A METHODOLOGY FOR SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
A CREATIVE PROJECT
SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE
MASTER OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
BY
KEENAN W. GIBBONS
COMMITTEE CHAIRPERSON: JOSEPH C. BLALOCK, JR
COMMITTEE MEMBER: SIMON BUSSIERE
COMMITTEE MEMBER: DR. STEPHEN KENDALL
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
INTRODUCTION
3-4
SITE ANALYSIS AND DOCUMENTATION
5-21
PRECEDENT RESEARCH
22-33
DESIGN PROCESS
34-49
DESIGN PROPOSAL
50-63
CONCLUSION
64-67
BIBLIOGRAPHY
68-71
INTRODUCTION
As fossil fuel and depletable
resources become scarce
and the global population
exponentially grows, sustainable systems will become
increasingly vital to human
survival. Mitigating depletable resource dependency is
the first step toward attaining sustainable survival. If
food is grown in a person’s
backyard, that person no
longer has to drive to the
grocery store to purchase
food that is grown, packaged, transported, and then
stored from all around the
world. If portions of habitable
land are protected as natural preserves at the onset
of proposed development,
then aesthetically pleasing
natural cleansers are created
to self-regulate the pollution
generated by humanity. If
pedestrian-oriented infrastructure is embedded into
the framework of proposed
development, then society
is no longer designing for
automobile dependency.
Conventional Midwestern
community sprawl has been
fueled by conventional planning, which typically aims for
maximum capacity and efficiency for quickly generating revenue. This manifests
homogenous human dwellings part of systems that
break down over time, and
dwelling units constructed at
densities solely for the finan-
cial aggrandizement of the
land developer. Establishing
an understanding of how
conventional development
can be reoriented for holistic
sustainable development
became the driving force for
creating a design methodology for community development in this creative project.
A 41-acre open agricultural
site at the fringe of urban
sprawl was selected for a
proposed sustainable community in west Muncie, Indiana. The site is located on
the corner of West Jackson
Street and North Morrison
Road—two heavily trafficked
vehicular corridors into the
city. The site is neighbored
INTRODUCTION_Continued
by existing residential neighborhoods, and currently
owned by a local land developer.
groups, ecology, and healthy
living was the desired design
outcome.
The project began with comprehensive site analysis and
documentation. After a thorough understanding of the
site was established, existing Midwestern precedents
similar in scope were dissected to identify successes
and failures through quantitative and qualitative data.
The assessed strengths of
precedent research became
a composite framework
for the land use capacities
of the proposed site. An
agrarian-based community, promoting diverse user
4
SITE ANALYSIS
This section justifies site
selection for a proposed site
for sustainable community
development. This is accomplished by viewing the site
from a variety of scales and
applications.
Google Earth satellite imagery, along with existing
public transportation maps
and GIS data evolved into
original graphics that helped
to reveal contextual opportunities and conflicts,
while effectively justify the
site for proposed development amidst engulfing urban
sprawl.
At the southeast corner of
the site appears a greenish
rectangle. An existing resident currently resides in this
area, but was hypothetically
considered to be leaving for
purposes of developing the
entire proposed site. The
parcel of land is zoned in as
a single piece of property in
its entirety, and was highlighted with color contrast
from the black and white
background to indicate the
proposed site.
SITE ANALYSIS_Figure Ground
The figure
ground illustrates the
proposed site
(Faded in color
at center) in
reference to
surrounding
development.
The outcome
reveals the dark
urban core
of downtown
Muncie, IN and
the sprawl moving northwest.
This trend justified proposed
sustainable
development
for the existing
open agricultural site.
roads and buildings
waterway
ch
it
tt d
hia
white r
iv e
r
6
SITE ANALYSIS_geographic information system data
ORANGEWOOD
LE
GE
ND
HOLMBROOK
CY
MORRISON
SS
SN O W M A
EN
N
IO
CT
RE
SO
DI
CK
G
RE
AL
JA
SAYBROOK
SWISS
CHURCHILL
ER
CHALLENGE
ER
WO
O
D
GE
T
HIA
SH
WE S
T
CAN
TER
KNO
IT
TD
MIL L W
AY
NA
AI
DR
Earthwork
within existing
contours would
achieve irregular, curvilinear
forms and lowimpact development.
OF
N
CH
TM B ER
BENTON
Y
N
GE
Existing topography creates a
natural gully for
water to collect
in the southeast corner of
the site, before
entering Hiattt
Ditch and the
White River.
LE
C
GA
PO
LL
B UR
Y
C
AR
A
DIN
L
JA C
CA
RD
INA
K SO
N
RIV
ROAD
5' CONTOUR
PARCEL
0
250
500
VI E
ER S
W
IDE
L
Legend
STREAM
ND
1,000
Feet
1,500
X
7
SITE ANALYSIS
5-mile radius
mcgalliard
ling
hee
n. w
SITE
e r
hit
ver
i
w
w. ja
ck
son
n. morrison
Context
•NW Muncie
•<3 miles from
site to downtown
Muncie
•<1.5 miles from
site to BSU
campus and Ball
Memorial
Hospital
downtown muncie
8
SITE ANALYSIS
mcgalliard
1-mile radius
north morrison
Context
•<1 mile from site
to Walmart and
McGalliard
•≈1 mile from site
to White River
Greenway
st j
SITE
ack
son
hia
tt di
tc
h
we
white river
9
SITE ANALYSIS
.25-mile radius
Context
•41 acres
•Open agricultural
land
SITE
n. morrison
w. ja
ckso
n
10
SITE ANALYSIS
Ma in
Downtown
Wal nut
10
hi
te
Riv
e
®
r
16th
White Ri ver
Macedon ia
Madison
W
Meeke r
Madison
yt
Ho
ton
Manhattan
9
Hac kley
Penn
Beacon
11
ing
Mock
12
11
Burl
Me moria l
Hackley
Port
Me moria l
Cowa n
29th
ison
12
Mad
Clark
Me moria l
8
Macedonia
8th
10
Pen n
8 th
J a c k s on
K irby
W illa rd
e
2
7
P owe rs
12
12
W y s or
7
Jackson
Hackley
Liberty
Cou ncil
C ha rle s
r
White Rive
Kilgor
Hodson
Walnut
McKinley
Tillotson
Nichols
Stradlin g
Morrison
g
Kin
Kilg
W h i te R i v e r
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
16
er
Grande
ore
57
Riv
ML
2
L owe ll
Manh attan
er
Riv
ite
Wh
i te
U nive rs ity
Jackson
2
Wh
Gavin
Ball
Memorial
Hospital
H ighla nd
H ighla nd
R ive rs ide
®
1 Ball State University
2 Ball State Jackson
3 Northwest Plaza
4 Mall
5 Whitely/Morningside
6 North Walnut
7 East Jackson
8 Burlington
9 Industry Willard
10 Heekin Park
11 Southway Centre
12 Ivy Tech
14 Riverside/Rural King
16 WalMart
Minnetrista
ng
1
57
e eli
Peachtree
Jackson
wa
y
Wh
Tillotson
Centennial
3
1
Garver
Bro
ad
Walnut
el
14
Route Names
and Numbers
Gra
nv
ille
Oakwood
Everb rook
Ma
rleo
n
Chadam
Lane
Morrison
Rosewoo d
Beth
16
Macedo nia
Potential Transit Connections
S tre e te r
4
6
Mc G a lliard
Mc G a llia rd
Elg in
R oya le
7
NorthWest
Plaza
6
nd
14
Muncie
Mall
Mc G a llia rd
3a
el
3
57
Y a le
SR
®
35,
4
MUNCIEMALL
C la ra
Beth
US
F
s
pas
16
e
dg
oxri
6
Airpark
Belliare
ue
Purd
Ontario
By
W oods E dge
ncie
Mu
Superior
(Modified from Muncie)
ng
e eli
Wh
A map of bus
routes from the
Muncie Indiana
Transit System
(MITS). The map includes existing bus
routes and popular
destinations in and
around Muncie,
IN. The proposed
site (Indicated by
dashed circle) was
added to see its
contextual proximity to existing public
transportation and
popular destinations.
