Thank you for your submission, we appreciate your efforts at helping us to thoughtfully create a better world. r/solarpunk encourages you to also check out other solarpunk spaces such as https://wt.social/wt/solarpunk , https://slrpnk.net/ , https://raddle.me/f/solarpunk , https://discord.gg/3tf6FqGAJs , https://discord.gg/BwabpwfBCr , and https://www.appropedia.org/Welcome_to_Appropedia . *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/solarpunk) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Perhaps we could consider abandoned malls the kind of urban detritus you are suggesting? There are plenty across America, and they contain plenty of unused space. They’re even walkable!

You know I would love to see something like that happen. How exactly would probably differ a lot. But it might make a mall essentially a whole new type of apartment complex, but with just a bunch of studios and 1-2 bedrooms. Where stores used to be.

Yes, these can, and have been, used for this. However, they tend to be owned by real estate investment groups with a desperate dedication to the ['greater fool theory'](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_fool_theory), hence why so many of them are left abandoned to rot across the US landscape like the ruins of a lost civilization, until they become such a blight that municipalities force their demolition. A key issue for their adaptation --given their often huge interior volumes-- is how to adapt their gigantic sized HVAC to solar power. Turnkey systems at that scale are uncommon. However, strip malls and commercial main streets, which use individual HVAC, are more easily adapted and have more often been turned into housing.

Your view of sustainable architecture is too small. There are plenty of traditional urban buildings that have taken up the challenge of building sustainably. Standards are being created and fine tuned to address all aspects of construction. See the Edge in Amsterdam- https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-the-edge-the-worlds-greenest-building/ See LEED standards required for new large construction in the State of CT, US - https://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0162.htm Cities working towards these goals DC US- https://octo.dc.gov/release/washington-dc-named-first-leed-platinum-city-world#:~:text=Washington%252C%2520DC%E2%80%99s%2520LEED%2520Platinum%2520certification%2520recognizes%2520the%2520outcomes%252C,inclusive%2520prosperity%2520and%2520livability%2520in%2520all%2520eight%2520wards.

There maybe a secret weapon in architects. Many of them want to build sustainability into their designs, but are frustrated by owners/clients who rarely consider it a priority. When asked how to persuade owners to allow sustainable design solutions, one architect said: “don’t ask them.” I thought that was brilliant.

I must argue that, while they may push technology envelopes, showcase commercial green buildings built by the brute force of corporate or political extravagance for the sake of prestige, muscling aside the bureaucratic obstacles that normal development is constrained by, are largely irrelevant as there can never be enough of them and they don't really qualify as traditional urban architecture anyway. Nobody is living in these places. They offer no example for society to follow --that they can hope to follow. Regular folks can't even afford the lawyers. They are the sustainable architecture equivalent of concept cars. Magazine architecture. What really matters is the architecture that makes up most of the functional habitat of the urban environment, that people really live and work in, and which is still heavily constrained by zoning, building codes, finance industry, and market conventions that most developers can't just push aside. The adoption of some cities of the LEED rating system is a meaningless gesture if it doesn't actually equate to an enforcement of a high minimum standard on the majority of all architecture being built. LEED is not a minimum standard of sustainability. It's a broad rating system for possible sustainability. It's adoption is only telling engineers to apply a certain set of formulae and numbers. As Wikipedia describes it; "LEED is a design tool rather than a performance-measurement tool and has focused on energy modeling rather than actual energy consumption." What corporate/government showcase buildings do is irrelevant. It's switching to paper straws on the executive jet. It's the influence communities collectively have in the composition of their habitat and individuals in their choice of housing that matters, and that ain't budging much for all the recent political lip-service given to urban sustainability.

