vision2020
(Fwd) Ecovillages as a solution to urban growth problems
Anyone interested in cluster housing/ecovillage example ???
>
>------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
>Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 16:51:03 -0700
>To: (Recipient list suppressed)
>From: Kevin Wolf <kjwolf@dcn.davis.ca.us>
>Subject: Ecovillages as a solution to urban growth problems
>
>NOTE: This originally appeared as an opinion piece in the Davis Enterprise
>on May 3, 1998. This version is adapted for a broader audience, but I left
>in many of the Davis specific examples. Unfortunately the names of the
>land speculators pushing suburban sprawl may be unique to Davis, but almost
>every town and city is facing a similar story. Ecovillages could be great
>ways to expand cohousing. Comments on this article and concept are welcome.
> KW
>
>
>Eco-villages as a Solution to Urban Growth Problems
>Published in the Davis Enterprise May 3, 1998
>By Kevin Wolf, kjwolf@dcn.davis.ca.us
>
>Most of the land surrounding Davis and other Central Valley towns has been
>optioned or purchased by speculators hoping to convince the city or county
>to allow them to build a new subdivision on what is presently farmland or
>wildlife habitat. Given the history of land development, their bet will
>likely pay off.
>
>Locally these deep-pocket developers include the Ramos Oil Company family
>and PG&E Properties. They have tremendous influence in the state
>legislature and with local elected officials because they invest heavily in
>professional lobbying and campaign donations. Today's campaign rules favor
>the rich and business, because they wrote the rules.
>
>Davis will be highly vulnerable to the power of the land speculators when
>we attempt to craft the 2010 General Plan, and possibly much sooner.
>
>Think about it. Projections show that the front-loading of home building
>in the 1987 General Plan developments leaves the City with five years of
>virtually no-growth from 2006-2010. Home prices and rents will likely
>skyrocket to San Francisco and Berkeley levels.
>
>The political dynamics will pit renters and developers against land owners
>seeking higher property values and no-growth, save-the-farmland activists.
>As new housing stock declines, demand for both starter homes and move-up
>housing will mount. A rigid no-growth policy in Davis will displace some
>of this demand to new suburbs built on prime ag land around neighboring
>towns, which will effectively deprive the save-the-farmland argument of its
>moral power. The remaining local demand will then coalesce into a powerful
>force for explosive growth in Davis.
>
>Adding to this will likely be the state of California continuing to "force"
>us to accept "a share of regional growth" in our next General Plan. The
>last time it was 1.8%. Next time it could easily be higher. At any time,
>the city council could pass another version of the 1987 General Plan that
>brought us to the mess we are in today.
>
>What should we do - Just say No, ignore it, try to solve it later or what?
>One real solution is to change the rules of the election game so that
>campaign contributions no longer play as important a role in who writes
>state and local laws and rules governing growth. Another is to slow or
>direct growth in the entire region or significantly increase densification
>in our existing footprint.
>
>A new idea being tried around the country is the eco-village model of
>farmland and wildlife habitat protection. We should explore the idea of
>locking up as much land around Davis as possible in ag land trusts crafted
>around various versions of the eco-village model. By doing this before the
>2010 General Plan process begins, we can avoid the worst of the land price
>increases that would otherwise occur as development interests take
>advantage of the next round of growth.
>
>If we pro-actively plan a decade in advance, we can ensure that future
>growth is done in an environmentally sound manner. If we wait, we will more
>than likely lose again to the powerful forces of the walled suburbs. If we
>do it right, we might be able to score 320-640 acres in permanent land
>trust for each 15-20 acre eco-village. (In Ithaca, 4-5 neighborhoods of
>25-30 homes will be built at a density of 10 units per acre. Their 12-15
>acre village will save 150+ acres from its previous zoning of a one acre
>lot suburb.)
>
>To quote from EcoVillage at Ithaca (www.cfe.cornell.edu/ecovillage/), "The
>basic idea is to create a pedestrian village which maintains open space and
>agricultural land within the urban area, by densely clustering housing in
>appropriate-sized neighborhoods."
>
>The village's neighborhoods can be a co-op like Dos Pinos Mutual Housing
>Cooperative, a cohousing community like Muir Commons, or a
>condominium/townhouse complex, even a neighborhood like Village Homes. t
>can be a mixture of rentals and owner occupied properties. In all cases,
>the surrounding land would be donated to a land trust which can never
>develop it.
>
>I hope the first village we develop follows Ithica's example, which uses
>the Danish Cohousing model as a taking-off point. "In cohousing,
>households cooperate to design, build and manage their neighborhood. Key
>aspects of cohousing are a Common House where meals can be shared, and
>pedestrian-oriented commons areas."
>
>In addition, each neighborhood in the village could have its own bylaws,
>shared laundry, tools, play structures and more. The communities can be
>designed by their occupants as was Muir Commons Cohousing, or by architects
>and developers.
>
>In the middle of the 4-5 neighborhoods lies the village center. Likely it
>will have child care facilities, a telecommunication center, and a small
>office complex. Different residents might run a small cafe, copy center,
>store and more. There could be space for storage and recycling, a
>baseball/soccer field, basketball courts, even a pool as in Village Homes..
> Where no single neighborhood could afford this, a village could.
>
>To help ease transportation problems, the village could be required to
>establish a car and van co-op to assist in commuting kids, students and
>adults. Throughout Europe, car co-ops are underway in different
>communities and towns.
>
>Ideally the protected farm and wildlife land would be farmed and managed by
>people who lived in the village. Most likely the farm would be organic in
>order to minimize pesticide drift, a great improvement over what occurs on
>the farm-urban interface of most towns like Davis.
>
>If each village sat on 640 acres, one square mile of land, the first ring
>around Davis would accommodate at least 10 villages, the next ring
>slightly more. Done as an integrated plan, these villages could help
>restore and tie together wildlife habitat areas and connecting corridors,
>and create great places to live.
>
>By pursuing a 50-100 year plan with a slow (1% or so) growth rate, the city
>could annex a five mile or larger ring around the city, and tremendously
>lower the price of the land optioned by the speculators facing no hope that
>they can make the wild profits they were expecting. A five mile ring would
>allow for the comprehensive planning for habitat corridors, transportation
>routes and more and provide the city with the framework for a long term
>vision for what its future will look like, instead of having to react to
>the pressures of those who have bet on their land becoming the next suburb.
>
>Unfortunately, Davis' accelerated growth has allowed the sound-bite
>argument of "just say no to growth" to make sense. This logic not only
>shuts out planning that could lead to eco-villages, it sets us up to lose
>again in the 2010 General Plan. Now is the time to envision and debate our
>future for 2010 and beyond.
>
>We cannot afford to stick our heads in the sand. We must plan wisely and
>realistically if we are to avoid repeating the growth patterns of the last
>ten years.
>
>
>Kevin Wolf lives in the N Street Cohousing Community, the oldest cohousing
>community in the country and a model for retrofit cohousing. He works as a
>facilitation and environmental consultant who believes in long-term
>thinking, and local political action.
>
>
Back to TOC