There is a ton of news out there, seeming to be coming in by the minute, about specific buildings gaining LEED status.  Some of these buildings are quite high profile, which means that as a culture, we’ve got shining examples of what is possible when thinking about commercial scale buildings that are considered to be energy efficient. These examples are therefore indications of what green technology can potentially deliver across the board in terms of cost savings as well as a cleaner, and more stable global environment.

But, as many of you can tell, I’ve been thinking a lot about green building on a neighbourhood scale, too.  That is, what if an entire residential development, or even a whole district of developments, were designed to be inexpensive to build (and more easily purchased), and entirely sustained by localized power grids based on clean energy?  Among many things, the idea of an eco-district trend in green building for the oncoming decade is certainly encouraging in these lean economic times.

And this is certainly no theoretical notion, as eco-districts as a distinct possibility on a wider cultural scale can be seen in isolated developments in Europe, and at least one in North America.  A recent Eco-development in Boulder Colorado employs geothermal heat, passive design,  solar energy by means of photovoltiac tiles, and a more streamlined and efficient use of all building materials that makes more with less.

“The future is here. It’s just not evenly distributed,” said science fiction author William Gibson.  Eco-districts are not the norm – yet.  But, the economic possibilities are compelling.  The development in Boulder is not only is energy efficient, the more efficient use of building materials drives down the cost of building each unit.   This means accessible, affordable houses for more people who  can’t presently afford to buy a traditional home, and soon won’t be able to afford to heat one either, given the shelf life of fossil fuel-based energy.

But, who are these people who live in these eco-districts currently?  Are they highly-enlightened eco-champions on an evolutionary scale that is higher than us mere, car loving, energy burning, meat-eating mortals?  I think they are simply people who understand the value of what they’ve invested in, to wit: their local, and self-sustaining, and more self-contained community.  That idea, in principle, is not too far afield from how most people measure quality of life.

From this, I remain hopeful that doing without extra square footage, or without as many trips in the car, won’t be considered a loss as our century progresses.  In reading a bit about ecopsychology, it seems to me that we need to engage with the outdoors to a greater extent than we do anyway, as a species.  And I don’t mean more fishing trips, and skiing trips, and other events that take place in nature but largely remain outside of our daily routines.  I’m thinking of accessible restaurants, shops, parks, schools,  all sustainably integrated with shared green space, and all within walking and/or biking distance  that we will actually walk and bike to.

In this, it seems to me that the rise of the eco-district will also mean the rise in more eco-people, not in an elitist or judgmental way.  It seems to me that for these communities to become mainstream, replacing how neighborhoods are planned across the board will take a change in perception about what a neighborhood should be in a green economy and green culture; self-sustaining, highly efficient, smart,  and not reliant on long trips in multiple vehicles to the places we need to, and want to go.

I don’t think this is out of reach, considering the rising prices of gasoline, and fossil fuels in general that feed so much of western culture.   After all, this is not just a question of morality, about preserving our environment for our children, although I think this is certainly a big piece.  Largely, it’s about making being alive, safe, fed, and sheltered into a less expensive and more sustainable prospect for all people.  And I think this comes down to economics as much as it does to morality.  This vision for the future takes ‘eco-people’ too.

Despite these hopeful dreams of the future, one thing remains. That when demand for this kind of sustainable neighborhood is more culturally pervasive, and when the cultural drive to live in  hugely wasteful and needlessly isolated neighborhoods that require multiple vehicle ownership and use to get anywhere meaningful begins to wane,  at least we know that the technology is way ahead of us.

Cheers,

Rob.