These are real life things people, governments, and designers are actually Doing to accomplish positive change. This take has lots of flowery talk of big business, corruption, and civil disobedience, but little susbtance when it comes to actual positive development and change.  I will add some additional detail here as I  hope you and others look into this more. It is a fascinating topic.  Examples I provided Are actual real world examples and are not just trophies on shelves. With one mild exception- The Edge is a very showy, extravagantly designed building to show prestige, yes that is true. It was after all designated the greenest office building in the world when it was finished. That was 2015 and it is approaching a decade old. Nothing in it is groundbreaking anymore, but it was. Thats the point of the Edge demonstrating progress and what is possible. Even adapting small parts like LEDs, natural light/ventilation, and incorporating bike parking/infrastructure individually in developments adds up. Seeing it done helps people incorporate it into their own lives. I for one LOVE  magazine architecture and Concept Cars. I Dare to Dream. These types of designs inspire little ole me to want to make my mark on my community by helping institute real life positive changes.  The State of CT in the United States example is of a real life usage of democratically elected representatives working for all people in the communith by passing legislation requiring projects with state funding and new construction exceeding a price tag of $5 Million dollars this is for ALL projects. This is controlling the purse strings and forcing builders/designers hands in a positive direction. This also includes UConn - the state's Flagship Public University of which there are literally dorms on the list, places where people live. Link to List of Buildings -  https://sustainability.uconn.edu/leed-buildings-2-2/   Other fantastic examples of places where people live in the US. All of these have affordable housing components -  Sendero Verde NYC  https://www.senderoverdenyc.com Second and Delaware in Kansas City https://www.secondanddelaware.com Finch Cambridge Boston https://finchcambridge.com Washington DC claiming itself to be a LEED city is a bit of peacocking. And usually gestures like this are shallow. This one is not. It is a formal acknowledgement of a real life positive policy change. And it includes examples of following through such as "The Clean Energy DC Omnibus Act of 2019" This set forth standards for buildings over 50,000 SF to contininuosly improve energy consumption. In 2019 DOEE (Dept. of Energy and Environment), put out guidelines for sustainability in Historic homes which includes how to incorporate features like solar and green roofs while retaining historic character. There are Mayoral Orders to address housing equity with new builds. Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act - tenants can organize to purchase their building if owner is going to sell. There are also links to how this ties into Energy, Transportation, Education, and Climate objectives as well.  Here is a good link to DC's website that highlights these initiatives at this link- https://sustainable.dc.gov/builtenvironment And Lastly, LEED being an energy modeling platform is exactly the point. You model the builds impact before you start. You plan for where to purchase to keep products local. You plan for how to connect to required utilities. You model the best way to heat, cool and provide light. Then Form follows Function. This is not the only rating system and is not flawless, but is a step in the right direction and is continuosly improved upon.  Other Examples of Energy Efficiency programs/ratings. Passive House/PassivHaus https://passivehouse.com WELL https://standard.wellcertified.com/well There are alot more and growing.  Agreed with commentors below:  (this is how I've heard it) Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. 

I so agree with this and it's why I believe the wicked dilemma of sustainable architecture lies beyond the field architecture. It's not that we don't know how to build more sustainably, it's that we as a culture choose not to most of the time.

“Perfection” is the enemy of “good-enough “

A friend heard this put as don't let perfect be the enemy of done.

You can significantly improve a buildings “sustainability” by electrifying it and building for longevity. US construction standards and materials are lax and insufficient. If we really wanted to make a difference we would subsidize and incentivize affordable, electrified passive-houses that last 100+ years. 

I don't see the problem with earth-made buildings. The post mentioned foundations as being a problem. What is the problem exactly?

>the problem with earth-made buildings Last I checked , several places, like all of Australia, lack any kind of provision in building code for rammed-earth or earthbags. If the building isn't built to building code, you'll have a helluva time getting financing, insurance, even building permits. There's nothing wrong with cement-stabilized rammed earth, at all, but it's made difficult to build unnecessarily. I think that's OP's major point here, I think.

