The Embrace

Purpose of this Document: To provide an introduction to the thought process for this project’s inception, purpose, and potential outcomes; In a way that provokes thought about the current shortcomings of the housing industry in the United States and North Tempe’s ability to become a more balanced community; So that people within and outside of the housing industry start to transform housing in Tempe (and beyond) into a more productive and well-rounded business model, possibly with some of the ideas and tools provided in this document.

Author’s Project Inception: After ten years of working with community leaders to review housing developments for potential construction in the City of (north) Tempe, I have seen:

·         North Tempe desperately needs housing for professionals, but all developments get swallowed up by ASU students as tenants. This keeps North Tempe’s tax-base extremely low, negating proper services for the area. People should be working for a future where students, cultural-resource neighborhoods, and professionals can all live side-by-side- but with far less students and far more professionals. ASU & Tempe need to construct legal and MOU agreements to change the outcome NOW for a better, more innovative, future. Otherwise, North Tempe will have fewer, if any, professionals.

·         Very little creativity by the housing industry (developers, investors, architects, city staff, etc) mostly continuing big-box housing that provide little-to-nothing for surrounding communities in terms of more diverse and better business services (grocery, dining, medical, local shops, etc.), nor do they offer adjacent physical amenities within the communities.

·         As Tempe transitions into far greater density of housing than ever before, the services and tax base we require should be taken into account- but also the design. Big buildings are hard to ignore, and Tempe is getting less human-scaled and more brutal/ugly. Serious questions about aesthetics need to be asked:

1.       What is the right way to design in our climate?

2.       How do we include Tempe’s history and culture in large developments? How do we communicate history/culture to the housing industry? Can we put together a group of ‘Tempeans’ that can help create a document for developers to utilize?

3.       How can we make large developments much more beautiful- even “loved”? (hint: science shows us the way- see section 3 for links; plus document 05_Developer Rubric for Better Buildings)

4.       How can communities/municipalities learn to ask the right questions about prospective developments in their area to help developers get their designs right?

The following attempts to create some possible answers to the four questions above…

1.       What is the right way to design in our climate?

a.       We have a lot of heat, and it is getting hotter. We need to design and build high-performance envelope systems for all our buildings. This would save on power requirements for climate control- but it also would add tremendous resiliency if there are power outages. One high-performance building I created in 2016 had its climate control turned off for four days in 110+ degree heat, and the indoor temperature only increased from 72-degrees to 78-degrees.

b.       We have a lot of sun, and it is getting sunnier. We need to design to shade our buildings. From an aesthetic perspective, architects should be developing creative and innovative shading elements that create visual pleasure and intellectual story creation. This could be accomplished through Tempe’s architectural history, or it could be in a forward-looking direction. The more we can shade buildings, the better they perform (see 1.a above.)

c.       We have a lot of Heat Island Effect, and could use more landscaping around and on buildings, streets, and open spaces. This is often tricky, though the city can help the issue by allowing developers enough ground space (especially where utilities exist) for trees in the ground. The city can also dictate how much soil volume is required for each type of tree developers use.

2.       How do we include North Tempe’s history and culture in large developments? And how do we communicate history/culture to the housing industry? Can we put together a group of ‘Tempeans’ that can help create a document for developers to utilize?

a.       The only way I can think of to actually implement ideas of history and culture into developments is to provide developers with a document that is created directly for use by developers, and created by Tempeans themselves that shows inspiring examples from Tempe & the world.

b. This would require a diverse set of Tempeans to come together in order to create an architectural/societal/cultural document for developers (and prospective businesses, etc). We should draw from Native American, Hispanic, the city’s founding, and ASU’s effect on Tempe’s culture of innovation and uniqueness. It should include a variety of aspects and perspectives.

c.       The document could be provided online, but also be part of any development information for would-be developments.

3.       How can we make large developments much more beautiful- and even “loved”? (hint: science shows us the way)

a.       There are many scientific studies to draw from, which show physical, mental, and cognitive effects (positive or negative) derived from experiencing a space or street frontage. In particular, studies by Colin Ellard (working at the intersection of neuroscience and architectural design) showed people’s moods and states of being change depending on the design of street frontages.

b.       There are also many scientific studies that show the use of Biophilic Design (architecture, interiors, streets, etc) increases a place’s viability, economy, mood, and enjoyment (see page 12 of ‘14 Patterns of Biophilic Design.’) Some effects include lower crime, higher rates of community cohesiveness, better economies, and more tourism.

c.       In particular, boring buildings do great damage to their humans and their cities. Complex building facades- particularly those with thoughtful details- create exciting places that people want to be and live in. People walk slower when walking past a well-designed building, allowing them time to digest the design and, possibly, purchase something from a ground-floor seller.

d.       There are some very basic ways to get design “right.” In 2021 I wrote a detailed 3-part essay on what makes a building loved.

