Sustainability begins at home? An ecological explorationof sub/urban Australian community-focused housing initiatives

Louise CrabtreeDepartment of Human Geography, Macquarie University, NSW 2109, AustraliaReceived 11 June 2004; received in revised form 23 March 2005

AbstractThis paper responds to challenges made by Castree [Castree, N., 2004. Environmental issues: signals in the noise? Progress in Human Geography 28 (1), 79–90] and Sneddon [Sneddon, C., 2000. Sustainability in ecological economics, ecology and livelihoods: a review. Progress in Human Geography 24 (4), 521–549] for human geography to clarify its contribution to environmental debates and engage with recent formulations of sustainability as informed by the new ecology. This approach focuses on resilience, functional diversity, flexibility and complexity, here used to examine housing sustainability within an industrialised sub/urban context in terms of design philosophy, ownership, management bases, community engagement and funding mechanisms. This framework highlights areas of concern for enhancing the functional diversity of housing systems, echoing recent assertions that challenges for sustainability arise more from trust and power sharing issues, than from physical design and maintenance issues. It is argued that it is precisely human geographys place-by-place consideration of power, embeddedness, scale and politics that can lend new ecology the social relevance it requires.2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Cities; Ecosystems; Resilience; Ecology; Sustainable development; Sustainability; Sustainable livelihoods; Urban design; Australia

1 .Introduction

The engagement of human geographers with sustainabilityas informed by new ecological thinking has been a recurrent topic of discussion over the past decade. Zimmerer (1994) called attention to human geographyrelative delay in incorporating new ecological theor with its focus on adaptation and flexibility, into its considerations of sustainability and social processes. Much literature has since emerged, exploring social applications and manifestations of new ecological concepts such as resilience.1 Sneddon (2000) provides a review of work on sustainability in the intervening years, again highlighting human geographys relative absence from, yet ideal position for contributions to, this debate given the disciplines attention to scale, politics, power and embeddedness. One conclusion is that human

2 .Underlying interpretations of sustainability and affordability

2.1 .Considerations of urban sustainability

Sustainability is neither a vision nor an unalterable state but a creative and local process of searching for balance that spreads into all areas of urban management and decision making. As every city is different, every city must find its own way toward sustainability.This paper responds to literature seeing sustainability as a process driven by a suite of guiding ethical principles, rather than a final state or outcome (see Prugh and Assadourian, 2003; Prugh et al., 2000). Much recent literature draws on the new ecology to highlight the role and prevalence of chaos, complexity and uncertainty in socio-ecological systems (e.g., Engwicht, 1992). Such literature assess social phenomena and systems with a focus on building capacity for dealing with change, complexity and surprise, rather than aiming for old ecological concepts such as steady states, balance or equilibrium (see Berkes et al., 2003; Folke et al., 2002, 1998; Adger, 2000; Scoones, 1999; Levin et al., 1998). Sustainable systems are those exhibiting functional diversity and a degree of apparently redundant replication, holding a range of latent responses to possible stresses .Such systems draw on this diversity to change in response to stress without compromise of core functions, hence are flexible and adaptable(Folke et al., 1998).

2.2 .Housing affordability and sustainability

Additionally, affordability is a vital component of Australian urban housing sustainability, accentuated by the current crisis in affordability, particularly in the largest cities like Sydney. This is emerging as the structural exclusion of low-, and increasingly, moderate income households from secure private or public housing markets (Berry and Hall, 2001;Randolph and Holloway, 2002; Productivity Commission, 2004). A lack of affordability implies lack of long-term tenure or choice, undermining social diversity and equity or the ability to commit to place, hence undermining sustainability. Further, the dedication of so much individual and household effort to the economic maintenance of disproportionate rent or mortgage commitments,3 directly interferes with the time and effort available for input into community activity or non-capitalist enter prise.In considering mechanisms of housing provision and access, sustainability translates into a variety of tenure and organizational models which establish and reinforce flexibility and diversity across the population and the urban fabric. Housing sustainability refers to a range of housing options being available to individuals an households, to provide stability and choice regardless of variables such as income, ability or household structure.

3 .Exploring urban design and social sustainability

On the basis of the above literature, specific place based case studies were chosen on their stated desire to address ecocity or cohousing design and affordability measures. Further relevant criteria related to housing provision through co-operative models aiming for substantial resident control over or Hence case studies were chosen on the basis of how they were attempting development as well as what was being attempted. Building on principles highlighted by ecocity and cohousing design (Register, 2001; Mc Camant and Durrett, 1994), feminist design (Hayden, 1984, 1981)and community housing (Davis, 1994), the field works ought projects pursuing innovative engagement with sustainability and affordability provision. This high input into planning, design, construction and ongoing management. This was with a view that such characteristics generate a tighter fit between need and delivery, harnessing broader scale leverage with local relevance, hence represent more flexible, adaptable and appropriate systems. Relevant design and structural features of individual projects involved are discussed below.

