Remaking the Built Environment by 2030

By 2030, about half of the buildings in America will have been built after 2000. This statistic, courtesy of Professor Arthur C. Nelson's report for the Brookings Institution, means that over the next 25 years, we will be responsible for re-creating half the volume of our built environment.

The report has been around since 2004, but Nelson re-examined his own findings last year to see if the housing market's downturn impacted the forecast. The sheer volume was essentially unchanged, and the mainstreaming of the green movement that's occurred in the last two years presents a colossal challenge--and a magnificent opportunity--for the burgeoning sustainable building industry.

Nelson's report states that the country will need about 427 billion square feet of space (up from 2000's total volume of just 300 billion). Moreover, only a small portion of this space can be acquired by renovating existing real estate. We're already well on our way; the U.S. Green Building Council estimates that we're developing about twice times as fast as the associated population growth. Every new building built between now and 2030 should be seen as an opportunity to push the envelope and transform our structured world. From the report:

About 82 billion of that [new volume] will be from replacement of existing space and 131 million will be new space. Thus, 50 percent of that 427 billion will have to be constructed between now and then.

Most of the space built between 2000 and 2030 will be residential space. The largest component of this space will be homes. Over 100 billion square feet of new residential space will be needed by 2030. However, percentage-wise, the commercial and industrial sectors will have the most new space with over 60 percent of the space in 2030 less than 30 years old.

Recent trends indicate that demand is increasing for more compact, walkable, and high quality living, entertainment, and work environments. The challenge for leaders is to create the right market, land use, and other regulatory climates to accommodate new growth in more sustainable ways.

Consider, then, architecture's place in this future. Every quirky blueprint idea, every design doodled on a cocktail napkin, every out-of-the-box concept -- they're all fair game in light of our supreme need for residential and commercial space in the coming decades. Here we stand, fewer than 10 years into the mainstream U.S. green movement, and we're faced with a monumental opportunity. Worldchangers will be needed by the boatload to realize these new cities of the future.

Though published in 2004, Nelson's report recently came to the forefront again during a recent conversation with a colleague here in Chicago. My friend was describing the Dutch green building movement, and he mentioned something interesting: in the Netherlands, designers found that it was not financially feasible to tear down and replace existing buildings that were taller than 20 stories. Beyond that ceiling, demolition was not an option, and the architects were tasked with imagining how the building might be renovated and made to endure into the 21st century.

Without a doubt, this is the future of sustainable building. Few things make as much sense as taking a building constructed 20 years ago and refitting it with green techniques and materials, thereby creating a sustainable environment to live, work and play. With this practice as a benchmark, skylines of the future will no longer grow--they will evolve. Renovation efforts will drive the demand for green building materials, which will in turn drive down the associated costs. And with 131 billion square feet of new space needed for our urban future, it's time to get started.

Don't think this trend has repercussions in Windsor, let alone Canada? Since when did we start doing things independently of the U.S.?

Written by Patrick Rollens and reprinted from the website WorldChanging

Offering up a superior product

Thankfully, there has been quite the media focus on revitalizing our downtown core lately. Blogs, Letters to the editor, op-eds and even the Star's editorial staff are seeing to it that the health of our downtown is vital to the overall health of our community. This is a very good thing.

The big box debate has been correctly linked to our deteriorating local economy. Arnie Blaine, of the Ottawa Street BIA spoke eloquently to our city council about the need to curtail fringe development because it hollows out our core. These are all interconnected issues, and they need to be kept in the spotlight. The question was posed to me the other day as to why Jenny Coco, who owns the old, dilapidated Royal Bank building on Ouellette, as to why we can't force her to do something with that building. The answer is easy. As long as it is profitable and painless to continue sprawl development, there is no incentive for her to invest in the core. Revitalizing that building on Ouellette would require creativity beyond the pattern-thinking that has brought her the riches to which she is accustomed to. The carrot-and-stick approach must come into play if we want to enact meaningful change.

Yesterday's Star editorial echoes many of SDW's previous posts about the impact a downtown university campus can have on the downtown. Criticisms have been made that it is not the University's responsibility to rejuvenate down-and-out areas of the city. While that criticism may partly be true, it ignores the bigger picture. The University of Windsor would see it's new marketing campaign and rankings in MacLean's magazine skyrocket if it were located in a livable, creative community with more to offer than just cross-border shopping. It is in its best interest to help in any way possible the revitalization of Windsor. That being said, the University is also funded through our tax dollars, and both the municipal and provincial level. Some accountability must be linked to the expenditures the University makes that impacts huge numbers of citizens. We have a symbiotic relationship that must be nurtured if all parties are to reach their true potential. I have no doubt that a truly unique development can occur downtown if we make this our combined goal.

This is the way to combat the relentless assault on our built environment – by offering up a superior product to the soulless sprawl and cookie-cutter development that is so easy and profitable. Keeping the focus on our downtown is the right thing to do at this point. Educating people that a healthy downtown will bring them a healthy overall city is necessary. Giving people a reason to live in our core by offering a diverse living experience and level of quality unsurpassed by the suburbs is another necessary component in the revitalization.

For now, just support those making the daunting effort of breathing life into downtown Windsor. Go to the Windsor International Film Festival. Support the arts. Spend your money there. It's for your own good as residents in this city, no matter which neighbourhood you call home.

P.S. To those readers who attended the Borderline Case symposium at the Art Gallery in September and have been checking in to see the footage that I shot from the morning session with, among others, Dr. Gloria House and Dr. Veronika Mogyrody – please be patient with me. Technical difficulties have postponed the work, and my neo-Luddite gene pool is forcing me to seek outside help. I am still working on it.