4.       How can communities learn to ask the right questions about prospective developments in their area to help developers get their designs right?

a.       At Citizens for a Vibrant Apache Corridor (CVAC), we have been discussing issues we would like to see regarding developments in our purview area. When we started, we created guidelines to ensure developments would not be created just for students- whether initially or eventually. We wanted to ensure the spaces were adequate for professionals to live within. What we found over the years was that most developers followed our guidelines. In the past, we did not get into aesthetic concerns.

b.       Now, we are seeking a deeper and wider set of questions to ask developers. This includes what benefits developers can provide for the community they are building in. One example of a tradeoff would be greater density (potentially good for taxes) in exchange more traffic congestion. Though, why not ask developers to be better partners and neighbors that actually help create a better community they develop within. For instance, maybe an adjacent community wants a pocket-park along Apache- or maybe on the back-side of a development. Maybe they want a shaded and/or protected bike lane along the development’s front or around their property.

c.       We are conceiving of what we want as a community. We are also developing probing questions regarding everything in this document (see document 05_Developer Rubric for Better Buildings.) We plan to use this document to question developers on what they are really proposing. Do they plan for future solar PV arrays? Do they have enough soil volume for trees? Does their design relate to Tempe’s culture and history? Do they create an exciting, cohesive, and informative design on the outside of their buildings? Etc.

d.       We think such a document should be given out to developers as well. The City of Tempe planners have been really great about having developers get in touch with CVAC very early in the process. I mentioned the new “Rubric” we are working on for use between CVAC and developers, and in speaking with one of the developers they thought it would be really helpful for them to have before they really get into designing. We think such a document could be provided to other neighborhood associations/groups in order to have cross-communication between those neighborhoods and ours. Each neighborhood could create their own specific Rubric and share the good ideas around.

e.       This is not to make developers’ lives miserable. We want the opposite of that. We want to make lots of information available early on, and we want to help inspire and shape developments into something everyone finds appealing, contributing, and invigorating.

Purpose of this Document: To provide an introduction to the thought process for this project’s inception, purpose, and potential outcomes; In a way that provokes thought about the current shortcomings of the housing industry in the United States; So that people within and outside of the housing industry start to transform it into a more productive and well-rounded business model, possibly with some of the ideas and tools provided in this document.

Project Description (brief version):

Housing based on four criteria based on personal interviews:

1.       People desire to live in small communities (200 people max) where large developments should create pockets of housing within that limit

2.       People want to live directly next to nature (Biophilic Design integrated throughout)

3.       Housing for all stages of life (allowing people to change homes within the same development)

4.       People want to live in a place that is as self-sustaining as possible (energy, food production, etc)

Housing and commercial development; 8,964 housing units with 30,240 residents (including 500 hotel beds), at a density of 65.19 du/acre. Most housing for ownership, with a percentage of rentals.

Site area 137.5 (5,990,728 sf)

Zoned: Mixed use with 31% landscaped open space equaling 42.56 acres

Building mix: townhouse, mid-rise, high-rise

(Fictional) Project Inception & Characters: A housing developer, Ryan, realizes the entire housing industry in the Phoenix area is creating big-box housing projects that are not welcoming to professionals who want long-term housing in a PHX Metro downtown (Phoenix, Tempe, Mesa, etc,) and new buildings instead are only occupied by ASU students who are willing to live in such developments in the short-term. While the projects are reasonably lucrative, Ryan feels there is a lack of creativity to create better, and more diverse, housing. During the 2020 Pandemic, Ryan was on many zoom calls to people all over the world- and would ask people what and how they wanted to live. Nearly everyone had some version of the same four responses:

1.       A small community of less than 200 people in order to know just about everyone in the community and make stronger social bonds

2.       A close connection to nature; to walk outside their door and be in nature

3.       Housing that accommodates various stages of one’s life (being a single adult, married, married with kid/kids, aging, end of life care)

