Urban Additions for "Antisurbanites"
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto 
on 11. 8.07
We often put forth the proposition that people who live in the city tend to have smaller footprints and live in smaller spaces than those in the suburbs; The New York Times shows some additions that are glaring exceptions, big gorgeous galomphing footprints on roofs and in backyards, designed for families that wanted to stay downtown and had the means to do it in style.
Lucy Musgrave and Zad Rogers outgrew their 1100 square foot London apartment but didn't want to leave the neighbourhood, so they added on to a warehouse building. Dad Richard Rogers designed it and helped slog through the approval process, which took years of negotiations with freeholders, leaseholders, and neighbours with rights to ancient light.
"The 2,800-square-foot apartment hangs from a steel frame bolted to a system of peripheral concrete beams atop the warehouse’s roof. The luminous, double-height upper floor, with 11-foot windows, was designed to be as open as possible, so that six people could comfortably spend time together." ::New York Times
In Los Angeles, "A crowded family enters the Space Age" when Neil Denari, "an ascendant Los Angeles architect with a penchant for swoopy curves." adds a 1050 SF addition to the rear.
" The family likes to sit on floor cushions salvaged from an old couch. The atmosphere of the room evokes Japan, where the architect spent seven months in a micro-apartment in 1990, learning to live sparely.
As it turned out, Mr. Alan and Ms. Voo were yearning to do so as well. They sold their nonessential possessions on eBay, and now live in Shaker-like simplicity. “I’ve never seen people so relieved to be spared from distractions,” Mr. Denari said." ::New York Times
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Preserving the Harvest: Strawberry Balsamic Jam
- What is the Cheapest and Greenest Way to Travel?
- Travel Green and Save Money without Giving Up Anything (Except Your Carbon Footprint)
- Focus Earth: May 23, 2009: New Fuel Standards and Hurricane Forecast
- Spring for Organic Dairy, Save Money Elsewhere
- Just Say No to Jelly Accessories this Summer
This might be the most offensive post I've read in a long time. I am not impressed with massively wealthy city dwellers extolling the pleasures of city living while being interviewed from their multi-million-dollar expansion. As has been said a million times, anyone with a million dollars can afford to live green. Perhaps the problem with the planet isn't ecological, it is financial, first we all need to become millionaires before we can live greenly.
I admire the fact that some of the residents featured in this article pared down their belongings in order to remain in their homes. But I can't stand this whole attitude of superiority that many city dwellers take against suburbanites.
In New York at least, I think a lot of people move out of the city because they can't afford to buy anything in the city, or what they could afford would be less of a bargain overall than a house in the suburbs.
A smaller footprint is certainly ideal, but we shouldn't forget that some people don't have the means to live in the city (and afford private schools for their kids)--and that these people may still be committed to a green lifestyle because they take public transportation, live in a small house, or limit their discretionary spending.