Table 1 provides an overview of the projects and some primary issues

Pinakarri is a non-profit cohousing co-operative insuburban Fremantle (see Fig. 1) developed in collaboration with Western Australias public housing authority,HomesWest. The project covers 2000m2, encompassing private ownership (4 houses) and public rental stock (4houses) plus a common house. As such, it is Australias first housing co-operative incorporating public and private tenure. The group formed in 1991 and the first occupants moved in, in 1999.

3.1 .Pinakarri cohousing community, Fremantl

Houses line the sites perimeter, with the common house in the car-free centre (Fig. 2). Individual properties are delineated by food and ornamental/native gardens, trellises and the occasional low, curving, open-ended wall. The sites interior is a large, open, shared space in which resident and neighbourhood children play under the combined, casual supervision of 17 adults. Design features include solar passive design of individual units; permaculture gardens, composting and worm farming; appliance and transport pooling; widespread uptake of Western Powers renewable energy scheme. Future The co-op holds the title for the entire Pinakarri housing stock. An extended Pinakarri now spreads beyond the sites physical boundaries, consisting of interested and affiliated individuals and households who are part of the community but living offsite. One private rental house adjacent to the site, diversifies tenure to include young adults, as currently Pinakarri largely accommodates single and partnered parents. The residential community grew from a social and environmental justice activist network, and for the design process, engaged an architect who had a history of working withhousing co-ops in the United Kingdom and Australia. This was secured by the architect putting in a low bid for the tender advertised by HomesWest. developments include rainwater tanks and solar active arrays.

Fig. 2. Site plan of Pinakarri, Hamilton Hill, showing public rental houses (1–4); privately owned houses (5–8); common house (9); shared openspace and permaculture food gardens (10); carports (11). Source: Hammond and Green Architects.

3.2 .Christie Walk, Adelaide Christie Walk is a medium density development

within easy walking distance of the Adelaide CBD (Fig. 3),drawing on cohousing and ecocity theory and practice. The project is a community title scheme covering a2000 m2 brown field site which at the time of the fieldwork, consisted of 14 dwellings—4 freestanding cottages,4 adjacent three-storey townhouses and acomplex of 6 apartments (Fig. 4).

Fig. 3. Location of Urban Ecology Australias Christie Walk development, Adelaide, South Australia.

Fig. 4. Site plan of Christie Walk, Adelaide, showing freestanding strawbale cottages (1–4), three-storey complex of six apartments (5–6), fouradjacent three-storey townhouses (7–10), shared open space and permaculture food gardens (11), carport (12). Source: Ecopolis Architects.

The Community Housing and Employment Co-operative (CHEC) is a non-profit housing and employment co-operative based in Blaxland in outer Sydneys Blue Mountains, aiming to establish an environmentally sensitive, affordable cohousing project in a sub/urban location in NSW. The group is currently lobbying various public and private stakeholders. Intended design features include solar active and passive features; water collection, treatment and recycling of both grey- and black-water; perma culture food production, aiming for a high level of self-sufficiency; medium density; reduced individual lot size with sizeable shared space; easy walkingdistance to major public transport and urban centres; infrastructure for community enterprise such as offices and workshops. Tenancy will be ongoing public rental with a flexible commitment of 6–16 hours work per week to the project. The group is currently meeting at least once a week, with many active committees operating within timeframes and obligations set by Australia governmental welfare agency, Centre link.

3.3 .Community housing and employment co-operative , Sydney

Habitat for Humanity is an international, nondenominational, church affiliated non-profit organization which provides housing for low-income families on a self-build basis, with sweat equity contributing to ownership. Habitat for Humanity Australia (HFHA) are the Australian chapter of Habitat for Humanity International, operating within the parent organizations driving frameworks. The group to date has not addressed sustainability through design but is now working with an industry partner on this goal. The houses are generally freestanding homes for families of at least four. As at March 2004 the group had built 46 houses inAustralia.

3.4 .Habitat for humanity Australia,

Sydney

The NSW state government development agency, Landcom, is experimenting with both affordability and sustainability. Their Forest Glade project in western Sydneys Parklea provides 2–4 bedroom houses among stock with median prices of $270,000–to moderate income households for $156,000–$220,000 dispersed $415,000; affordable stock comprises 20% of the development. The project provides for a range of lifestyle choices and incorporates solar access concerns at the individual lot and total project level. Flexible design initiatives on other sites have included the provision of muse apartments above garages (for home offices, teenager or retiree accommodation, possibly providing an income base) and designing houses for future

extension.