4.       Self-sufficiency; use of on-site energy, water, waste, professional services on-site, etc

Ryan decided to seek out a process to enable a housing development with the above criteria

Ryan asks: why has the housing industry ignored wide criteria of what people want: Ryan looks into roadblocks that constrict ‘creative’ housing developments by looking at the major players in the industry:

1.       Financial Entities: Profit is the main goal; anything ‘different’ or ‘creative’ is seen as risky; investors vs banks, where banks- particularly local community banks- might be more willing to finance an innovative development and involved in the community and design process

2.      Municipality/State Regulation & Governance: Desiring population (and tax-base) growth and want developers to work quickly; with any development that is ‘different’ or ‘creative,’ there is often a longer approval process; and they are beholden on private investment for housing; potentially better for more zoning code leeway for innovation

3.       Developers: Profit is the main goal; anything ‘different’ or ‘creative’ is seen as risky; tried-and-true housing typologies are generally preferred though very few typologies occur in urban areas outside of big-box housing

4.       Architects: Profit is the main goal; Beholden to the developer’s budget, which generally provides little time for architectural creativity, consideration of place, or innovation

5.       A given project’s surrounding neighborhoods: NIMBYism, lack of awareness of the development process, lack of neighborhoods having a system to judge the benefit of developments

Ryan seeks to find a method to break through the status quo with collaborative inclusion: By working ‘upstream,’ one is able to enact greater changes more easily for any endeavor by working with people who are the decision makers early on. To make something truly different, one needs a different process. Ryan had once been a part of an Integrative Design Process (IDP) as a consultant on a construction project. The IDP had been very impactful on him. He wants to bring it to one of his own projects, only in a larger format that involves the upstream decision makers, neighborhood residents, the financial team, the design team, municipal planning officials, engineering consultants, the utility company representatives, and others. By getting everyone into a set of workshops to determine what an innovative/creative housing development should be and include. The IDP system would also determine a site based on the priorities (called Touchstones) determined by the IDP group.

The IDP allowed the team to find creative solutions to complex problems. The IDP group engaged in design workshops to figure out what each entity and individual involved wanted to get out of the project’s realization. The IDP also uncovered how to get maximum benefits for all parties. They also produced what buildings would be desirable and also realistic, plus landscaping, ownership/lease agreements, and some very creative affordable housing techniques involving workers that would live in the development without having to pay rent or mortgage through their long-term on-site labors, and gain financial equity in the process. The IDP also provided for ideas of tapping into the history and culture of the area the development would be built within. The five development players (financial, municipal, developers, architects, neighborhoods) all found ways to be involved and creative in the process.

The IDP group suggests a particular site that would replace a failing shopping mall called Arizona Mills Mall in Tempe, Arizona.

Ryan researches how to clear potential Housing Industry roadblocks:

1.       Government Entities: City support is essential, and by working to promote the development’s transformative benefits to the city and inhabitants, support of innovation espoused to spur a better future of housing in Tempe. The site may eventually spur a new Valley Metro Light rail line along Baseline Road from the South Phoenix light rail line, and an extended street car line on Mill Avenue south to Baseline Road to create a new urban transit loop.

2.       Developer: Recognize the importance of making concessions to surrounding neighborhoods, and city, and being a community collaborator for inspiration and potential greater development benefits from the Government entities. The developer worked hard to provide affordable housing at 60%-80% of AMI along with a majority of market rate housing in the development.

3.       Financial entities: it took a lot of research and data to show the project would be profitable to lenders. The developers found ways to provide generated income early in the construction process, such as starting with a high-rise hotel and accessible commercial areas on the south side of the development, which helped to de-bug the construction documents and process for the rest of the project, saving time and money.

4.       Environmental Responsibility: Creating an attitude that it is a responsibility and a joy to find solutions such as on-site solar energy, water collection/re-use, geo/hydro cooling, composting, etc. Working with SRP to exchange water rights over time; meaning the canal that sits just to the north of the project site would provide on-site water for landscaping in the summer, and the site would return storm water slowly back to the canal during Arizona’s two wet seasons.

5.       Constructability: The site and design allowed for large open area zones for staging construction, and later the open areas would become landscaping and gardens in the final construction phase.

