Re: New subUrbanism
- --- In carfree_cities@y..., Chris Bradshaw <chris@t...> wrote:
> If we want to overcome the problem of developers misusing a conceptin
> their new-project blurbs, we should apply ourselves to thedevelopment
> of aHello Chris David here from Hull. This I believe would be invaluable
> clear, measurable definition of the ideal living environment.
> Ideally, it would be accompanied by a way to measure the degree of
> conformity a particular project achieved.
> It could measure one or more of the following (perhaps resorting to
> models to _predict_ performance before the project is built):
> - energy use per adult and per child resident, both for living
>space and for transportation
because far too many developers, even high end, opt for cheaper
building practices which in the end only transfer larger energy bills
to the home owner. Do you think that is advertised, lol I think not.
In the realm of energy efficiency there are absolutely incredible
options, upwards to a 75% reduction in energy use just in building
materials and methods. However, these options sometimes cost more and
well because people are unaware there is no demand. This model must
be made, just the implication on bids for civic buildings, ie; I can
make you that building and it will only consume this much power. WoW
> - air pollution emitted per adult/childcollisions for
> - fitness level of each resident (related to the amount of physcial
> exertion they will get in everyday activities).
> - street social contacts to be experienced by the average household
> - expected morbidity levels resulting from crime and from
> each householdsubdivision
> - amount of property taxes and total transportation expenses per
> The computer model would allow its owner to run a particular
> design against the standards, to give it a rating that would beused by
> consumers (and perhaps town councils) in making decisions. Sort ofa
> standards laboratory with an ISO number.
> Chris Bradshaw