This set of simple infill techniques represents a sprawl repair toolkit to retrofit the 5 building prototypes that define Suburbia. These iconic detached structures and their parcels, via modest interventions, have the potential to contribute to a more diverse, cohesive urban fabric within a walkable and identifiable public realm.
Rather than being demolished, these existing buildings are re-purposed and/or lined with new structures using renewable technologies and energy-efficient practices, often taking advantage of Suburbia’s typically excessive setbacks and parking lots.
A drive-through restaurant pad becomes part of a main street, but largely concealed from it, with perimeter liner buildings added along the edges of its parking lot. A strip center is converted into a recycling center with a green roof and 2 side-wings with solar panels framing a courtyard that reaches to the sidewalk. A gas station remains in place while growing a two-story corner store-office extension at a busy intersection to help screen it. A suburban ranch house is permitted to utilize its deep front yard to add a wing with additional bedrooms, a home office, or a rental outbuilding that creates a courtyard with the existing home and defines a livelier street frontage at the sidewalk. Even the ubiquitous McMansion can be converted into senior housing when a five-bedroom/ three-car garage home yields a 10 room-9 bathroom facility for seniors and a caretaker.
Fantastic! These are all completely logical and practical. They would go a long way towards creating a beautiful and usabale urban environment.
I like it – the ideas clearly revolve around density, community, and reducing excess waste of space, though I was hoping to see more integration of green space too. The rooftop garden (& windmills) was a nice touch on the Strip Center Addition idea.
Ms. Tahchieva’s schemes result in new development with no additional land cost to the owner and no additional infrastructure cost to the municipality. They also incorporate social gathering places in locations where people conduct daily activities rather than in separate locations requiring additional automobile trips.
Excellent! Especially the Senior Housing Conversion … though solving the lack of walkability in McMansion neighbourhoods’ dendritic street pattern will be another challenge!
Of all the finalists, this one clearly contains the most stuff that is useful right now, and that has a chance of really working. Kudos to the other finalists, too, but this is head and shoulders above the rest, IMO.
Looks good Galina
My only concern would be how do you deal with the plumbing added to the garage floor
slab in the McMansion conversion ? That would be a structural problem tearing out
soil lines in the concrete foundation.
M.
Reducing setbacks has so many advantages, I like how this project attacks the problem that suburbs have so much wasted space between buildings. Beautiful artwork as well. Good luck!
Vote Yes.
amazing!!
Small item: though not necessary for the “urban reform” I would add street trees along the arterial for political points and a bit of shade. Otherwise, excelent
Practical, beautiful and effective. Kudos.
Its nice to see that people recognize the simple solutions that exist. City planners complaign and complain about the development applications they see, but all they need to do is change their own by laws and voila, you get golden development patterns like this.
It is great to finally see a simple, viable and rational solution in a design competition like this. Beautifully and coherently presented as well. Best of luck.
Great solutions…but…is this actually the DPZ (Duany Plater-Zyberk) submission, just published under Galina’s name? She is a principal there, and as such it seems that her affiliation should have been disclosed (although no rules in the competition demanded it, other submissions by other firms noted that they are professionally-designed).
Or was this all Ms. Tahchieva’s personal work, put together in her own time?
If it was a DPZ collaborative effort, it seems a bit disingenuous to pretend otherwise… Good work is good work; why hide the source?
yes
These are excellent solutions for knitting together and repairing some of the most common building types throughout suburban America. Bringing buildings up to the street is a major step toward making suburbia walkable. Of course, allowing on-street parking along all those miles of arterial roads will be the catalyst to bringing the buildings up to the street.
This is an incredibly thoughtful and practical solution to poor urban design, but
it also suggests how the many, many “tired” relics of the twentieth century can find intelligent and useful life well into the twenty-first century. This is the greenest idea of all.
Excellent Galina, a 10 as always! MAO
Excellent! Vote Yes for that beautiful and usabale urban environment.
These are handsome, functional and “shovel ready”. If a half century of bad government hadn’t destroyed this nation’s wealth perhaps we could afford a shovel.
Excellent work. All good solutions at the scale of the building types common to suburbia. I’m sure that the authors have some good solutions at the neighborhood and corridor scale as well. It would be great to see those.
Very similar to Entreprenurbia. The major difference is this concept helps the business districts just outside the suburbs where you find more gas stations and such. Another major difference is, who is going to pay for all of these extensions? Investors? Maybe, but it would be hard to find that many of them, I think.
Entreprenurbia’s concept deals directly with the suburbs. It also solely relies on entrepreneurs, not larger investors, since they only take over single family homes within the actual suburbs.
Well thought out. I think it could work well as a stage 2 model. Stage 1 being Entrepreneurbia. They are definitely the only 2 viable solutions in this whole competition! Well done.
I agree with Dave. I also think the Entrepreneurbia model would allow a more unique, individual character to develop in each community. I also don’t like the idea of more unneeded construction. If there is already so much vacant retail, homes, etc. in the suburbs then how do we expect to solve problems by building more??? There’s nothing green about overbuilding whether its high or low density.
Also, this concept seems to want to make the suburbs physically look like cities where as Entrepreneurbia utilizes existing space and infrastructure. This lets creative individuals come up with a multitude of solutions rather than applying more bureaucratic, cookie-cutter, universal “repairs”.
I find this idea not very innovating. Yes, no one has implemented this, but it’s a common sense. There’s no need to waste all that space in mall areas for parking or aesthetic reasons. Just have an underground garage or a building for parking exclusively.
yes!
Now this is great work. It addresses a common problem and creates off-the-shelf solutions for local officials, planner, developers, and advocates. Five stars!!!
This excellent effort gets my vote with the hope that these measures will be implemented.
Wow. There are many great submissions to this competition, but this one is a must! I’ve always thought it made sense to flip the idea of the strip mall and put the parking out back, but this takes the idea even further: room for sustainable development, no need to tear down perfectly serviceable existing structures, street access for people–not just cars. Nice job!
Excellent! Actually – in most of the Community Plannig and Urban Design programs this concept of the (sub)-Urban infill is a required “reading”. why we dont see it implemented ?
You have my vote!
My only worry is that DWELL magazine will be too biased towards “modern” styled schemes to realize how powerful this entry is. Best of luck.
I love it!!! Lets start doing it!!!
This project realistically addressed issues within suburban design. The weakest point being around the residential retro fittings. The majority of suburban home owners would not be able to afford retrofitting that is demonstrated. I did appreciate the elimination of the snout house though. The strip center retrofit is the strongest of the examples given.
This is absolutely fabulous. It’s great to see a concept this kind of transformation without tearing down existing buildings. It even allows the functions to be maintained if necessary — for example, the gas station concept could still be used as a gas station.
One of the few projects submitted that would actually make suburbia better and more sustainable. It is realistic, non-utopian, and doable right now. If pursued, this pattern and other similar interventions would make a substantial difference, unlike floating houses and golf courses transformed into farms. Clearly a winner!
Galina’s straighforward retrofit is easy for anyone to get it. This is total no-nonsense and is elegantly presented. Style is a non-issue, as the pattern transcends and would translate well into modernism.
Outstanding! Something like this could actually be implemented in the near term.
Ah, the smell burgers and fries coming through the window of my new apartment…
I question the money side of this project. *Who is going to be the first investor to come along and put a tonne of money into a lot that’s surrounded by suburban decay?* Because a gas station owner certainly doesn’t have the money to do this themselves.
It almost looks like a textbook example. Something that couldn’t make it into the real world so got added to a textbook as a ‘possible scenario’-so now come up with yours!
The actual case where a suburban house is addressed is basically an addition! Sorry you couldn’t afford your mortgage, but would you like to add an addition to your house?
Sorry to pop this bloated balloon
It’s very appealing for a non-decaying community though!
This is exactly Reburbia. It adds to the existing infrastructure and improves it. I hope in some way more examples can be developed that incorporate specific social structures such as schools, gyms, churches, playhouses, coffee shops… etc.
There are some specific examples shown and I love them. I want to see more… enough to make a bare bones suburb into a real community. With such an example, every town hall council will have a means to really plan out their communities, and we can make some substantial progress!!!
Fabulous!!!
new urbanism – just a better kind of wrongness… the dependencies are still there
I vote for this entry because it can really be done- AND it makes places more people friendly too.