Various ideas arising from the IDP:

1.       Creating community “pods” of no more than 200 people within large on-site buildings

a.       Based around partially-enclosed landscaped gathering spaces

2.       Utilizing aspects of Tempe’s History and Culture:

a.       Helping Tempe’s music culture w/ five outdoor + 2 indoor venues

b.       Thinking of Tempe’s culture with local and historic construction materials

c.       Technical innovation: printing 3D ceramic “boulders” on building facades that contain landscaping

d.       Biophilic Design features of plants on, in, and around buildings, helping to cool/shade and providing biophilia’s positive results, and bringing people closer to nature

3.       Live-work opportunities; businesses/crafts & construction people/artists, etc on-site with a clientele of 30,000 people as part of their community

a.       Monthly flea market/trading goods in the commercial centers to reduce landfill waste

4.       Community economies living with low/no-rent + equity if needed/desired:

a.       Farming the site’s landscape to supply chefs at the development’s commercial areas

b.       Artists helping to create public art in the development: in open spaces, commercial spaces, and on the facades of all buildings

c.       Financial planners/CPA’s, other consulting

d.       Medical urgent care, physical therapy, exercise trainers, courses, etc

5.       Physical Activity:

a.       Raised circular track for bike/run/walk (1.0 miles)

b.       “Ring track” path for bike/run/walk around entire site (1.7 miles)

Purpose of this Document: To provide an introduction to the thought process for this project’s environmental goals; in a way that provokes thought about the current shortcomings of the housing industry’s environmental goals; So that people within and outside of the housing industry start to transform it into a more environmentally responsible industry, possibly with some of ideas and tools provided in this document and elsewhere.

The site’s environmental goals during IDP process via framework of the Living Building Challenge:

Place:

·         Ecology of place: L4 urban zone, not on greenfield land; utilize native landscaping where possible; no toxic materials in landscape care

·         Urban agriculture: Maximize food production on site (in balance with aesthetic needs); ultimate goal to provide opportunities for residents to forage and/or have their own food garden at their home or a plot on the site; site to feed as many residents as possible, and for restaurant use

·         Habitat Exchange: Not required, but should be encouraged that with the proceeds from the site the funds should purchase land through an approved Land Trust Organization equal to the size of the site

·         Composting (traditional, worms, etc) vegetable food waste for use on-site or for sale off-site;

·         Human-scaled/powered living

o    This project will increase the density of the site and support a human-powered lifestyle.

o    Provide places for occupants to gather and connect with the community without leaving the site.

o    Provide sufficient secure, weather-protected storage for human-powered vehicles and facilities, such as showers and lockers, to encourage biking.

o    Provide at least two electric vehicle charging stations at one per thirty spaces.

o    Minimize impervious surface parking to no more than 15% of the Project Area and ensures that any surface parking area larger that 20m x 30m is separated with planted areas.

o    Reduce single-occupancy vehicle (SOV) trips and trips by fossil fuel-based vehicles by 30% over an established baseline relevant to the projects region and occupancy type, and Implement these four best practices:

- Consideration and enhancement of pedestrian routes, including weather protection on street frontages.

- Advocacy in the community to facilitate the uptake of human-powered and public transportation.

- A transit subsidy for all occupants of the project.

- Carpool coordination assistance.

- Access either to subsidized car sharing and/or to hybrid or EV fleet vehicles.

- Regular survey of occupants to determine current fossil fuel-based SOV trips.

Water:

·         Retain/reuse 100% storm water (20-year event scope) for retention, ground water re-charge, and possible treatment for landscaping and maybe toilet flush

·         Retain/reuse waste water from roofs, capture and filter use for landscape use at buildings; perhaps filtration works via gravity with cleaned water used to water building landscape

·         Retain/reuse waste water from homes (bathing, laundry, sinks), capture and filter for fresh water use and/or for landscaping; would require large underground storage & equipment

·         Composting toilets for all structures (?), potential fertilizer product to use on-site and/or for sale off-site

Energy:

·         Solar PV arrays on commercial and townhouse roofs to offset all site power needs; potentially find off-site opportunities to offset remaining power needs

·         include resilience hub(s) on site as heat refuge in power outages; this may be commercial spaces or a community space

·         EUI 70% reduction from baseline of similar development

·         High-performance building envelopes (air-tight, highly insulated, and vapor permeable)

Net Positive Carbon:

·         75% reduced total embodied carbon emissions

·         Resilience hubs: provide livable interiors for 3 days without power for 10% of residents

Health + Happiness:

·         Comply with current version of ASHRAE 62

·         Provide exterior views & daylighting for 95% of regularly occupied spaces

·         Comply with CDPH Standard Method v1.1-2010 for 90% of building products

·         Connect people and nature through designed interactions from inside and exterior

Materials:

·         Limit concrete to foundations and slabs with plant-based vertical structures where possible via IBC requirements

·         Utilize Forestry Stewardship Council lumber

·         Avoid Red List chemical classes in 90% of the materials by cost

·         Utilize as much recycled materials as possible

·         20% or more (per cost) of the materials from within 500 km of the site

Equity:

·         No negative impact on neighbors to collect water, energy, or clean air

·         No waterway restrictions

o    Include diverse stakeholders from vulnerable or disadvantaged populations in the design, construction and operations and maintenance phases at the following levels:

·         20% of design contract and/or construction contracts, and 10% of maintenance contracts must be with JUST organizations that meet required levels for Diversity category, or are registered Minority, Woman, or Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (MWDBE) organizations, or international equivalent;

·         Workforce development/training/community benefits agreements, registered apprentice programs, and similar programs are employed for 10% of the General Contractor’s project contracts, and/or project maintenance contracts; Or donate 0.1% of total project cost to a regional, community-based nonprofit organization focused on equity and inclusion.

·         The Integrated Design Process will integrate likely people from inside the community, and also those in the surrounding communities; the IDP will also include consultants representing various communities and other interested parties.

Beauty:

·         The project will be transformed by deliberately incorporating nature through Environmental Features, Light and Space, and Natural Shapes and Forms.

·         The project will be transformed by deliberately incorporating nature’s patterns through Natural Patterns and Processes and Evolved Human-Nature Relationships.

·         The project will be uniquely connected to the place, climate, and culture through Place-Based Relationships.

·         The project will meaningfully integrate public art and contain design features intended solely for human delight and the celebration of culture, spirit, and place appropriate to the project’s function.

Purpose of this Document: To provide a list of interesting design attributes within the project’s design; In a way that provokes thought about the current shortcomings of the housing industry in the United States; So that people within and outside of the housing industry start to transform it into a more productive and well-rounded business model, possibly with some of the ideas and tools provided in this document.

Project Description (brief version):

Housing based on four criteria based on personal interviews:

1.       People desire to live in small communities (200 people max) where large developments should create pockets of housing within that limit

2.       People want to live directly next to nature (Biophilic Design integrated throughout)

3.       Housing for all stages of life (allowing people to change homes within the same development)

4.       People want to live in a place that is as self-sustaining as possible (energy, food production, etc)

Housing and commercial development; 8,964 housing units with 30,240 residents (including 500 hotel beds), at a density of 65.19 du/acre. Most housing for ownership, with low percentage of rentals.

Site area = 137.5 (5,990,728 sf)

Zoned: Mixed use with 31% landscaped open space equaling 42.56 acres

Building mix: townhouse, mid-rise, high-rise

Select Design Attributes and Ideas:

1.       Site:

a.       Arrangement of buildings

                                                               i.      Three building typologies (hi-rise, lo-rise, townhouse) to provide variation in housing types that may assist in living at the site for a lifetime

1.       Hi-rise (42 stories) are set along the perimeter of the West and East sides of the property to assist with shading the lo-rise buildings, particularly those on the West side will shade much of the site in the late summer afternoon to lower energy usage

2.       Lo-rise (12 stories) are set slightly more central within the two rows of hi-rises, which keeps the overall scale of the buildings feeling smaller within the entire site

3.       Three-story Townhouses are arranged around a large bioswale as an overall community landscape space with pathways

                                                             ii.      All hi-rise and lo-rise buildings are lifted off the ground to allow the landscape and views to be more continuous around the site; Only the townhouses and Mercados are fully built on grade

                                                           iii.      Huge amounts of open space (30% of the site) for landscaping/nature to keep a close connection between the homes and nature through a generous amount of hi-rises that keeps overall density high over the site

                                                           iv.      Massive water capture and cleansing within a central bioswale basin at the southern portion of the site to help reduce the chance of flooding; the area is sunken into the ground at three levels at eight-foot increments

