Housing Choices: Structure, Grounds, Location

"We -- you and I and everyone who has a yard of any size -- own a big chunk of this country.... As [suburban] tracts expand, they increasingly squeeze the remaining natural ecosystems, fragment them, sever corridors by which plants and animals might refill the voids we have created. To reverse this process ... requires a new kind of garden, new techniques of gardening, and, I emphasize, a new kind of gardener." - Sara Stein ["Noah's Garden", p. 16]

Location, Location, Location

Home location and work location intertwine also at the local level. Affluence, both national and personal, seems to cause increasing distance between job place and living place. Oil consumption has allowed living at long distances from work. Millions choose to live in suburbia and work in the city, or to live in the country and work in suburbia. The resulting long commutes, traffic congestion, and smog are legendary. Ecoshifters obviously recognize that long automobile commutes are unsustainable as well as a big waste of time. A hierarchy of alternative commuting options is available. From most to least desirable these are: working at home (e.g. telecommuting), walking, bicycling, public transportation, motorcycle or scooter, and car-pooling. Availability of one or more of these should play a significant role in determining housing location.

In my state of New Hampshire, and my Gulf of Maine bioregion, many people feel the need to be close to nature (see the Ecopsychology chapter), and want to live on a 2-acre or larger house lot out in the woods on some back road. This means, of course, that they have to get in a car to do almost anything except walk in the woods or look out their window. It can be 5, 10, or 20 miles to "town" (out west even farther) for groceries, recreation, hospital, stores, library, and restaurants. As gasoline price rises and gasoline eventually disappears, I wonder what they will do. Somehow I can't imagine solar-powered electric cars traveling miles over rough country roads for a loaf of bread. Maybe local buses will rise again in rural areas. Ecoshifters will clearly look for home locations close to the necessities and amenities of "town", preferring to walk or bike if possible, while still maintaining access to sufficient natural or green space. All this raises another question for future Ecoshift debate - what kind of urban/suburban/rural combinations can be attained, or how large should communities be and how should they be structured? Ian McHarg's classic book "Design With Nature" remains an excellent discussion of how to build communities that conform with rather than oppose the natural world. If it is now outdated, it is only because it assumed that the automobile is here to stay.

A related issue concerns those people who want to see as much of "nature" as possible from behind their windows and so choose home sites on mountainsides or ocean shores. They want to "own" a fantastic view while they deteriorate the view for everyone else. Just last night I went to a house concert at one of the many such houses that make the mountainsides around here look like suburbs. I really dislike these houses but I held my tongue with the proud homeowners who were my host.

Population growth combined with fewer people per house, bigger houses on larger lots, and vacation housing all mean that land is gobbled up for housing at a very rapid rate. Increased crowding in big city suburbs makes people leave for less densely populated areas, to which they bring their demands for the high levels of public service that the densely populated areas have provided. Consequently taxes increases for everyone. In many parts of the country, all land that is not protected WILL be developed. The pace of "development", together with realization that new houses and businesses in our town or county cost the rest of us money, has led to efforts to control growth and to protect land. Eben Fodor's "Better, Not Bigger" documents these and many other adverse effects of growth, and describes how to fight such growth at the local level. Another way to limit growth deals with the question of immigration (see the Population chapter).

Reducing Your Housing Footprint

But big houses and new houses, big buildings and new buildings, all have associated big energy and environmental costs. Because a society's comfort range for temperature seems to get narrower and narrower as the society becomes more affluent, we spend more and more energy on heating and cooling of houses and workplaces. Travel to and from homes to work and play locations adds to energy costs. So does mowing, fertilizing, watering, and pesticiding those acres of grass that so many are enamored of.

In opposition to such expressions of affluence, ecoshifters try to reduce the size of their home and to reduce its energy consumption (see the Energy chapter). A part of this is reducing the amount of possessions, thus reducing "clutter" and the need for a larger house or a storage locker (see the Voluntary Simplicity chapter). An ecoshifter finds new homes for items that are no longer used (clothes, books, furniture, equipment), or appropriately recycles unusable items.

I am continually amazed by the number of people I know who actually enlarge their house or move to a larger one after they retire just so they have room for all their children and grandchildren to visit. An ecoshifter, of course, tries to have fewer grandchildren in the first place (see the Population chapter).

What is an appropriate housing density for an ecoshifted Earth? What goal should we be striving toward in the long term? Megalopolis cities have serious problems with overcrowding by both residents and commuters, with lack of connection with nature, and with the need for vast and distant support areas that contribute food, energy, and materials. On the other hand, high population density allows energy efficient public transportation and leaves more room in other places for the natural world. What is the optimum size or size distribution for cities? How can cities be made more self-supporting, more friendly, and more nature-related? Discussion of and answers to these and many related questions will be part of Ecoshift, but are beyond my scope in this book.