These are not bad ideas, I often wish I could redesign the sprawling parking lots I am surrounded by out here in suburbia. One of the benefits of urban living is, after all, the population density and the necessity of building up instead of out. But the primary problem I identify (and maybe I’m alone) is that all of your solutions involve reducing the pathetic amount of green space left after companies finish their construction. If these ideas went a little further to incorporate more green, living areas (the rooftop farm is great) they would work quite nicely.
In principle, the desired effect of the urban retrofit diagrams is what we all should strive for as planners, atrchitects, developers, municipal leaders, and citizens. In practice, would anyone want to live so close to a drive-through Wendy’s? Would Wendy’s accept being all but shielded from view from the street? And where is all that new liner program going to park? Did I miss the required parking deck in the drawings? The biggest use these diagrams have is to illustrate how wasteful suburban development is in its consumption of land. Better (and more realistic) to knock the Wendy’s down and start over. The infrastructure of the streets and utitilities is what really matters.
Cool. Now to tackle the big probelm – the political one. How do you get suburban communities to adjust parking requirements and setback requirments?
Good job – combine this with the community gardens, roof-top gardens, biking lanes and reduced asphalt roadways, and we have a winner. Good use of existing structures and their embedded energy and resources.
This just looks like MORE building of the same building that got us into trouble in the first place!
Why won’t people vacate these buildings and leave them to decay too?
It just seems to delay the decay and doesn’t solve the sustainability problems.
how come nobody else finds this project extremely boring? it produces the same thing, just denser… but still as ugly as it can get. developers would love it though…
A way to infill sprawl with new buildings, increase housing and small business opportunities, create mixed use to improve walkability and overall density, add on street parking and transit, and repair the pedestrian realm all in one swoop. Brilliant!
This one presents REALISTIC solutions and provides for dramatic IMPROVEMENTS to suburbia. Way to go!!!
While the aesthetics are boring and less than creative (sorry, but that’s a trademark of new urbanist aesthetic – more an observation than a critique) the solutions almost bring tears to my eyes. Implementation is another issue entirely, but I would love to distribute this to municipalities across the country with nothing but the order: GO! As much as I love so many of the other submissions, this is precisely how we ‘repair’ the (sub)urban fabric, and I think its got my vote. Oh, and #44, I just noticed your comment. You’re right on the first point, couldn’t be more wrong on the second, and I hope and pray you’re right about the third. Explain to us how any of these projects get built without some private development? Yeah. That’s what I thought.
What a joke, clearly this entry has an entire office voting for them. This is just generic common sense urban planning solutions which are being developed in new commercial centers all over. Worthy of application to the city but nowhere near the level of creativity and innovation that should be rewarded by this competition.
Love this work by DPZ. Here’s a reply to those who are complaining that we shouldn’t “build more” – we have to build more – have you looked at the population projections? However, these strategies aren’t just about accommodating more people, they’re about completing the segregated-use patterns of sprawl so the people who already live nearby will be able to walk to do errands, and so that dying commercial areas can be infilled with affordable residences that provide nearby customers. Check out the entire Sprawl Repair Module at http://www.transect.org. Yes, I’m biased, but I still get to vote.
architecture as a work of art … beautiful and effectively functional .. congrats
Dont worry Dim I agree with you. It seems very textbook and very boring. It’s more of the same, just denser so we can pollute and consume more effictively! Hehe.
Looks like it’ll win the popular vote though. I don’t recognize any of the other names here. She’s no doubt got all her blogs n tweets plugging this thing.
It needs all the help it can get! It’s just additions. More walls. More concrete. More everything. And more energy and people to keep it all running!
I don’t like to be negative but I also don’t like mediocrity so had to speak out. Sorry mrs famous person.
Great idea of space reuse, BUT I think increasing the density of the already dense suburbias is not the most optimal way to develop.
Here are the main points of my doubt:
1) high density increase traffic, and reduce mobility through suburbia
2) solving problem of people in terms of space by reduction of green spaces and overall increase of environmental pressure
3) Problems of property rights could one of the major – as far as one the same parcel of space with the same owner new buildings will be built .. In this case – for whom and by whom ? If by existent owner – than it will be his, if not – than who will allow to do it ? I don’t think existing owner will accept if s\body will start to build on his property.
Anyway, it is small remarks! I like this project a lot ! Thanks for new ideas! Good luck!
This is an excellent series of proposals for incremental change that is simple and affordable. Let these ideas loose on suburbia with the zoning changes to support them and they would spread like a catalyst through dying burbs everywhere. The best thing about them is that each one contributes to increasing the urban quality. It’s an incremental approach to improving walkability and pedestrian-friendliness that gets my vote.
Only thing I don’t like about this are the automobiles in the design. I would like to live in a carfree place.
for me this project is NOT a project!
It is just usage brownfields!
BROWNFIELD site- that’s the name over the world for this project!
This is something I have been thinking about for years!
In Houston we have shopping malls with hugh, sprawling and mostly under ustilized parking lots, in the middle of town!
It would make so much sense to build apartments, townhouses and multi-level duplexes there. You’ve already got a shopping mall, to that you could add some shops, convenience stores, boutiques, a grocery store and possibly a public transportation hub. Throw in a day care center and some office space and people will be scrambling to live there.
I completely agree with Jae (42.). This wonderful project shows the visual positives of increased suburbian densities, however this only solves a part of the car-dependency and community problems. More buildings on yet green areas (e.g. 1 and 4) mean simple just more buildings taking over green areas.
A throughout ecological/sustainability concept for all new as well as remaining buildings is therefore an absolute must to make this project a clear winner. (Are the buildings to be preserved due to the schemes built in a sustainable way? I can’t help myself doubting it… Where does the green space go? I sadly see it disappearing and being replaced by ecologically non-active buildings… Does the height of two storeys bring a density which can be considered as the best and most sustainable one? Look internationally – for helping to protect GLOBAL environment, we HAVE TO consider global trends in building cities…) Those all are questions which need to be adressed before deciding to make the suburbia morphologically denser right in the way as shown in the proposal (which nevertheless is of an undoubtely high quality).
Dim, do you find cities boring? This project is not the same thing as suburbia. In every case, it adds density, it mixes uses, it brings buildings closer to the street and the buildings honor the street. It does these things in creative ways that address many of the existing conditions of the suburbs. It is actually based on what works in cities, and it seeks to replicate and build on what works. That’s why I find it appealing.
Lina, the term brownfields — at least in the US — usually refers to former industrial sites. A grayfield is the term for the reuse of a parking lot. These grayfield sites are probably the best opportunities available for redeveloopment in the suburbs.
yeap. but it’s still boring
I was going to ask who photocopied the latest graphics for the CNU guidebook, but then I realized who submitted the project!
Also, the scale and placement of the wind turbines in the strip mall redo are wrong, in every sense of the word. It illustrates to me a basic level of understanding that the submitter has missed completely. The same holds true with the dearth of street trees, landscape or other visible streetscaping at this level of detail. If they’re missing these things, what else are they missing?
Well done. Just goes to show that with creative planning we can salvage much of the suburban sprawl that currently exists. Well done Galina!
I think some of you are looking for excitement and innovation and relief from your boredom ala Gehry, a new drug.
Keep in mind it is impossible to densify urban sprawl by creating the sculptural object in the field.
This is an excellent project and quite realistic.
New Urbanism is the Old Urbanism, it’s time has come.
Practical, but as disconnected to realities and necessities of more ecological living. First, would a fast-food restaurant give up its street frontage? Secondly, it doesn’t do much for one’s dependence on the car. The restaurant displaces parking to the street. It adds density, but why not actively have people move to denser housing stock? Would that not resolve the issue of density and reuse housing stock in existence (and use less material in the process)? Same with the suburban home… Why not reinforce the street with a less upper-middle class way through house addition versus an alley of trees, or other more creative means.
I applaud the strip mall design as it’s the only one that doesn’t just displace the suburban condition to somewhere else. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s likely a duck. Here, if it looks like suburbia, with people driving and parking like suburbia, I don’t think you’ve done much to “repair the urban fabric” but as much as put a bandage and reaffirm suburbia.
Incredible! These are actually logical, feasable, and beautiful.