Munc ie B ypa s s S R 3 a nd 6 7
March 2010
11
SITE DOCUMENTATION
Site interface of residential
R4 community immediately north. The community is defined by driveway
clusters of two dwelling
cells per duplex, and two
duplexes per driveway.
12
SITE DOCUMENTATION
Site interface of residential
R4 community immediately north. Existing feed corn
can be seen on the right,
while shared duplexes are
apparent to the left.
13
SITE DOCUMENTATION
Site panorama looking
south from high point of
site, at the interface of
residential R4 community
immediately north. Existing
site land use is for agricultural feed corn production.
14
SITE DOCUMENTATION
Photograph looking north
on Morrison Road. Notice
an absence of pedestrianoriented circulation. Existing feed corn can be seen
on the left, and vegetation
of a private resident is apparent on the right.
15
SITE DOCUMENTATION
Photograph looking south
on Morrison Road. The
proposed site can be seen
at right.
16
SITE DOCUMENTATION
Photograph looking east
on Jackson Street.
17
SITE DOCUMENTATION
Photograph looking west
on Jackson Street―often
a heavily trafficked arterial
corridor into Muncie. This
would inform proposed
site gateways.
18
SITE DOCUMENTATION
Photograph of gateway at
West Jackson Street for
shared duplex housing in
neighboring R5 residential
community immediately
west.
19
SITE DOCUMENTATION
Photograph south along
street of shared duplex
housing in neighboring R5
residential community immediately west.
20
SITE DOCUMENTATION
Photograph of shared duplex housing in neighboring R5 residential community immediately west.
21
PRECEDENTS
This section outlines existing precedents that were
evaluated on strength of
sustainable characteristics
as relevant to the scope of
proposed site development.
Midwestern agrarian communities and sustainable agricultural operations were of
greatest influence. Research
focused on precedent methodology, planning, temporal
success, systems, goals and
objectives, capacities and
land use, user groups, scale,
and relationships therein.
PRECEDENTS
Michigan State University
Student Organic Farm
•
East Lansing, MI
•
10 acres
•
16,000 sf passive solar greenhouse space
•
2,000 sf heated greenhouse
•
4-season, 48-week CSA provid
ing fresh and stored vegetables
to over 100 families, (Additionally
herbs, fruits, and flowers during
summer)
•
2/3 acre permaculture site
including 60 laying hens, 5
beehives, sugar maple orchard,
and mushroom production
•
Michigan State University
Organic Farmer Training Program
•
MSU Outreach program educates growers statewide on
year-round production utilizing
passive solar (Michigan)
23
PRECEDENTS_E-GATE
25m2 of intensive horticulture =
basic sustenance per person
E-Gate can support approximately
4,500m2 of intensive horticulture =
food for 160 people
(Adapted from Bussiere)
24
PRECEDENTS
E-GATE Public Realm
•
Melbourne, Australia
•
45:55 Green:Grey
•
Pedestrian oriented
•
Elementally powered
•
Food production capacities
(Adapted from Bussiere)
Design priniples
•Site
•Circulation network
•Hierarchy of open space
•Tree strategy
•Public realm
•2k circuit
•Bicycle strategy
•Water systems
•Lattice of open spaces
•Journey Lines
•Vehicular mobility
•Rooftop strategy
25
PRECEDENTS
Land use
•
655 acres total
•
346 acres (52%) devoted to
prairies, pastures, farm fields,
gardens, marshes and lakes
•
131 acres (20%) house lots
•
452 acres (69%) open space
(Traditional suburban development 70% house lots)
Dwellings
•
317 single-family homes
•
16 different home types
•
4 types of lots:
1
Village home-sites in a neotraditional village with a Market
Square and Village Green
2
Prairie sites, arranged in groups
of eight, with views over open
fields reminiscent of old farmsteads
3
Meadow sites face large, landscaped common areas in front
and overlook fields, marshes or
lakes in back
4
Field sites border farm fields
(Adapted from Ruano 135)
26
PRECEDENTS
Land use [1987]
•
655 acres total
•
346 acres (52%) devoted to
prairies, pastures, farm fields,
gardens, marshes and lakes
•
131 acres (20%) house lots
•
452 acres (69%) open space
Land use [2010]
•
678 acres total
•
470 acres (69%) devoted to
prairies, pastures, farm fields,
gardens, marshes and lakes
•
135 acres (20%) house lots
•
73 acres (11%) commercial and
industrial
•
468 acres (69%) open space
1987
2010
700
600
acres
500
400
300
200
Dwellings [1987]
•317 single-family homes
•16 different home types
•4 types of lots
e
l
op
en
sp
ac
er
cia
co
m
m
lo
ts
e
us
ho
na
tu
ra
la
to
ta
l
re
a
100
Dwellings [2010]
•362 single-family homes
•36 condos, mixed-use
commercial core
27
PRECEDENTS_Prairie Crossing_Goals and Objectives
Environmental protection and enhancement
•
350 acres legally protected from
future development
•
Part of Liberty Prairie Reserve,
over 5,000 acres of publicly and
privately held land
•
Greenways and houses
designed to protect wildlife and
promote midwest character
A sense of community
•
Homeowners Association
•
Volunteer stewardship activities
organized by Liberty Prairie
Conservancy, which conducts
environmental programs throughout
the Liberty Prairie Preserve
•
Connections with other homeowners associations, public officials, and
local businesses
A healthy lifestyle
•
>10 miles trails, a stable, and
large lake with beach and dock
•
Farm supplies fresh organic
vegetables, flowersm and fruits
•
Individual garden plots are avail
•
Lake Forest Hospital built new
facility onsite
Economic and racial diversity
•
All races are welcomed
•
Mixed incomes and races are
essential to the future of society
•
Some housing prices have been
kept low to provide affordable
housing in Lake County
A sense of place
•
Aesthetics defined and inspired
by prairies, marshes, and farms
of the area
•
Streets are named after prairie
plants and early settlers
•
House colors derived from warm
tones of native landscape
•
Community buildings are a
historic barn, schoolhouse, and
farmhouse
Convenient and efficient transportation
•
1 hour from Chicago by train/car
•
Rail service to Chicago and O-Hare
Airport from two adjoining site
stations
•
Positioned within triangle of 3 major
roads: Routes 45, 137, and 120
•
Trails lead to train station, College of
Lake County, University Center of
Lake County, Liberty Prairie Reserve,
Grayslake High School, and local
stores and restaurants
Energy conservation
•
Homes constructed to reduce
energy consumption by 50% in
comparison to new homes in the
area
•
Designed to encourage walking and
biking
•
Wind turbine provides farm power
•
New buildings of PC Charter School
designed to LEED standards
Lifelong learning and education
•
Charter school offers elementary
education based on environmental
curriculum
•
Informal learning through partnerships
•
Two colleges within 2 miles
Aesthetic design and high quality construction
•
Highly accomplished professionals
responsible for land planning and
architecture
Economic viability
•
Developed as a conservation concept demonstration model
•
Efforts always made to ensure
project is economically feasible and
budgeted for long-term success
28
PRECEDENTS
Tryon Farms
•
Michigan City, IN
•
170 acres, 75% (120ac)
protected openspace
•
Dwellings ≈ 70 units
•
Dwelling sizes =
400 - 3,500 sf
•
One hour from Chicago
•
Commmunity newsletter
•
Wastewater wetlands treat
blackwater in 7 days for farm
use
•
6 settlements comprised of
various scales and densities
housing
•
Tryon farm guesthouse
(Adapted from Tryon)
29
PRECEDENTS
Detached Clusters of Tryon Farms
Woods settlement
Woods settlement
Farmstead settlement
Wetland
Farmstead settlement
(Nomenclature adapted from Tryon)
Wetland
Overall site
30
SITE PROGRAM
Preserve
Residential
Agricultural
12.5 acres
21%
10.0 acres
n. morrison
29%
45%
19.1 acres
Precedent research
informed the initial
schematic capacities
for programmed land
use of the proposed
site (Right).