3.5 .Landcom, Sydney

4 .Reflections on urban sustainability

New ecological theory asserts that system resilience is dependent on flexibility and adaptability, in turn dependent on high levels of diversity and an apparent redundancy

of components and functions (Adger, 2000; Folke et al., 2002, 1998). This research examined recent housing developments with a view to assessing the relevance of these new ecological traits to the developments associated social and economic dynamics and structures. This is based on the assertion that the environmental aspects of sustainability are largely understood and what we lack are appropriate analogous social, economic, political and cultural mechanisms. The aim in applying such criteria to social realms then, is to assess their potential for addressing and manifesting social justice so that, in line with Ife,s proposal, social and environmental justice are addressed as equally vital and mutually interdependent. This potentially represents a more robust interpretation of sustainability, given the terms ubiquity and elusiveness.

5 .In conclusion and suggestionNew ecological theory offers frameworks for establishing resilient systems based on. This builds on Sneddons (2000) discussion of sustainability and of sustainable livelihoods (SLs) in particular, which focuses on ‘‘observing what people actually do in their struggles to carve out livelihoods’’ (Sneddon, 2000,p. 534). flexibility and functional diversity. He recognises the relevance of the concept of SLs to third world villages, but highlights issues regarding the role of broader (or narrower) forces and power relations in obstructing sustainability, plus the need for integrating ecological science and social action. This paper responds in several ways. Firstly, the concept is relevant not only to third world villages, but needs to be applied to first world cities if widespread ecological and socia justice is to be achieved. Given that industrialised cities dominate global resource depletion and waste generation, an observation of the daily existence of urban inhabitants seems an obvious starting point for sustainability. Applying the model of SLs to an industrialized urban context immediately highlights and addresses urban ecological footprints. This suggests many ecocity design options, focusing on the social, ecological and economic justice of bioregions and fair trade between bioregions. Recognizing and fostering human ecological codependence in an urban social context offers up possibilities for addressing Sneddon concern with the existing rift between human and physical geographicalEndeavour. Secondly, the study applied Sneddon s focus on impacts from scales other than the village. While community-driven housing developments were the core models under consideration, the paper revealed unforeseen phenomena at scales varying from family events through to federal housing market dynamics impacting on the projects outcomes and processes. This echoes new ecologys focus on the impact of forces operating at different scales on ecosystem sustainability(Sneddon, 2000) and represents adaptive system management within urban social contexts.

ReferencesAdger, W.N., 2000. Social and ecological resilience: are they related?Progress in Human Geography 24 (3), 347–364.Albert, M., 2003. Parecon: Life After Capitalism. Verso, London.Australian Greenhouse Office, 2001. Your home technical manual:

design for lifestyle and the future. Available from: <http//:www.greenhouse.gov.au/yourhome/technical/fs73_6.htm> (modified

01.03.04.)Berkes, F., Colding, J., Folke, C., 2003. Navigating Social-EcologicalSystems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.Berry, M., Hall, J., 2001. Policy options for stimulating private sectorinvestment in affordable housing across Australia. Stage 1 Report:Outlining the need for action. Prepared for the Affordable HousingNational Research Consortium by the Australian Housing andUrban Research Institute.Burnham, R., 1995. Self-help housing and ecology: an introduction totheory and practice in Tasmania. In: Birkeland J. (Ed.), Rethinkingthe Built Environment: Proceedings of the Catalyst95 Designand Environment Conference, Canberra, 13–16 July 1995, pp. 239–243.

.

Castree, N., 2004. Environmental issues: signals in the noise? Progressin Human Geography 28 (1), 79–90.Davis, J., 1994. The Affordable City: Toward a Third Sector HousingPolicy. Temple University Press, Philadelphia.Davis, J., 2000. Homemaking: the pragmatic politics of third sectorhousing. In: Geisler, C., Daneker, G. (Eds.), Property and Values:Alternatives to Public and Private Ownership. Island Press,Washington, pp. 233–258.Eichler, M., 1995. Change of Plans: Towards a Non-Sexist SustainableCity. Garamond Press, Toronto.Engwicht, D., 1992. Towards an Ecocity: Calming the Traffic.Envirobook, Sydney.Esteva, G., 1987. Regenerating peoples space. Alternatives 12 (1),

125–152.Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., Holling, C.S,.Walker, B., Bengtsson, J., Berkes, F., Colding, J., Danell, K,.Falkenmark, M., Gordon, L., Kasperson, R., Kautsky, N., Kinzig,A., Levin, S., Maler, K., Moberg, F., Ohlsson, L., Olsson, P,.Ostrom, E., Reid, W., Rockstrom, J., Savenjie, H., Svedin, U,.

2002 .Resilience and sustainable development: building adaptivecapacity in a world of transformations. Scientific BackgroundPaper on Resilience for the process of the World Summit onSustainable Development on behalf of the Environmental AdvisoryCouncil to the Swedish Government.Folke, C., Pritchard Jr., L., Colding, J., Svedin, U., 1998. The problemof fit between ecosystems and institutions. IDHP Working PaperNo. 2, International Human Dimensions Programme on GlobalEnvironmental Change (IHDP), Bonn

ARCH 501 - INTERDISCIPLINARY WORKSHOP

Shabnam pazooki095117Shabi_design@yahoo.com