I used to say that the land has been permanently destroyed by our livestyle and sprawl, but, here in the north, the land has been destroyed only until the next ice age.
I think that these ideas are great and very encouraging for the many many square miles of sprawl that we all face in our work every day.
I would like to comment on some of the particulars of the senior housing renovation of the McMansion. I see that an elevator has been added, an obvious must for any two-story senior housing, however, some attention needs to be given to the other details, namely the bathrooms. Most senior housing requires that allowances must be made for grab bars, particularly at the toilets, even if it is simply that the wall is provided with adequate blocking. In this case, it appears that most of the bathroom plans show a toilet in a location where this could not be provided. Additionally, you may want to investigate the turning radius requirements for senior housing and wheelchairs in each bathroom as this 5 foot circle of space can be quite space consuming.
All in all this is a great idea and it could simply require some fine tuning for final workability.
“A drive-through restaurant pad becomes part of a main street, but largely concealed from it, with perimeter liner buildings added along the edges of its parking lot.”
Is it just me or does anyone else think this is a bad idea from the POV of the restaurant? Any drive-through restaurant will want visibility from the street.
Good point Andrew. Looking at the restaurant pad you wouldn’t see it from the street.
Hopefully the restaurant makes enough money off selling his land to the new builder (no sane builder would lease land) to compensate for the diminished business from lack of visibility.
I see the restaurant owner leaving and something else will have to take its place that doesn’t need visibility.
A small yogurt shop in our town only lasted a short while because of this same situation. They were downtown but behind another building. Good yogurt, great prices, excellent service but no visibility to foot or road traffic.
Thanks Galina and DPZ
This info will help us to give actual visuals to developers and citizens as we develop newer and smarter land use and development codes.
We need all the help we can get to redefine “density” – generally perceived as a “negative” – to read “community” a quality life style
Rob, no, i don’t find cities boring, and that is because they operate based on very complex interactions and not on a 5 year old logic of ‘lets fill in the gaps and that will turn the whole suburbia into a city’. Actually, I am wrong: a 5 year old would have at least more imagination to design the additions in a new way… This way of thinking is more than 100 years old.
I love it. It’s simple but its logic.
Let’s go New Urbanism!!
This solution is not perfect but reflects what is going on in re-use projects today.
At least we are re-using and not scraping, disposing, rebuilding. If you work in a design office, these mall projects would be very viable (and maybe they were past projects?). Not sure about that senior living deal…I guess if you subsidize it.
Anyway, dont listen to the folks commenting on the “weeds instead of the trees”. They probably did not submit anything. It has good points that can be implemented in todays economy.
Fantastic! Reburbia means fixing sprawl, not creating yet more novel mistakes to fix later. Yes, it’s boring–it has to be. If you tabula rasers were less interested in being entertained, the world would be a much happier place.
by far the best and most thought out proposal.
Seems very simple and rational to me. Maybe not sexy, but sexy in terms of urban design usually equates to worthless. May way of thinking:
1. Well proportioned streetscapes are essential to good urban form—and desperately lacking in suburbia
2. Parking lots are unattractive and functionally disasterous to good streetscapes (re: Hegemann and Peets)
3. That being said, parking lots are essential to modern life; designs that rely on hover-craft or deny the automobile’s place in society are simply pipe-dreams
4. If we have to live with parking lots, let’s put them behind, beneath, etc. and make them as small as possible
5. The second piece of the parking lot equation is density—increasing human density minimizes the need for parking since people can and will walk more often
6. This type of design admittedly does not work in outlying suburbia
7. There is no ’solution’ for far-out suburbia except that it should remain rural, and its inhabitants should expect to commute to a small town / main street for more urban needs; mile after mile of strip malls does not a town make
This is an excellent, sustainable design that works, and importantly, works today. Bravo!
The DPZ plan offers practical infill solutions for typical suburban challenges. It offers numerous simple techniques for fixing actual typeologies and will be a useful tool for 1000’s of commercial properties. Buy suburban sites now before this is published and raises land prices.
Excellent solution. This has real-world application written all over it. It accepts the fact of the automobile, but subtly reorients the urban spatial attitude.
A step in the right direction – but an ant’s step. Adding some two-storey buildings wouldn’t help much. A real city usually has higher buildings than that – 4,5,6 or more.
Would it be possible to add this to the toolkit, to use when convenient?
Cool blog. I dig your site outline and I plan on returning again! I just love finding blogs like this.
I also must say that nice plan.
All in all, some very creative solutions at the right scale. I do think that the idea of keeping the fast-food building is a bit of a stretch. A noble idea to leave it un-demolished, but I’m not sure it’s really worth it in the long run.
Liner buildings are, however, a brilliant solution to shaping urban streets while retaining (some) surface parking.
What is wonderful about this project is that it’s not pie in the sky- but a realistic solution that could be applied today with reapplication of local codes.
As for the restaurant visibility; many fast food restaurants behave when forced to in historic urban centers- and benefit from being in popular places. It’s not necessary to have highway speed visibility when you have density, and the point of density is to keep people localized in their own community so they do not have to get onto a highway to find a burger!
Interesting – I think that it demonstrates that we can save ourselves from the horrors of suburbia. I still prefer a traditional Main Street, but can see the value of this process / redevelopment.
Great solutions for retrofitting suburban development – a problem that afflicts our small towns, cities, and the places in between.
utter realistic perfection.
truly a practical genius @ work..
i’d like to see more of the larger malls bulldozed however and in their steads have a good old fashioned main street with shops be put on the soil…
kudos
Cleverand inspiring; it provides a simple framework for new development, including -hopefully!- improvements to connect existing streets network, starts a needed increase in open and green space. And will foster livable, sustainable communities that reduce the need to spread out.
This is characteristically beautiful and significant work – very very nice Galina and team. Both the positive and negative comments in this thread are testament to the relevance and replicability of these ideas. In particular, the suggestion that we may already have “enough buildings”, and should just leave bad enough alone, overlooks the fact that by all current projections the amount of new or replaced building square footage in the U.S. will be double the current amount by 2050 (with a wide plus or minus range). We’ve built our way into this mess and must build our way out of it. Perhaps the architects who find this “boring” can focus on making great architecture for this clearly superior urban pattern.
Dim,
No, this way of thinking is not entirely more than 100 years old, because suburban strip centers, gas stations, and McMansions are not 100 years old. However, it draws from ideas that have worked for centuries. You’d think that would be a point in this project’s favor. But no sense in trying something with a track record when there is an infinitesimal chance that a grad student in architecture will come up with an entirely original form that is better than the accumulated wisdom of mankind. It’s less boring to disqualify everything that resembles anything that has worked in the past, and go with the endless string of failures approach. You are Dim.
Now this is realistic reburbanization. Reviewing the comments the criticisms seem to be that this is boring and that the solutions proposed are already 100 years old. So what? These are not valid criticisms. Why must something be jazzy and new to be the best solution? As enlightened people the world over have rediscovered, in subjects as diverse as from medicine to farming, solutions from the past (even those a mere 100 years old) have much to teach us today.
While I think it is important to look for ways to infill the suburbs, and I generally support this idea, this problem is much too complex to fix simply by adding more density to an existing bad fabric. For example, the restaurant solution is bad – this configuration would likely cause it to go out of business due to lack of visibility. A much better mixed-use complex could be designed if you demolished the existing structure and put the retail uses on the ground floor facing the streets. I also agree with the other comments that the senior housing scheme has some serious plan deficiencies and I wonder how such a small facility could be marketed. Additionally, there would still be transportation issues since many seniors don’t drive. The scheme with the big box store is the most viable, but actually many developers are doing this already.
boring. gloriously and frustratingly boring but this is a clear, practical step forward.
while it doesn’t directly address the issue of transportation in a performative manner, if these techniques are adopted widely and density is doubled, that *will* reduce the need for cars and driving.
i think what gets the negative reaction here is largely that while improving the efficiency and livability of the suburbs, this doesn’t really improve the look of the suburbs very much. it would be intriguing to see some experiments in architectural styles that try to exist harmoniously with existing suburban aesthetics without resorting to mimicry, but the techniques shown here can be adopted by more adventurous architects.
as for the hidden fast food restaurant it would be nice to see more explanation about what that would be converted into and how it might survive while hidden like that. like some of the other commenters, i don’t see how it could survive.
slow-but-steady solutions.
