Our scheme proposes to thicken the arteries of our burbs as the remedy for their future. New housing is proposed above the roadways in-between the existing suburban fabric. The density of the burb is dramatically increased. The new housing promotes a new typology. A sinuous ribbon that weaves between the McMansions promoting mixed forms of living that offers an alternative to the single family dwelling.
Smaller housing modules, shared housing and extended family living are all accommodated in the strip. Opportunities for community interaction are increased. The ‘backyard’ is relocated to the roof, and becomes community parkland, providing new recreational opportunities and a new view of suburbia. The new density increases the patronage of public transport making the system more sustainable.
When the strip converges at an intersection the strands cluster and rise vertically to create a mini-city of apartments. These clusters of high density living encourage the development of support services around their base. The rooftop parkland becomes the façade of the towers transforming into a vertical garden.
When the strip terminates, the ubiquitous cul-de-sac creates the opportunity for a unique suburban event space such as skate park, gallery, restaurant or perhaps just a new take on the ‘corner store’.
In time the patterns of living in these commuter suburbs shifts. People want to live in the strip. The demand for the McMansion falters. Slowly they are replaced by parkl
I like the basis of this design, but I think it eventually goes too far. I don’t think that removing the existing houses would be a good idea. With an ever increasing world population, the idea of increasing density is good. So why take out the already existing homes with all of their embodied energy. It looks a whole lot like Le Corbusier by the end of that little video. The tower in the park has proven to reduce the sense of community and take away from the urban form.
Thinking that this system would somehow reduce the amount of housing necessary to shelter an increasing population is fairly naive. People will also shun the idea of giving up their own personal space and surrounding environment. Great in theory, but the theory that this would somehow allow us to reclaim housing space and return it to nature is a pipe dream at best.
Not sure this idea would assimilate into American culture very well. It’s replacing one system with another that has a similar capacity.
How will the foreclosed-upon families be able to afford these houses if they couldn’t manage their payments on a regular house? Any investor wants ROI so they’d need to sell for more than suburban houses I’m sure.
I’ve read through most of them and have to say it, check out Entreprenurbia for a ‘now’ solution. It’s not futuristic at all. It’s very simple and effective. But what do I know, I’m just a family guy interested in this stuff. Isn’t that what who competitions about though?
If it is more appealing than the existing homes, it will seen as destroying the value of existing homes through competition. If it is not more appealing, it must be less valuable than the existing homes, and therefore is destroying the value of existing homes. Both of these cases are caused by the proximity with the existing homes. No one who purchased the existing homes could have foreseen the intrusion of a ribbon home, and will resent it. It is not situated on a private property, and will see many delays until someone figures out how to tax it.
I would rather see a process of converting all rooftops into additional dormer style apartments with a flat green rooftop loft or garden patio. This improves the value of a home, returns the investment with rent income, and adds population density as well as a green element.
I don’t wish to sound negative. But this idea would never fly. Homeowners (voters) would never allow a mobile home on stilts to be erected directly in front of their homes and peeping into their windows.
Because this housing is in a continual strip, it would be considered multi-family housing. I know a proven, surely more cost effective and certainly less intrusive multi-family housing unit. They call it a “high rise apartment building.” Because it’s stacked, it takes up less space and has it’s contruction recieves economies of scale. And best of all, it doesn’t intrude on the privacy of current homeowners.
The idea of increasing densities in suburbia is an important one. And there are excellent ways of increasing density through design. But these structures weren’t built in a fasion that easily allows them to be retrofitted to allow other structures. The most likely scenario is that these neighbourhoods will be replaced with higher density structures over time.
I used to abhore the idea of tearing down perfectly good buildings and replacing them because it seems like a ridiculously inefficient use of finances and resources. But it’s not like many of these structures were built to stand for more than half a century anyway. And every body was in such a hurry to build and expand that they didn’t think about or even care about the long term problems they were creating. Short-sightedness & ignorance. It’s inevitable that these structures will be torn down eventually and when they do, we will have to be smarter about what we build to replace it.
Again with the living in the air concept…these designs all seem to be provided by kidless office dwellers who spend little or no time outside of their own mind.
The problem with suburbia is not JUST THE HOMES!
Nice drawings however…
Tower views of decaying suburbs!
This is a clever take on “infill,” but as nice as the end product may SEEM, the tower-in-the-park scenario has been tried, and found wanting (and un-wanted). Also, it’s unlikely that these isolated towers would have the kind of density needed to support public transportation adequately.
As fun as it is to suggest that the “corner store” would be at the end of the street, it doesn’t work. Retail works at nodes and intersections, not endpoints, with the exception of “destinations.” Such destination retailers and restaurants, while desirable, cannot be planned and depended upon in urban design.
Are you serious? This would never ever be implemented.
James Oeinck makes a very good point about there being more to suburbia than houses. There are trillions of dollars invested in plumbing, sewers, telecommunications, etc in the suburbs of the western world. And its not an investment that can be dug up either. Wholesale abandonment of the suburbs over even a period of time as short as a century will represent a lot of money wasted by the government.