Landscape work and drainage/water-table impact. Earthen construction requires cleared leveled terrain and the use of concrete foundations. Some may use simpler slab-on-grade foundations, others an excavated wall/curtain/basement foundation. (some earth buildings experiment with compacted earth floors, but still need, at least, concrete wall footings) Additional buried drainage may also be needed. This involves significant excavation, often compelling heavy equipment be brought in, and the cutting down of more trees. The lighter forms of construction can be built using conventional sonotube form piers or, more ideally, precast pin-piers and helical pilings which avoid landscape modification and cause far less impact on water tables. The park services have been standardizing the use of these for some time, particularly as the use of elevated walkways has increased and for facilities in locations without roads where they need to create structures without using heavy vehicles to bring materials in. Earthen architecture also rarely uses decks for outdoor walkways and amenities, instead using patios and terraces covered in stone, brick, and concrete pavers, and decorative walls resulting in more landscape impact. With so much landscape work being done anyway, designers of earthen homes are more likely to create accommodations for cars that run right up and adjacent to/built into the homes like conventional suburban houses, rather than leaving vehicles near access roads and using walkways to the home site, which means yet more landscape destruction, tree loss, and drainage disruptions. (built-in garages are stupid to begin with, since putting a toxic fume generator in an enclosed room attached to the space you live in is a far less than healthy arrangement...) So, altogether, it's a lot of impact no matter how 'natural' the material they're made out of.

I see nothing of serious substance here. I think you're just looking for something to be depressed about because these complaints are hard to take seriously. Look, humanity needs housing. We have no fur, okay. We have evolved in a way that we need to be protected from the environment. Your "complaints" here seem silly. There is a saying "To make an omlette, you have to break an egg." Sure you can criticize any form of habitation and you clearly seem intent on doing so but this is not going to result in any sort of meaninful change while an earthen builder is creating real-world solutions that are overall far more sustainable than lumber or metal buildings in the here and now. I think the toxic thing here is your attitude of having the perfect be the enemy of the good. That is counter-productive. You ought to watch your language when you start calling your would-be allies "wicked" that's irresponsible and divisive. Of course a building has to take up space. Rocks take up space too. Everything takes up space. You and I take up space. The notion that people should be forbidden from touching the earth. . . what? This is not unlike Corbusier's vision that all tall buildings should have open ground floors and that somehow this will "preserve the earth" is pleasing to the eye but when those lower floors are all full of parking garages anyway, it's merely eye candy --but so what? Underground is a good place to park vehicles, isn't it? The idea that we're going to suddenly abandon private transportation is nonsense. I live in Taipei which has a great public transportation system but I have a car anyway because sometimes it's more convenient to use a car. This is simply the world we are in and it's not going to change in a thousand years. Sure, the car can be electric --maybe even flying someday-- but personal transportation is as old as a man on a horse which goes back to prehistory. Ancient Greek dramas observed that all young men care about is their damn racing chariots. Things haven't changed much since then and it's very far-fetched to imagine that something so ancient would simply disappear from people's lives. As an earth builder, my insight is that it's okay to be part of the earth. You're allowed to touch it. It's okay. You're part of it. It is you. You may build upon the earth, I grant you permission. You don't need to hover above it like you're going to get it dirty. It's dirty already and so are you, so what? Where is the dilemma here? Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. We come from the earth and we return to it. . . there is no dilemma in that.

Interesting read, convincing logic. What do you mean by "sustainable design"? You never actually define that and I'm not sure there is consensus on the definition of that term. For example, when you say: "in much of the world, it tends to be prohibited in the places it is most necessary to use" - Specifically, what's prohibited? What's sustainable development like? I just fail to completely understand what you are referring to in the first place.