Sorry, but this is called re-developement and it happens all the time. The only reason you see wasted space such as the massive parking lots around big box stores is because of zoning restrictions that demand minimum parking spaces per sq.ft or retail store. The second reason is that it is often more efficient to have one tenant pay for the whole property rather than maintain multiple units. The economics of this plan do not always work and business owners are not under any pressure to make you feel better about their properties.
Look at the re-zoning project in this competition, changing zoning by-laws is the first step to the success of any other development or project.
Rob, the ‘accumulated wisdom of mankind’ tells me that suburbia will never become a city because it is based on entirely different principles, and really, what is the point, you can go to the city if it is city life you are looking for. Plus, suburbia might not be 100 years old, unimaginative thinking is. Or no thinking at all, as is the case here. So, i might be dim, but not to the level of not being able to realize that it is that ‘infinitesimal chance’ that moves our thinking foreword and helps wisdom to accumulate. Or do you think that wisdom accumulates by staying the same? do you see us trying to invent the wheel?
I like this design. Surburbia grew for a reason, and it’s going to be very tough to re-do it attractively while supporting the financials. So this is a very good effort.
Several other thoughts: 1) First floor retail should face street side, with housing above; 2) There’s nothing about this plan that precludes the use of sustainable design (so kudos there); 3) What if the restaurant were healthy vs. fast food and was subdivided to allow an attached/detached green market that offered education and cooking tips?; 4) The senior living model is not terribly different from The GreenHouse Project (which is successful); some modifications may be needed but you’re going in the right direction. Seniors want to stay in their communities with the requisite services provided.
This should be called “New Realism” instead of “New Urbanism”, because the other proposals are so “unreal” when compared to this one. Take style out of this discussion please, and we humans just plain feel a lot better in well-defined spaces such as this proposal, rather than a building siting in a field of asphalt! Look at European cities (and suburbs), and you will see clever ways of dealing with the automobile (eg. modular pavers vs asphalt, bollards vs curbs = plaza vs parking lot). What’s a more sustainable way to control the growth of our cities and suburbs, than to infill. The public sector has to be part of this of course, because otherwise, developers will keep churning out drive-thrus and strip malls in the market-driven society that we live in.
Of course we need zoning reform. And transit-oriented development. And transformation of the arterials to multiuse boulevards. Unfortunately, none of these ideas, if they were submitted, made the cut as a finalist in this competition. But we also need realistic models for building scale redevelopment, which Galina Tahchieva has provided. The innovation here is to provide ways to redevelop for the better without tearing down the original buildings. That’s a valuable tool — the most valuable that has been submitted here by far. To those who say it is not innovative or creative, please provide links to building-scale models for redevelopment of suburbs that do not involve tear-down of the original buildings and are equally as good.
Dim, I don’t think wisdom accumulates by staying the same. It generally accumulates by building on what works, and learning from what fails, and coming up with a new idea that solves a problem or problems within that constraint. Heroic efforts to come up with entirely new urban forms based on the idea that we must at all cost avoid copying the past have consistently failed over the last 80 years. By obstinately ignoring that then, yes, you apparently are trying to invent the wheel. Good luck with that.
What is amazing is how straightforward and sensible this approach is, and how that very quality–”duh!” simultaneously inspires both so much enmity, and so much agreement. Of course making the suburbs more livable is more complicated than just rehabilitating the building architecture, but this is such an elegant and coherent set of drawings it crystallizes the potential of sustainable repair and re-use. Thank you Galina and team!
Parking lots may suck, but they are necessary. Also, most of the efficient space usage you’ve proposed seems to already be put to use where I’ve been.
I’m sorry, I fail to understand what the “problem” you are supposedly repairing is. Having enough available parking is not a “problem” its a solution.
What you are essentially arguing is that the “solution” to suburban sprawl is higher density urbanity. But suburbanites live in the suburbs and not dense urban neighborhoods on PURPOSE. We don’t WANT to live like rats climbing over each other in the sewer, we want SPACE!
Your “solution” solves nothing. It creates a problem.
Yay New Urbanism! Seriously, this is probably one of the most realistic proposals to be submitted. I’d wish you luck, but it seems like you’re already in the lead.
In order to accumulate something, you need more of that something, therefore, in order to accumulate wisdom, you need more wisdom. Building on ‘what works’ is not new wisdom, is application of the old. Therefore it doesn’t accumulate wisdom, it accumulates the already found solution. In order to learn from what fails, you need to invent something that will fail. Using the old, tested solution won’t get you anywhere in that regard. Obviously using something that works is practical, that is why we do it all the time. But that is not how our society moves foreword, that is how our society sustains itself. Necessary in order to move on, but not enough. Please, think about the words you use, before you use them!
i agree, george. what did your words just prove?
The solution is to infill a suburb with more suburb? Holy Cow.
It doesn’t seem like the singular intent of this competition was to focus on sustainable strategies but I can’t help wonder how the proposed code based forms substantially differ from existing codes/formulas to mitigate existing degenerative suburban forces. While I may agree that an “identifiable public realm” helps support more sustainable social conditions, doesn’t increased density increase resource consumption? How many PV arrays and parking lot windmills would need to be inserted to produce enough energy for even the proposed additions?
There are realistic components to this project but I am weary of how they may compound some very fundamental flaws in the existing suburban fabric. For example, how does rearranging setbacks and inserting non-site responsive buildings address steps to sustainably manage water and energy supplies? One of the major failures of suburban development has been the proliferation of buildings & houses that do not respond to local environmental conditions and thus consume unnecessary amounts of resources. Isn’t this proposal just another set of prescriptive guidelines that helped fuel the current consumption heavy suburban condition? While the CNUesque imagery is attractive I’m not convinced the proposal creates the kind of paradigm shift the world requires to realize sustainability for the next seven generations.
Galina, I know the solutions speak of reclaiming the public streets and giving the pedestrian a chance to walk again. It is a fact, nobody walks in front of parking lots, so much common sense, even my kids 12, 14. and 15, make a comment once in a while, mama, you have to do something about this…is not safe!
Yes, parking is necessary, but how to added that is the beauty and I know you know how to do it. We had and will support you all the way, it’s a long journey but for a great cause.
Also remember when parking is taken away, it has to be replaced!
I love the commercial solutions to reclaiming urban density and putting parking at it’s appropriate role, a service related function. I think residential expressions of the transect need to be addressed with many units working as a whole integrating into it’s site specific condition. Reclaiming sprawl is a noble fight I condone and support with this design effort. Ultimately reduced land footprint and less carbon impact in these times is no longer a trend but a given and a must. My offspring deserves to live on a healthy planet not a environmental mess I give as inheritance.
very weak semi-idealistic proposal. you seriously think a mcdonald’s with a 25yr lease will allow for residential to be developed directly in front of its street exposure? this is so impractical, the type of stuff architects often propose but is complete nonsense. first, you need to understand how retail and residential demand work… uf.
your proposal should actually address how you are going to approach national retailers and offer them a new system for generating cash flow and moving away from their old models. oh, and your proposal is to put parking underground or something? you just eliminated parking for retail but added parking demand for residential… you think mcdonald’s will allow you to dig up their parking lot and build a building while they’re operating? crazy!
Excellent proposal. Elegant in the true sense of the word. Low tech, incremental, can be started tomorrow with the stroke of a (zoning board) pen.
What I appreciate most is that it can work in newer suburbs, but can also restore main streets that have been destroyed by auto-centric zoning in older towns all over America.
I love the practicality of this idea, as well as its forward thinking. In a resource-constrained world, current constraints and surpluses will reverse: today we have plenty of energy to cross vast distances; in the constrained world we’ll struggle with a surplus of space with no practical means to cross it. As energy prices rise, so will the costs of rebuilding suburbia.
Part of me wonders, however: if energy scarcity expands gradually, instead of catastrophically, the “Urban Sprawl Repair Kit” will be not so much a “plan for repair” as “what happens organically.”
This project makes the most sense to me.
Reality Check:
A. Local governments often require more parking than is needed.
B. There are many reasons that people choose to live in suburbia. Not everyone in suburbia prefers suburban form. They do not have a choice, because urban form is illegal in typical suburbs. Where it is legal, there is a market for urban form.
I think its remarkable!!!!