Don’t see this flying in states like Texas. Impractical design because of weather and just won’t jive with the politics. There are a lot of nice things about Europe, But many European solutions don’t jive with the geographic reality of the US or the political and cultural fabric throughout the country. If the US is the big problem here, why do so many of these proposals seem to be so heavily influenced by European concepts that are enabled in Europe by political systems alien to the US?
this might work in a controlled environmeont,
that probably refers to socialism or goverment run programs and the likes,
I don’t think the defense for the high density surburbs is a good enough,
A home shopper will generally pick the surburb because it has low density and is thus quiet,
Also this building doesn’t seem to improve commercial viability and is not commercially viable,
it discards individuality which is a dominant human instinct,
does not improve culture or architecture,
but it might work on a smaller scale,probably as a single tower spreading out it’s roots.
the author of this work should rethink his sustainability philosophy.
I like this project, I hope the judges understand this because the voters are way too ignorant to realize the concept of this competition. Wait, it also looks like the judges have gotten it wrong, are ya’ll sure you picked the right 20? Or perhaps you should read your own guidelines again. Way to lead the charge.
Looks interesting. I assume that the effect of heat islands is going to be severe in this case. The presentation is conveying a message of the present inhabitants of that area are going to move away once the life-span of the existing buildings is met with. By 2030, the built area is kept to a coverage of maximum of 30% including the roads below it and the open plot area to 70% which could be considered positive leaving all the socio-cultural issues aside.
One of the reasons families move to the suburbs is for privacy, safety, and a place for their kids to run around while still being able to get to a grocery store (which is why they don’t move to rural farm land).
By raising houses on stilts you block out skylight/sun access; and, by increasing density you decrease privacy, safety, and space (theoretically). So if you address those three factors (privacy and safety in particular) in your model, this has a greater potential of being something the current “suburbia” might embrace.
Nice work.
Great! Those pylons would slow down the traffic and the overhead ribbon would give god shade in those long hot suburban summers. Gets my vote.
You are creating a single story dwelling to replace three story dwellings twice the width, decreasing density dramatically when the mcmansions disappear. I also fail to see adequate mixed use? I agree better to add a floor or two and create 2-4 apartments in the house, as is done with houses in urban centres.
Fun thought. But these dwellings are very similar to regular apartments, why live far away from work and services? Also i think the park you are imagining are never going to bee created. And even if so, doesent it actualy decrease the density of the suburb rather than increasing it that your initial goal was?
No,no,no. Blocking sun, having things above on metal stilts like elevated trains, no easy access from one house to another on another level. Just a more complicated system to take down later. No grace, no likie.
Introducing more housing is not soving the problem… try incorparating the other aspects of daily life… Oh, and by the way, Reducing Density is not Green¡!
What home owner would want new residents parked right above them in basically an apartment? While I like the idea of increasing density, no homeowner or neighborhood would desire –much less allow – something like this.
Property values = fail.
Ugh………..where do I start with what is wrong with this idea?
Most important is that homeowners own the space under their homes to the center of the earth projecting up and into space.
Cutting off the sun?
Its just plain ugly as sin!’
It conjests already conjested suburbs further.
Don’t see additional roadways to handle the expanded demographics……
Do I need to continue?
Not great, but better than most of the rest.
The comments here show the ignorance of American people and the general conservative mindset, a sign that should tell you that there is no real chance for a real progressive redesign of American suburbs.
In my opinion this design and the futuristic airbia design both are the only designs that truly understand the concept of reburbia- which means a complete reconceptualization of suburbs. That includes a complete destruction of suburbs as they exist today. Why otherwise participate in this competition if you’re not going to think outside the box.
It is obvious that the current status quo is unsustainable and unworkable. Suburbs have to be completely rethought.
You can fill them with trees, ponds, frogs, etc. but that will not change anything.
In order to find a sustainable and workable solution, there will have to be sacrifices made. In America a sacrifice is too much to ask for even if it is for the greater good of all and our planet.
Not gonna happen. Sigh.
this is garbage. you really took the idea of the suburb and turned it on its head. or just hit Ctrl+I in suburb photoshop. in 2030 all you have is a sprawling city squeezed into capillaries not arteries.
interesting but not gonna happen
You are creating a new category in housing: Coercive housing. The only way to get people to live this way is to force it on them.
As an experiment, show this to some suburban neighborhood residents. Not other students in your sustainability class at Urban University, and not that cool chick who you met at New Leaf. Real people who are raising kids in suburbia, also known as the majority of America. Tell them it is up for permitting, and ask for comments.
When their ire starts to frighten you, clearly distance yourself from the design, and tell them you will make sure the planning department hears their voice. Then leave- quickly.
You want to “fix” suburbia by taking away all the things people love about it. Please don’t pretend this is all about the environment. Studies on the impact of density are pretty ambiguous. (see http://www.american.com/archive/2010/january/the-war-against-suburbia)
Also, did the designer ever question whether or not people want to live in a hallway with traffic running underneath?