Socio-Technical Dimensions for a Sustainable Housing Transition
6.5 Geography
Department of Civil Engineering, and the UBC Collaborative Research Group. Researchers, students, and consultants will study the design, manufacturing, construction, and commissioning processes of the Vancouver project and document the challenges, solutions, and lessons learned. Potential areas of interest include energy performance, virtual design and construction (VDC), building information modelling (BIM), mass timber product performance, life cycle assessments, and prefabrica- tion and construction productivity. The aim is for the project to be a showcase or demonstration project for the housing construction indus- try, as well as for policymakers facing similar challenges.
context or larger urban or regional environments, such as the impact the dwelling might have on energy and transport networks.
Around the world, cities are experiencing increasing densification as populations grow and rural to urban migration increases. In response, there have been two main housing provision strategies. The first is increas- ing densification in areas close to amenities (e.g., public transport, shops, schools); the second is adding housing in urban growth zones and peri- urban regions. Both approaches have typically been delivered without significant consideration of place or the relationship between people and the environment. For example, there are numerous examples around the world of cities like Melbourne, Calgary, and Houston that have an ever- expanding growth boundary that is driven by the perception of providing
“affordable” housing in areas where there are no existing constraints in the built environment (e.g., no existing roads or buildings which influ- ence how new construction needs to be located). There is also the case that standard floor area of housing has increased in many regions over recent decades [40]. Combined with decreasing lot sizes, this constrains the ability to use the area around the dwelling to help improve perfor- mance (e.g., through tree planting to reduce the urban heat island impact).
Urban growth is often done at the expense of previous land use which, in some cases, has resulted in the loss of productive agricultural land and created wider societal issues around the provision of food. There are also examples of areas which have cleared significant native vegetation (e.g., forests, mangroves) to provide space for housing, which negatively impacts the local flora, fauna, and climate. Additionally, there are some locations which have been building on “reclaimed” land—land that might have been a swampland or waterway that has been filled in to build on. This can create many short- and long-term issues ranging from loss of nature to creating building performance and structural issues in dwell- ings. The case of the Miami apartment collapse in 2021 is, in part, thought to have been caused by shifting reclaimed land on which the apartment stood [3].
Place and scale have also been important for shaping, and constrain- ing, building regulations. While building regulations have been widely recognized as being critical in lifting performance and sustainability in
both new and existing housing, it has been challenging to overcome issues which emerge through place and scale. For example, in some coun- tries, regulations are developed at the national level and then passed on for individual states or regions to implement. This approach hopes to create a more consistent and level playing field with regulations. However, as is the case in Australia and the USA (amongst others), this can also constrain outcomes when there is a need for agreement between regions on what is set at the national level. At times, this has resulted in a water- ing down of minimum performance requirements. Further, jurisdictions who want to push further ahead are either unable to or create their own requirements which can foster tensions across other regions or even with national regulators and the wider industry.
Sustainable housing has significant connection to place and commu- nity. Early examples of sustainable housing often used local materials (either onsite or from the nearby region) and demonstrated connection with, and to, the land where the building occurred. Ideas around having a “light touch” on the land or blending into the natural environment were often key objectives for sustainable housing. An increasing focus of more contemporary sustainable houses is on actively contributing to the local area wherever possible. The provision of sustainable housing often starts by considering the site, materials, and designs that are best matched to the local climatic conditions. This helps to deliver improved perfor- mance outcomes in the initial planning stages, such as through ensuring that optimal orientation and passive solar opportunities are leveraged. It also helps to limit the loss of productive land (e.g., nature, farming) and ensure that the location of housing is appropriate (e.g., not in flood zones or areas likely to be significantly impacted by future climate change).
Understanding the concept of place in transitions has become increas- ingly important. Explicitly acknowledging place provides important con- text to specific transitions processes, including historical, socio-political, economic, ecological, and other contextual considerations (consider- ations that are limited within the current provision of housing). In addi- tion to the location of transitions, the scale is equally important.
Transitions can occur at a national level, state or provincial level, regional level, urban or municipal level, or at a neighbourhood or site level. In some instances, transitions can also occur across scales or they may be
situated within a multi-governance context. This is relevant for explora- tion the sustainable housing transition as the provision of housing involves regulation, influence, materials, technologies, and skills from across an increasingly globalized sector.
As sustainable houses move from one-off individual dwellings to the development of multiunit buildings and precinct scale developments, the benefits of the planning stage and understanding place and context is more significant for ensuring increased performance outcomes both within and across the development. At these early stages, local amenities are also considered and, in an increasing number of sustainable develop- ments, are delivered either before or during the early stages of residential construction to ensure that the amenities are there when households start moving in and not years down the track. Sustainable housing stakehold- ers are also beginning to consider the role sustainable housing plays within the wider community and environment, and the implications it has for other sectors such as energy and transport where sustainability considerations can help make a positive impact beyond the individual dwelling or development site.
6.5.1 Zoning Reform
Single-family zoning, often referred to as R1 in planning documents, is a zoning policy that restricts development in an area to one dwelling per lot. This type of zoning is ubiquitous in the suburbs and other car- dominated landscapes. There are calls and movements to eliminate single- family zoning, normally through “upzoning” which refers to increasing density on a lot. The aim of up zoning is to increase housing in existing neighbourhoods. Jurisdictions across Canada and the USA are passing new zoning ordinances to allow more units on traditional single-family lots or to eliminate single-family zoning altogether. These jurisdictions are doing this to use land more efficiently and environmentally, and to respond to housing affordability challenges. One of the most well-known examples of “upzoning” is the State of Oregon’s House Bill 20016 which
6 https://bit.ly/3GVBJHz
was passed in 2019. The bill essentially eliminated single-family zoning across the state. For cities with populations greater than 25,000, the bill allows duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and “cottage clusters” to be built on parcels that are currently reserved for single-family houses. In cities with populations of at least 10,000, duplexes are allowed in single-family zones. This topic is receiving a lot of attention from planners, particularly in places like the USA. In 2020, the Journal of the American Planning Association published an entire special issue on the idea of ending single- family zoning [41]. Manville et al. [41, p. 106] argue that ‘R1 is inequi- table, inefficient, and environmentally unsustainable’. Meanwhile, Kendig [42] thinks eliminating existing single-family zoning is a mistake, and Chakraborty [43] believes this topic deserves more scrutiny.