This looks like a mindless developer came up with this. It is not inventive or creative and the graphics are just BAD! Seeing that this project has so many votes makes me physically ill. This is why our society is the way it is and this is why the suburbs are the way they are. Voting for this project is like voting to keep the suburbs the way they are right now! I can’t understand how this project can be a finalist since the completion is how to change the suburbs for the future.
The two projects in the lead are the ones with the most criticism.
Obviously the solution to the suburbs is to build denser. However did we all overlook the fact the reason we have the suburbs is because of cars? We have been spaced out because of Urban planners designing for vehicles and not humans. In all these images the main thing I see are cars, and the one thing missing is the human element experiencing the community. This project has hinted at this in a few images, but they were still overwhelmed by their depictions of cars.
Eliminate the car and we have individuals getting off their butt and walking / riding their bike. We have to build denser communities with proximity for pedestrians in mind. Perhaps the radical idea is to stop driving and start walking. Efficient public transportation will be the future. If you are too lazy or obese to get from point A to B, then your obviously a product of this environment. And this way of life has ended.
Stan, I was referring to comments 40, 45, 49 (of the previous page). Rob was arguing that we don’t need innovation since we have the accumulated wisdom of the past. So, i was just trying to prove the obvious: wisdom can not accumulate without innovation. (which, by the way, is something that this project absolutely lacks…)
george – sometimes a lot of false wisdom has to be purged first, much like our decadent decent into the absurdity of the last 50 years worth of urbanism.
The new urbanist commercial zone solutions are obviously far better after than before but make the classic design mistake of assuming away the increased parking requirement on the theory that it either got put below grade (which is far too costly to support an investment of thattype) or assumed to have simply disappeared on the theory that mass transit solved the problem (even more foolish than the prior assumption).
George:
Experimental building only creates wisdom for the builder. It’s selfish and solipsistic wisdom. And it asks that the public inherit the builder’s experimentation in perpetuity, no matter how ridiculous and off the mark.
This is not wise for the builder or for society.
Wisdom is more broadly gained from inhabiting and realizing buildings that work; this kind of wisdom is powerful enough to become embedded in culture. And it is the reason why non-builders continue to return to it, and why they cooly reject architectural experimentation. As it turns out, the most successful and wise experiments complement or accessorize traditional form, rather than forsake it.
Michael Allen (comment 13), there’s no “assuming away,” nor is it a “design mistake.” Rather, it’s a proven fact that if you introduce a mix of uses where there were only single uses before, the parking requirements per square foot go down. There are several reasons for this: Those who live there but don’t work there are gone by day, when people are at the office and shopping. Or if they live and work there, then it’s a similar effect. There are many other cross-usage parking benefits; these are just some of the more obvious. Where I live (Miami Beach) there is essentially no transit except tourist buses and an occasional city bus, but 44% (at last count) of the residents of South Beach don’t own cars because it’s highly mixed-use here and they can walk everywhere. I owned a car until recently, but only cranked it once or twice per week.
Meanwhile, there are nearly 5 parking spaces for every car in America… and more than one car per person. But in South Beach, you only need 10% of that for the citizens that live here. So parking savings are very real and very substantial if you create serious mixed use. The design mistake is actually to assume that cross-usage parking benefits DON’T occur and to build too much parking, which can dilute the urbanism to the point that people don’t want to walk.
Right… we don’t need to experiment with architecture. How foolish was Le Corbusier, Louis Kahn, Gropius, Archigram… Wait, we actually don’t need architects at all! We already know the best way to build!
Also, this project is not using any ‘old wisdom’ anyway. It tries to take the way the city works and apply it in suburbia. Cities are the way they are because they were developed over centuries. It is ridiculous to believe that you can assign qualities of the city in the suburbs by just ‘adding some more’. And by the way, if someone wants the qualities of the city, he or she can move back there. But he or she left the city because he/she didn’t like it there… From whatever perspective you might look at this project, it is equally bad…
I was just trying to point out that the concept of “accumulated wisdom” can not exist without innovation. Which should be quite obvious. However, I am always surprised to see how conservative people can get. Up to a point it is useful; new ideas need to face criticism because it helps them to get stronger and better. But after a certain point, it just becomes a joke. Just like this project.
Just for the record, since George put words in my mouth, I never said or meant that we don’t need innovation. Unless he means the kind of innovation that wrecks cities and towns. This project is the kind of innovation that makes places better.
I like this solition a lot. It is simple and doesn’t rely on yet unrealized technology. Did any of you who claim that suburbanites live in the suburbs because they don’t want to live in the cramped city bother to read the design guidlines for the competition? The premise is that the suburbs are failing, with forclosures and vacant lots on the rise, how will we fix the problem. I would also add that I live in the suburbs, but I do so not because I wanted the cul-de-sac life, but was prices out of walkable communities in my city. This is a supply side and legal issue as much as it is a design issue.
I would say this is the closest to resolving any of the problems that are associated with suburban sprawl without causing serious side issues. The fact that re-purposing existing buildings and increasing the DUA of the developments can help but the infrastructure needs to be walkable to sustain the changes.
I think its a great proposal. Excellent
I had to go back and read the Problem Statement for this contest:
” In a future where limited natural resources will force us to find better solutions for density and efficiency, what will become of the cul-de-sacs, cookie-cutter tract houses and generic strip malls that have long upheld the diffuse infrastructure of suburbia? How can we redirect these existing spaces to promote sustainability, walkability, and community?”
Simply put, we need to begin looking at more multi-use spaces, not just mixed-use spaces. Steve #15 states there are 5 parking spaces for every car in America. I would venture a guess that there is a similar ratio (or greater) of “constructed space per person above and beyond their primarily residence” in the form of retail space, churches, schools, industrial, entertainment, etc. We need single-use spaces like hospitals, sure, but the town-square concept of multi-use space for worship/sports/market/entertaiment, etc should be studied closer. Zoning and Planning laws need to become less rigid to allow for experimentation to occur.
I’m concerned that no where in this thread has anyone mentioned proper storm water management (and not I’m not speaking of the industry’s BMPs used now). From the illustrations I see permible pavers and a green roof. Concepts like these need to be stressed and expanded upon. Lets think of the problems associated with urban sprawl: agriculture loss, wildlife habitat loss, heat island effect, infrastructure stain, etc. So the number one way to deal with all these problems and provide for the needs of humans is by creating sustainable, better yet regenerative, landscapes! And water is the key. Rainwater, runoff, and even wastewater can be used to grow food, provide shade, recreate habitat, and reduce electricity and water consumption.
This toolkit provides for more efficient use of land in an area where people want space. So fill the space with the ecological systems that sustain human life. And all life.
Why are still worried about where we are going to park our cars. Seriously, our culture has bigger problems. We must prioritize. Thanks
Why in the name of God would I want to throw up a bunch of walls in my perfectly beautiful home to construct a rabbit warren of cramped dark rooms? Dude, sprawl is why we moved to the suburbs. We LIKE big houses on big lots with lots of privacy from the neighbors.
Dim, you’re partly right… we once did know the best way to build. Look up the places people have valued the most and loved the longest, and that they travel the furthest distances to see. In most cases, it’s the places where the townspeople built the town… without architects. So yes, your sarcasm is for the most part correct… Corbusier, for example, wanted to demolish Paris and erect a series of steel towers in their place. How foolish is that? Paris has lasted for over two thousand years. How long do you think that those steel towers would have lasted? How long was Corbusier in fashion? He’s been outre for decades at least… if he was ever “in” to begin with!
If sustainability means anything to you, then durability is crucial because if it can’t endure, it can’t be sustained. Also, if a building cannot be loved, it will not last. What value is a building’s carbon footprint once its parts are carted off to the landfill? Read the Sprawl Repair proposal for a change, rather than just acting in a reactionary fashion.
George, I agree that accumulated wisdom occurs hand-in-hand with innovation. Some classicists talk a lot about “tending the fire” rather than “worshipping the ashes,” all the while doing the latter. OTOH, complete reinvention doesn’t allow you to speak in a common language because you’re speaking a new language… so if “being conservative” is speaking in a language that other people understand, then anything else is foolishness… and gibberish. But if “being conservative” is rote repetition of the same old stuff, then that’s a different matter. If that’s what you think this project is, then you haven’t looked very carefully… look again!