                                                             v.      A secondary bioswale moving through the northern part of the site is connected to both the bioswale basin and the Western Canal to the north allows for water to flow into and out of the site as necessary; this bioswale also contains a large turf area for sports and giving pets places to play

                                                           vi.      Parking is completely underground, with people parking close to their particular building; a ring-road around the perimeter of the site allows emergency and maintenance access throughout

                                                          vii.      Commercial “Mercado” are spaced around the site to allow each Mercado to form its own culture; The largest Mercado at (southeast corner of site) is very accessible to the outside public

b.       Tree placement:

                                                               i.      Trees are utilized extensively to help keep temperatures as low as possible

                                                             ii.      The densest area for trees is at the central bioswale where collected water would keep the trees healthy all year

                                                           iii.      Local trees and plants that grow in shade, such as Ironwood (Olneya Tesota) are used on the north sides of buildings and other locations with less sun

                                                           iv.      Trees are used to collect people into small and large central community zones

c.       Planting scenes: A diverse set of landscapes throughout the site would demonstrate various types of biomes throughout the Sonoran Desert

d.       Site Amenities:

                                                               i.      A 1.66 mile walk path around the entire site with a 10’ sidewalk

                                                             ii.      The access road provides a full protected bike lane (1.67 mile)

                                                           iii.      A 1.01 mile raised walking path hovers at 16-20’ above grade provided for exercise and easy access to all five Mercados

                                                           iv.      Extensive pathways between buildings and amenities, along with secondary paths through landscaped areas including the central bioswale

                                                             v.      A series of five exterior spaces distributed around the site as exterior classrooms, which can also be used for meeting spaces

                                                           vi.      A series of five music venues of different sizes distributed around the site, from a small stage within a Mercado to a larger venue with permanent concert stage, and a small amphitheater nestled into the central bioswale, etc

e.       Potential negative interaction from the trailer park to the east side of the site because of a massive difference in building height and density; However, the shade from the hi-rise buildings will provide comforting shade in the hot afternoons during summer months that will help the single-family homes cooler and reduce their utility costs; Whereas Winter shadows will be greatly limited to only the northwest corner of the single-family housing development

2.       Buildings:

a.       Townhouse

                                                               i.      Structures consist of 1-3 story “units” (personal to an individual/family)

                                                             ii.      Also “pods” (9 unit grouping with its own 2400 square-foot community landscaped courtyard for a small community space for its ~36 people)

                                                           iii.      Also “building” (9 units x 7 pods = 63 units with its own 26,600 sf landscaped courtyard for a large community space for its ~287 people); The building also provides for a second large “patio” of 22,300 sf that overlooks the central bioswale

                                                           iv.      Food-growing planters encircle the perimeter of each townhouse building with a 10 square-foot “plot” for each unit

                                                             v.      Cladding would be of reclaimed lumber from various sources (a known actual source is the 8-10 tons of waste lumber each month the Intel plant in Chandler which is currently sent to Phoenix landfills;) This material can be arranged to self-shade the building similar to a saguaro or barrel cactus; It requires a non-toxic water-sealer every 3 years

                                                           vi.      Wood cladding can also allow openings to the exterior building perimeter for vented private courtyard spaces (each unit contains a planted atrium that is open to the sky)

                                                          vii.      The exterior skin will be a mix of reclaimed wood lumber and “solid forms” that holds plantings; the shades allow expansive views from the housing units that also shade direct sunlight

                                                        viii.      The “solid matter” on the building elevations are conceived as a 3D earth-printed elements that act as large “pots” for plants to grow out of; These would be designed to look like natural Arizona granite boulders that cling to the building’s structure

                                                            ix.      Some of the façade on the sunny side of the buildings will include vertically oriented solar panels; the roof will also contain a solar PV array

b.       Lo-rise / hi-rise:

                                                              i.      Raised off the ground approximately 17-20’ for views and landscape consistency

                                                             ii.      Each group of three floors will be grouped together as a community; there will be no glass in the largest opening of the group (~150 people), and the three story open-air space will have unique landscaped gathering spaces; the ceiling of this large space will be reflective black glass to keep the space feeling large

                                                           iii.      There are openings in the façade opposite the large main opening to allow breezes flow through the space; this cools the space in warm weather and improves wind load on the building’s structure