Ecovillages

A few large, Earth-centered communities exist. Auroville in India seeks human unity in diversity and living in harmony with nature and the environment. Its population currently is 1,800 people, but its influence is global. Findhorn in Scotland bases itself on a personal source of inner divine wisdom, cooperation with the intelligence of nature, and service to the world. The Findhorn Ecovillage is a pioneer in sustainability and enhanced quality of life. This community of several hundred people has inspired and educated thousands more who have taken its message and methods around the world. The Findhorn Ecovillage helped to found the Global Ecovillage Network, which links and supports sustainable settlements. Its directory lists ecovillages world-wide.

Of the many ecovillages in the United States I will just mention three. The Farm in Tennessee began in 1971 as a classic commune, but now includes an ecovillage training center as well as its older midwifery center and various cottage industries. The Farm is the home of Albert Bates, author of "The Post-Petroleum Survival Guide and Cookbook" . In New York, the Ecovillage at Ithaca is an intentional community and a non-profit educational organization that demonstrates an alternative model for suburban living, providing a "satisfying, healthy, socially rich lifestyle, while minimizing ecological impacts". Earthlands in Petersham MA supports and encourages individuals "striving to live lightly, creatively and lovingly as global ecological citizens". It is primarily a retreat center with rustic simple living, organic and vegetarian food choices, and solar electricity. Earthlands demonstrates Deep Ecology principles (see the Deep Ecology chapter) and encourages individuals to "live with greater material simplicity, appreciation for life, and personal empowerment."

Co-Housing

"We will emphasize conservation, recycling, non-polluting energy sources, and other environmentally sound practices. We share a commitment to the idea that cooperating in the endeavors of daily life brings the pleasures of sociability, greater economy of resources and effort in daily tasks, the warmth of an extended family and the probability of a rich variety of friendships. In our interactions, we seek a balance between privacy in our own homes and our wish to be with others, living independently as well as interdependently. We want to share and interact with each other through social activities, celebrations and practical tasks, such as cooking, dining, child care, maintenance and through other shared work and problem solving. Honoring our varied experiences, we intend to follow a consensus-based process respectful of all points of view. We believe that through living together and especially in working through our differences, we become stronger, more peaceful contributing members within the larger, global community."

Multi-family housing is as old as humanity. I expect that some ancestral couple tens of thousands of years ago was the first to want a private cave just for their immediate family. Since then there has always been a tension between multi-family dwellings that we now call apartment houses, condominiums, row houses, or town houses and single family dwellings, often on relatively large plots of land. In North America, at least, affluence and vanity have caused proliferation of the mega-mansions described at the start of this chapter. For the "middle class", the drive to own one's home has created sprawling suburbia. Population growth, the energy crisis, and deep ecological thinking all indicate that mega-mansions and suburban sprawl are not sustainable or ecocentric. We need a swing back to multi-family dwellings. Multi-family dwellings, even without the shared community values of co-housing, still may include common land and a community sense brought about by close proximity. The Nubanuset Neighborhood in Peterborough NH includes one-, two-, and four-unit dwellings, an organic farm, shared office space, a common house, and common land.

Green Buildings

The first step that every homeowner and renter can take involves reducing heat loss in winter. Maintaining a given inside temperature requires heat input equal to the amount of heat lost through walls, doors, windows, and roof. The heat loss is the product of an insulation factor and the temperature difference between indoors and outdoors. So heat loss can be reduced both by increasing the insulation factor and by reducing the indoor temperature. For a given insulation factor, heat loss is directly proportional to the indoor-outdoor temperature difference. Turning the thermostat down from 65 to 60ºF reduces heat loss by 14% when outdoor temperature is 30ºF and 9% when it is 0ºF. By setting home thermostats one or two degrees cooler each winter and wearing more clothes it really is possible to get used to a cooler home. I am now happy with 62-64ºF in daytime and 56ºF at night.

Windows are responsible for a large portion of heat transfer between indoors and outdoors. In winter weather stripping and caulk can be used to fill any place that cold air infiltration is felt with a bare hand. Condensation or frost on windows indicates excessive heat loss; plastic sheeting (heat shrink or stretch) and double-stick tape can eliminate this. Shades, window quilts, and curtains further reduce heat loss. The same techniques can be used to reduce heat gain from outside in the summer. On hot days windows and shades should be closed in daytime to keep heat out, then opened after outside temperature drops below inside temperature. When it is cooler outside than in, opening one or two windows on the lowest and highest floors allows warm inside air to move out the upper windows, which draws cooler outside air in the lower windows. This is "free convection" and free air conditioning. An exhaust fan in an upper window or attic further helps this air flow.

Increasing the amount of insulation in the home is an additional, though initially more expensive, way to conserve energy. Double-glazed storm windows, or better, triple glazed, can also be installed. Unfortunately, federal tax credits are no longer available for energy conservation actions such as window replacement, reinsulation, new water heaters or furnace, and heat pumps.