I’m going to ignore the 19 previous posts and say simply: I love this idea. I think the benefits of building up to the sidewalk edge are completely underestimated, and it’s very seldom that I see a strip mall parking lot filled to capacity. This is an elegant, sensible way to help suburbia meet its economic potential without impinging on every American’s perceived right to personal space.
Even for a self-proclaimed, rather hardcore urbanist, I can dig it!
Very good proposal. I like too much.
Steve, most of the places people loved the longest and traveled the furthest distances to see are built by architects. The Parthenon, the Pyramids, the Versailles etc etc. The Paris that Le Corbusier wanted to demolish was designed by another megalomaniac, Haussmann, and not the townspeople. His design was for the 1840s as insane as Le Corbusier’s. Luckily Le Corbusier didn’t have Napoleon III to support him. Actually, I don’t think that there are any major cities in the western world that are designed/built by the townspeople. There is always a planner (Manchester might be an exception). The medieval cities that were built by the townspeople according to their immediate needs led to the Black Death. And unfortunately, Le Corbusier is still in ‘fashion’. Most of the new buildings around the world follow the directions that he, along with the other pioneers of the modern movement, gave to architecture.
Sustainability means nothing to me but i do agree about durability. Ecology on the other hand means a lot, but ecology has to do with our relation to our environment (natural and artificial), our relation to other people and our relation to ourselves. Focusing just on the first part is pointless.
The plans are interesting. However, municipal planning codes are the biggest roadblock. Commerical floor space requires a specific number of parking spaces of a specific size. Set-backs are another code restriction- both from the curb and between property lines. Residential homes also have these restrictions. Some communities are more restrictive than others.
We need to think in terms of replacing parking spaces with walking spaces- then we won’t need to accommodate as many cars for the same business volume. I really like the ideas!
To better enable these changes we need to actively work to change municipal planning codes. This is usually a voter action. All you need to do is get it on the ballot.
Three stories. As Jane Jacobs argued, its not needed to go up tremendously high to get to an urban density … but two stories leaves you stranded betwixt and between. If you want there to be enough residential in that “corner store”, that’s two floor townhouses stacked on top of the corner store.
As has been noted, it doesn’t work unless it supports a larger public transport mode share. If its something a train station connected to substantial employment centers or a HSR station, you need to leverage 1/4 mile radius around that station more intensively than that … and if its relying on bus transport, as pictured, you need a cluster of people for it to work as a route anchor.
[...] Urban Sprawl Repair Kit | ReBurbia – Several canonical architectural elements from our suburban wastelands, converted to denser more urban designs. [...]
Urban sprawl has obviously had an overall negative effect on our communities and lifestyles. Lets start with increased traffic that affects everyone, not just the suburban dweller. Furthermore, I find it hard to believe that those who commute 10 to 15 hours a week are as unstressed, productive or happy as those who can stroll a block or two to their workplace after having a cup of coffee with their neigbors or a run in a nearby park that’s just around the corner. And what about never seeing one’s family because they live in their vehicle during most of your children’s and spouse’s waking free time???
And what about the time when prohibitive water restrictions and high costs turn cookie cutter Home Depot gardens that require being drenched in precious water, contaminating fertilizers and toxic insecticides, into suburban desertscapes… which also means a loss of weekly destressing therapy mowing and blowing chemlawns into shape every weekend.
These new ideas and plans may not be THE answer, but they show a change in thinking that could ultimately benefit all of us.
Urban Renewal- back in the 70s, removed most of the old and beautiful architecture and replaced it with the ugly strip malls and sprawling intersections we have today. Manchester, NH is an old mill town built from bricks- millions and millions of them. Granite Square was a neighborhood intersection much like these plans describe. It had 3-4 story brick buildings, all connected, with apartments on the upper floors and stores at the street level.
This one intersection had a hardware store, two barber shops, a diner, a men’s clothing store, pharmacy, bakery, fish market, liquor store, fruit and butcher shop, movie theater, and one small gas station (that was the newest item on the intersection). It was all torn down in the name of “Urban Renewal” in 1970 and replaced with a sprawling intersection of traffic lights, a strip mall and a high rise housing facility for the elderly. In the process, they took a beautiful, antique walkable neighborhood and turned into a commuter quick stop area, only accessible by car- with very little consideration for pedestrians.
The saddest thing about this calamity- the elderly who moved into the high rise were left with no place to go and no way to get there. They became residents of an island building without the support infrastructure that could have made it livable. I hope we learn from these mistakes before it’s too late for other communities. These plans offer hope that it can be done.
DPZ’s team consists of Divas and Gurus who take New Urbanism seriously. I wish them best in their endeavors
Why do these ideas all involve *building more stuff* ? What problem is being addressed here…? Because if it were up to me, the optimal solution, for cost and use and aesthetic purposes, would certainly involve bulldozers and the creation of community parks, no matter how small.
Get rid of all of it. It contributes nothing.
Fantastic work and very practical!
The suburb is the number one public money grab in north america. They are very very expensive to build and to maintain, mostly because infrastructure and utilities and energy use are extremely wasteful in such low density environments. Suburbs are heavily subsidized by — not homeowners — but by municipalities and other levels of government. And even worse, they continue to cost us heavily in the amount of per capita energy they consume. To the people who say they want space and that they have paid in full for their houses and lifestyles in the suburb, someone needs to – gently – say, no you haven’t. To effect change, zoning and tax distribution must very nearly be completely reversed.
That said, I think this is the best solution I could see in this study because it increases density, which is the simplest and most effective means to reduce waste and energy use. Beautiful project.
I vote for DPZ
I vote for dpz
pres
It’s about time someone put the “urb” in suburbia! Nicely done, Galina.
[...] that in mind, please considering visiting the Reburbia finalist site and voting for the Sprawl Repair Kit, designed by Galina Tachieva and others at DPZ. Simply click on the little red house in the upper [...]
It’s called a small town. Policies favoring urban centers for 100 years eviscerated walkable mixed use villages. The best way to remodel the suburbs is to “finish the job” and move the remaining jobs to the suburbs ti reduce outgoing traffic. TaDA small town.
This project is a step in the right direction. After personally surveying many locals in the Greater Columbus area in Ohio, a prime suburban city, it seems as though many people understand and desire a change to more local communities. Having places to which they can walk to buy groceries, shop, and live is something they all desire but of course are hesitant to hand over their stake in the automobile dominated, comfortable suburbia. It’s time to rethink suburban and urban density!
As a homebuilder, I’m especially interested in what we do about all of the oversized house developments, especially here in Southern California. Nothing wrong with converting a McMansion to senior housing in principle, but it won’t fly in the real world. There are parking requirements, zoning regulations, etc., and most McMansions are surrounded by similar oversized homes. The owners will block permits, for somewhat legitimate reasons.
What we should do instead is convert McMansions into duplexes or triplexes. This has happened plenty of times in other places, and is not difficult technically: existing water mains and electrical boxes are generally adequate.
The problem will be zoning and neighbor protests. If a McMansion neighborhood is R1, single family only, the conversion will have to take place at the city council level, no easy task.
This absolutely should occur, however. Large home developments and even infill neighborhoods are wasteful and in bad taste. They should be retrofitted and abolished. Let’s start with Beverly Hills and its 8000′ homes on one acre lots. This is sickness taken to an extreme. It’s a dream to do a conversion there, but why not think big? Or should I say small.
[...] leading the vote count is Galina Tahchieva’s Urban Sprawl Repair Kit. It offers design solutions for integrating existing suburban prototypes like drive-through [...]
Galina has my vote, albeit I am in favour of a richer urbanism than her schemes.
It is a step-back from sprawl which is highly desirable, especially when conducted on the scale that America presents.
I am thrilled (yet shocked, I have to admit) to see this project in this competition. The transformations are clear, pragmatic, beautiful, sustainable and humane. What a gift you’ve given to us and to the future, Ms. Tahchieva. Thank you for this.
[...] that in mind, please considering visiting the Reburbia finalist site and voting for the Sprawl Repair Kit, designed by Galina Tachieva and others at DPZ. Simply click on the little red house in the upper [...]
Great attempt. Now let’s do it.
The Dress Code Proposal
Reading between the lines, the proposal is to accomplish this vision with zoning.