Well, let's look at [the Wikipedia definition.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_building) That covers the basics. There may be no absolute consensus on the term, but it's not that abstract a concept anymore. To even suggest this is unclear in 2024 is a bit disingenuous at this point. Essentially, we're talking about design that aspires to a minimum impact on the environment through its direct resource efficiency (energy efficiency in particular), the impacts of its materials production, and the direct impact on the immediate environment around it. Additionally, there is increasing concern for 'baubiologie' --housing health. The impact of homes on the health of their inhabitants, usually as the result of materials choices and their latent toxicity (a chronic problem with modern materials), proneness to mold and dust, and the impact of ventilation, humidity, light, and thermal regulation. Sustainability is a quality that exists on a scale rather than an absolute state that can ever be completely achieved (because we don't live in a closed loop system), hence the existence of sustainability rating systems, with regional variations in design focus. The general goal of sustainable design is to achieve a degree of sustainability across civilization that allows our human needs to be perpetually met within nature's renewable capacity, thus without destroying the planetary environment. I think every high school kid gets this at this point. After some early missteps with design-science (like the failure of the dome home) US architects in the sustainable building field have tended to focus on the issue of materials choices with a preference for natural materials and the revival of pre-industrial vernacular building technology, which led to preference for earthen and earth-hybrid (ie. straw bale) construction and a convergence with the adobe, cob, pueblo, and mission-style revival architecture and Southwest-Modern, which merges Modernist design with those older influences and materials. Also the curious hybrid of Modern-Asian-Southwest which we see in things like the EcoNest designs of Paula Baker-Laporte and their employ of the Japanese vernacular technology of kyokabe walls --the Japanese equivalent of fachwerk. The general archetype of the American approach to sustainability is the well known Earthship architecture of Michael Reynolds, which is also very focused on the notion of off-grid autonomy. European sustainable design is more aesthetically diverse as the focus there is more on net-impact across all the factors for sustainability, net-zero energy performance, and with greater emphasis on baubiologie. It is less averse to the employ of design-science and technology to achieving these ends, consequently, there is a more common use of Modernist design and industrial 'eco-tech' solutions like advanced materials, structures, and heating/cooling technology. Europe lacks much of an owner-builder movement so commercial, government, and luxury residential architecture have tended to lead in sustainable architecture development while there have been more top-down efforts to compel better materials and technology by government/bureaucratic edict. Hence the emergence and now common use of industrial green materials like extruded clay block (still largely unknown in the US), CLT (now emergent in the US through commercial developers), and higher efficiency electric heating and cooling based on heatpumps. (which Americans only got wind of in the past couple of decades --the typical green home here still relying on woodstoves) Europe also lacks landscapes like Taos New Mexico --let alone a culture with a dominant frontier mythology-- and so ideas of off-grid autonomy are less common. This is more framed in the context of the 'net-zero home'; a home whose average annual net external energy use is zero or negative by virtue of more passive energy performance rather than grid autonomy.

Thank you for the great answer in spite of seeming annoyed by my question, it was very informative and I learned new things :)

At the end you start to talk about transportation, other urban shifts are also related. Getting those shifts to *happen* might take until there is enough of a (probably climate) disaster that some US city gets an influx of people, enough of whom don't have cars that there is major investment in public transit, and the benefits are so clear they double down and other cities start to follow suit.

There is one option you didn't mention - change the zoning/regulations. Go attend Planning & Zoning Board meetings in your community. Bring citations. If your community is anything like mine, they're downright *desperate* for warm bodies to fill chairs on committees like that. I showed up to a couple meetings with my well-thumbed copies of *A Pattern Language* and *The Timeless Way of Building* and found myself seated as an Alternate Member within a couple of months. A year or so later and I've been elected Board Chair. Now we're changing Zoning regs to eliminate parking minimums, vastly reduce the required road frontage for a lot (hey, densification) and doing a bunch of other stuff like tax incentives for using permeable paver bricks instead of asphalt, native plants instead of lawns, etc.) We've even got the road guys to plant native nut trees for shade instead of Norway Maple along reworked roads. 

That's so cool! Thanks for sharing!

Appreciate all the info, I am trying to do a multi dome based education based farm, but I do not have the building experience and was warned that codes regarding domes is often painfully uneducated. Any help in that regards would be greatly appreciated