w. ja
ckso
n
31
PRECEDENTS_Results
Precedent research defined
the primary land use capacities for the proposed site. A
common pattern observed
among all residentially rooted
precedent case studies was
a reversal of conventional
design ratios. The Prairie
Crossing precedent, particularly, validated this reversal
through its design decisions,
since Prairie Crossing was
proposed in a comparable
midwestern context, and
since conventional midwestern land use trends
were identified by the Prairie
Crossing design team specifically for reorienting and
reversing these capacities
for a more sustainable form
of community development
(Ruano 135). And, sustainable community development was the ultimate intent
of this creative project from
its onset.
The design team discovered
that existing, conventionally
proposed midwestern community land use capacities
were about 70% residential
space to just 30% open
space (135). This ratio was
then reversed for the land
use capacities of the Prairie
Crossing proposal (135).
Instead, there would be 30%
residential space and 70%
open space (135). This was
done to promote the healthy
systems that result from
larger areas of open space,
and also with the idea that
a congruent number of site
inhabitants could still occupy the same space (135).
This became the first set of
capacities to be proposed
on the site in this creative
project.
Furthermore, Prairie Crossing included an entrepreneurially supported agriculture operation, and a
protected nature preserve.
Hence, space was also set
aside for agricultural operations and protected natural
preserve within the loosely
defined 70% open space
of the proposed site. Thus,
the three land use indicators seen in the site program
(previous page) were defined
as Preserve, Residential,
and Agricultural. The actual
capacities would be dictated
by other precedents, and
capacities would slightly deviate from the original constraints of the site program
by the end of the project.
Other precedents served
other purposes, both implied throughout the design
32
process, and perceived
throughout the design proposal. The Michigan State
University Student Organic
Farm played a key role in determining the volume of food
and community supported
agriculture shares that
could result from 10-acres
of intensive horticultural
plots―including the support
structures/outbuildings for
staging day-to-day operations. Since 10 acres fulfilled
weekly community supported agriculture shares for 100
families for a great portion
of the year, 10 acres of the
proposed site were, likewise,
dedicated to agricultural
production (Michigan).
E-GATE provided an ideology for establishing capacities that are defined by a
clearly defined site hierarchy
of proposed site elements.
This would most significantly inform the scales of
the spatial relationships
diagrams (See Design
Proposal section). These
diagrams used ratios found
within the hierarchical scales
employed in E-GATE to
define three primary hierarchies of residential space,
containing mutliple systems
to also be hierarchically
framed, therein. Precedentestimated ratios comparing
the agricultural food production of a given area to the
quantity of human lives that
could be supported by it laid
a groundwork for evolving
the allotment gardens of the
design proposal.
housing clusters (Tryon).
The proposed site also
mimicked the idea of instilling community character by
dictating site interfaces, and
evolving diverse layouts via
handmade collages. These
collages and their correlating
design decision matrix will
evolve in the following section.
Likewise, the Tryon Farms
precedent significantly
influenced the various dwelling aggregations that were
deployed during the design process. The Tryon
Farms master plan set out to
achieve distinct community
identities through diverse
33
DESIGN PROCESS
This section outlines the design process undertaken after site analysis, documentation, and precedent research
had been completed. The
process began by developing a client narrative to
establish user groups. Next,
a design decision matrix
evolved to visually organize
and evaluate design decisions based on the interpreted responses of hypothetical
user groups as outlined in
the client narrative.
A plotted hardcopy of the
schematic capacities for
site land use map accommodated development of a
variety of land use aggregations, or schematic design
alternatives assembled by
handmade collages.
The handmade collages became a valuable social tool
for developing a collaborative design process between
the client and designer. In
a real-world scenario the
simplicity of the handmade
collages could be deployed
during early phases of community development. The
simplicity of the collages
could be easily communicated to the client to accommodate their active, participatory role in the design
process.
Since the client in this project was hypothetical, the
client narrative became
the priority system to evaluate finished alternatives
within the design decision
matrix. Alternatives that
exhibited the highest priority
amongst user groups were
identified, and in some instances isolated for their respective design decision(s),
for eventual implementation
on a finished design proposal.
The first few pages of this
chapter illustrate the aforementioned tools used for
generating design alternatives, which are outlined in
subsequent pages.
DESIGN PROCESS_Client Narrative
early
Early in human life, the boy
has two parents, and two
siblings in his family of five.
The family is active in the
community and the children
take part in extracurricular
activities. One parent commutes to work, and both are
very eco-conscious — sharing a hybrid automobile,
strict about recycling waste,
and getting recreational
excercise when possible.
One of the parents is also an
avid gardener and lover of
the outdoors, and encourages the participation of the
children.
middle
The boy has grown into a
man near the middle of
human life. He has recently
completed extended education, and lives independently.
During school he accrued
significant debt, but sold his
old automobile to make ends
meet financially while establishing a career. Since, he has
relied almost entirely on bicycling or public transportation.