Trees around a home can help a lot in controlling energy gain and loss. In 1976 I published an article called "Trees Modify the Urban Microclimate" [Journal of Arboriculture 2:121-127], in which I calculated that the cooling created by evaporation of water from the leaves of a single large tree was the equivalent of 10 room-sized air conditioners. This number entered the literature of benefits of trees and hopefully has had some effect on increasing urban greenery. In addition to the air conditioning effect, the energy budget of a house can be significantly improved by having deciduous trees to the south (in the northern hemisphere), where they provide shade in summer but allow sun in winter, and evergreen trees and shrubs to the north and northwest where they reduce the impact of cold winter winds.

Humanity got along without air conditioning for millennia. Our addiction to it only developed in the past 50 years. In 2005 air conditioners burned up the equivalent of twice the U.S. production of ethanol, a very significant amount. The fact that air conditioning is not sustainable is on a collision course with global warming. We probably need to learn to live without it again.

Adding photovoltaic panels to a house, garage, or lot is relatively simple and is becoming less expensive, especially with the recent continuation of a federal tax credit. A battery storage system is no longer necessary as more electric companies and states allow electric meters to run backwards. Solar panels feed energy into the electric grid when it is sunny, thus reducing net electricity cost. Some ecoshifters aspire to live "off the grid", but this usually requires banks of storage batteries, that need to be replaced every ten years, with consequent recycling or disposal issues.

If you must renovate part or all of a house, there are increasing opportunities to use local materials, to reuse materials from demolished buildings, and to use materials that are downcycled from other materials, e.g. plastic decking. The directory of the Building Materials Reuse Association has lots of links to local sources.

Building a new "green" house appeals to a considerable number of people. The number of information sources related to green building is increasing very rapidly, see, for instance, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Green Buildings web site. Old construction methods, such as straw bales and mud, and newer methods such as mostly underground houses and literally green roofs provide a variety of choices. Green roofs normally include a sealant layer, a drainage layer, soil, and plants. Such a roof is cooler in summer, insulated in winter, and filters pollutants from roof runoff. "Building Green" by Snell and Callahan covers many green building methods comprehensively, as do "The Green Self-build Book" and "The New Natural House Book" by David Pearson.

The U.S. Green Building Council certifies green buildings through the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Green Building Rating System, which is the nationally accepted benchmark for the design, construction, and operation of high performance green buildings. In "Blessed Unrest" [p. 153], Paul Hawken says that the Green Building Council "may have had a greater impact than any other single organization in the world on materials saved, toxins eliminated, greenhouse gases avoided, and human health enhanced." The system has standards for a variety of structures, including commercial buildings, schools, and homes. In the U.S. 6% of new building construction seeks LEED certification. Look for the Council's extensive "Green Building Links" page.

Green construction also includes such things as pavement that drains or is grassed. Whole cities, such as Portland OR and Seattle WA, are developing "green streets", which include bioswales for cleaning runoff, and low-pollution paving materials.

Before reveling in the glorious possibility of designing your own green dream home, an ecoshifter should decide whether is it better to build a new house or to live in an existing house as greenly as possible. In an ideal world/country/society of declining population there is little reason to build a new house and thus expand the housing footprint of humanity at the expense of all other living beings. Even with the rapid population growth that the U.S. is experiencing because of immigration, there is an arguable question about whether a new house on its own plot of land is justified in an ecojustice sense (see the Population and Ecojustice chapters). A related question is whether it is ecocentric to own and live on a large area of land in order to protect it from development, perhaps through conservation easements. There are no obvious right answers here; continued discussion will be part of Ecoshift.

Renaturalizing the Yard

Renaturalizing a yard restores the normal functioning of a piece of Earth. Ecocentrism replaces desire for a lawn and formal garden with a recognition of the beauty of the local natural ecosystem. Replacing mowed grass with native trees, shrubs, and herbs allows the native natural system to recover and produces a vital biology where there was a biological desert. Replacing exotic species with native ones eliminates the scourge of species that have escaped and continue to escape from yards into nature with ecologically disastrous results (see the Conservation Biology chapter). Natural yards replenish themselves with nutrients from decomposing leaves, twigs, and wood. Natural yards need no irrigation as they are suited to the native weather conditions. Natural yards take no fossil fuel for maintenance. Natural yards generally need no pesticides, though one could argue that protecting elms, hemlocks, and other native species from imported pests is acceptable. "Noah's Garden" by Sara Stein provides lots of information about how to renaturalize and reduce the artificial footprint of a yard.

Forests and grasslands have worked well for many millions of years because of internal recycling. Nutrients that fall to the ground as dead leaves, twigs, and stems get returned to the soil by decomposition. Removal of grass cuttings, leaves, and branches from artificial yards also removes nutrients and organic matter, which are in limited supply. Repeated removal causes soil impoverishment; energy-requiring fertilizers and peat moss mined elsewhere become required. Even if plant materials are ground and composted and then returned to the soil surface, loss is only partially mitigated, because some leaching and volatilization occurs from the compost heap. Enhancing compost with kitchen waste can offset the loss. If grass clippings, leaves, and slash are ground and left in place, then all the nutrients are kept on the ground they came from and true recycling occurs. The yard then operates naturally.