                                                           iv.      The exterior skin will be a mix of vision glass and “solid forms” that holds plantings, plus vertically oriented deep metal shades; the shades allow expansive views from the housing units that also shade direct sunlight

                                                             v.      The “solid forms” on the building elevations are conceived as a 3D earth-printed elements that act as large “pots” for plants to grow out of; These would be designed to look like natural Arizona granite boulders that cling to the building’s structure so that it looks like Arizona’s environment is climbing the building

                                                           vi.      Some of the façade on the sunny side of the buildings will include vertically oriented solar panels; the roof will also contain a solar PV array

c.       Mercado:

                                                               i.      These buildings rest on grade and rise to ~20’ high, with single level shopping around a large landscaped courtyard

                                                             ii.      A louvered shade system would project 20’ out from the building within the courtyard, creating a deep and tall circular loggia that helps to create a “deep façade” (where the shop can place merchandise outside to attract buyers, something proven to help shopping areas economically, but also creates an interesting spatial experience

                                                           iii.      The façade for businesses would be floor to ceiling glass

                                                           iv.      The courtyard will be landscaped and provide lounging spaces and other amenities

                                                             v.      Exterior side cladding would be of reclaimed lumber from various sources; this material can be arranged to self-shade the building similar to a saguaro or barrel cactus; It requires a non-toxic water-sealer every 3 years

                                                           vi.      The exterior skin will be a mix of reclaimed wood lumber and “solid forms” that holds plantings

                                                          vii.      The “solid matter” on the building elevations are conceived as a 3D earth-printed elements that act as large “pots” for plants to grow out of; These would be designed to look like natural Arizona granite boulders that cling to the building’s structure

                                                        viii.      Some of the façade on the sunny side of the buildings will include vertically oriented solar panels; the roof will also contain a solar PV array

Purpose of this Document: To provide a series of topics for neighborhood groups or municipalities to weigh when looking to evaluate a development; In a way that inspires while provoking thought about shortcomings of the housing industry in the United States; So that people within and outside of the housing industry start to transform it into a more productive and well-rounded business model, possibly with some of the ideas and tools provided in this document. (Feedback is always welcome)

A framework for discussion between Municipality/neighborhood-group/developer:

a)      Connection to Tempe’s History, Culture & Climate:

i)        What makes a development specific only to our city (ie: would work better in our town than any other);

ii)       Pertaining to Tempe through its cultures of music, innovation, and ‘funkiness’ (definitions below;)

(1)    Funky describes something that is unconventional, stylish, or modern in a unique way.

(2)    There's a funky, laid-back vibe in Tempe that makes everyone feel at home, whether you're at a local café or a weekend market.

(3)    Tempe’s funkiness is also reflected in its colorful murals and quirky shops, creating an eclectic charm that invites exploration.

iii)     Building materials: river rock, brick, corrugated metal, stucco, punched tin ceilings, adobe, earth walls, clay tiles, wood trellises, wood cladding, wood floors, wood ceilings, big wood beams, mud for plastering walls;

iv)     Shading methods (ie: deep patio overhang, trellises, horizontal south-face elements, vertical north-face elements, a mix of horiz/vert @ east/west-face, building façade is self-shading, etc), consider various materials;

v)       Public facing art (murals, sculptures/mosaics, shading art elements) that contributes to the “funky/eclectic” feel of Tempe;

b)      Environmental Considerations:

i)        What is a development providing for community resiliency and appreciation;

ii)       Collecting solar and/or wind energy

iii)     How dealing with power, efficiency, etc

iv)     Parking provided for now & future;

v)       How will development reflect/affect Transit Management;

vi)     Will development eliminate surrounding sites from collecting power, wind, water;

vii)   Allow for pedestrian/bike paths through the property if appropriate

(1)    Ex of a failure: Tempe Marketplace and/or the Cameron apartment complex don’t currently provide ped/bike access from Rio Salado/Smith to the Sal River Walking Path, even though it wouldn’t be hard to do;

c)       GSI (Green Stormwater Infrastructure):

i)        On-site GSI water retention;

(1)    Is the first 50% of required site retention volume being routed through; GSI BMPs; are water quality GSI BMPs being prioritized;