The man is in a promising
relationship, and would like to
begin a family one day, but at
the present is not completely
rooted in one specific location.
late
Late in human life, the man
has reached retirement and
begun focusing on his final
years. He lives with his longtime wife, and the last of their
children moved out about two
decades prior. The elderly
man enjoys gardening, lowimpact outdoor recreational
activities, and getting visits
from his children and grandchildren. He and his wife
share an old hybrid automobile, but increasingly rely on
public transportation. They
also like to stay active in the
community, and are often
engaged in local events and
social gatherings.
35
DESIGN PROCESS
2
3
steel ruler
x-acto®
1
t
tex t
no
100í
29%
11.6 acres
48%
21%
8.4 acres
19.2 acres
n. morrison
A scaled hardcopy of the
initial schematic capacities
for site land use map (Refer
to page 31) was plotted at
1” = 100’. The hardcopy
was measured and cut
into various sizes of scaled
squares, organized by color
and coordinating proposed
land use. These squares
effectively maintained scale
and capacity for experimenting with a variety of land use
aggregations via handmade
collages, and worked in
conjunction with a design
decision matrix.
0.5î x 0.5î 0.5î x 1.0î
1.0î x 1.0î scaled
squares
of t his file,
100í
d plo
10,000sf
50í
scale
5,000sf
w. ja
ckso
n
50í
100’
2,500sf
50í
1” =
36
Pedestrian
pedestrianoriented design
Human
social dynamics balance private and common space
Vehicular
automobile accommodation
late
TOTAL
society
VALUE
economy
society
VALUE
ecology
middle
economy
VALUE
ecology
early
society
concentrated
clustered
dispersed
rectilinear
(Concentrated, clustered and dispersed
adapted from Weber
208)
FORM DENSITY
curvilinear
Waste
wastewater and foodscraps recycled onsite
VALUE
Triple Bottom Line = ecology, economy, society
high priority = 5
low priority= 1
LAND USE
Agriculture
mutually supported organic farm, and potential CSA
ecology
Energy
photovoltaics and wind energy
Typical infrastructure
site connections to supplemental, traditional infrastructure
economy
Dwelling
sustainable housing
Dwelling
Agriculture
Preserve
Vehicular access
CIRCULATION
The client narrative (Page
35) was then added as a
method of valuing design
decisions by low or high
priority, where 1 = low priority and 5 = high priority. The
resultant client value per design decision and, in some
instances, entire design
alternative could then be
evaluated for comparison to
inform a design proposal.
Drainage
stormwater runoff is slowed, and/or captured for reuse
Vehicular storage
Pedestrian access
Impermeable drainage
Semipermeable drainage
Permeable drainage
UTILITY
The design decision matrix (Bottom right) was
developed to test a variety of
land use aggregations with
consideration for fundamental site amenities and social dynamics of residential
development. This began by
comparing form and density
in conjunction with variables
of land use, circulation, utilities, and social dynamics.
Preserve
protected prairie, woodland, and wetland
SOCIAL
DESIGN PROCESS
Waste
Energy
Typical infrastructure
Exposure
Private open space
Common open space
37
DESIGN PROCESS
The photograph at right
shows topography (Dashed
line) and potential gateways
(Dashed and solid circles)
into the site in conjunction
with local zoning and code
restrictions (United States).
This was the base layer for
generating design alternatives that experimented
within the framework of the
design decision matrix.
38
DESIGN PROCESS_Alternative 1
VALUE
Triple Bottom Line = ecology, economy, society
high priority = 5
low priority= 1
middle
late
society
ecology
economy
3
4
5
3
5
4
3
3
5 35
Agriculture
5
5
5
1
3
1
4
5
5 34
Preserve
3
2
5
2
2
3
3
3
5 28
Vehicular access
1
2
1
1
3
3
1
2
1 15
Vehicular storage
1
2
3
1
3
1
1
2
3 17
Pedestrian access
1
2
1
1
4
3
1
2
1 16
Waste
5
5
1
1
5
1
5
5
1 29
Energy
5
5
5
3
5
3
5
5
4 40
TOTAL
economy
Dwelling
society
ecology
VALUE
society
VALUE
economy
concentrated
clustered
dispersed
rectilinear
VALUE
ecology
CIRCULATION
early
Impermeable drainage
Semipermeable drainage
UTILITY
Permeable drainage
SOCIAL
Alternative 1 above exhibited high
priority for clustered dwellings and
agriculture. The green and red highlighted squares of the diagram (Far
right) indicate green for having equal
to- or highest priority of all design
alternatives, while indicate red for
having equal to- or lowest priority of
all design alternatives.
LAND USE
curvilinear
FORM DENSITY
Typical infrastructure
Exposure
5
3
4 12
Private open space
4
4
4 12
Common open space
3
4
4 11 249
39
DESIGN PROCESS_Alternative 2
VALUE
Triple Bottom Line = ecology, economy, society
high priority = 5
low priority= 1
middle
late
society
ecology
economy
3
4
5
3
5
4
3
3
5 35
Agriculture
5
5
5
1
3
1
4
5
5 34
Preserve
5
2
5
2
2
3
4
3
5 31
Vehicular access
1
3
3
1
2
1 15
TOTAL
economy
Dwelling
society
ecology
VALUE
society
VALUE
economy
VALUE
ecology
concentrated
clustered
dispersed
rectilinear
early
1
2
1
Vehicular storage
1
2
3
1
3
1
1
2
Pedestrian access
1
2
1
1
4
3
1
2
1 16
Waste
5
5
1
1
5
1
5
5
1 29
Energy
5
5
5
3
5
3
5
5
4 40
3 17
Impermeable drainage
Semipermeable drainage
UTILITY
Permeable drainage
SOCIAL
Alternative 2 above exhibited
high priority for clustered dwellings
and agriculture. The green and red
highlighted squares of the diagram
(Far right) indicate green for having
equal to- or highest priority of all
design alternatives, while indicate
red for having equal to- or lowest
priority of all design alternatives.
Notice low prioirty for dispersed
vehicular access and storage.
CIRCULATION
LAND USE
curvilinear
FORM DENSITY
Typical infrastructure
Exposure
5
3
4 12
Private open space
4
4
4 12
Common open space
5
3
5 13 254
40
DESIGN PROCESS_Alternative 3
VALUE
Triple Bottom Line = ecology, economy, society
high priority = 5
low priority= 1
middle
late
society
ecology
economy
2
3
5
1
5
5
4
3
5 33
Agriculture
5
3
5
1
3
1
4
4
5 31
Preserve
4
1
5
2
2
3
4
3
5 29
Vehicular access
2
2
5
1
1
1
3
3
5 23
Vehicular storage
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
3
1 15
Pedestrian access
4
3
5
1
5
5
5
3
5 36
Waste
5
5
1
1
5
1
5
5
1 29
Energy
5
5
5
3
5
2
5
5
4 39
TOTAL
economy
Dwelling
society
ecology
VALUE
society
VALUE
ecology
VALUE
economy
concentrated
clustered
dispersed
rectilinear
early
Impermeable drainage
Semipermeable drainage
UTILITY
Permeable drainage
SOCIAL
Alternative 3 above exhibited
high priority for concentrated vehicular access. The green and red
highlighted squares of the diagram
(Far right) indicate green for having
equal to- or highest priority of all
design alternatives. Notice that this
alternative also had one of the highest priorities of all the design alternatives, with a total of 275 (Bottom
right diagram in green).
