
No Dan. The idea of attracting new money to failed suburbs is not insane. It is the first step in recovery. What exactly is your proposal? I’m still only getting empty critique and no real insight from you. Do you want to burn down the suburbs and waste all of the resources that went into building them? Or do you want a developer or the government to fund “Repair Kit” projects to add “density” despite record high home and retail vacancies?
I’m not a big supporter of inefficient public transit either but busses already service these areas so its not a matter of determining which neighborhood to serve. The question is will people choose to use it. Entrepreneurbia is a simple and elegant solution that gets us moving in the right direction. They are not attempting to reinvent our transit system, merely reuse existing structures and infrastructure in a better/more feasible way.
And, I highly doubt that you will see sprawl continuing on suburbia’s edges any time in the near future. The market is obviously reflecting overbuilding in the fringes. That’s why the banks have started demolishing unfinished/unsold neighborhoods in these areas.
This is an attractive vision, but it’s a fantasy. It sounds like the designer (and many commenters) want a city, without the density. But the density is what allows a wide diversity of businesses – and especially über-trendy boutique stores like all those in the design – to succeed. The fancy restaurants in particular rely on a niche clientele, people with disposable income who like a certain kind of food. The most common businesses in suburbia today are grocery stores, hair and nail shops, liquor stores, pharmacies, etc. Where are these in your design?
If people are going to live near their jobs, you need density. Do you think the waiters and bartenders will live in this neighborhood? No way. So they’ll have to commute, and they’ll do it by car. In San Diego (a prime example of sprawl) we can’t even get frequent bus service in many dense areas. Transit is expensive, and doesn’t make any sense for the suburbs, as much as I wish for it.
Finally, a nightclub in a cul-de-sac is a joke. Have you ever been to one, and seen what goes on outside, and how many people it takes for the place to be successful? Again, they won’t be getting there by train.
We need either more density or less. There’s no refashioning of the existing buildings that makes sense for anything but the occasional home design or yoga studio. And how many people do you really think work at places like that?
The trouble with the suburbs is that you can’t walk to shops, restaurants and services. This plan takes the existing infrastructure and turns it into something like a nice residential city neighborhood with retail services on the major streets, such as we have on Portland’s East side.
I can picture living here and would love for my suburban neighborhood to become like this, especially as I get towards retirement and think of saving gas and having service close at hand. But it is also better for kids. Suburban teens have no place to go for fun that doesn’t require driving, so their teen energies can get diverted into either passive or not so healthy activities.
I have to chime in against the naysayers here. I would love to see my suburb converted to this model. It is so creative to see a typical suburban house converted to a shop or restaurant. I want to live in these drawings.
This project highlights the problem with this whole contest: the real problem with the suburbs is not the wasteful infrastructure, it is the mindset that leads to that wasteful infrastructure.
We can’t fix the suburbs by making them green urban spaces. Everyone knows that population density is more sustainable than McMansions on 5 acre lots, but a large segment of the American population ignores that for their personal comfort. They want to live in a space where they know their neighbors but don’t have to have all that messy personal interaction unless it is controlled and packaged as a play-date or the annual neighborhood BBQ.
Yes, we need to make the suburbs greener, but, even more importantly, we need to fix the American lifestyle so urban isn’t just for young hipsters but for families as well. Most of these projects just aim to fix the ‘burbs by making them the “urbs,” but that would just push the suburban families further out into the forest and cropland, deepening the problem.
I say let’s have a contest for the best idea to draw familes back into the urban core, or at least keep hipsters in the core from leaving when they start to have families.
I left this discussion for a little while and it seems to be heating up. I think that’s a good thing. Since I’m a fan of this model I’m also glad it’s receiving 90+% positive reviews too. No plan is perfect and within the small time frame these designers had to come up with a solution I think they, along with a few others, have done a splendid job. I think it’s also good to mention that I doubt they spent all the hours they had during the day to put this proposal together as I presume they all have jobs that don’t focus on competition entries!
