Microcommunities Challenge the Suburban Model

Outside of Seattle, the design-build firm  Dwell Development is in the process of building out their vision of transit oriented development. They are calling it Columbia Station. Pitched within the rising popularity of the term “microcommunity” the project plan includes 15 residential homes all built on the same block and within a quick walk to buses and the commuter rail. As more of the designed units get built the proposal could be an example of the elusive search for a middle ground between urban centers and suburbia.

Site Plan for Columbia Station

For those who whip out a cross and garlic at the thought of moving into the big city, I think we can agree that this proposal is not urban. To start, each home still seems to have a place to put a car. All of them sit comfortably below four stories and the range of programmatic uses in the development are still restricted just to homes.

That being said, this isn’t suburbia either. The notable differences are the shared driveway and courtyard spaces that displace the need for extraneous pavement. When the cars are parked, they’re not not the street which means that the image of living has severed itself from the car and/or garage door that defined so many homes in the second half of the 20th century.

Though the homes are still detached from one another, they collectively sit on relatively small plots of land. Rather than the space, money and chemicals devoted to cultivating a front and back lawn, these houses target smaller gardens and roof terraces. The spaces created are more a function of the group of buildings together rather than the separation of structures–all design decisions that challenge the assumptions of most speculative, residential developments in America.

Building ‘Em Green

As part of their design mission, the company says that “we build green because it is the right thing to do.” One of the latest Dwell homes recently made some headlines after its exterior envelope achieved the air infiltration integrity necessary to meet Passive House requirements. Even if the project had nothing else to speak of, this is a commendable feat. Originating in Europe, Passive House (or PassivHaus) is arguably one of the most difficult rating systems for sustainable buildings–notably more difficult to achieve than LEED when it comes to energy efficiency. Given that these homes are being built on spec, some kudos needs to go to the developer for reaching a standard that most clients wouldn’t know enough about to request. Nothing conveys the benefits of a design mentality like a built example that people can walk through.

Aside from reusing existing homes, building smaller homes is perhaps one of the most significant attributes of a truly “green” house, and it is refreshing to see compact floor plans of Columbia Station. We still spend a large amount of resources to build, temper, and maintain antiquated spaces that we rarely use, like formal living rooms and dining rooms. Does a modern home really need these outmoded room types?

Microcommunities?

The terminology strikes me as a little strange, leaving me not quite sure what it is meant to convey. If Columbia Station serves an example, then I assume a microcommunity is a collection of homes that are smaller than the national average; built closer together and hopefully within walking distance of transit. But there doesn’t seem much “micro” about the relationship that these homes have to their community, and there are not enough homes (or other program for that matter) to make it a self-sustaining community on its own.

Even then, the houses are smaller than a typical Toll Brother’s house, clearly veering away from the low, sprawling masses of millennial McMansions (thank goodness), but there isn’t anything “micro” about them. The micro apartment proposal by Mayor Bloomberg that pushed designers to fit a studio apartment into 350 square feet–now that is micro. To me, these homes just seem appropriately sized compared to the status quo. Perhaps a standard residential development is actually more of a “Mondocommunity”.

Are We There Yet?

Designers can (and perhaps always will) debate about some of the finer points in the design. The material choices and construction methods could probably be sharpened up a bit. The imagery used to sell the idea of the designs is doing them a disservice–especially in trying to convey the goals to clients that are not designers.

One of the biggest drawbacks for me is the singular use group. For these places to really become communities there should be localized retail mixed into developments (corner stores, groceries, coffee shops, dry cleaners). Having these regular needs within walking distance is paramount. Not only does it help turn vacant streets into active ones, but only then can we cut a meaningful chunk of unnecessary car trips out of the daily routine. The density of the community then needs to be back-checked to make secure enough patrons for these local businesses.

As New Yorker writer, David Owen, notes, “Intelligently increasing population density–shortening the distance between people and between people and their destinations–is the key to reducing a long list of negative environmental impacts in mobile, affluent populations.”

Nonetheless, this is progress. If we built all new homes that sat outside of urban areas like Columbia Station, then we would be in a different place. Developments like this provide some answers and raise a series of new, important questions–enough to encourage the process of evolution in our building patterns.

Image Credit: Courtesy of Dwell Development