CIRCULATION
LAND USE
curvilinear
FORM DENSITY
Typical infrastructure
Exposure
5
2
5 12
Private open space
5
5
5 15
Common open space
5
3
5 13 275
41
DESIGN PROCESS_Alternative 4
VALUE
Triple Bottom Line = ecology, economy, society
high priority = 5
low priority= 1
middle
late
society
ecology
economy
3
4
1
1
5
4
3
3
4 28
Agriculture
1
3
4
1
3
1
3
4
4 24
Preserve
4
2
3
2
2
3
4
3
5 28
Vehicular access
3
2
1
1
1
3
3
2
1 17
Vehicular storage
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
2
1 12
Pedestrian access
4
3
3
1
4
1
3
3
4 26
Waste
5
5
1
1
5
1
5
5
1 29
Energy
5
5
3
3
5
3
5
5
4 37
TOTAL
economy
Dwelling
society
ecology
VALUE
society
VALUE
economy
VALUE
ecology
concentrated
clustered
dispersed
rectilinear
early
Impermeable drainage
Semipermeable drainage
UTILITY
Permeable drainage
SOCIAL
Alternative 4 above exhibited low
priority for concentrated dwellings
and vehicular storage, and for clustered preserve. The red highlighted
squares of the diagram (Far right)
indicate red for having equal to- or
lowest priority of all design alternatives. Notice that this alternative
also had one of the lowest priorities
of all the design alternatives, with a
total of 232 (Bottom right diagram
in red).
CIRCULATION
LAND USE
curvilinear
FORM DENSITY
Typical infrastructure
Exposure
3
1
3
7
Private open space
2
3
2
7
Common open space
5
3
5 13 232
42
DESIGN PROCESS_Alternative 5
VALUE
Triple Bottom Line = ecology, economy, society
high priority = 5
low priority= 1
middle
late
society
ecology
economy
3
4
2
2
5
4
3
3
4 30
Agriculture
2
3
2
1
3
1
3
4
3 22
Preserve
4
2
5
2
2
3
4
3
5 30
Vehicular access
3
2
1
1
3
3
3
2
1 19
Vehicular storage
1
2
1
1
3
1
1
2
5 17
Pedestrian access
4
3
5
1
5
5
5
3
5 36
Waste
5
5
1
1
5
1
5
5
1 29
Energy
5
5
3
3
5
3
5
5
4 40
TOTAL
economy
Dwelling
society
ecology
VALUE
society
VALUE
economy
VALUE
ecology
concentrated
clustered
dispersed
rectilinear
early
Impermeable drainage
Semipermeable drainage
UTILITY
Permeable drainage
SOCIAL
Alternative 5 above exhibited low
priority for clustered agriculture.
The red highlighted square of the
diagram (Far right) indicates red for
having equal to- or lowest priority of
all design alternatives.
CIRCULATION
LAND USE
curvilinear
FORM DENSITY
Typical infrastructure
Exposure
3
1
3
7
Private open space
2
3
2
7
Common open space
5
3
5 13 250
43
DESIGN PROCESS_Alternative 6
late
TOTAL
society
VALUE
economy
society
economy
VALUE
ecology
middle
ecology
society
VALUE
economy
concentrated
clustered
dispersed
rectilinear
early
Dwelling
3
4
2
2
5
4
3
3
4 30
Agriculture
2
3
1
1
3
1
3
4
3 21
Preserve
4
2
5
2
2
3
4
3
5 30
Vehicular access
3
2
1
1
3
3
3
2
1 19
Vehicular storage
1
2
1
1
3
1
1
2
5 17
Pedestrian access
4
3
5
1
5
5
5
3
5 36
Waste
5
5
1
1
5
1
5
5
1 29
Energy
5
5
5
3
5
3
5
5
4 40
Impermeable drainage
Semipermeable drainage
UTILITY
Permeable drainage
SOCIAL
Alternative 6 above exhibited low
priority for concentrated agriculture.
The red highlighted square of the
diagram (Far right) indicates red for
having equal to- or lowest priority of
all design alternatives.
CIRCULATION
LAND USE
curvilinear
FORM DENSITY
ecology
VALUE
Triple Bottom Line = ecology, economy, society
high priority = 5
low priority= 1
Typical infrastructure
Exposure
3
1
3
7
Private open space
2
3
2
7
Common open space
5
3
5 13 249
44
DESIGN PROCESS_Alternative 7
VALUE
Triple Bottom Line = ecology, economy, society
high priority = 5
low priority= 1
middle
late
society
ecology
economy
2
3
5
1
5
5
4
3
5 33
Agriculture
5
3
5
1
3
1
4
4
5 31
Preserve
4
1
5
2
2
3
4
3
5 29
Vehicular access
2
2
3
1
2
1
3
3
1 18
Vehicular storage
1
2
1
1
3
1
1
2
1 13
Pedestrian access
4
4
5
1
5
5
5
3
5 37
Waste
5
5
1
1
5
1
5
5
1 29
Energy
5
5
5
3
5
2
5
5
4 39
TOTAL
economy
Dwelling
society
ecology
VALUE
society
VALUE
economy
VALUE
ecology
concentrated
clustered
dispersed
rectilinear
early
Impermeable drainage
Semipermeable drainage
UTILITY
Permeable drainage
SOCIAL
Alternative 7 above exhibited high
priority for clustered pedestrian access. The green highlighted square
of the diagram (Far right) indicates
green for having equal to- or highest priority of all design alternatives.
CIRCULATION
LAND USE
curvilinear
FORM DENSITY
Typical infrastructure
Exposure
5
2
5 12
Private open space
5
5
5 15
Common open space
5
3
5 13 268
45
DESIGN PROCESS_Alternative 8
VALUE
Triple Bottom Line = ecology, economy, society
high priority = 5
low priority= 1
economy
society
ecology
economy
2
3
5
1
5
5
4
3
5 33
Agriculture
5
3
5
1
3
1
4
4
5 31
Preserve
4
1
5
2
2
3
4
3
5 29
Vehicular access
2
2
3
1
3
1
3
3
1 19
Vehicular storage
1
2
1
1
3
1
1
2
1 13
Pedestrian access
4
3
5
1
5
5
5
3
5 36
Waste
5
5
1
1
5
1
5
5
1 29
Energy
5
5
5
3
5
2
5
5
4 39
TOTAL
ecology
Dwelling
society
society
VALUE
economy
VALUE
late
ecology
concentrated
clustered
dispersed
rectilinear
VALUE
middle
Impermeable drainage
Semipermeable drainage
UTILITY
Permeable drainage
SOCIAL
Alternative 8 above exhibited relatively high priority, comparatively,
with a total of 269 (Bottom right
diagram).