(2)    Eight different BMPs promoted;

ii)       Does the site GSI support the growth of a healthy urban landscape;

iii)     Does GSI and site grading route water to the landscape before a drywell;

d)      Economic Impact:

i)        What is the development providing for community’s economy;

ii)       What spatial beneficial services will the development provide that might increase property values of surrounding neighborhoods (pocket park, dog park, community garden, significant biophilic design elements, public art, etc);

iii)     Who are the expected tenants (professionals vs students) and how can the tenants provide or add for our community;

(1)    Students do not bring services to a community such as grocery, medical, and other professional services;

(2)    What services will the proposed development provide; can your development be for professionals that will attract services needed to the area;

(3)    Are the sizes of closets, kitchens, and living spaces appropriate for families and professionals;

iv)     Will the development provide affordability and/or benefits/spaces for those experiencing homelessness;

e)      Aesthetic Considerations:

i)        Is the scale appropriate (now & in the future);

ii)       Are materials indicative of Tempe/Arizona’s architectural history;

iii)     Are there human-scaled spaces at street level and other levels;

iv)     Is there enough shade at street level and for balconies;

v)       Are material colors taken from the Sonoran Desert;

vi)     Is there an appropriate complex façade design (1-scientifically proven to be more pleasing to humans; other links: 2, 3, 4) - potentially incorporating public art- that also contains a legible design story (based on Native American, European, Asian, African, Polynesian, and/or Middle Eastern methods of ornament, shade, and storytelling translated to our time and place);

vii)   How is Biophilic Design included in the façade and throughout the building (Biophilic Design is proven to be attractive to people and shown to increase economic viability of projects that utilize thoughtful versions of its design patterns);

f)        Landscape Design:

i)        Are the paving materials appropriate for our climate;

ii)       Are the plant materials appropriate for our climate including based on physical orientation (enough/too-much sun, etc);

iii)     Trees provided that shade the public streets adjacent to the development such that the whole neighborhood benefits (also improves quality of life for the residents of the development, including birds, insects, and other life)

iv)     Is there enough soil volume for plants; minimum 1,000 cubic feet of rootable soil volume per proposed tree;

v)       Are street trees oriented to provide at least 75% shade to the adjacent pedestrian walkways at noon on the summer solstice;

vi)     Are all parking lot shrubs 5 gallon minimum

vii)   See Tempe document “Rain to Roots Master Plan and Feasibility Study, Codes and Standards: On-site GSI Requirements”

g)      Community Engagement:

i)        Development will engage in a full Integrative Design Process (IDP) that includes community stakeholders; (a short video description; text description and examples; THE guide; )

ii)       How will the development contribute to the attributes provided in “The Twelve Features of a Sustainable Society” shown below; Also see the definition of the Five Capitals with this link;

The Twelve Features of a sustainable society (source) By describing what a sustainable society should look like, the ‘12 features’ model helps organizations evaluate the sustainability of their projects.

The features fit into the separate five capitals. If we invest appropriately in all capital stocks, and achieve the flow of benefits, the following statements would be true. They represent the outcome of a successful capital investment strategy for sustainable development - that is, a sustainable society.

of Natural Capital

In their extraction and use, substances taken from the earth do not exceed the environment's capacity to disperse, absorb, recycle or otherwise neutralize their harmful effects (to humans and/or the environment)

In their manufacture and use, artificial substances do not exceed the environment's capacity to disperse, absorb, recycle or otherwise neutralize their harmful effects (to humans and/or the environment)

The capacity of the environment to provide ecological system integrity, biological diversity and productivity is protected or enhanced

of Human Capital

At all ages, individuals enjoy a high standard of health

Individuals are adept at relationships and social participation, and throughout life set and achieve high personal standards of their development and learning

There is access to varied and satisfying opportunities for work, personal creativity, and recreation

of Social Capital

There are trusted and accessible systems of governance and justice

Communities and society at large share key positive values and a sense of purpose

The structures and institutions of society promote stewardship of natural resources and development of people

Homes, communities and society at large provide safe, supportive living and working environments

of Manufactured Capital

All infrastructure, technologies and processes make minimum use of natural resources and maximum use of human innovation and skills

of Financial Capital

Financial capital accurately represents the value of natural, human, social and manufactured capital

Case Studies of Successful Developments that embody principles similar to this document:

…..High Line, NYC…..Ecovillage Ithaca…..Zedfactory…Tempe Micro Estates…..GROW community…..Bullitt Center…..The Soltaire NYC…..Vital Brookdale…..