While other submission have taken a design-only approach, I appreciate the fact that this one brings in zoning laws as well as re-designing existing property for alternative uses. Is it similar to other areas in the world? Of course it is, and it works where it’s enforced judicially. Does that mean it’s not creative? Not at all. Taking something that works somewhere else and innovating it so that it meets the requirements of decaying suburbia in America is creativity as it’s most useful. There’s nothing new under the sun but there are an infinite array of innovations using what we already have and know about that are yet to be seen. I think this is one them. It’s not glamorous or uber-designer (unless the local suburb wants it to be) but it’s very feasible and timely.
What’s to lose in this entry? If it doesn’t work, a couple of entrepreneurs that moved into the test suburb will have to move somewhere else. They take that risk wherever they set up. There’s no massive investment. I think it can be tested at a very small scale and then slowly rolled out until there is a proven track record to back-up the request for an infrastructure investment for the larger suburbs mentioned in other posts (additional public transport, more utilities etc.). I wouldn’t do that on the first or second one.
This idea also takes into account that small business is a massive part of our culture. It’s what America is all about. It gives a platform for a new generation of entrepreneurs.
These young entrepreneurs are ahead of their ages (I did my research!). Well done.
What this is missing is the train/streetcar line to connect people from the outside to the “suburban village” without increasing congestion.
I voted for it anyway, though.
I think you are on the right track….¡!¡!¡
This is the most sensible solution; we can never get rid of the suburbs because the city can only hold so much before having to build out. Also when you think of the economic conditions, most people can not afford to live in the city and enjoy a quality life.
This is a great concept – I couldn’t think of a better use of Infrastructure. All services would be business class in an environment like this. Affording the same potential and opportunity to homes and bussinesses alike.
Technology advances have evolved to make this dream possible. All services available with a clear savings in transportation costs due to the benefit of user density.
What a great place to deploy Verizon FiOS providing high speed internet, voice, and entertainment services to homes and businesses alike.
The same efficiencies apply to reliable electric power, water or natural gas.
This is a great idea; however, the inherent problem of the suburban super-block has not been addressed. People will not be walking to new offices and stores that are not accessed by a legible grid.
This idea actually could become a reality in the very near future, providing a lack of local government red tape. I love it.
I love this idea. Especially with more and more people working from home these days, they only need to get in their cars and travel distances to go shopping or to go out to dinner. Not only would this be great for the environment, it would get people more involved in their community and go a long way to solve the problem of the increased isolation of Americans. The Internet and the sprawling suburb has created a population of people that live in their cars and in front of their computers instead of interacting with their communities.
McDonalds on one side, ABC store on the other, and an Adult Store across the street.
Botique stores can barely run in malls with hundreds of subdivisions feeding them, much less one.
I would love to live and work here. People need to use those appendages called legs for more than just pushing down a gas pedal. Walking is the transportation mode of the future. Thats what I love about NYC.
Brilliant Even better – make it car-free! Throw in a free shuttle service, street cars, or pedicabs, plus a few houses devoted to medical services, public library, etc and suddenly the burbs are cool! Holla!
[...] notable entries include a rezoning proposal to encourage small business entrepreneurship, a strategy to reuse big box stores for agricultural production, and the people’s choice [...]
Great Idea and a possible “one stop” quick solution to correct urban sprawl for municipalities with out the means for comprehensive redesign to form based code.
One thing that would come up is people’s imagination that someone is going to open the notorious “Trans mission repair shop” Or “Japanese health spa rub-a-dub” next door. They get this in their head then dig their heals in as opposition.
A solution is to have an application process that is dependent on the applicant’s plan for unchangeable use and an architectural rendering for the new look of the dwelling after conversion. This plan would require “x” number of neighbor signatures to seal the deal. The plan and use could be changed with a new application and a new set of signatures.
Good work!
Great, great, great.
Some of the images here remind me of Shanghai. A lot of old European houses, in districts built as purely residential areas, have now become restaurants, bars, shops, offices – and the effect is fantastic. That sort of loose planning, retasking of houses into businesses, has an electrifying effect on a neighbourhood.
Great stuff.