CIRCULATION
LAND USE
curvilinear
FORM DENSITY
early
Typical infrastructure
Exposure
5
2
5 12
Private open space
5
5
5 15
Common open space
5
3
5 13 269
46
DESIGN PROCESS_Alternative 9
VALUE
Triple Bottom Line = ecology, economy, society
high priority = 5
low priority= 1
economy
society
ecology
economy
3
3
4
1
4
2
4
3
2 26
Agriculture
5
3
5
1
3
1
4
4
5 31
Preserve
4
1
5
2
2
3
4
3
5 29
Vehicular access
2
2
3
1
5
1
3
4
1 22
Vehicular storage
1
3
5
1
3
1
1
2
5 22
Pedestrian access
1
3
5
1
5
5
5
3
5 33
Waste
5
5
1
1
5
1
5
5
1 29
Energy
5
5
5
3
5
2
5
5
4 39
TOTAL
ecology
Dwelling
society
society
VALUE
economy
VALUE
late
ecology
concentrated
clustered
dispersed
rectilinear
VALUE
middle
Impermeable drainage
Semipermeable drainage
UTILITY
Permeable drainage
SOCIAL
Alternative 9 above exhibited high
priority for dispersed vehicular storage. The green highlighted square
of the diagram (Far right) indicates
green for having equal to- or highest priority of all design alternatives.
CIRCULATION
LAND USE
curvilinear
FORM DENSITY
early
Typical infrastructure
9
Exposure
5
2
2
Private open space
5
5
5 15
Common open space
5
3
5 13 268
47
DESIGN PROCESS_Composite Alternative
In this respect, the highest
priority alternatives were also
congruent with curvilinear
circulation. This seemed to
CONTINUED NEXT PAGE
society
ecology
economy
4
5
3
5
4
3
3
5 35
Agriculture
5
5
5
1
3
1
4
5
5 34
Preserve
4
1
5
2
2
3
4
3
5 29
Vehicular access
2
2
5
1
5
1
3
3
5 23
society
economy
3
rigid
ecology
VALUE
society
VALUE
late
economy
VALUE
middle
ecology
concentrated
clustered
early
Dwelling
oblique
LAND USE
CIRCULATION
dispersed
FORM DENSITY
5 22
Vehicular storage
1
3
5
1
3
1
1
2
Pedestrian access
4
4
5
1
5
5
5
3
5 37
Waste
5
5
1
1
5
1
5
5
1 29
Energy
5
5
5
3
5
2
5
5
4 39
Impermeable drainage
Semipermeable drainage
Permeable drainage
UTILITY
The design alternatives
revealed highest priority for
clustered dwellings with
dispersed vehicular storage. This seemed validated
by the idea that community
user groups would not want
to travel a great distance
from their domicile to their
automobile. It also seemed
justified by a balanced sense
of community life that clustered dwelling aggregations
can provide, instilling feelings
of safety and privacy.
VALUE
Triple Bottom Line = ecology, economy, society
high priority = 5
low priority= 1
SOCIAL
The diagram at right is a
composite of high priority
design decisions as assesed
through the previously outlined design alternatives.
Typical infrastructure
9
Exposure
5
2
2
Private open space
5
5
5 15
Common open space
5
3
5 13 285
48
DESIGN PROCESS_Composite Alternative
stem from desirable exposure and viewsheds created
by the variation of a curvilinear form, and proved advantageous for low-impact
development since the curvilinear form paralleled existing
site topography.
Agricultural activity that was
clustered adjacent to aforesaid dwelling clusters, likewise, revealed high priority.
This, again, seemed to stem
from the ease of accessibility and potential for private
intensive horticultural plots
that would result.
ished accessibility to vehicular storage and day-to-day
agricultural operations, and
from more exposure with
less privacy.
The results were compiled
into a composite design
decision matrix (Previous
page), and translated into a
working design proposal
that will be outlined in the
next section.
Excluding the ecological
benefits and high priority of
a ‘concentrated’ preserve
space, low priority generally
surrounded concentrated
design distributions. This
was on account of dimin49
DESIGN PROPOSAL
In this section the composite
design decision matrix
from the end of the previous section is evolved into
a design proposal. Housing clusters are established
at a variety of scales and
capacities to include private
intensive horticultural plots,
verstatile accessibility, and
promote diversity of community user groups.
Two form-based diagrams
were developed to organize
housing into two primary
types: detached housing
and row housing. Diagram
development was facilitated
through a spreadsheet of
spatial relationships. Combined, the spreadsheets and
corresponding diagram act
as performance specifications for the eventual architectural design interventions
of site structures, and codify
a framework for community
layout. They also ensure the
temporal success of site
systems and operations
through schematic programming.
The spatial relationships
diagrams correlate with
three scales of residential
property aggregations deployed onto the proposed
site. Three scales were
adopted to promote diverse
user groups and encourage
community growth.
Schematic programming
of shared community
park space and orchards
throughout the proposed
layout plan also ensure
active buffer space to be
shaped by the community.
DESIGN PROPOSAL_Spatial Relationships Key
ABBREVIATION
ag. cell
dwelling
pr. op. space
agriculture
ped. access
agricultural cell represents a
barn, shed, agricultural storage
and/or staging area
dwelling is the enclosed human
domicile
private open space is a semioutdoor room, and/or enclosure
agriculture is a privately
owned, intensive horticulture
plot that must be in use
pedestrian access indicates
proposed pedestrian circulation
veh. storage
vehicular storage indicates
proposed parking for autmobiles
veh. access
vehicular access indicates
proposed vehicular circulation
property line
shared access
DEFINITION
property line delineates private
ownership of residential plots
shared access permeable
paving for both pedestrians and
vehicles
(Diagram adapted from Weber 208)
51
DESIGN PROPOSAL_Spatial Relationships Spreadsheet
OVERLAP
(Adapted from Weber 208)
intersection
adjacency
connection
intersection
“Condition where activities spill
into each other sharing mututal
areas across an ill-defined
boundary.”
(Weber 208)
adjacency
“Clear definition of contiguous
realms sharing only a common
boundary.”
(208)
connection
“Linkage of two territories
across a third mediating realm.”