This will include codifications of aesthetics which will require that all new construction look like this bland garbage. The increased density and reduced setbacks will be favorable adjustments.
This is just a band-aid approach which will make it look better and leave fundamental problems untouched.
That said, it would be great for suburban zoning codes to allow more density. But with this New Urbanist school of thought also comes the Leon Krier baggage/garbage specifying Appropriate ways to point bricks in a faux-historical manner and legislating the use of pitched roofs at precise angles.
This is Disneyland logic.
Infrastructure, infrastructure is key.
Mick (#144), we have to “build more stuff” because your bulldozer solution would fail in fatal fashion. By that, I mean that if you show up in the morning and start trying to bulldoze people’s houses, you likely wouldn’t still be alive by 10 AM. Because the “stuff” you want to get rid of belongs to other people… and they would certainly defend it. So the option to “get rid of it all” simply doesn’t exist.
If not that, then what? One of the biggest problems with sprawl is evident even in its name: things that sprawl spread out too far, and aren’t dense enough to be walkable. So any serious solution to sprawl must involve densification to the minimum threshold of walkability: having enough people, places to work, places to shop, and places to gather within walking distance that driving is no longer required. Galina’s project is the only one that does this, unless I’ve missed something.
excellent work!
just so the architects can be understood, at last!
many thank from Italy
This seems by far the most realistic approach.. densification of suburbia is one of the most important steps if we’re ever going to become environmentally and economically sustainable. This gets my vote.
Dwell would have a big PR problem if the T-Tree entry wins Re-Burbia. The Sprawl Repair Kit, on the other hand, would be the best possible winner for Dwell. Here’s why:
http://bit.ly/25p0sP
I wrote a piece on this competition for Creative loafing newspaper in Tampa:
“Fixing sprawl and redesigning suburbia”
http://blogs.creativeloafing.com/dailyloaf/2009/08/17/fixing-sprawl-and-redesigning-suburbia/
T-Tree is merely more sprawl.
This solution has got it all: common sense, grace, maturity, a masterful artistic hand, and a deep loveliness that would not only help make the suburbs useful well into our uncertain economic and ecological future, but even very pleasant and humane for people of all persuasions and backgrounds, rich and poor alike. Thank you so much for providing one the few entries to actually provide architecture–as opposed to goofy sculpture or science-fiction storyboards–of the sort that is worthy of both affection and respect! My vote is cast.
This project creates complex urban spaces but doesn’t address all the gasoline that is burned to live in sprawl–when we evolve to solar powered cars this will work great!
This is a great project! Kudos!
didn’t read all 164 comments so pardon me if this is a repeat…
codes dictate number of cars required and allowable amount of ground coverage per project – require fewer cars and greater ground coverage per project and sprawl goes away – as demonstrated by various projects.
Have to disagree with you there Steve. The prescribed and judgemental Post-Modern/Neo-Traditionalist aesthetics of New Urbanism simply don’t fit with DWELL’s “At Home in the Modern World” message and contemporary, Modernist-leaning style.
This competition makes me sad. When I first heard about it I was so excited to see the possible visionary finalists. To see what projects are winning makes me scared for the future of architecture. The top three projects are visionless, unrealistic, and already done…..what were the judges thinking? I thought there were over 400 entries and these are the top 20…..it’s just sad!
Shawn (#165)- Where in the Sprawl Repair Kit do you see any mention of style or “post modern/neo-traditionalist aesthetics”? The Repair kit is about incteasing the density and urbanity of existing suburbs to a walkable threshold, in very practical ways. It’s style neutral as far as I can tell.
genius. the essence of good design, and the most overlooked aspect of creating a more sustainable urban environment; making use of what we already have; re-imagining and reusing rather than rebuilding.
Shaun, as a longtime Dwell reader, I’ve observed two sides to the publication. One is clearly stylistic. The other side, however, takes activist stances on a number of place-making issues. It’s this second, more noble side of the editorial board’s interests that gives me hope. I’m not so interested in style and fashion, because it’s so temporary. If you’re interested in sustainability, then you’ve gotta be looking at things that we can keep going in a healthy way long into an uncertain future. Things that perish with a fashion cycle are categorically incapable of fostering sustainability because they simply don’t last long enough. So I’ll grant you that there is some judgment in the New Urbanist world: discerning between things that work in the long run and those that don’t. If we’re going to achieve sustainability, we can’t use things that don’t work.
This is absolutely brilliant, taking seemingly unusable wasteland and turning it into not only profit for the land owner, but a far more beautiful, walkable, enjoyable and enduring PLACE. Turning a placeless landscape into a PLACE. That is real Design with a big “D”.
Hi Guys,
This design is will last like honey on the tongue; a cocktail in the summer; the wife on honeymoon. Enough crap in sorrento you can have the beatiful town and the economic choice; this is it!
Martin Colley
International all time good time guy and
Robotic monster and eigthies freak (isn’t everyone apart from the first bit)
Looks simple enough, so why has it not been done bfore???
Or has it??
Well done.
One previous comment was.. what about the services??
Well what about them??
We have good engineers that can fix these “small” issues??
Go get ‘em.
I like this project because it analizes the city nowadays and how can it be reconstructed with little effort.
My main question is the parking needed for the additional buildings/houses? Most suburban areas public transit are just not up to snuff.
C’mon, certainly Galina’s toolkit could be utilized using Modernism as opposed to a Post-Modern/Neo-Traditionalist aesthetic, as long as we’re not talking about sculptural objects in the field ala Villa Savoye.
Modernism does not have to be associated with bad planning and sprawl.
Good urbanism is not necessarily reliant on a particular “style”.
A trip to Europe should prove this.
I would think being “At Home in the Modern World” would imply more forward thinking among readers.
The proposal suggest better and more profitable use of properties. I think land owners would be interested in that.
Seriously? Is this canned, vaguely new urbanist, overly facile proposal going to walk with the cheese? That’s embarassing.
Real solutions for small sites that will aggregate to a humane and sustainable neighborhood…….yes
By far the strongest proposal (I am biased; however, as I used a similar concept in a ULI design competition). The idea of creating typical housing types and their retro-fit possibilities is fantastic–a typology. The display of this project is also very clear. A practical, urban-spirited proposal.
Interesting read, though I like what the comment said about Entrepreneurbia though, being voted first instead because it’s not a textbook solution… if the comments still there, that is.
This one AND entrepreneurbia both have my vote. But I would prefer to see Entrepreneurbia be the grand winner as it goes into the heart of the suburbs and can’t be found in a textbook already. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t like to see this one implemented too, though.
From a zoning perspective this is a pretty tall order. (Depending on your local zoning commission, this could be a nightmare.) Gas stations are zoned specifically for a certain use, and in most situations you don’t want anything else built around it. In residential areas, existing owners will probably howl at the perceived loss of greenspace by changing setbacks to property lines
From a developer’s perspective, it’s hard to imagine how this would be financed and managed.
However, what I like about this idea is how it breaks down a very confusing problem (sprawl) in to five themes, so to speak, with a solution for each. Well presented, and it seems like the starting point to some very interesting ideas. I’d bet that you could see some progressive local governments trying on some of these ideas – maybe repurposing an old DPW yard, or something. A pilot project of sorts.
Why do we keep rewarding mediocrity and intellectual laziness in design? Everything shown in this proposal looks like it’s been cribbed from an urban planning text book. Infill buildings are not new or innovative. Businesses and individuals are already doing this, some in even more creative ways, and they don’t need architects or urban designers telling them how to do it.
This project, and perhaps the whole premise of this competition, also conveniently ignores the reality and the necessity of the car in the American suburb. Has anyone here ever tried living in the suburbs without a car? Yes, you may be able to walk to the corner Safeway for groceries, but unless you work at the Safeway too, you’ll probably have to drive to get to work. There probably isn’t fast, reliable public transit where you live in the suburbs, or if there is, you’ll still need to drive to the transit station. As many have pointed out, most of the residents living in those houses/apartments will have cars, and will need a place to park those cars. Simply taking away parking spots and NOT replacing them with a viable transportation alternative will not encourage people to walk/bike/bus. It will just encourage them to drive to a different business or move to a different neighborhood that has parking.