(208)
Refer to spatial relationships key (Previous page) to reference items in the relationships below
dwelling
ped. access
dwelling
veh. storage
dwelling
ped. access
veh. storage
veh. access
dwelling
ped. access
veh. access
dwelling
veh. access
pr. op. space
veh. storage
dwelling
veh. access
preserve
ag. cell
dwelling
pr. op. space
agriculture
ped. access
dwelling
pr. op. space
ped. access
Two columns were included to
accommodate multiple conditions when present
ag. cell
dwelling
ag. cell
veh. access
pr. op. space
ag. access
52
DESIGN PROPOSAL_Spatial Relationships Spreadsheet
Row Housing
OVERLAP
(Adapted from Weber 208)
intersection
adjacency
connection
Refer to spatial relationships key to reference specific items of relationships below
dwelling
ped. access
dwelling
veh. storage
dwelling
ped. access
veh. storage
veh. access
dwelling
ped. access
veh. access
ag. cell
dwelling
veh. access
pr. op. space
veh. storage
dwelling
veh. access
preserve
ag. cell
dwelling
pr. op. space
agriculture
ped. access
dwelling
pr. op. space
ped. access
dwelling
ag. cell
veh. access
pr. op. space
ag. access
53
DESIGN PROPOSAL_Spatial Relationships Diagram
Row Housing
dwelling
10’ SETBACK
pr. op. space
agriculture
10’ SETBACK
ag. cell
ped. access
veh. storage
10’ SETBACK
veh. access
property line
shared access
54
DESIGN PROPOSAL_Spatial Relationships Spreadsheet
Detached Housing
OVERLAP
(Adapted from Weber 208)
intersection
adjacency
connection
Refer to spatial relationships key to reference specific items of relationships below
dwelling
ped. access
dwelling
veh. storage
dwelling
ped. access
veh. storage
veh. access
dwelling
ped. access
veh. access
ag. cell
dwelling
veh. access
pr. op. space
veh. storage
dwelling
veh. access
preserve
ag. cell
dwelling
pr. op. space
agriculture
ped. access
dwelling
pr. op. space
ped. access
dwelling
ag. cell
veh. access
pr. op. space
ag. access
55
DESIGN PROPOSAL_Spatial Relationships Diagram
Detached Housing
ag. cell
dwelling
5’ SETBACK b/w PL
pr. op. space
agriculture
ped. access
10’ SETBACK
veh. storage
veh. access
property line
shared access
56
DESIGN PROPOSAL_Layout Plan
community orchard
edible orchard shared by community residents
intensive horticulture plots
privately owned allotment gardens,
always in use during growing
season, can be leased
row-housing agricultural cell
shared barn for storage and cluster
staging area
residential
area for dwelling and private open
space where applicable
preserve
protected native prairie and wetland
park
park space shared by community
residents for varied uses
vehicular/pedestrian access
high fly-ash concrete primarily for
automobiles
permeable pavement
accommodates vehicular and
pedestrian circulation for agricultural operations
pedestrian access
recreational circulation for residents and visitors
57
DESIGN PROPOSAL_Detached Housing Deployment
10’ SETBACK
5’ SETBACK b/w PL
(Please refer
to page 48
for detailed
spatial relationships
key)
Property
total = 47 lots @ 110’ x 50’
Residential space
dwelling/open space = 3,000 sf @ 60’ x 50’
total = 141,000sf (3.23ac)
Allotment garden
plot = 2,500 s.f @ 50’ x 50’
total = 117,500 sf (2.70ac)
58
DESIGN PROPOSAL_Row Housing Deployment_Type 1
10’ SETBACK
10’ SETBACK
10’ SETBACK
(Please refer
to page 48
for detailed
spatial relationships
key)
Property
total = 32 lots @ 110’ x 30’
Residential space
dwelling/open space = 2,100sf
@ 70’ x 30’
total = 67,200sf (1.54ac)
Allotment garden
plot = 1,200 s.f @ 40’ x 30’
total = 38,400 sf (.88ac)
59
DESIGN PROPOSAL_Row Housing Deployment_Type 2
10’ SETBACK
10’ SETBACK
10’ SETBACK
(Please refer
to page 48
for detailed
spatial relationships
key)
Property
total = 38 lots @ 90’ x 25’
Residential space
dwelling/open space = 1,250sf
@ 50’ x 25’
total = 47,500sf (1.09ac)
Allotment garden
plot = 1,000 s.f @ 40’ x 25’
total = 38,000 sf (.87ac)
60
DESIGN PROPOSAL_Layout Plan_Results
private property
land use
≈23% (10.31ac)
allotment gardens
total = 4.45ac
5’ contours
orchards
supported by
homeowners’
association
parks maintained
by homeowners’
association
residential space
total = 5.86ac
barns
qty = 5
dim = 3,200sf/barn
total = 160,000sf
KEY
primary vistas
across preserve,
secondary vistas
along orange
perimeter
.5-mile recreational
circuit created with
pedestrian oriented
streetscapes
proposed for w.
jackson and n.
morrison roads
potential staging
area for bus stop,
picnic tables,
benches, vendors
prese
rve
shared community space
land use
≈77 (31.50ac)
high fly-ash
concrete has 30’
orchards
inside turning radius
total = 7.80ac
to accommodate all
emergency vehicles
parks
total = 2.50ac
active park space
preserve
provides staging
total = 841,910sf
area for social
(19.33ac)
events for families
and the community,
circulation
also playground
total ≈1.5ac
equipment
permeable
pavement has 15’
inside turning
radius to
accommodate
most vehicles
dr
a i na ge
natural
topography
efficiently directs
runoff to
southeast corner
of site, and runoff
is cleansed at
mychorrizal level
by vegetative root
zone and soil
profile before
entering
watershed
61
DESIGN PROPOSAL_Layout Plan_Results
Red filter
private space
≈23% (10.31ac)
VS.
Blue filter
common space
≈77% (31.50ac)
This diagram was generated to
better communicate the breakdown
of private space versus common
space. Private space was dictated
by private ownership, where common space was dicated by communal ownership.
62
DESIGN PROPOSAL
n. morrison
w. ja
ckso
n
63
CONCLUSION
A design methodology for
sustainable community
development was the outcome of this creative project.
Developing a detailed client
narrative that attempted to
reflect a human life effectively simulated the clientele
of a proposed sustainable
community. Embedding
the triple bottom line of
sustainability as a value
system—ecology, economy,
and society—established
client priority indicators for
justifying design decisions.
This yielded a co-authorship
of designer and client, which
is a desirable real-world
dynamic.
The methodology generated
by this creative project could
be easily amended and/or
applied to other proposed
communities. “Amended,”
since contextual research
ultimately informed the
land use capacities that the
design decision matrix
was able to evolve through
design alternatives and final
proposal. “Applied,” since
the hypothetical client narrative would become an
actual client with existing
values to prioritize design
decisions.
The next step with the design proposal of this project
would be the implementation
of contextually-informed systems into its programmed
spaces.
For example, the preserve
is loosely defined as a native prairie and wetland, and
elaborating on the definition
could become another project in itself—the soil profile,
vegetation, topography,
habitat, etc.—these could
become design decisions
within the design decision
matrix that shape alternatives for prioritization and final design solution(s) of what
the preserve could actually
be. Perhaps there becomes
a lake for people to swim,
perhaps there is an ornithological sanctuary, perhaps
the preserve is a mosaic
representation of Indiana
CONCLUSION_Continued
wetlands? The opportunities are endless at a glance.
Likewise, the agricultural operations could be explored
regarding human diet, vegetation and environmental
suitability, maintenance, etc.
to become the most suitable agricultural operation(s)
for a proposed, midwestern
agrarian-based community
in the twenty-first century.
also reveals the role of the
landscape architect as a
multidisciplinary conductor
and project manager, since
programmed spaces are
essentially ‘zoned’ by the
layout plan for their intended
purpose, but can also be
designed to fulfill that purpose by allied professionals,
or by the evolving role of the
landscape architect as well.
In this capacity, the creative
project is not necessarily a
finished deliverable, but a
methodology for justifying
sustainable community development, with the notion
that finished and detailed
layout plans could eventually be achieved. The project
The spatial relationships
diagram used for dwelling
aggregations, in this regard, exercised the control
a landscape architect can
have in defining community
character and establishing
desirable social dynamics for
the temporal success of all
proposed systems—again,
the ecological, economic,
and social systems of the
triple bottom line of sustainability.
The biggest fault of this
creative project was that
the primary vehicular corridor defined the entire final
form. This is contrary to the
sustainable paradigm shift,
and failed in many ways. For
example, vehicular circulation could sever the protected preserve space from
the inhabitants that seek its
benefits, or more importantly, really not mitigate fossil
fuel dependence at all by still
embracing the automobile.
65
CONCLUSION_Continued
Inhabitants are completely
accommodated by the
automobile, so much that
clustered dwelling aggregations almost appear as
metaphorical leaches of the
primary vehicular vessel. The
dwellings, preserve space,
pedestrian circulation, and
agricultural operations are all
attached to- and dictated by
the intervention of the primary vehicular corridor.
This equates to automobileoriented design instead of
pedestrian-oriented design,
and not reflective of the
sustainable paradigm shift.
In retrospect, this could have
manifested more desirable
outcomes if design deci-
sions had completely neglected the automobile in
every capacity until later on
in the design process.
On the other hand, the
existing layout of Muncie,
Indiana is completely automobile dependent. The
city has, for all intents and
purposes, been built to
service the automobile with
virtually zero concessions
made for the pedestrian
(Excluding the instances of
Ball State University’s campus and downtown). In this
regard, the creative project
would appear a significant
community improvement in
that it provided opportunities for recreation, manda-
tory food production, and a
protected preserve space
for stormwater recharge and
biodiversity that would be
highly contrary to its context.
If surrounding, heavily trafficked streetscapes have
no sidewalks or recreational
opportunities, the proposed
site can only address sustainability at the site level, or
by linking to existing public
transportation (As proposed
on page 11).
Furthermore, since the automobile is accommodated
the likelihood seems much
higher for the local and
regional popoulation to want
to settle in the proposed
community, and choose to
66
CONCLUSION_Continued
relocate there. While forcing
the automobile to the periphery or removing it entirely
may have better validated
the scope of sustainability,
it could also be argued that
such a community would not
be embraced by its context
and contemporary society
for many years to come.
conventional development
at the community level. This
creative project established
a design methodology and
tools for doing so.
People will always need
a place to call home—a
dwelling, domicile, abode,
house, quarters, address,
residence—a safe place to
sleep, eat, and live. Given
the finite resources of Earth,
and since the global population will inevitably continue to
exponentially grow, it is important to begin reorienting
67
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen, Jennifer, and Liesbeth Melis. Parasite Paradise: A Manifesto for Temporary Architecture and Flexible Urbanism. Rotterdam: NAi, 2003.
Benya Lighting Design. 27 Feb. 2010. <http://www.benyalighting.com/>.
Bussiere, Simon. E-GATE Public Realm. PDF Report. AECOM.
Cal-Earth–The California Institute of Earth Art and Architecture. 05 Feb. 2010. <http:www.calearth.org>.
Calkins, Meg. Materials for Sustainable Sites: a Complete Guide to the Evaluation, Selection, and Use of Sustainable Construction Materials. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley, 2009.
Center for Maximum Potential Building Systems—Building a Sustainable World Since 1975. 07 Feb. 2010. <http://www.cmpbs.org>.
Condon, Patrick M. Sustainable Urban Landscapes: the Surrey Design Charrette. Vancouver, B.C.: University of British Columbia, James Taylor Chair in Landscape and Liveable Environments, 1996.
Design like You Give a Damn: Architectural Responses to Humanitarian Crises. New York, NY: Metropolis, 2006.
ECO-NOMIC homepage. 27 Feb. 2010. <http://www.eco-nomic.com>.
Elizabeth, Lynne, and Cassandra Adams. Alternative Construction: Contemporary Natural Building Methods. New York, N.Y.: J. Wiley and Sons, 2000.
Farr, Douglas. Sustainable Urbanism: Urban Design with Nature. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2008.
Hunter, Kaki, and Donald Kiffmeyer. Earthbag Building: the Tools, Tricks and Techniques. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society, 2004. Idaho Forest Products Commission. 27 Feb. 2010. <http://www.idahoforests.org/>.
Johnson, Bart, and Kristina Hill. Ecology and Design: Frameworks for Learning. Washington, DC: Island, 2002.
Kronenburg, Robert. Portable Architecture. Oxford: Elsevier/Architectural, 2003.
Madigan, Carleen. The Backyard Homestead. North Adams, MA: Storey Pub., 2009.
McCamant, Kathryn, and Charles Durrett. Cohousing: a Contemporary Approach to Housing Ourselves. Berkeley, CA: Habitat, 1988.
Michigan State University Student Organic Farm. Web. 10 Feb. 2011. <http://www.msuorganicfarm.org/>.
Muncie Indiana Transit System. 10 Nov. 2010. <http://www.mitsbus.org/>.
69
Murphy, Diana, Cameron Sinclair, and Kate Stohr. Design like You Give a Damn: Architectural Responses to Humanitarian Crises. New York, NY: Metropolis , D.A.P., 2006.
Peña, William, William Wayne Caudill, and John Focke. Problem Seeking: an Architectural Programming Primer. Boston: Cahners International, 1977.
Powell, Bonnie Azab. “In Britain, Gardening Your ‘Allotment’ Is a Rite and Right, Washingtonpost.com.” The Washington Post: National, World & D.C. Area News and Headlines, Washingtonpost.com. Web. 14 Mar. 2011.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/12/
AR2009051201455.html>.
Rael, Ronald. Earth Architecture. New York, N.Y.: Princeton Architectural, 2009.
Romanos, Michael C. Residential Spatial Structure. Lexington, MA: Lexington, 1976.
Ruano, Miguel. Eco Urbanism: Sustainable Human Settlements, 60 Case Studies = Eco Urbanismo Entornos Humanos Sostenibles, 60 Proyectos. Barcelona: Gustavo Gili, 1999.
Scoates, Christopher. LOT-EK: Mobile Dwelling Unit. New York: D.A.P./Distributed Art, 2003.
Serenbe Community. Serenbe Community - A 900-acre Sustainable Living Community in Palmetto Georgia. Web. 7 Mar. 2011.
<http://www.serenbecommunity.com/home.html>.
70
Siegal, Jennifer. More Mobile Portable Architecture for Today. New York: Princeton
Architectural, 2008.
Site Selection Guidelines and Performance Benchmarks 2009. Sustainable Sites Initiative. 5 Feb. 2010. <http://www.sustainablesites.org>.
Tryon Farm :: A Unique Conservation Community. 10 Feb. 2011.
<http://www.tryonfarm.com/>.
United States. Delaware-Muncie Metropolitan Plan Commission. City of Muncie Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance.
United States. Delaware-Muncie Metropolitan Plan Commission. Delaware County Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance.
Weber, Hanno. The Evolution of a Place to Dwell. DRS Journal: Design Research and Methods Jul-Sep 7.3 (1973): 207-12.
All satellite imagery, unless otherwise indicated, was accessed and/or
modified from Google Earth between January 2010 and March 2011.
71