I grew up in the suburbs and not having a car sucks. The nearest bus stop was at least a 20 min walk way, and the buses came, at best, once an hour, on weekdays. I am now lucky enough to live near my work and in a neighborhood with a wide variety of services so I don’t need to drive on a daily basis to get what I need. Guess what this is called – a city (Seattle, to be exact). I still use my car but only for inter-city travel because there is no fast reliable public transportation outside the city. Unfortunately, not everyone can afford to live the car-free urban lifestyle (i.e., people with kids). Unless we can provide people with a fast, reliable, preferably low-pollution means of transportation to get their job, schools, grocery stores, etc., we should stop expecting them to give up their cars no matter how tightly we pack them in.
Those tree and grass buffers were placed on that lot for a several reasons.
Decreasing heat islands and infiltration. Unless you replace them with a grass roof, you are still failing the additional impervious area test, and you’ll never get a permit without some mitigation measures for stormwater.
It seems that all of the detractors of this proposal like the suburbs exactly how they are and don’t want anyone to change them, thank you very much. I wonder why they are commenting on proposals in a competition dedicated to re-envisioning the suburbs. This project fits the bill well and utilises no invented or experimental technology.
Good to see that at least the judges realized how bad this projects is… Also, I would love to see how many unique votes it got…
This doesn’t really solve anything other than each “block” is independently becoming built up with this kit of parts… and that’s what suburbia is. In no way does this start to deal with breaking down the mcmansions / suburbia
Yes you are defining the street by removing the set back, but that might not be a good thing, you could have 4 lanes of traffic, a 6 foot sidewalk and then a building… awesome.
Yes you show a way of how to develop a gas station but is it really any better? I hate to sound mean, or like a broken record… but this isn’t anything new. In fact if you were to implement these kits, in 5-10 years we’d be right back where we are now.
aside from that…
axon’s in general can be very misleading. they’re great in letting someone understand the general feeling, big picture, etc… but as far as how someone will experience the space it leaves you clueless. I think had you shown perspectives you would have developed your kits and taken your idea further.
Wow;
I am surprised at all the votes this proposal has gotten, it doesn’t adddress the addtional traffic that comes with dense population development, too idealistic. It doesn’t address any real solutions based on our economy and need for job creation other than construction. Its this dynamic style of urban sprawal that has taken away the heart of communities that they continue to grow in a linear fashion. I relate this to playing three dimensional checkers.
This is so unbelieveably naive – the fact that this project has attracted so many equally naive comments is simply astounding… What’s going on? Have you all lost it completely? This is not even 1st year level thinking. This project is as bad as any freestanding sculptural wank. By unthinkingly filling in the gaps you think you are achieveing anything? This discussion REALLY worries me.
This is a great concept but I’d like to see how these rules would address non-gridded streets. Most suburban streets aren’t straight lines.
Wow, you’ve partially read my mind with this proposal. There have been a number of times when I’ve been in the parking-lot of a big box store and thought, “pity we can’t build some town-houses right across from the stores”. Your proposal might synergize (sorry for using that word) with Entreprenurbia (http://www.re-burbia.com/2009/07/31/entrepreneurbia/). For both proposals, inefficient zoning is an obstacle.
I’m sorry, but I think this is poorly thought out. I’m all for reusing existing infrastructure, but who is going to buy an office condo reeking of gasoline fumes? Who’s going to do the environmental cleanup? Who is going to place their aging parents in a home with rooms the size of closets where they don’t even have space to save a treasured old piece of furniture.
The only result of this kind of project that I can see is MORE sprawl as suburbanites flee this kind of shoe-horned high density project. The only portion I can see as feasible in a real-world scenario is the strip mall extension.
[...] tonight at 11:59pm! There has been an epic battle going down on our website between the forces of modest, practical baby-steps on one hand (Urban Sprawl Repair Kit), and pixellated prefab visions on the other (T-Tree Towers). [...]
The problem with a lot of this stuff trying to reduce urban sprawl is that citizens prefer urban sprawl. American like their big lots and houses with big open paces and most of all they love their cars. We are not Europe. Most American are direct decedents of our agrarian ancestors and we like pretending to live in a rural area even though its in the city. American culture would need to change first. Just look how bad Smart Growth changed Portland. Its unbearable to live there.
Looks cool, but what is recycled at the recycling center? What is turned into/sold as what?
Using the most modern tricks we can repair a building with lees price.
I REALLY LIKE THE GAS STATION ONE gas stations are so ugly.
[...] The people’s choice award in the Re-Burbia ”Rethinking Suburbia” design competition was the entry titled Urban Sprawl Repair Kit: Repairing The Urban Fabric. [...]
haha… its really bad new urbanism infill. i thought this was an design competition, not how to use the Smart Code manual. Guys, please stop designing… you’re only contributing to the problem.
creative but…
you are assuming 2 things
1- the parking at the fast food place is excessive (you know that everyone in suburbia has a car and you can thank robert moses for that)
2- anyone in suburbia would want to live about a grease factory…how unappealing
above not about
One glaring omission from most (all?) of these designs: Bicycle facilities. Conversion of one or two automobiles to dedicated bicycle parking facilities would allow mobility for a far larger number of people. Many suburban areas have far too many curb cuts which will need to be consolidated to make walking and bicycling safer.
My idea isn’t to eliminate automobile infrastructure entirely but rather to make modest concessions to other modes to give people more choices in how they get around.
ewe. pragmatic. feasible. real world solutions. you should do something like this massive crane that scoops up all the houses in a neighborhood and throws them on its shoulder or something.
Love these designs! I would love to see transit in the pics however….leaving out the autos that cause the mess in the first place!
I would like to see some private companies leading the way with some of these innovations. Instead of changing laws to mandate such things lets change laws to allow more options, loosening the zoning restrictions instead of tightening them. This way a few of each of these types of reforms could be tried and we could discover which is more appealing to the public. No point in building 10 “gas station extensions” if people don’t like it because of gasoline fumes.
This is an excellent submission, and the one with the best chances of implementation. I see the critical comments here falling into three categories: 1) people like suburbia and its parking spaces the way it is / don’t build more buildings there; 2) great idea, but the details are all wrong; and 3) this will add to the traffic problems and make sprawl worse.
The first category can be dismissed outright: the rules of the game for this competition are to change the suburbs. These criticism seem to arise because this submission hits “closest to home” – showing easy-to-visualize solutions to real problems.
The second can also be dismissed as criticisms – not because they are not great ideas (many of them are), but because this submission is intended to get people thinking about the current problem of the suburbs, so the presence of these comments demonstrates the success of the project. This submission is more about broad concepts that can be applied on a national level. The details will get worked out on a project-by-project basis.
The third challenge, making sprawl worse, represents the central problem in redeveloping the suburbs. Won’t this increase in density simply compound the problems of the suburbs? The underlying critique in this question assumes that people will all still drive to the redeveloped buildings. This will happen if the redevelopments proposed in this submission happen in isolation. On the other hand, if these changes are implemented as part of a larger revitalization strategy, they will create opportunities within the suburbs for multiple modes of transportation – more bicycling and walking! – and they will in fact reduce the infrastructure burdens in the suburbs, one neighborhood at a time.
The appeal of suburbs – the “wide open spaces” – is not the parking lots, or the congested highways, or the long distances between homes and retail or work. Conversely, higher densities do not necessarily mean urban congestion. There are thousands of (still) successful small towns in America that are low-density walkable communities filled with a mix of apartments, rowhomes, and single-family homes. What this submission suggests is that there are opportunities to create these kinds of opportunities everywhere without having to completely undo the development of the last half-century. The “problem” of suburbs is not the overall density (there’s actually plenty of that) – it’s the mix, which requires people to drive to accomplish every single daily task.
This entry is ultimately the greenest on multiple levels: it reduces the carbon footprint per capita of the suburbs, while keeping existing buildings (and their embodied energy), and it goes even further by creating opportunities for local businesses to survive and seed.
No way would McDonald’s want that property. I sure wouldn’t want to hear “May I take your order?” All day long. I think some of these need reality checks, but I like what it is trying to do. (Where is the additional parking when you add-on these cooler elements?)
This scheme would only apply in cases where population grows. It allows to build where it is already built.
But what about stagnating towns in countries with constant populations or few moves from country to towns ? In these cases, how could we deal with petrol cost increase and lack of facilities ?